Public attitudes toward new technologies: Our post-truth, post-trust, post-expert world demands a deeper understanding of the factors that drive public attitudes

Abstract

Public attitude surveys are the prime method used to assess public attitudes to science and technology, but can also be very problematic—as evidenced in the number of different polls that come up with different findings. Toward better understanding of what drives public attitudes, it has become more relevant to find out “Why” people think what they do about science and technology than to know “What” they think. Recent research into how values drive attitudes has been very important to our increased understanding. However, in a post-truth, post-trust, post-expert world—where notions of truth, trust, and expertise are now commonly contested—we need to also better understand the social and media environments we are now living in, and how they affect attitudes to new technologies.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/0036850419851350
Science Progress
2019, Vol. 102(2) 161 –170
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0036850419851350
journals.sagepub.com/home/sci
Public attitudes toward new
technologies: Our post-
truth, post-trust, post-expert
world demands a deeper
understanding of the factors
that drive public attitudes
Craig Cormick
ThinkOutsideThe, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Abstract
Public attitude surveys are the prime method used to assess public attitudes to science and
technology, but can also be very problematic—as evidenced in the number of different polls that
come up with different findings. Toward better understanding of what drives public attitudes,
it has become more relevant to find out “Why” people think what they do about science and
technology than to know “What” they think. Recent research into how values drive attitudes has
been very important to our increased understanding. However, in a post-truth, post-trust, post-
expert world—where notions of truth, trust, and expertise are now commonly contested—we
need to also better understand the social and media environments we are now living in, and how
they affect attitudes to new technologies.
Keywords
Public attitudes, science and technology, values, segments
Introduction
Are public attitudes to new technologies driven more by our hearts or our heads? We’d
like to think they are driven by our heads and that we all make decisions based on the
scientific research and the data.
Corresponding author:
Craig Cormick, ThinkOutsideThe, 12 GIffen Close, Holt, Canberra, ACT 2615, Australia.
Email: craig.cormick@thinkoutsidethe.com.au
851350SCI0010.1177/0036850419851350Science ProgressCormick
review-article2019
Article

162 Science Progress 102(2)
If only!!
There is a telling scene in the recent docudrama Brexit, starting Benedict Cumberbatch,
in which the two opposing sides outline their key strategies, with the anti-Brexit camp
going for the public’s heads, while the pro-Brexit camp openly goes for their hearts. I
don’t need to remind everyone who won that campaign.
But it is worth reminding people that the pro-Brexit campaign knew that people tend
to make emotion-based decisions and then look for the facts that will support that. It is
the same with many new technologies, be it gene technologies, synthetic biology, or
artificial intelligence.
We have learned an awful lot about the way people react to new technologies over the
past decade, as well as the impact of contested data and misinformation (aka Fake News).
What do we know about public attitudes to new
technologies?
Of significant interest, different surveys can give very different results depending on
how different questions are framed, what is happening in the world at that time, and
which population set the questions are being asked of. The Eurobarometer1 is a good
indicator of the variety of responses to questions on new technologies that exist across
different European countries at different times.
Looking at the variety of data that has been obtained from just one country—
Australia—it is instructive what different surveys show. For starters, the Australian
Government’s leading research institution Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO) undertook a survey in 2014 that found 17% of the popu-
lation were very interested in science and 40% were quite interested in it. A combined
figure of about 40% was also quite uninterested in science2, as is shown in Figure 1.
However, another study, carried out by the Centre for the Public Awareness of
Science at the Australian National University in 2017, asked the question differently
and found that more people said they were very interested in scientific discoveries
(60%) than said they were very interested in music (38%), films (30%), or sports news
(19%).3
A third study by the Australian Department of Industry, conducted in 2013, came up
with a figure of about 80% believing that science was so important to our lives that we
should all take an interest in it.4 And, a fourth study conducted by Swinburne University
in Melbourne5 found that the statement science and technology are continuously improv-
ing our quality of life received a rating of 7.24 out of 10.
Looking more broadly, we can find studies in the United States that show support for
science and technologies is anywhere between 59%6 and 87%.7 And, UK data have
shown that the figures can vary between 55%8 and 81%.9
So, clearly, different polls will give different answers—based on such things as
how the questions are asked, when, and even what questions are asked around them.
But to be honest, any public attitude survey that states boldly that public attitudes
to say nanotechnologies are 45.7% or 62.5% in favor or against is doing you

Cormick 163
a disservice. All such surveys should be considered indicative rather than defini-
tive—the same way if you took a temperature and wind reading at a particular
moment on one day, it is not representative of the variety in readings you would get
for the whole day.
And such polling, while great for simple headlines, can too easily become a distrac-
tion—because such broad overviews also don’t really capture the differences that can
exist in gender, age groups, education, demographics—and more importantly psycho-
graphics (the different ways that different people think). Toward that it has become more
relevant to find “Why” people think what they do about science and technology than to
find “What” they think.
Traditionally, if asked how people’s attitudes to new technologies are driven by, a
good response would cover a few key points:
 First, you should know that we can divide people into different segments, such as
those who are interested and excited about new technologies, those who are more
concerned about them, and those who do not really care.2,10
 Then, you should know that people rarely judge new technologies on the technol-
ogy itself and are more likely to judge them based on how well they align with
their worldview or values. So, somebody who has a strong belief in “natural val-
ues” will more likely reject genetically manipulated (GM) foods, but accept the
science behind climate change. And, somebody whose values are more “pro-
development” will more likely accept the science behind GM foods, but most
likely reject that of climate change.11
Attitudes can be driven by values
Put simply, people’s attitudes to complex new technologies are often based on how well
the technology aligns with their values, rather than what the technology does and does
not do. Dan Kahan of Yale, who has undertaken significant work on how values affect
attitudes, has said that the issue of climate change, for instance, is not about what you
know, rather it is about who you are.12
Value-based studies have shown the following:
 Between four and six different segments of the population have been mapped for
GM foods,13 climate change,14,15 and science and technology,16,17 based on peo-
ple’s attitudes and values.
 Broad attitudes toward science and technology and nature can influence consum-
ers’ attitudes toward particular applications of science or technology.18
 Pro-science and technology values are a strong predictor of support for even con-
tentious science or technology such as GM food.19
 When information is complex, people tend to make emotion-based judgments,
driven by values, rather than by the information presented to them.20
 Messages that do not align with people’s values tend to be rejected or dismissed
by them.21

164 Science Progress 102(2)
So, based on all that, new technologies need to be framed in terms of how well they
address people’s concerns about them—be it equity of access, or inadvertent impacts, or
health and safety, or all of the above. That should not be too hard to achieve for technol-
ogy developers, surely.
Because there is a new paradigm in town!
The new paradigm
We can summarize the new paradigm as the post-truth, post-trust, post-expert world that
we now all live in—where notions of truth, trust, and expertise are commonly contested
with varying beliefs in what is “truth,” who can be trusted, and who is a credible expert,
based more on who we want to believe.
And, this is why it is important to understand how the Brexit vote played out. Not
What was decided, but Why it was decided. As in the Brexit vote, the new paradigm says
that how you feel about something is more important than what somebody else knows
about it. You can be your own expert on issues related to science and technology because
your gut feelings are enough evidence to you—be that feelings of concern, overwhelm-
ing endorsement, or dread.
Yes, you can go and cherry-pick data to support your feelings if you really wish to
have them confirmed—and cherry picking of data has been found to be one of the most
common statistical fallacies in public debates22—but just finding an online community
with the same feelings can be more than enough to provide confirmation. And, whether
it is anti-vaccination, anti-stem cell research, pro-human cloning, or pro-artificial intel-
ligence—you will find a like-minded community out there.
Living only within our tribes
Not everybody is going to think the same way, of course, and the advice about the public
being segmented into different ways of thinking still holds13—but it is now possible to
live only within the influence of a like-minded segment (or “tribe”), with almost no inter-
action with other segments who hold alternative points of view. Different segments
‘tribes’ are shown in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. This tribal-mindedness undermines
sometimes the “wisdom of crowds”23 and is actively supported by online algorithms that
favor certain ideas and articles over others.
For buying books on Amazon, that type of algorithm is very helpful, as it recommends
to you books similar to ones that you have browsed or purchased. But for contentious
issues, it is not so helpful recommending sites and publications in online searchers that
are similar to ones you have already browsed—increasingly giving you one perspective
and excluding other alternative views.24
This is a problem for technology developers as much as it is for those who are con-
cerned about new technologies. It allows those who live in a science bubble to feel that
everyone is going to love their new technology as much as they and their colleagues and
friends love it (what’s not to love about nanotechnology, right?). And, it allows those
with concerns about new technologies to feel that everyone is also concerned about it,

Cormick 165
and perhaps, therefore, some sort of action needs to be taken. (which is why everyone is
scared about nanotechnology, right?)
Again, feelings trump knowledge
And, in an age when personal feelings are worth at least as much, if not more, than expert
opinion, that can promote huge societal discords on science and technology issues.
Evidence of the gaps that exist on science-based issues were highlighted in a 2015 study
conducted by the Pew Fact Tank Research Center, which found that while 88% of scien-
tists felt it was safe to eat GM foods, only 37% of the public agreed. A 51 point gap!! Or,
while 98% of scientists polled believed that humans had evolved over time, only 65% of
the public agreed25, as is shown in Figure 4.
There is also a discord between the concept of majority voice versus passionate voice,
with quiet expert voices often being given less accord than vocal and concerned voices—
despite their relative numbers. It is almost as if there is a secret algorithm that gives a
higher weighting to emotion over reason. Or, fears over facts. “How concerned people
are” seems to be a bigger question for policy makers and financial backers than “how
many are concerned.” Think of outcries about culling of wild horses or badgers,26,27 or
thinning out native forests by planned burning,28 or even the amending of urban planning
laws29—not based on science or data, nor even on the majority of the public’s wishes—
but rather on “public outcry.”
This is important to know too
For these are the very areas where debates around new technologies are often being
played out. Climate change is too often emotion versus reason. Infant vaccination is too
often fears versus facts.
So, how is this all going to play out for new technologies like synthetic biology? Well,
it could go either way, depending on how the public debate is framed. Will it be all about
public benefit or public risk?
And let’s be clear here, very few new technologies are not contested by someone who
is going to lose out as a result of the disruption of their old business, meaning that there
will always be someone willing to frame the new technology as bad for individuals,
society, or the environment.
Accepting the new paradigm and working with it
The challenge for those who develop new technologies is to accept the new paradigm in
town and also frame their arguments in terms of people’s feelings, and not be like the
losing side of the Brexit campaign, insisting that if only people understood the facts they
would be more supportive.
An important thing to know is that attitudes that were not formed by logic and facts,
cannot easily be influenced by logic and facts.2

166 Science Progress 102(2)
For technology developers, this means understanding what existing values different
people have, and being able to frame messages around the new technology that resonates
with those values. It also means being able to help people feel that the benefits of a tech-
nology outweigh the risks, not just demonstrating it with data.
Of course, there are some technologies that might be very beneficial for us that are
going to fail because of public concerns—but that is a part of the new paradigm too. In
the era of citizen-generated content and Web 3.0, the public will demand more and more
to be a partner in the development of new ideas and how they apply. Good public consul-
tation will achieve much of this, but the public will also have the right to make decisions
that ultimately disagree with the science and evidence.
Figure 1. How interested are people in science in Australia.2 CSIRO, 2014.
Source: Cormick C. (2014) Community Attitudes Towards Science and Technology in Australia, CSIRO.
Figure 2. Global warming’s six Americas segments.31 Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication & George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication,
2018.

Cormick 167
Self-driving cars? Brain chips? Genome editing of babies? Robot caregivers?30
In all likelihood, it will be the quality of the public debate that has a bigger impact on
whether the technologies are adopted or not than the quality of the research and
development.
Figure 4. Opinion differences between the public and scientists in the United States.25 PEW
Research Centre, 2015.
Figure 3. Australian segments by attitudes to Climate Change.2 CSIRO, 2014.

168 Science Progress 102(2)
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),
the Pew Research Center, the Yale Program on Climate Change, and the George Washington
University Centre for Climate Communication for permitting the use of figures presented in this
article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
1. European Commission. Standard Eurobarometer 90: Eurobarometer Surveys, 2018, http://
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6896_en.htm
Table 1. Segments of the population by attitudes to science and technology based on key
values.2 CSIRO, 2014.
Value segments Characteristic
A: Fan Boys and Fan
Girls (23%)
This group was very enthusiastic about science and technology.
Science is a big part of their lives and they think everyone should
take an interest in it. They also strongly felt that new technologies
excite them more than they concern then and that the benefits of
science are greater than any harmful effects. However, there was
disagreement that science and technology creates more problems
than it solves and that we depend too much on science and not
enough on faith.
B: The Cautiously
Keen (28%)
Segment B were interested in science and technology, but were a
little wary of it. They tended to believe that the benefits of science
must be greater than any harmful effects, and they had the highest
agreement that children should be protected from all risks.
C: The Risk Adverse
(23%)
This segment tended to be less positive toward the benefits of
science and technology. They were also more concerned with
risks. But in contrast to Segment D, they had relatively high
awareness of science. They were least likely to agree that human
activities have a significant impact on the planet and least likely to
agree that not vaccinating children puts others at risk.
D: The Concerned
and Disengaged (20%)
Segment D was the least enthusiastic about the benefits of science
and technology. They had the highest agreement that the pace
of technological change is too fast to keep up with and were the
most likely to agree that science and technology creates more
problems than it solves. They also were most likely to agree that
scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than the poor,
and that we rely too much on science and not enough on faith.

Cormick 169
2. Cormick C. Community attitudes towards science and technology in Australia. CSIRO,
2014.
3. Lamberts R. The Australian beliefs and attitudes towards science survey. Canberra, ACT,
Australia: The Australian National University, 2017.
4. Ipsos Social Research Institute. Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues.
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Innovation, 2013.
5. The Swinburne National Technology Society Monitor: Psychological Sciences & Statistics,
Faculty of Life & Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, 2012, https://apo.
org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2012/07/apo-nid119131-1139241.pdf
6. Kennedy B and Funk C. Public interest in science and health linked to gender and personal-
ity. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2015.
7. National Science Foundation. Science and engineering indicators, 2016. Alexandria, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2016.
8. National Forum for Public Engagement with STEM. Trends in attitudes to science and public
engagement with science. Briefing Paper, Extract from National Forum Response to Science
Communication Enquiry, 2017, http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pub-
lication/trends_in_attitudes_to_science_and_public_engagement_with_science.pdf
9. Castell S, Charlton A, Clemence M, et al. Public attitudes to science: IPSOS Mori Social
Research Unit, 2014, https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/public-attitudes-science-2014
10. Leiserowitz A, Maibac E, Roser-Renouf C, et al. Global Warming’s Six Americas: Yale
University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication, 2015.
11. Cormick C. The Science of Communicating Science: an ultimate guide, CSIRO Publications,
in press.
12. Newell B. Science alone won’t change climate opinions, but it matters. The Conversation, 27
November 2012.
13. Cormick C and Romanach LM. Segmentation studies provide insights to better understanding
attitudes towards science and technology. Trend Biotech 2014; 32: 114–116.
14. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, et al. Global warming’s six Americas: Yale
University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication, 2015.
15. Lim-Camach L, Ariyawardana A, Lewis G, et al. Climate adaptation: What it means for
Australian consumer, consumer Survey—2014 results, CSIRO, https://publications.csiro.au/
rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP148832&dsid=DS2
16. Ipsos-Mori Department of Business Innovation Skill. Public Attitudes to Science, 2011,
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/public-attitudes-science-2011
17. Nielsen. A report on public attitudes towards science and technology, Nielsen, 2014, https://
www.curiousminds.nz/assets/Uploads/report-on-public-attitudes-towards-science-and-tech-
nology.pdf
18. Costa-Font M and Gil JM. Meta-attitudes and the local formation of consumer judgments
towards genetically modified food. British Food J 2012; 114: 1463–148.
19. Mohr P, Harrison A, Wilson C, et al. Attitudes, values, and socio-demographic character-
istics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in
Australia. Biotechnol J 2007; 2: 1169–1178.
20. Binder A, Scheufele D, Brossard D, et al. Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discus-
sions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility.
Risk Anal 2010; 31: 324–334.
21. Nyhan B and Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.
Political Behaviour 2010; 32: 303–330.

170 Science Progress 102(2)
22. Klass G. Just plain data analysis: common statistical fallacies in analyses of social indicator
data, 2008, http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2008KlassASA.pdf
23. Golub B and Jackson MO. Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am
Econ Jl: Microecon 2010; 2: 112–149.
24. Ravenscraft E. How sites like Google and Facebook put you in political echo chambers,
LifeHacker, 2016, https://lifehacker.com/how-sites-like-google-and-facebook-put-you-in-
political-1787659102
25. Pew Research Center. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center, 2015.
26. Graveland B. Wild horse cull raises a ruckus in Alberta. The Canadian Press, 23 April 2014.
27. Morris S. Police consider drones to monitor badger cull protesters. The Guardian, 24
September 2018.
28. Ngu A and Chinoy S. To help prevent the next big wildfire, let the forest burn. New York
Times, 29 November 2018.
29. Clysdale T. Public outcry caused Ministry of Environment to deny approval for Peterborough
Parkway. Peterborough This Week, 26 April 2018.
30. Pew Research Center. U.S. Public way of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abili-
ties. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016.
31. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication & George Mason University’s, 2018,
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
Author biography
Craig Cormick is the Past President of the Australian Science Communicators and has undertaken
research on the drivers of public attitudes for over two decades with organizations such as the
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO). He is author of the book The Science of Communicating Science
that will be published in late-2019.