This thesis explores the so-called 'Deficit Model' within the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) paradigm, investigating the complex relationship between scientific literacy and public attitudes. The study relies on the analysis of data collected via questionnaires administered by the University of Padua (UniPd) research group concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Fusion. The core hypothesis of the Deficit Model, institutionalised by the Bodmer Report (1985), postulates that greater knowledge of scientific facts leads linearly to a more favourable attitude. However, contemporary sociological literature suggests that this link is mediated by socio-demographic variables and value orientations. The originality of this work lies in the operationalisation of knowledge through the comparison of three distinct literacy indices: a simple additive index (Index 1), an index designed to reward the intellectual honesty of the 'don't know' response (Index 2), and a difficulty-weighted index based on the statistical rarity of correct answers (Index 3). The research seeks to address two fundamental questions: (a) Is literacy, measured through specific indices, the primary predictor of attitudes? Or is it necessary to also take into account other variables, such as socio-demographic ones (gender, age, political orientation)? (b) What changes if literacy is measured differently? In what way can the very nature of the measurement tool therefore alter the analysis of PUS?
La presente tesi si propone di analizzare il cosiddetto "Deficit Model" all'interno del paradigma del Public Understanding of Science (PUS), indagando la complessa relazione tra alfabetizzazione scientifica (scientific literacy) e atteggiamenti del pubblico. L'indagine si basa sull'analisi dei dati raccolti tramite i questionari somministrati dal gruppo di ricerca dell’Università degli Studi di Padova (UniPd) relativamente all'Intelligenza Artificiale (IA) e alla Fusione Nucleare. L’ipotesi cardine del Deficit Model, istituzionalizzato dal Rapporto Bodmer (1985), postula che una maggiore conoscenza dei fatti scientifici conduca linearmente a un atteggiamento più favorevole. Tuttavia, la letteratura sociologica contemporanea suggerisce che tale legame sia mediato da variabili socio-demografiche e orientamenti valoriali. L’originalità dello studio risiede nell'operazionalizzazione della conoscenza attraverso il confronto di tre diversi indici di literacy: un indice additivo semplice (Indice 1), un indice volto a premiare l'onestà intellettuale della risposta “non lo so” (Indice 2) e un indice ponderato per difficoltà, basato sulla rarità statistica delle risposte corrette (Indice 3). La ricerca intende rispondere a due quesiti fondamentali: a) La literacy, misurata mediante appositi indici è il principale predittore degli atteggiamenti? O è necessario tener conto anche di altre variabili, come per esempio quelle sociodemografiche (genere, età, orientamento politico)? (b) Cosa cambia se la literacy viene misurata in modo diverso? In che modo la natura stessa dello strumento di misura può quindi alterare l’analisi della PUS?
Oltre il Deficit Model: un’analisi comparativa degli atteggiamenti verso Intelligenza Artificiale e Fusione Nucleare.
MAZZUCCO, SARA
2025/2026
Abstract
This thesis explores the so-called 'Deficit Model' within the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) paradigm, investigating the complex relationship between scientific literacy and public attitudes. The study relies on the analysis of data collected via questionnaires administered by the University of Padua (UniPd) research group concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Fusion. The core hypothesis of the Deficit Model, institutionalised by the Bodmer Report (1985), postulates that greater knowledge of scientific facts leads linearly to a more favourable attitude. However, contemporary sociological literature suggests that this link is mediated by socio-demographic variables and value orientations. The originality of this work lies in the operationalisation of knowledge through the comparison of three distinct literacy indices: a simple additive index (Index 1), an index designed to reward the intellectual honesty of the 'don't know' response (Index 2), and a difficulty-weighted index based on the statistical rarity of correct answers (Index 3). The research seeks to address two fundamental questions: (a) Is literacy, measured through specific indices, the primary predictor of attitudes? Or is it necessary to also take into account other variables, such as socio-demographic ones (gender, age, political orientation)? (b) What changes if literacy is measured differently? In what way can the very nature of the measurement tool therefore alter the analysis of PUS?| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Mazzucco_Sara.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
2.18 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.18 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/112075