Public Attitudes Toward Present and Future Technologies: Satisfactions and Apprehensions

Porte, Todd R. La; Metlay, Daniel

doi:10.1177/030631277500500401

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What literature there is on attitudes to technology is quite diffuse, not often framed in a social psychological perspective and is usually concerned with adult attitudes (e.g. LaPorte & Metlay, 1975;Lee, 1970;MORI, 1985;NAEP, 1979;Wagman, 1983). The literature on children's and teenagers' attitudes to various aspects of technology has tended to be primarily concerned with describing attitudes (e.g.…”

Section: Glynis M Breakwell Chris Fife-schaw Andjohn Devereuxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental influence and teenagers' motivation to train for technological jobs

Breakwell

Fife‐Schaw

Devereux

1988

Journal of Occupational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While governments are making attempts to attract young people into scientific and technical training programmes, these have yet to have any significant impact on numbers taking such training. This paper reports findings from a large, cross-regional survey of factors influencing young people's (1 3-1 8-year-olds) motivations to take technological training. By focusing on teenagers' perceptions of the influence parents have exerted over their educational and occupational choices it has been possible to demonstrate that indirect, rather than direct, forms of parental influence are significant in the formation of this motivational state. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to policy and our understanding of socialization processes. and the Clearing House for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH. Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, high schools. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2(2), 131-1 38. source of information. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(12A), 6592.

show abstract

Section: Glynis M Breakwell Chris Fife-schaw Andjohn Devereuxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental influence and teenagers' motivation to train for technological jobs

Breakwell

Fife‐Schaw

Devereux

1988

Journal of Occupational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies on the perception of technology ask questions about attitudes toward &dquo;technology in general&dquo; (for example, National Science Board 1972. Other studies ask for judgments about areas of technologies (for example, LaPorte and Metlay 1975;de la Beaumelle 1979;Roper Organization 1981;Niwa 1987). Still others ask about beliefs and attitudes toward just one or a few specific technological applications (for instance, Lee 1970; Dickerson and Gentry 1983;Venkatesh and Vitalari 1985, to mention just a few of the studies about computer applications).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Structures in the Perception of Modern Technologies

Daamen

Lans

Midden

1990

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of two survey studies (N = 197 and N = 2037) are presented. It is shown that attitudes of the public about "technology in general" are not stable and can easily be affected by how the subject is introduced. Eight areas of technology are compared on the basis of empirical relations in attitudinal judgments, in attribute ratings, in selfassigned importance weights of attributes, and in importance of reference groups and persons. On the basis of similarities in these four kinds of judgments, three clusters of technology areas were identified: (1) a cluster of modern reproductive technologies, (2) an information cluster containing automation, computer, and communication technologies, and (3) a cluster containing nuclear energy and military technology. The attitude toward "technology in general" can not be considered as an aggregation of attitudes toward these areas of technology: The relations between general attitude and specific attitudes are only moderate to negligible. Experts and entrepreneurs are as a matter of course involved with the development and implementation of technological innovations. The government, too, is a party with direct influence, for instance as subsidizer, regulator, and consumer. The role of citizens is indirect: Via Parliament and as selective consumers they can exercise some influence on technological developments. In recent decades, segments of the population have found that they cannot adequately influence technological developments through this indirect route. More directly, via pressure groups, they have agitated against the implementation of certain technological innovations. A well-known example is the movement against nuclear energy. Resistance of this kind can at least slow down the implementation of technologies and affect (in the eyes of some) the economic competitiveness of the country. &dquo;Public acceptance&dquo; therefore has become an important topic for entrepreneurs and politicians when decisions about future technologies are at stake.

show abstract

“…But, this is a weak current indicator, since many adoption decisions were made by earlier chief executives and many decisions were influenced by financial support from state and federal agencies. [5] Most older opinion surveys (AFIPS, 1971; Armor, Feindhandler and Sapolsky, 1970;Anderson, 1972;Gotlieb and Borodin, 1973:90-98) indicate the public is optimistic about the benefits of computer technology, although one more recent survey (Laporte and Metlay, 1975) contradicts this trend. Based on the earlier surveys, one could conclude that the executives might be more supportive than the general public because the degree of publi.c optimism about computing is positively associated with education and chief executives tend to be better educated than their constituents.…”

Section: 1 Expectations About the Level Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%