The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 659-667

  Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Lewenstein, Bruce V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive miser model; Framing; Media coverage; Nanotechnology; Public opinion; Public understanding; Risk perceptions

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE MISER MODEL; FRAMING; MEDIA COVERAGE; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK PERCEPTION; SURVEYS; TELEPHONE;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 28844487974     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle. Res. 4(6), 561-570.
2. Bauer M.W. & I. Schoon, 1993. Mapping variety in public understanding of science. Public Understanding Sci. 2(2), 141-155.
3. Cobb M.D. & J. Macoubrie, 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanoparticle Res. 6(4), 395-405.
4. Converse P.E., 2000. Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 3, 331-353.
5. Fiske ST. & S.E. Taylor, 1991. Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Gaskell G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson & G. Veltri, 2004. Public attitudes to nanotechnology in europe and the united states. Nature Materials 3(8), 496.
7. Iyengar S., 1996. Framing responsibility for political issues. Ann. Amer. Acad. Polit. SS 546, 59-70.
8. Kunreuther H.C., 2001. Protective decisions: Fear or prudence. In: Hoch S.J., Kunreuther H.C. and Gunther R.E. eds. Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 259-272.
9. Miller J.D., 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding Sci. 7(3), 203-223.
10. Nisbet M.C., D. Brossard & A. Kroepsch, 2003. Framing science - the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harv. Int. J. Press-Poltics 8(2), 36-70.
11. Nisbet M.C. & B.V. Lewenstein, 2002. Biotechnology and the american media - the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Sci. Commun. 23(4), 359-391.
12. Page B.I. & R.Y. Shapiro, 1992. The Rational public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Popkin S.L., 1994 The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Price V. & D. Tewksbury, 1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In: Barett G.A. and Boster F.J. eds. Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion (vol 13). Ablex, Greenwich, CT, pp. 173-213.
15. Roco M.C., 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 5(3-4), 181-189.
16. Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17. Scheufele D.A., 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. J. Commun. 49(1), 103-122.
18. Scheufele D.A., 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3(2 & 3), 297-316.