Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology

Science Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 221-239

  Cobb, Michael D ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Framing; Nanotechnology; Public opinion

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144488537     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281473     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. Bainbridge, W. 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4(6): 461-470.
2. Brewer, P. 2001. Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology 22(1): 45-64.
3. Carmines, E., and J. Stimson. 1980. The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review 74(1): 78-91.
4. Chong, D. 2000. Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Cobb, M., and P. Hamlett. 2005. Public Deliberation Problems: Polarization Cascades and Structured Deliberations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
6. Cobb, M., and J. Kuklinksi. 1997. Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 88-121.
7. Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4): 395-405.
8. Druckman, J. 2001 a. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041-1066.
9. Druckman, J. 2001b. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior 23(3): 225-256.
10. Druckman, J. 2004. Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review 98(4): 671-686.
11. Druckman, J., and K. Nelson. 2003. Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 729-745.
12. Entman, R. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51-58.
13. Fiske, S., and S. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Frewer, L., S. Miles, and R. Marsh. 2002. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis 22(4): 701-711.
15. Gamson, W. 1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285 (5426): 384-387.
17. Greene, S. 2004. The psychological perspective: 1950's to the present. In Public opinion and polling around the world: A historical encyclopedia, edited by J. Geer, 9-26. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
18. Gross, K., and L. D'Ambrosio. 2004. Framing emotional responses. Political Psychology 25(1): 1-29.
19. Haider-Markel, D., and M. Joslyn. 2001. Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics 63(2): 523-533.
20. Holden, C. 2004. California's proposition 71 launches stem cell gold rush. Science 306(5699): 1111.
21. Joslyn, M., and D. Haider-Markel. 2002. Framing effects on personal opinion and perceptions of public opinion: The cases of physician-assisted suicide and social security. Social Science Quarterly 83(3): 690-706.
22. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 313-327.
23. Kuklinski, J., and N. Hurley. 1994. On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics 56(3): 729-51.
24. Lau, R. 1985. Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 119-138.
25. Lewenstein, B. 2004. What counts as a "social and ethical issue" in nanotechnology? International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11(1): 5-18.
26. Loewenstein, G., and J. Lerner. 2003. The role of affect in decision making. In Handbook of affective science, edited by R. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, and K. Scherer, 619-642. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Macoubrie, 3. Forthcoming. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science.
28. Miller, J., and J. Krosnick. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 301-315.
29. Monteiro-Riviere, N., R. Nemanich, A. Innan, Y. Wang, and J. Riviere. 2005. Multi-walled carbon nanotube interactions with human epidermal keratinocytes. Toxicology Letters 155(3): 377-384.
30. National Science Board. 2002. Science and engineering indicators-2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-02-1).
31. National Science and Technology Council. 2000. National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. A report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C.
32. Nelson, T. E., and Z. M. Oxley. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics 61(4): 1040-1067.
33. Nelson, T. E., Z. M. Oxley, and R. Clawson. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19(3): 221-246.
34. Oberdorster, E. 2004. Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(10): 1058-1062.
35. Page, B., and R. Shaprio. 1992. The rational public. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
37. Popkin, S. 1994. The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Priest, S. 2000. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biology 18: 939-42.
39. Roco, M. 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5(2): 181-89.
40. Roco, M., and W. Bainbridge, eds. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation Report. Boston: Kluwer.
41. Siegrist, M., and G. Cvetkovich. 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20(5): 713-720.
42. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-85.
43. Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6): 675-682.
44. Steward, W., T. Schneider, J. Pizarro, and P. Salovey. 2003. Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking-cessation messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33(12): 2439-2464.
45. Toumey, C. 2004. Narratives for nanotech: Anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. Techne 8(2): 88-116.
46. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453-58.
47. White, M., S. Paul, M. Buehner, and A. Haye. 2003. Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes. Risk Analysis 23(4): 717-726.
48. Zaller, J. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.
49. Zaller, J., and S. Feldman. 1992. A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 579-616.