Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 369-379

  Schtz, Holger ^b   Wiedemann, Peter M ^a  

^a FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^b Program Group MUT

Author keywords

Benefits; Framing; Nanotechnology; Risk perception; Social characteristics

Indexed keywords

EID: 44449134671     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506071282     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alhakami, A.S. and Slovic, P. (1994) " A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationships between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit, " Risk Analysis 14: 1085-96.
2. Arnall, A.H. (2003) Future Technologies, Today's Choices. Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust. URL: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5848.pdf
3. Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) " Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology, " Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4 (6). 561-70.
4. Bmbf (2004) Nanotechnologie: Innovationen fr die Welt von morgen, 2. Auflage. URL: http://www.bmbf.de/pub/ nanotechnologie_inno_fuer_die_welt_v_morgen.pdf
5. Bmrb (2004) Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public. Report. London: BMRB International Ltd. URL: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/Market%20Research.pdf
6. Cobb, M.D. (2005) " Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology, " Science Communication 27 (2). 221-39.
7. Cobb, M.D. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) " Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust, " Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 (4). 395-405.
8. Corbett, J.B. and Durfee, J.L. (2004) " Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming, " Science Communication 26: 129-51.
9. Demos (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos. URL: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/ Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf
10. ETC (2003) The Big Down: From Genomes to Atoms. Winnipeg, Manitoba: ETC Group. URL: http://www.etc-group.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf
11. EU Commission (2004) Communication of the European Commission "Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology." 12 May, COM(2004) 338. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/ nanotechnology_communication_en.pdf
12. Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000) " The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits, " Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1). 1-17.
13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978) " How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes toward Technological Risks and Benefits, " Policy Science 29 (9). 127-52.
14. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. and Stares, S. (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0, 2 nd edn. A Report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the Project "Life Sciences in European Society." QLG7-CT-1999-00286. URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ ebs_177_en.pdf
15. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J. and Bardes, J. (2004) " GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception, " Risk Analysis 24 (1). 185-94.
16. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T.T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2005) " Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States, " Public Understanding of Science 14 (1). 81-90.
17. Harding, C.M. and Eiser, J.R. (1984) " Characterising the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues, " Risk Analysis 4: 131-41.
18. Hsee, C.K. (2000) " Attribute Evaluability: Its Implications for Joint-Separate Evaluation Reversals and Beyond, " in D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (eds) Choices, Values and Frames, pp. 543-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Johnson, E.J. and Tversky, A. (1983) " Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk, " Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 20-31.
20. Komm Passion (2004) Wissen und Einstellungen zur Nanotechnologie. URL: http://www.komm-passion.de/index.php?id=167
21. Khberger, A. (1998) " The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis, " Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75 (1). 23-55.
22. Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G.J. (1998) " All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects, " Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2). 149-88.
23. McNeil, B., Pauker, S.G., Sox, H.C. and Tversky, A. (1982) " On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies, " New England Journal of Medicine 306: 1259-62.
24. Malsch, I. and Oud, M. (2004) Outcome of the Open Consultation on the European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Report, Nanoforum publication. URL: http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanosurvey6.pdf?24072005161134
25. Paschen, H., Coenen, C., Fleischer, T., Grnwald, R., Oertel, D. and Revermann, C. (2004) Nanotechnologie- Forschung, Entwicklung, Anwendung. Berlin: Springer.
26. Sandman, P., Miller, P.M., Johnson, B.B. and Weinstein, N.D. (1993) " Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments, " Risk Analysis 13: 585-98.
27. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. and Slovic, P. (2004) " Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology, " Risk Analysis 24 (5). 1289-99.
28. Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) " The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies, " Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (6). 659-67.
29. Sjberg, L. (2004) " Gene Technology in the Eyes of the Public and Experts: Moral Opinions, Attitudes and Risk Perception, " SSE / EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration No. 2004 7. URL: http://swoba.hhs.se/ hastba/papers/hastba2004_007.pdf
30. Slovic, P. (1992) " Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm, " in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 117-52. Westport, CT: Praeger.
31. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) " Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk, " in R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers (eds) Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, pp. 181-214. New York: Plenum Press.
32. Smith, N., Cebulla, A., Cox, L. and Davis, A. (2006) " Risk Perception and the Presentation of Self: Reflections from Fieldwork on Risk, " Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7 (1). URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-06/06-1-9-e.htm
33. Spangenberg, A. (2003) " Risikostories und Risikobewertung. Deutschland und Bulgarien im Vergleich, " Magisterarbeit, Institut fr Soziologie der Philosophischen Fakultt, RWTH Aachen, Aachen.
34. Toumey, Ch. (2004) " Narratives for Nanotech: Anticipating Public Reaction to Nanotechnology, " Techne 8 (2). 88-116.
35. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) " The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, " Science 211: 453-8.
36. Van Est, R., Malsch, I. and Rip, A. (2004) Om het kleine te waarderen... Een schets van nanotechnologie publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Working document 93. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
37. Wiedemann, P.M., Clauberg, M. and Schtz, H. (2003) " Understanding Amplification of Complex Risk Issues: The Risk Story Model Applied to the EMF Case, " in N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 286-301. New York: Cambridge University Press.