Americans' nanotechnology risk perception: Assessing opinion change

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 459-473

  Smiley Smith, Sara E ^a,b   Hosgood, H Dean ^f   Michelson, Evan S ^d,e   Stowe, Meredith H ^c  

^a Yale School of the Environment   (United States)

^b School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS   (United States)

^e NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f NONE

Author keywords

Forward stepwise regression; Industrial ecology; Nanotechnology; Public opinion; Risk perception; Survey

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SURVEYS;

FORWARD STEPWISE REGRESSION; GENDER DIFFERENCES; INCOMPLETE INFORMATIONS; INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY; INFORMATION PROVISIONS; KNOW HOWS; NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; PUBLIC OPINION; TELEPHONE SURVEYS; TO SWITCHES; UNITED STATES;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 54349103026     PISSN: 10881980     EISSN: 15309290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00032.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cobb, M. D. and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4): 395-405.
2. Currall, S. C., E. B. King, N. Lane, J. Madera, and S. Turner. 2006. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology 1(3): 153-155.
3. Gustafson, P. E. 1998. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical andmethodological perspectives. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 18(6): 805-811.
4. Hogarth, R. M., M. Portell, and A. Cuxart. 2007. What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM). Risk Analysis 27(6): 1427-1439.
5. Jacquemin, B., J. Sunyer, B. Forsberg, T. Gotschi, L. Bayer-Oglesby, U. Ackermann-Liebrich, R. de Marco, J. Heinrich, D. Jarvis, K. Toren, and N. Kunzli. 2007. Annoyance due to air pollution in Europe. International Journal of Epidemiology 36(4): 809-820.
6. Kahan, D. M., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. Gastil, and G. L. Cohen. 2007. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261. Available at SSRN. http://ssn.com/abstract=968652.
7. Macoubrie, J. 2005. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
8. Maynard, A. D. 2006. Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
9. Maynard, A. D. 2007. Nanotechnology: The next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51(1): 1-12.
10. Medley, T. and S. Walsh. 2007. Nano risk framework.
11. NNI (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 2006. What is nanotechnology? Wilmington, DE: Dupont, and Washington, DC: Environmental Defense (http://nanoriskframework.com). http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/ whatIsNano.html. Accessed 22 December 2006.
12. PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2006. Have yourself a merry "nano"Christmas. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
13. PEN (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). 2007. A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
14. Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering.
15. Schubert, R., M. Brown, M. Gysler, and H. W. Brachinger. 1999. Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? American Economic Review 89(2): 381-385.
16. Siegrist, M., C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, S. Frey, and A. Wiek. 2007. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 27(1): 59-69.
17. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/fifra/index.html. Accessed 19 February 2008.
18. Woods, J., T. A. Ten Eyck, S. A. Kaplowitz, and V. Shlapentokh. 2008. Terrorism risk perceptions and proximity to primary terrorist targets: How close is too close? Human Ecology Review 15(1): 63-70.