Risky business: Perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research

Risk Analysis

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1539-1552

  McComas, Katherine A ^a   Besley, John C ^b   Yang, Zheng ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Fairness; Gene therapy; Justice; Media use; Nanotechnology

Indexed keywords

GENETIC ENGINEERING; SILICON;

BASIC SCIENCES; COMMUNITY SUPPORTS; ECONOMIC GROWTHS; FAIRNESS; GENE THERAPY; JUSTICE; LOCAL RESIDENTS; MAIL SURVEYS; MEDIA USE; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; NEW YORK; RISKY BUSINESSES; SILICON VALLEYS; TECHNOLOGY RESEARCHES;

TECHNOLOGY;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; ECONOMIC GROWTH; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MEDIA ROLE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH INSTITUTION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; TECHNOLOGY POLICY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; DEMOGRAPHY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEASUREMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIST;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NEW YORK; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

NEW YORK [UNITED STATES]; NEW YORK COUNTY; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 55349107250     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 2, pp. 267 299). New York : Academic Press.
2. Adams, J. S., & Freeman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In L. B. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 9, pp. 43 56). New York : Academic Press.
3. Arvai, J. L. (2003). Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decision. Risk Analysis, 23 (2 281 289.
4. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4 (6 561 570.
5. Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., & Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the "science wars." Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 30 51.
6. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26 (4 347 367.
7. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85 112). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
8. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43 55). Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.
9. Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication & Society, 6 (3 291 312.
10. Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 2685 2692.
11. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6 (4 395 405.
12. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ : L. Erlbaum Associates.
13. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3 386 400.
14. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3 425 445.
15. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 3 58). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 113 152). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
17. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (8 927 946.
18. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31 (3 137 149.
19. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed. New York : John Wiley & Sons.
20. Einsiedel, E. F., & Goldenberg, L. (2006). Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In G. Hunt & M. Mehta (Eds.), Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics, and Law (pp. 213 221). London, UK : Earthscan.
21. Fischer, K. (2007). Building a new economy with biotechnology. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, A1, A32 33.
22. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combine impact of voice and improvement on experience equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108 119.
23. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23 (6 1117 1133.
24. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25 (2 119 149.
25. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., & Stares, S. R. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Brussels, Belgium : European Commission Directorate General for Research: Life Sciences in European Society.
26. Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S. H., Jackson, J., & Olsthoorn, J. (2005a). Communication - Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310 (5756 1908 1909.
27. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005b). Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14 (1 81 90.
28. Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: U.S. state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43, 1 21.
29. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management (pp. 79 103). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
30. Halvorsen, K. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review, 63 (5 535 543.
31. Kim, S. H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Who cares about the issues? Issue voting and the role of news media during the 2000 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 55 (1 103 121.
32. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25 (5 1241 1252.
33. Lauber, T. B., & Knuth, B. A. (1999). Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Society & Natural Resources, 12 (1 19 37.
34. Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27 (2 240 267.
35. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Wilis (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27 55). New York : Plenum Press.
36. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice - Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5 952 959.
37. Mann, J. M. (1999). Health and Human Rights: A Reader. New York : Routledge.
38. Mayer, H. (2005). Taking root in the silicon forest. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71 (3 318 333.
39. Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public-opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31 (2 106 115.
40. McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11 (1 36 55.
41. McComas, K. A., & Trumbo, C. W. (2001). Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: Application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Analysis, 21 (3 467 480.
42. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 279 294.
43. National Science Board 2006). Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, VA : National Science Foundation.
44. National Science Foundation 2002). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington, DC : National Science Foundation.
45. Nisbet, M. C. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1 131 154.
46. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29 (5 584 608.
47. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25 (1 199 210.
48. Priest, S. H. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45 (1 39 54.
49. Priest, S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18 (9 939 942.
50. Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23 (4 751 766.
51. Rasinski, K. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). Fairness and vote choice in the 1984 presidential-election. American Politics Quarterly, 16 (1 5 24.
52. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Kastenholz, H. (1996). Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss case study. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7, 145 168.
53. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Boston : Kluwer Academic.
54. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25 (1 3 29.
55. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 29 (4 512 557.
56. Santos, S. L., & Chess, C. (2003). Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis, 23 (2 269 279.
57. Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., & Lee, E. (2001). The polls-trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65 (2 267 281.
58. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55 74.
59. Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2005). Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society, 24 (1 31 56.
60. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5 830 838.
62. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850 863.
63. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4 349 361.
64. Tyler, T. R., Casper, J. D., & Fisher, B. (1989). Maintaining allegiance toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 33 (3 629 652.
65. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas - Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3 482 497.
66. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5 913 930.
67. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York : Sage.
68. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 25, pp. 115 191). New York : Academic Press.
69. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Griffin, E. (1986). Alternative images of the citizen: Implications for public-policy. American Psychologist, 41 (9 970 978.
70. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (1 72 81.
71. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42 (2 253 281.
72. U.S. Census 2006). American community survey. Retrieved on April 9, 2008 from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html.
73. van den Bos, K 2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. 80 (6 931 941.
74. van den Bos, K 2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 273 300). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
75. van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1 60.
76. Walters, L. (1991). Human gene-therapy - Ethics and public-policy. Human Gene Therapy, 2 (2 115 122.
77. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32, 566 595.
78. Weiner, B. J., Alexander, J. A., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Management and governance processes in community health coalitions: A procedural justice perspective. Health Education & Behavior, 29, 737 754.
79. Wynne, B. (2002). Public understanding of sciences: Communicating science and technology. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 361 384). New York : Sage Publications.