Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 2703-2715

  Ho, Shirley S ^c   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Corley, Elizabeth A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Elaborative processing; ELSI; Interpersonal discussion; Mass media; Nanotechnology; Risk; Societal implications

Indexed keywords

ELABORATIVE PROCESSING; ELSI; INTERPERSONAL DISCUSSION; MASS MEDIA; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS;

FINANCE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK PERCEPTION;

PUBLIC RISKS;

ATTITUDE; COGNITION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; MASS MEDIUM; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RELIGION; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; TELEPHONE; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649906263     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. N Allum P Sturgis D Tabourazi I Brunton-Smith 2008 Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis Public Underst Sci 17 1 35 54 10.1177/0963662506070159
2. WS Bainbridge 2002 Public attitudes toward nanotechnology J Nanopart Res 4 561 570 10.1023/A:1022805516652
3. Bainbridge WS (2003) Religious opposition to cloning. J Evol Technol 13. http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2008
4. Bimber B, Guston D (1995) Politics by the same means: government and science in the United States. In: Jasanoff S et al (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, pp 554-571
5. Bodmer W (1985) The public understanding of science. Royal Society, London
6. CJ Brody 1984 Differences by sex in support for nuclear power Soc Forces 63 209 228 10.2307/2578866
7. J Brooke 1998 Science and religion: lessons from history? Science 282 5396 1985 1986 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXotVOnu74%3D 10.1126/science.282.5396.1985 1998Sci...282.1985B (Pubitemid 29001236)
8. D Brossard MC Nisbet 2007 Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology Int J Public Opin Res 19 1 24 52 10.1093/ijpor/edl003
9. D Brossard J Shanahan 2003 Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science Mass Commun Soc 3 291 312 10.1207/S15327825MCS0603-4
10. D Brossard DA Scheufele E Kim BV Lewenstein 2009 Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology Public Underst Sci 18 5 546 568 10.1177/0963662507087304
11. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (forthcoming) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662509347815
12. OM Castellini GK Walejko CE Holladay TJ Theim GM Zenner WC Crone 2007 Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts J Nanopart Res 9 183 189 10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z (Pubitemid 46399245)
13. MD Cobb 2005 Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology Sci Commun 27 2 221 239 10.1177/1075547005281473 (Pubitemid 41795480)
14. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social Trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, London
15. European Commission (2005) Some figures about nanotechnology R&D in Europe and beyond. http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
16. WP Eveland 2001 The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts Commun Res 28 571 601 10.1177/009365001028005001
17. WP Eveland 2002 News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge Journal Mass Commun Q 79 1 26 40
18. WP Eveland T Thomson 2006 Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge J Commun 56 3 523 542 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x (Pubitemid 44138396)
19. B Fischhoff P Slovic S Lichtenstein S Read B Combs 1978 How safe is sage enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits Policy Sci 9 127 152 10.1007/BF00143739
20. Freudenburg W (1992) Heurisics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 229-250
21. W Freudenburg 1993 Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and rationality of risk perceptions Soc Forces 71 900 932 10.2307/2580124
22. LJ Frewer C Howard R Shepherd 1998 Understanding attitudes to technology J Risk Res 1 221 235 10.1080/136698798377141
23. SM Friedman BP Egolf 2005 Nanotechnology: risks and the media IEEE Technol Soc 24 5 11 10.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 (Pubitemid 43009961)
24. G Gaskell TT Eyck J Jackson G Veltri 2004 Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States Nat Mater 3 496 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXmtVOhs7Y%3D 10.1038/nmat1181 2004NatMa...3..496G 15286746
25. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press, Cambridge
26. SS Ho D Brossard DA Scheufele 2007 The polls-trends: public reactions to global health threats and infectious diseases Public Opin Q 71 4 671 692 10.1093/poq/nfm041
27. SS Ho D Brossard DA Scheufele 2008 Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research Int J Public Opin Res 20 2 171 192 10.1093/ijpor/edn017
28. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (forthcoming) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun
29. A Irwin 2001 Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences Public Underst Sci 10 1 1 18 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301 (Pubitemid 33625567)
30. Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. BB Johnson 1993 Advancing understanding of knowledge's role in lay risk perception Risk Issues Health Saf 4 189 212
32. DM Kahan D Braman P Slovic J Gastil G Cohen 2008 Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology Nat Nanotechnol 4 87 90 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 2009NatNa...4...87K 19197308
33. D Kahneman A Tversky 1979 Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk Econometrica 47 2 263 291 0411.90012 10.2307/1914185
34. Kosicki GM, McLeod JM (1990) Learning from political news: effects of media images and information-processing strategies. In: Kraus S (ed) Mass communication and political information processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 69-83
35. C Lee DA Scheufele 2006 The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology Journal Mass Commun Q 83 4 819 834
36. C Lee DA Scheufele BV Lewenstein 2005 Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology Sci Commun 27 2 240 267 10.1177/1075547005281474 (Pubitemid 41795481)
37. Luhmann N (1979) Trust and power. Chichester, Wiley
38. Lux Research (2008) Overhyped technology starts to reach potential: nanotech to impact $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods in 2015. http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE-Nano-SMR-7-22-08.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
39. JD Miller 1998 The measurement of civic scientific literacy Public Underst Sci 7 3 203 223 10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
40. JD Miller 2004 Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know Public Underst Sci 13 3 273 294 10.1177/0963662504044908 (Pubitemid 39080576)
41. Miller JD, Kimmel L (2001) Biomedical communications: purposes, audiences, and strategies. Wiley, New York
42. Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F (1997) Public perceptions of science and technology: a comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. BBV Foundation, Madrid
43. National Science 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
44. MC Nisbet 2005 The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research Int J Public Opin Res 17 1 90 112 10.1093/ijpor/edh058 (Pubitemid 41236886)
45. MC Nisbet BV Lewenstein 2002 Biotechnology, the American media-the policy process, the elite press, 1970 to 1999 Sci Commun 23 4 359 391 10.1177/107554700202300401
46. MC Nisbet DA Scheufele 2007 The future of public engagement Scientist 21 10 39 44
47. MC Nisbet DA Scheufele J Shanahan P Moy D Brossard BV Lewenstein 2002 Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology Commun Res 29 5 584 608 10.1177/009365002236196 (Pubitemid 36668832)
48. MC Nisbet D Brossard A Kroepsch 2003 Framing science: the stem cell controversy in the age of press/politics Harv Int J Press/Polit 8 2 36 70 10.1177/1081180X02251047 (Pubitemid 36719570)
49. A Olofsson S Ohman S Rashid 2006 Attitudes to gene technology: the significance of trust in institutions Eur Soc 8 4 601 624 10.1080/ 14616690601002707 (Pubitemid 44782258)
50. Pew Internet and American Life Project (2006) The Internet as a resource for news and information about science. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP- Exploratorium-Science.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
51. N Pidgeon BH Harthorn K Bryant T Rogers-Hayden 2009 Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom Nat Nanotechnol 4 95 98 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhsFemsLk%3D 10.1038/nnano.2008.362 2009NatNa...4...95P 19197310
52. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2005) The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. http://www.nano.gov/FINAL-PCAST-NANO-REPORT.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
53. SH Priest 2001 Misplaced faith-communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development Sci Commun 23 2 97 110 10.1177/1075547001023002002
54. SH Priest H Bonfadelli M Rusanen 2003 The "trust gap" hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors Risk Anal 23 4 751 766 10.1111/1539-6924.00353 12926568 (Pubitemid 36929570)
55. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2003) Nanotechnology: societal implications-maximizing benefit for humanity. A report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Arlington, VA
56. T Satterfield M Kandlikar CEH Beaudrie J Conti BH Harthorn 2009 Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies Nat Nanotechnol 4 752 758 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtlygsLfL 10.1038/nnano.2009.265 2009NatNa...4..752S 19893527
57. DA Scheufele 1999 Framing as a theory of media effects J Commun 49 1 103 122 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
58. Scheufele DA (2001) Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In: Hart RP, Shaw D (eds) Communication and U.S. elections: New Agendas. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, pp 19-32
59. DA Scheufele 2002 Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior Commun Res 29 1 46 65
60. DA Scheufele BV Lewenstein 2005 The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies J Nanopart Res 7 659 667 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 (Pubitemid 41767366)
61. DA Scheufele EA Corley T-J Shih KE Dalrymple SS Ho 2009 Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States Nat Nanotechnol 4 2 91 94 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhsFemsb4%3D 10.1038/nnano.2008.361 2009NatNa...4...91S 19197309
62. H Schutz PM Wiedemann 2008 Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology Public Underst Sci 17 3 369 379 10.1177/0963662506071282
63. W Sententia 2004 Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition Ann N Y Acad Sci 1013 221 228 10.1196/annals.1305.014 2004NYASA1013..221S 15194617
64. M Siegrist 2000 The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology Risk Anal 20 195 203 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czhslelsw%3D%3D 10.1111/0272-4332.202020 10859780 (Pubitemid 30354440)
65. M Siegrist G Cvetkovich C Roth 2000 Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception Risk Anal 20 3 353 362 10.1111/0272-4332. 203034 10949414 (Pubitemid 30644704)
66. J Sinclair T Irani 2005 Advocacy advertising for biotechnology J Advert 34 3 59 73
67. L Sjoberg 2002 Attitudes toward technology and risk: going beyond what is immediately given Policy Sci 35 4 379 400 10.1023/A:1021354900928 (Pubitemid 36141447)
68. L Sjoberg 2004 Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology EMBO Rep 5 S47 S51 10.1038/sj.embor.7400258 15459735
69. L Sjoberg E Winroth 1986 Risk, moral value of actions, and mood Scand J Psychol 27 3 191 208 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1986.tb01197.x
70. P Slovic 1987 Perception of risk Science 36 280 285 10.1126/science. 3563507 1987Sci...236..280S
71. P Slovic 1999 Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield Risk Anal 19 4 689 701 1:STN:280: DC%2BD3c3ivVagtw%3D%3D 10765431
72. C Starr 1969 Social benefit versus technological risk Science 165 3899 1232 1238 1:STN:280:DyaF1M3msFWhsA%3D%3D 10.1126/science.165.3899.1232 1969Sci...165.1232S 5803536
73. LF Stephens 2005 News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers Sci Commun 27 2 175 199 10.1177/1075547005281520 (Pubitemid 41795478)
74. P Sturgis N Allum 2004 Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes Public Underst Sci 13 1 55 74 10.1177/0963662504042690 (Pubitemid 38662277)
75. P Sturgis H Cooper C Fife-Schaw 2005 Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public New Genet Soc 24 1 31 56 10.1080/14636770500037693 16552916 (Pubitemid 40543616)
76. Sztompka P (1999) Trust: a sociological theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
77. F Vandermoere S Blanchemanche A Bieberstein S Marette J Roosen 2010 The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature J Nanopart Res 12 373 381 10.1007/s11051-009-9809-5