From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 385-404

  Cacciatore, Michael A ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Corley, Elizabeth A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Heuristics; Mental associations; Nanotechnology; Opinion formation; Risk; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956338425     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662509347815     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2008:.
2. Anderson A.,Brossard D.,Scheufele D. A.Tracking Public Interest in Emerging Technologies: Mapping the Landscape. 2009;:.
3. Bieri J.Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity and Predictive Behavior.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955;51:263-8.
4. Bourdieu P.Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977:.
5. Brehm J.The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1993:.
6. Brosius H.-B.,Bathelt A.The Utility of Exemplars in Persuasive Communications.Communication Research. 1994;21 (1): 48-78.
7. Brossard D.,Scheufele D. A.,Kim E.,Lewenstein B. V.Religiosity as a Perceptual Filter: Examining Processes of Opinion Formation about Nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 546-58.
8. Brown M.Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research. Guston D. H.Sarewitz D., ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 2006:10-32.
9. Burri R. V.Coping with Uncertainty: Assessing Nanotechnologies in a Citizen Panel in Switzerland.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 498-511.
10. Cobb M.,Macoubrie J.Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2004;6:395-405.
11. Cohen J.,Cohen P.Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ednHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983:.
12. Collins A. M.,Loftus E. F.A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing.Psychological Review. 1975;82:407-28.
13. Consumer Reports.org.(2007)Possible Risks: No Small Matter, URL (consulted 22 November 2008): http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/nanotechnology-7-07/possible-risks/0707_nano_risks_1.htm.
14. CQ Transcriptions (2006)President Bush's State of the Union Address,Washington Post31January, URL (consulted 23 November 2008):http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
15. Currall S. C.,King E. B.,Lane N.,Madera J.,Turner S.Commentary: What Drives Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology?.Nature Nanotechnology. 2006;1 (3): 153-5.
16. Dumit J.Picturing Parenthood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004:.
17. Felt U.,Fochler M.,Mager A.,Winkler P.Visions and Versions of Governing Biomedicine: Narratives on Power Structures, Decision-making and Public Participation in the Field of Biomedical Technology in the Austrian Context.Social Studies of Science. 2008;38 (2): 233-57.
18. Ferber D.Risks and Benefits: GM Crops in the Cross Hairs.Science. 1999;286:1662-6.
19. Fiske S.T.Taylor S.E.Social Cognition.2nd ednNew York:McGraw-Hill;1991.
20. Friedman S. M.,Egolf B. P.Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2005;24:5-11.
21. Gaskell G.,Bauer M. W.,Durant J.,Allum N. C.Worlds Apart?: The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the USA.Science. 1999;285:384-7.
22. Gibson R.,Zillmann D.Exaggerated vs. Representative Exemplification in News Reports: Perceptions of Issues and Personal Consequences.Communication Research. 1994;21 (5): 603-24.
23. Gilovich T.How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press; 1991:.
24. Ho S. S.,Brossard D.,Scheufele D. A.Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2008;20 (2): 171-92.
25. Irwin A.Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge; 1995:.
26. Irwin A.,Michael M.Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2003:.
27. Iyengar S.The Accessibility Bias in Politics: Television News and Public Opinion.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1990;2 (1): 1-15.
28. Iyengar S.,Kinder D.News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987:.
29. Jasanoff S.Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.Minerva. 2003;41:223-44.
30. Kahan D. M.Two Conceptions of Emotion in Risk Regulation.University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2008;156 (3): 741-66.
31. Kahan D. M.,Braman D.,Slovic P.,Gastil J.,Cohen G.Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4 (2): 87-90.
32. KatzJ.(2008) Nanotechnology Boom Expected by 2015,Industry Week22July, URL (consulted 22 April 2009):http://www.industryweek.com/articles nanotechnology_boom_expected_by_2015_16884.aspx?SectionID=35.
33. Lee C.-J.,Scheufele D. A.,Lewenstein B. V.Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 240-67.
34. Luskin R. C.Measuring Political Sophistication.American Journal of Political Science. 1987;31 (4): 856-99.
35. Miller J. D.The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy.Public Understanding of Science. 1998;7:203-23.
36. Miller J. D.,Kimmel L.Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies. New York: Academic Press; 2001:.
37. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2008) FY 2009 Budget & Highlights, URL (consulted 28 March 2009): http://www.nano.gov/NNI_FY09_budget_summary.pdf.
38. Neuman W. R.Differentiation and Integration: Two Dimensions of Political Thinking.American Journal of Sociology. 1981;86 (6): 1236-68.
39. Nisbet M. C.,Scheufele D. A.The Future of Public Engagement.The Scientist. 2007;21 (10): 38-44.
40. Nisbett R. E.,Ross L.Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980:.
41. Olofsson A.,Öhman S.,Rashid S.Attitudes to Gene Technology: The Significance of Trust in Institutions.European Societies. 2006;8 (4): 601-24.
42. Pidgeon N.,Harthorn B. H.,Bryant K.,Rogers-Hayden T.Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the United States and United Kingdom.Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;4:95-8.
43. Poland C. A.,Duffin R.,Kinloch I.,Maynard A.,Wallace W. A. H.,Seaton A.,Stone V.,Brown S.,MacNee W.,Donaldson K.Carbon Nanotubes Introduced into the Abdominal Cavity of Mice Show Asbestos-like Pathogenicity in a Pilot Study.Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;3 (7): 423-8.
44. Scheufele D. A.Agenda-setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication.Mass Communication & Society. 2000;3:297-316.
45. Scheufele D. A.Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. Turney J., ed. London: The Wellcome Trust; 2006:20-5.
46. Scheufele D. A.,Lewenstein B. V.The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:659-67.
47. Scheufele D. A.,Tewksbury D.Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.Journal of Communication. 2007;57:9-20.
48. Scheufele D. A.,Corley E. A.,Dunwoody S.,Shih T.-J.,Hillback E.,Guston D. H.Scientists Worry about Some Risks More than the Public.Nature Nanotechnology. 2007;2 (12): 732-4.
49. Scheufele D. A.,Corley E. A.,Shih T.-J.,Dalrymple K. E.,Ho S. S.Religious Beliefs and Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the US.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4 (2): 91-4.
50. Schuman H.,Presser S.Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press; 1981:.
51. Siegrist M.The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology.Risk Analysis. 2000;20 (2): 195-203.
52. Siegrist M.,Keller C.,Kastenholz H.,Frey S.,Wiek A.Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards.Risk Analysis. 2007;27 (1): 59-69.
53. SjöbergL.(2004) Gene Technology in the Eyes Gene Technology in the Eyes of the Public and Experts: Moral Opinions, Attitudes and Risk Perception, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 7. URL (consulted 23 November 2008):http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/papers/hastba2004_007.pdf.
54. Slovic P.,Finucane M. L.,Peters E.,MacGregor D. G.Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality.Risk Analysis. 2004;24 (2): 311-22.
55. Stephens L. F.News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major US and non-US Newspapers.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 175-99.
56. Sturgis P.,Allum N.Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13 (1): 55-74.
57. Tourangeau R.,Rips L. J.,Rasinski K.The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000:.
58. Wynne B.Knowledges in Context.Science, Technology and Human Values. 1991;16 (1): 111-21.
59. Wynne B.Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1 (3): 281-304.
60. Wynne B.Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Lash S.Szerszynski B.Wynne B. E., ed. London: Sage; 1996:44-83.
61. Zillmann D.Exemplification Effects in the Promotion of Safety and Health.Journal of Communication. 2006;56:S221-S237.