Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts

Science Communication

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 167-200

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

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

benefits; experts; funding; mass media; nanotechnology; risks

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959280547     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547010380386     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Babbie, E. (2007). The basics of social research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2. Barke, R.P., & Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425-439.
3. Barke, R.P., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 167-176.
4. Bergstein, B. (May 20, 2008). Carbon nanotubes mimic asbestos in early study. Associated Press.
5. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., & Priest, S.H. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 549-558.
6. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London, England: Royal Society.
7. Bord, R., & O'Connor, R. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830-840.
8. Brody, C.J. (1984). Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63, 209-228.
9. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-568.
10. Chang, K. (May 21, 2008). In study, researchers find nanotubes may pose health risks similar to asbestos. New York Times, p. A22.
11. Cobb, M.D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
12. Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Science and Technology, 6, 395-405.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
14. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Corley, E.A., Scheufele, D.A., & Hu, Q. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1573-1585.
16. Davidson, D.J., & Freudenburg, W.R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-309.
17. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-77.
18. Erhart, M., Wetzel, R.M., Krugel, A., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2009). Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents. BMC Public Health, 9, 491.
19. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
20. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998). Understanding attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 221-235.
21. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T.T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imaging nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 81-90.
22. Gutteling, J.M., & Kuttschreuter, M. (2002). The role of expertise in risk communication: Laypeople's and experts' perception of the millennium bug in the Netherlands. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 35-47.
23. Gutteling, J., & Wiegman, O. (1993). Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sex Roles, 28, 433-446.
24. Hepner, K.A., Brown, J.A., & Hays, R.D. (2005). Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28, 377-389.
25. Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D.A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.
26. Ho, S.S., Scheufele, D.A., & Corley, E.A. (forthcoming). 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. DOI 10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8.
27. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87-90.
29. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215-232.
30. Lazo, J.K., Kinnell, J.C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20, 179-194.
31. Lee, C., 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, 240-267.
32. Link, M.W., Battaglia, M.P., Frankel, M.R., Osborn, L., & Mokdad, A.H. (2006). Address-based versus random-digit-dial surveys: Comparison of key health and risk indicators. American Journal of Epidemiology, 164, 1019-1025.
33. McDaniels, T.L., Axelrod, L.J., Cavanagh, N.S., & Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17, 341-352.
34. Miller, J.D., & Kimmel, L. (2001). Biomedical communications: Purposes, audiences, and strategies. New York, NY: Wiley.
35. Miller, J.D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Chicago, IL: Chicago Academy of Sciences.
36. Morton, T.A., & Duck, J.M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs - Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research, 28, 602-626.
37. Morton, T.A., & Duck, J.M. (2006). Enlisting the influence of others: Alternative strategies for persuasive media campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 269-296.
38. National Science and 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, DC.
39. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in the age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics, 8, 36-70.
40. Nisbet, M.C., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media- The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
41. Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2007). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, 21(10), 39-44.
42. Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Schoeneck, D.J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715-728.
43. Powell, M. (2007). New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 173-190.
44. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
45. Priest, S.H. (2008). North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio-and nanotechnologies. Journal of Risk Research, 11(7), 877-889.
46. Raude, J., Fischler, C., Setbon, M., & Flahault, A. (2005). Scientist and public responses to BSE-related risk: A comparative study. Journal of Risk Research, 8(7-8), 663-678.
47. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Wetzel, R., Krugel, A., & Brambosch, A. (2008). Phone respondents reported less mental health problems whereas mail interviewee gave higher physical health ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 1056-1060.
48. Revkin, A.C. (2004, October 19). Bush vs. the laureates: How science became a partisan Issue. The New York Times, p. F1.
49. Roco, M.C., & Bainbridge, W.S. (2003). Nanotechnology: Societal implications- Maximizing benefit for humanity. A report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Arlington, VA.
50. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21, 341-356.
51. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289-1299.
52. Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13, 413-420.
53. Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. (2007). Nanotechnology Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(12), 732-734.
54. Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Shih, T-J., Dalrymple, K.E., & Ho, S.S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-94.
55. Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
56. Schutz, H., & Wiedemann, P.M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 369-379.
57. Siegrist, M. (1998). Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 861-866.
58. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-203.
59. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.
60. Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26, 971-979.
61. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59-69.
62. Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A., & Kastenholz, H. (2007). Risks and nanotechnology: The public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 67-67.
63. Silva, C.L., & Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (2007). U.S. and E.U. scientists' prescriptions for policy in the face of uncertainty. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 640-664.
64. Sjoberg, L. (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379-400.
65. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 36, 280-285.
66. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689-701.
67. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C.K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 661-675.
68. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 91-125). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
69. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L.J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agricultural and Human Values, 11, 19-28.
70. Stephens, L.F. (2005). News narratives about Nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199.
71. Tanaka, Y. (2004). Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1575-1583.
72. Thomson, M.E., Onkal, D., Avcioglu, A., & Goodwin, P. (2004). Aviation risk perception: A comparison between experts and novices. Risk Analysis, 24, 1585-1595.
73. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 163-189). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
74. Wright, G., Bolger, F., & Rowe, G. (2002). An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgments of risk. Risk Analysis, 22, 1107-1122.
75. Wright, G., Pearman, A., & Yardley, K. (2000). Risk perception in the U.K. oil and gas production industry: Are expert loss-prevention managers' perceptions different from those of members of the public? Risk Analysis, 20, 681-690.