Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies

Journal of Communication

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 659-688

  Druckman, James N ^a   Bolsen, Toby ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 79961099186     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2009). Estimating the causal effects of media coverage on policy-specific knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 73-89.
2. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
4. Berinsky, A. J., & Kinder, D. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. The Journal of Politics, 68, 640-656.
5. Cabana, M. D., Rand C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. C., et al. (1999). Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458-1467.
6. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.
7. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118.
8. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655.
9. Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
10. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
11. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication (National Research Foundation). (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153-155.
13. Druckman, J. N. (2001, September). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
14. Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research. Political Behavior, 31(4), 485-510.
15. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
16. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental results (Vol. 1, pp. 1061-1077). New York: North-Holland.
17. Elliott, W. R., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology. Communication Research, 14, 164-188.
18. Fairbanks, A. H. (1994). Fact, value, policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal. In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
21. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant J., & Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? Science, 285, 384-387.
22. Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2002). Introduction-heuristics and biases. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or online. Psychological Review, 93(3), 258-268.
24. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
25. Jasper, J. M. (1988). The political life cycle of technological controversies. Social Forces, 67, 357-377.
26. Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals shape policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411-426.
27. Jotterand, F. (2006). The politicization of science and technology. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 34(4), 658-666.
28. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261.
29. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. L., & Kysar, D. (2008). Cultural cognition and nanotechnology risk perceptions. Unpublished paper, Yale University.
30. Katz, E., & Strange, J. J. (1998). Preface. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 8-16.
31. Kunda, Z. (2001). Social cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant? White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
33. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
34. Lee, C., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
35. Lewenstein, B. V., Gorss, J., & Radin, J. (2005, May). The salience of small. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
36. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2008). The rationalizing voter. Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.
38. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Leeper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
39. Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221-241.
40. Mellman Group. (2006). Public sentiment about genetically modified foods. Retrieved from.
41. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
42. Musham, C., Trettin, L., & Jablonski, R. (1999). Before the storm. Journal of Public Health Policy, 20, 319-334.
43. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
44. Nisbet, M. C. (n.d.). Framing science. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Understanding science. New York: Taylor & Francis.
45. Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
46. Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56.
47. O'Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect. Argumentation and advocacy, 35, 61-75.
48. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Retrieved from.
50. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
51. Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2004). When scientists politicize science. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405-417.
52. Rodriguez, L. (2007). The impact of risk communication on the acceptance of irradiated food. Science Communication, 28, 476-500.
53. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
54. Rudolph, T. J. (2006). Triangulating political responsibility. Political Psychology, 27, 99-122.
55. Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9, 64.
56. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
57. Shapiro, R. Y., & Block-Elkon, Y. (2008). Do the facts speak for themselves? Critical Review, 20, 115-139.
58. Southwell, B. G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication. Communication Monograph, 73(3), 334-350.
59. Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P. R. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 219-237.
60. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2006). A literature review of research conducted on public interest, knowledge, and attitudes to biomedical science. Report prepared for The Welcome Trust.
61. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
62. Vishwanath, A. (2009). From belief-importance to intention. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 177-206.