Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 830-847

  Binder, Andrew R ^a   Cacciatore, Michael A ^b   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b   Shaw, Bret R ^b   Corley, Elizabeth A ^c  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

public consultations; public understanding of science; risk perception; science communication; science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051590774     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510390159     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 2009) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 6th edn.Lenexa, KS: AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research).Lenexa, KS: AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research); 2009:.
2. Ajzen I.Nature and operation of attitudes.Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52:27-58.
3. Ajzen I,Fishbein M.Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy-value model of attitudes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2008;38 (9): 2222-2247.
4. Babbie EThe Practice of Social Research. 2007) The Practice of Social Research, 11th edn.Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth; 2007:.
5. Brehm JThe Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1993:.
6. Brigham Schmuhl N,Cacciatore MA,Binder AR,Shaw BR,Scheufele DA.Technological innovation in America's backyard: The intersection of media use, political partisanship, and public opinion of biofuels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2010Chicago, IL; 2010.
7. Brossard D,Nisbet MC.Deference to scientific authority among a low-information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2007;19 (1): 24-52.
8. Brossard D,Shanahan JThe Public, the Media, and Agricultural Biotechnology: An International Casebook. Brossard DShanahan JNesbitt TC, ed. Cambridge, MA: CABI; 2007:3-20.
9. Brossard D,Scheufele DA,Kim E,Lewenstein BV.Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 546-558.
10. Cacciatore MA,Scheufele DA,Corley EA.From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science.
11. Carmines EG,Zeller RAReliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1979:.
12. Chaffee SHExplication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:.
13. Cobb MD,Macoubrie J.Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2004;6 (4): 395-405.
14. Corley EA,Scheufele DA.Outreach going wrong?.The Scientist. 2010;24 (1): 22.
15. Crne-Hladnik H,Peklaj C,Kosmelj K,Hladnik A,Javornik B.Assessment of Slovene secondary school students' attitudes to biotechnology in terms of usefulness, moral acceptability and risk perception.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (6): 747-758.
16. Cronbach LJ.Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika. 1951;16 (3): 297-334.
17. Eagly AH,Chaiken SThe Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace; 1993:.
18. Fishkin JSDemocracy and Deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1991:.
19. Flynn J,Slovic P,Mertz CK.Gender, race, and perception of environmental-health risks.Risk Analysis. 1994;14 (6): 1101-1108.
20. Friedman SM,Dunwoody S,Rogers CLCommunicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999:.
21. Gilovich THow We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press; 1991:.
22. Irwin A.Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10 (1): 1-18.
23. Kahan DM,Braman D,Slovic P,Gastil J,Cohen G.Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4 (2): 87-90.
24. Kleinman DL,Delborne JA,Anderson AA.Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology.Public Understanding of Science.
25. Klop T,Severiens S.An exploration of attitudes towards modern biotechnology: A study among Dutch secondary school students.International Journal of Science Education. 2007;29 (5): 663-679.
26. Lee CJ,Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 240-267.
27. McLeod JM,Pan ZThe Evolution of Key Mass Communication Concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod. Dunwoody SBecker LBMcLeod DMKosicki GM, ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2005:13-76.
28. Miller JD.Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13 (3): 273-294.
29. Nisbet MC,Mooney C.Science and society: Framing science.Science. 2007;316 (5821): 56.
30. Pardo R,Calvo F.Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis.Public Understanding of Science. 2002;11 (2): 155-195.
31. Powell M,Kleinman DL.Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science; 2008; 2008. 329.
32. Rowe G,Frewer LJ.A typology of public engagement mechanisms.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2005;30 (2): 251-290.
33. Scheufele DAEngaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. Turney J, ed. London: The Wellcome Trust; 2006:20-25.
34. Scheufele DA,Tewksbury D.Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models.Journal of Communication. 2007;57 (1): 9-20.
35. Schuman H,Presser SQuestions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press; 1981:.
36. Slovic P.Perception of risk.Science. 1987;236:280.
37. Sudman S,Bradburn NM,Schwarz NThinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1995:.
38. Tankard JWHandbook of Reporting Methods. McCombs MEShaw DGrey D, ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1976:42-77.
39. Tourangeau R,Rips LJ,Rasinski KAThe Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000:.
40. Tversky A,Kahneman D.Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.Cognitive Psychology. 1973;5 (2): 207-232.
41. von Hoffman N.Public opinion polls: Newspapers making their own news.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1980;44 (3): 572-573.
42. Wegener DT,Kelly JR.Social psychological dimensions of bioenergy development and public acceptance.Bioenergy Research. 2008;1 (2): 107-117.
43. Wooldridge JMIntroductory Econometrics. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing; 2003:.
44. Zaller J,Feldman S.A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences.American Journal of Political Science. 1992;36 (3): 579-616.