Knowing hydrogen and loving it too? Information provision, cultural predispositions, and support for hydrogen technology among the Dutch

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 445-453

  Achterberg, Peter ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cultural predispositions; emerging technologies; framing theory; information provision; social perception

Indexed keywords

HYDROGEN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CULTURAL FACTOR; CULTURAL PREDISPOSITIONS; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; FEMALE; FRAMING THEORY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROVISION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; TECHNOLOGY; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

CULTURAL PREDISPOSITIONS; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; FRAMING THEORY; INFORMATION PROVISION; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROGEN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904053706     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512453117     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Achterberg P,Houtman D,Bohemen S v,Manevska K.Unknowing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydrogen technology in the Netherlands.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2010;35 (12): 6075-6083
2. Allum N,Sturgis P,Tabourazi D,Brunton-Smith I.Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (1): 35-54
3. Ball M,Wietschel M.The future of hydrogen: Opportunities and challenges.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2009;34:615-627
4. Bauer MW,Allum N,Miller S.What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 79-95
5. Beck U.From industrial society to the risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment.Theory, Culture and Society. 1992;9:97-123
6. Brossard D,Scheufele DA,Eunkyung K,Lewenstein BV.Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 546-558
7. Bubela T,Nisbet MC,Borchelt R,Brunger F,Critchley C,Einsiedel E, et al.Science communication reconsidered.Nature. 2009;27 (6): 514-518
8. Carlisle JE,Feezell JT,Michaud KEH,Smith ERAN,Smith L.The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19 (5): 514-527
9. Cherryman SJ,King S,Hawkes FR,Dinsdale R,Hawkes DL.An exploratory study of opinions on the use of hydrogen energy in Wales.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (3): 397-410
10. Chong D,Druckman JN.Framing theory.Annual Review of Political Science. 2007;10:103-126
11. Cobb MD.Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology.Science Communication. 2005;27 (2): 221-239
12. Davis JJ.The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1995;72 (2): 285-299
13. Feldman S,Zaller J.The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state.American Journal of Political Science. 1992;36 (1): 268-307
14. Gaskell G,Einsiedel E,Hallman W,Priest SH,Jackson J,Olsthoorn J.Social values and the governance of science.Science. 2005;310 (5756): 1908-1909
15. Grove-White R,Macnaghtan P,Wynne BWising Up: The Public and New Technologies. Lancaster: Lancaster University; 2000:
16. Houtman D,Mascini P.De moderne cultuur en de onttovering van de wereld: Moreel relativisme en instrumenteel rationalisme in Nederland.Sociologische Gids. 2000;47 (3): 366-386
17. Inglehart R.Modernization, postmodernization and changing perceptions of risk.International Review of Sociology. 1997;7 (3): 449-460
18. Kahan D.Fixing the communications failure.Nature. 2010;463 (7279): 296-297
19. McQuail DMass Communication Theory: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:
20. Molin E.Causal analysis of hydrogen acceptance.Transport Research Record. 2005;1941:115-121
21. Mutz DCPopulation-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2011:
22. Nan X.The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus loss-framed messages: Exploring the moderating role of desirability of end-states.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2007;84 (3): 509-524
23. Nisbet MC,Mooney C.Framing science.Science. 2007;316 (5821): 56
24. O’Keefe DJ,Jensen JD.Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review.Communication Studies. 2008;59 (1): 51-67
25. Perrin JL.Emotional Responses to Environmental Messages and Future Behavioral Intentions.Applied Environmental Education & Communication. 2011;10 (3): 146-157
26. Ricci M,Bellaby P,Flynn R.What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2008;33:5868-5880
27. Stimson JA,MacKuen M,Erikson R.Dynamic representation.American Political Science Review. 1995;89 (3): 543-565
28. Sturgis P,Brunton-Smith I,Fife-Schaw C.Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19 (2): 166-180
29. Zachariah-Wolff JL,Hemmes K.Public acceptance of hydrogen in the Netherlands: Two surveys that demystify public views on a hydrogen economy.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2006;36 (4): 339-345
30. Zaller JRThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992: