News media frame novel technologies in a familiar way: Nanotechnology, applications, and progress

The Social Life of Nanotechnology

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 223-240

  Lively, Erica ^d   Conroy, Meredith ^a   Weaver, David A ^b   Bimber, Bruce ^c  

^a OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906298550     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203106471     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2), 200-220.
3. Berger, E. (2001, December 12). Nanotech encounters new barrier: Environmental risks rise as costs decline. The Houston Chronicle, p. A31. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2001_3355884/ nanotech-encounters-new-barrier-environmental-risk.html
4. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bridges, A. (2006, January 11). Safety laws trail behind nanotech development, report says. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexus Academic.
6. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2008). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558.
7. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. D. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.
8. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.
9. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N. Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153-155.
10. Druckman, J. D. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041-1066.
11. Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books.
12. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
13. Feder, B. J. (2002, August 19). New economy: Nanotechnology has arrived; A serious opposition is forming. New York Times. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/19/business/new-economy-nanotechnologyhas-arrived-a-serious-opposition-is-forming.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
14. Friedman, S. M., & Egolf, B. P. (2005). Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24, 5-11.
15. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 81-90.
16. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 2, 520-543.
17. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750-767.
19. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakarova, L. (2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 183-203.
21. Nanotechnology: Science of the small could drive big revolution. (2004, May 21). The Houston Chronicle. Editorial. Retrieved March 2012, from: http://www. chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Nanotechnology-Science-of-the-smallcould-drive-1982362.php
22. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583.
23. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
24. Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The International Journal of Press/ Politics, 8(2), 36-70.
25. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.
26. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-99.
27. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Poland, C. A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A. H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W., & Donaldson, K. (2008). Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 423-428.
29. Rogers, J., Shearer, C., & Harthorn, B. H. (2011). From Biotech to Nanotech: Public Debates about Technological Modification of Food. Environment and Society, 2, 149-169. Retrieved March 2012, from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/ ares.2011.020109
30. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risks of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752-758.
31. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.
32. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. Appetite, 49(2), 459-466.
33. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue framing. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1-28.
34. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
35. Tan, Y., & Weaver, D. H. (2007). Agenda-setting effects among the media, the public, and Congress, 1946-2004. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 729-744.
36. Weaver, D. A., & Bimber, B. (2008). Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 515-530.
37. Weaver, D. A., Lively, E., & Bimber, B. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication, 31(2), 139-166.
38. Weiss, R. (2005, December 5). Nanotechnology regulation needed, critics say. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/04/AR2005120400729.html
39. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.