Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 582-600

  Liang, Xuan ^a   Ho, Shirley S ^b   Brossard, Dominique ^a   Xenos, Michael A ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a,c   Anderson, Ashley A ^d   Hao, Xiaoming ^b   He, Xiaoyu ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

attitudes; cross cultural; nanotechnology; perceptual filter; risk perception; Singapore

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; SINGAPORE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC OPINION; SINGAPORE; SOCIAL VALUES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84931269312     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662513510858     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Badiner AH, ed. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press; 1990:
2. 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;19:24-52
3. Brossard D,Shanahan J.Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science.Mass Communication and Society. 2009;6:291-312
4. 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;18:546-558
5. Cacciatore MA,Scheufele DA,Corley EA.From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:385-404
6. Cacciatore MA,Anderson AA,Choi DH,Brossard D,Scheufele DA,Liang X,Ladwig PJ,Xenos M,Dudo A.Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media.New Media & Society. 2012;14:1039-1059
7. Central Intelligence Agency (2011) The World Factbook. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html
8. Chen X.Daoism and environment protection.Paper presented at the International Conference on the Dialogue of Cultural Traditions: Global Perspective; 2003Istanbul, Turkey; 2003.
9. Cientifica (2011) Global funding of nanotechnologies and its impact. Available at: http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf
10. (Cohen J,Cohen PApplied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983:
11. Dudo A,Dunwoody S,Scheufele DA.The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011;88:55-75
12. Dwivedi OP.Human responsibility and the environment: A Hindu perspective.Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies. 1993;6 (8): 19-26
13. Evans JHContested Reproduction: Genetic Technologies, Religion and Public Debate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2010:
14. Evans JH.The growing social and moral conflict between conservative Protestantism and science.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2013;52 (2): 368-385
15. Eveland WP.The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts.Communication Research. 2001;28:571-601
16. Eveland WP.News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2002;79:26-41
17. Eveland WP,Thomson T.Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge.Journal of Communication. 2006;56 (3): 523-542
18. Feng Z.Public spending on science R&D hits $2.5b.The Straits Times. 2011;:
19. (Fiske ST,Taylor SESocial Cognition. 1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edition.New York: McGraw-Hill.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991:
20. Foreign Policy (2010) The global cities index 2010. August16. Available at (accessed October 25, 2011): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_global_cities_index_2010
21. Gaskell G,Ten Eyck T,Jackson J,Veltri G.Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.Nature Materials. 2004;3:496
22. Gaskell G,Ten Eyck T,Jackson J,Veltri G.Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States.Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14:81-90
23. Gupta N,Fischer ARH,Frewer LJ.Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.Public Understanding of Science. 2012;21:782-795
24. Herrera S.Leaders and laggards in the stem cell enterprise.Nature Biotechnology. 2005 1018;23:
25. Ho SSEncyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Guston D, ed. London: SAGE Publications; 2010:714-716.
26. Ho SS,Brossard D,Scheufele DA.Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2008a;20 (2): 171-192
27. Ho SS,Lee W,Hameed SS.Muslim surfers on the internet: Using the theory of planned behaviour to examine the factors influencing engagement in online religious activities.New Media & Society. 2008b;10:93-113
28. Ho SS,Scheufele DA,Corley EA.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. 2010;12:2703-2715
29. Ho SS,Scheufele DA,Corley EA.Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts.Science Communication. 2011;33:167-200
30. Ho SS,Detenber BH,Malik S,Neo L.The roles of value predispositions, communication, and third person perception on public support for censorship of films with homosexual content.Asian Journal of Communication. 2012;22:78-97
31. Kosicki GM,McLeod JMMass Communication and Political Information Processing. Kraus S, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1990:69-83.
32. Lee C,Scheufele DA.The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2006;83 (4): 819-834
33. Lee M.Highest trust level in S’pore govt: Poll.The Straits Times. 2010;:
34. Macoubrie J.Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government.Public Understanding of Science. 2006;15:221-241
35. Matsuda M,Hunt G.Research on the societal impacts of nanotechnology: A preliminary comparison of USA, Europe and Japan.Bio-medical Materials and Engineering. 2009;19:259-267
36. Moon W,Balasubramanian SK.Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage.Review of Agricultural Economics. 2004;26:186-208
37. Muhammad G,Shah-Kazemi R,Ahmed A.The Holy Qur’an and the Environment. The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. 2010;:
38. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2012) National Nanotechnology Initiative’s budget brief for FY 2013. Available at: http://www.nano.gov/node/750
39. Rising above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010:
40. National Science and Technology Council (2000) National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/NSTC%20Reports/NNI2000.pdf
41. National Science and Technology Council (2007) National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic Plan. Available at: http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf
42. Nelkin DSelling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman; 1995:
43. Washington, DC: ; 2008:
44. Pew Research Center (2012) “Nones” on the rise: One-in-five adults have no religious affiliation. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf
45. Priest S.Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development.Science Communication. 2001;23:97-110
46. Priest S.The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2006;8:563-568
47. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2011) An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
48. Renn O,Roco M.Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2006;8:153-191
49. .Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop; 2003Arlington, VA; 2003.
50. Roco M,Mason J,Epstein MRegional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop. Oklahoma City: ; 2009:
51. Scheitle CP.In God we trust: Religion and optimism toward biotechnology.Social Science Quarterly. 2005;86 (4): 846-856
52. Scheufele DAEngaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. Turney J, ed. London: Wellcome Trust; 2006:20-25.
53. Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7 (6): 659-667
54. Scheufele DA,Corley EA,Shih T-J,Dalrymple KE,Ho SS.Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4:91-94
55. Siegrist M,Cousin M-E,Kastenholz H,Wiek A.Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust.Appetite. 2007a;49:459-466
56. Siegrist M,Keller C,Kastenholz H,Frey S,Wiek A.Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards.Risk Analysis. 2007b;27:59-69
57. Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research (2011) Step 2015: Science, Technology & Enterprise Plan 2015. Available at: http://www.a-star.edu.sg/portals/0/media/otherpubs/step2015_1jun.pdf
58. Singapore Department of Statistics (2010) Census of population 2010 statistical release 1: Demographic characteristics, education, language and religion. Available at: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census10_stat_release1.html
59. Singapore Department of Statistics (2011) Statistics: Key annual indicators. Available at: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html#keyind
60. Sjöberg L.Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology.European Molecular Biology Organization Reports. 2004;5:41-57
61. Sjöberg L,Winroth E.Risk, moral value of actions, and mood.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 1986;27:191-208
62. SmithTWMarsdenPVHoutM (2013) General Social Survey, 1972–2010 [Cumulative File]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR31521.v1
63. Tan A.S’pore students good at fixing real-life problems: Study ranks Republic among top five in applying reading, maths and science knowledge.The Straits Times. 2010;:
64. Tan SJ,Tambyah SK.Generalized trust and trust in institutions in Confucian Asia.Social Indicators Research. 2011;103 (3): 357-377
65. Few people here aware of GM products. 2000;:
66. Panel sought various views for guidelines: The Bioethics Advisory Committee took pains – and 10 months – to consult various professional and religious groups. 2002;:
67. Vedam H,Yixiang D,Brama Y,Liu L.The Singapore nanotechnology ecosystem.Nanotechnology Law & Business. 2009;6 (1): 85-102
68. VenS (2000) Environmental protection. Speech delivered at the working session on environmental protection at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, August31. Available at: http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dailylife/environment.html
69. Wynne B.Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs.Science as Culture. 2001;10:445-481