journal article·2010-10Open access

Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology

Shirley S. Ho, Dietram A. Scheufele, Elizabeth A. Corley

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 12· Issue 8

Abstract

Using a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,015 adults in the United States, this study examines how value predispositions, communication variables, and perceptions of risks and benefits are associated with public support for federal funding of nanotechnology. Our findings show that highly religious individuals were less supportive of funding of nanotech than less religious individuals, whereas individuals who held a high deference for scientific authority were more supportive of funding of the emerging technology than those low in deference. Mass media use and elaborative processing of scientific news were positively associated with public support for funding, whereas factual scientific knowledge had no significant association with policy choices. The findings suggest that thinking about and reflecting upon scientific news promote better understanding of the scientific world and may provide a more sophisticated cognitive structure for the public to form opinions about nanotech than factual scientific knowledge. Finally, heuristic cues including trust in scientists and perceived risks and benefits of nanotech were found to be associated with public support for nanotech funding. We conclude with policy implications that will be useful for policymakers and science communication practitioners.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Risk Perception and Management · Environmental Education and Sustainability

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (77)

Show source-provided references
1. Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 17(1):35–5410.1177/0963662506070159 ↗
2. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
3. Bainbridge WS (2003) Religious opposition to cloning. J Evol Technol 13. http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2008
4. Bimber B, Guston D (1995) Politics by the same means: government and science in the United States. In: Jasanoff S et al (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, pp 554–571
5. Bodmer W (1985) The public understanding of science. Royal Society, London
6. Brody CJ (1984) Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Soc Forces 63:209–22810.2307/2578866 ↗
7. Brooke J (1998) Science and religion: lessons from history? Science 282(5396):1985–198610.1126/science.282.5396.1985 ↗
8. Brossard D, Nisbet MC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res 19(1):24–5210.1093/ijpor/edl003 ↗
9. Brossard D, Shanahan J (2003) Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Commun Soc 3:291–31210.1207/S15327825MCS0603_4 ↗
10. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546–56810.1177/0963662507087304 ↗
11. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (forthcoming) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/096366250934781510.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
12. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9:183–18910.1007/s11051-006-9160-z ↗
13. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–23910.1177/1075547005281473 ↗
14. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social Trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger, London
15. European Commission (2005) Some figures about nanotechnology R&D in Europe and beyond. http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
16. Eveland WP (2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Commun Res 28:571–60110.1177/009365001028005001 ↗
17. Eveland WP (2002) News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journal Mass Commun Q 79(1):26–4010.1177/107769900207900103 ↗
18. Eveland WP, Thomson T (2006) Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. J Commun 56(3):523–54210.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x ↗
19. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is sage enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–15210.1007/BF00143739 ↗
20. Freudenburg W (1992) Heurisics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 229–250
21. Freudenburg W (1993) Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and rationality of risk perceptions. Soc Forces 71:900–93210.2307/2580124 ↗
22. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1:221–23510.1080/136698798377141 ↗
23. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc 24:5–1110.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
24. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3:49610.1038/nmat1181 ↗
25. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press, Cambridge
26. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2007) The polls-trends: public reactions to global health threats and infectious diseases. Public Opin Q 71(4):671–69210.1093/poq/nfm041 ↗
27. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 20(2):171–19210.1093/ijpor/edn017 ↗
28. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (forthcoming) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun
29. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–1810.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301 ↗
30. Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. Johnson BB (1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk Issues Health Saf 4:189–212
32. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
33. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–29110.2307/1914185 ↗
34. Kosicki GM, McLeod JM (1990) Learning from political news: effects of media images and information-processing strategies. In: Kraus S (ed) Mass communication and political information processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 69–83
35. Lee C, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun Q 83(4):819–83410.1177/107769900608300406 ↗
36. Lee C, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–26710.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
37. Luhmann N (1979) Trust and power. Chichester, Wiley
38. Lux Research (2008) Overhyped technology starts to reach potential: nanotech to impact $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods in 2015. http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE_Nano-SMR_7_22_08.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
39. Miller JD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci 7(3):203–22310.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001 ↗
40. Miller JD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Underst Sci 13(3):273–29410.1177/0963662504044908 ↗
41. Miller JD, Kimmel L (2001) Biomedical communications: purposes, audiences, and strategies. Wiley, New York
42. Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F (1997) Public perceptions of science and technology: a comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. BBV Foundation, Madrid
43. National Science Technology Council (2000) National nanotechnology initiative: leading to the next industrial revolution. A report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience. Engineering and Technology, Washington
44. Nisbet MC (2005) The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 17(1):90–11210.1093/ijpor/edh058 ↗
45. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology, the American media–the policy process, the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Sci Commun 23(4):359–39110.1177/107554700202300401 ↗
46. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2007) The future of public engagement. Scientist 21(10):39–44
47. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Moy P, Brossard D, Lewenstein BV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun Res 29(5):584–60810.1177/009365002236196 ↗
48. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in the age of press/politics. Harv Int J Press/Polit 8(2):36–7010.1177/1081180X02251047 ↗
49. Olofsson A, Ohman S, Rashid S (2006) Attitudes to gene technology: the significance of trust in institutions. Eur Soc 8(4):601–62410.1080/14616690601002707 ↗
50. Pew Internet and American Life Project (2006) The Internet as a resource for news and information about science. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Exploratorium_Science.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
51. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
52. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2005) The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. http://www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
53. Priest SH (2001) Misplaced faith—communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Sci Commun 23(2):97–11010.1177/1075547001023002002 ↗
54. Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–76610.1111/1539-6924.00353 ↗
55. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2003) Nanotechnology: societal implications—maximizing benefit for humanity. A report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Arlington, VA
56. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–75810.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
57. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–12210.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x ↗
58. Scheufele DA (2001) Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In: Hart RP, Shaw D (eds) Communication and U.S. elections: New Agendas. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, pp 19–32
59. Scheufele DA (2002) Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Commun Res 29(1):46–6510.1177/009365020202900103 ↗
60. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
61. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T-J, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):91–9410.1038/nnano.2008.361 ↗
62. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–37910.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
63. Sententia W (2004) Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1013:221–22810.1196/annals.1305.014 ↗
64. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–20310.1111/0272-4332.202020 ↗
65. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20(3):353–36210.1111/0272-4332.203034 ↗
66. Sinclair J, Irani T (2005) Advocacy advertising for biotechnology. J Advert 34(3):59–7310.1080/00913367.2005.10639203 ↗
67. Sjoberg L (2002) Attitudes toward technology and risk: going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sci 35(4):379–40010.1023/A:1021354900928 ↗
68. Sjoberg L (2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Rep 5:S47–S5110.1038/sj.embor.7400258 ↗
69. Sjoberg L, Winroth E (1986) Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scand J Psychol 27(3):191–20810.1111/j.1467-9450.1986.tb01197.x ↗
70. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 36:280–28510.1126/science.3563507 ↗
71. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701
72. Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165(3899):1232–123810.1126/science.165.3899.1232 ↗
73. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–19910.1177/1075547005281520 ↗
74. Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–7410.1177/0963662504042690 ↗
75. Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C (2005) Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genet Soc 24(1):31–5610.1080/14636770500037693 ↗
76. Sztompka P (1999) Trust: a sociological theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
77. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–38110.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗