Perceptions and attitude effects on nanotechnology acceptance: an exploratory framework
Source abstract
Abstract
Existing literature in people’s attitude toward nanotechnology and acceptance of nanotechnology applications has generally investigated the impact of factors at the individual or context levels. While this vast body of research is very informative, a comprehensive understanding of how attitude toward nanotechnology are formed and factors influencing the acceptance of nanotechnology are elusive. This paper proposes an exploratory nanotechnology perception-attitude-acceptance framework (Nano-PAAF) to build a systematic understanding of the phenomenon. The framework proposes that perceptions of risks and benefits of nanotechnology are influenced by cognitive, affective, and sociocultural factors. The sociodemographic factors of consumers and contextual factors mitigate the influence of cognitive, affective, and sociocultural factors on the perception of risks and benefits. The perceived risks and benefits in turn influence people’s attitude toward nanotechnology, which then influences acceptance of nanotechnology products. This framework will need further development over time to incorporate emerging knowledge and is expected to be useful for researchers, decision and policy makers, industry, and business entities.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Chemical Safety and Risk Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (96)
Show source-provided references
1. Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (2000) Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they think they know. J Consum Res 27(2):123–15610.1086/314317 ↗
2. 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 ↗
3. Amenta V, Aschberger K, Arena M, Bouwmeester H, Moniz FB, Brandhoff P, Gottardo S, Marvin HJP, Mech A, Pesudo LQ, Rauscher H, Schoonjans R, Vettori MV, Weigel S, Peters RJ (2015) Regulatory aspects of nanotechnology in the agri/feed/food sector in EU and non-EU countries. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 73(1):463–47610.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.016 ↗
4. Areni CS, Ferrell ME, Wilcox JB (2000) The persuasive impact of reported group opinions on individuals low vs. high in need for cognition: rationalization vs. biased elaboration? Psychol Mark 17(10):855–87510.1002/1520-6793(200010)17:10<855::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-V ↗
5. Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):243–254
6. Beaudrie CEH, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH (2013) Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. PLoS One 8(11)10.1371/journal.pone.0080250 ↗
7. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Frith JH, Binder AR, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3089–309910.1007/s11051-011-0325-z ↗
8. Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerging Health Threats 3:e8
9. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
10. Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int 30(6):827–84010.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001 ↗
11. 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):546–55810.1177/0963662507087304 ↗
12. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30(5):512–54810.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
13. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385–40410.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
14. Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(5):752–76610.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 ↗
15. Chen H, Roco MC, Son J, Jiang S, Larson CA, Gao Q (2013) Global nanotechnology development from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and effect of NSF funding. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(9)10.1007/s11051-013-1951-4 ↗
16. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–23910.1177/1075547005281473 ↗
17. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. Sci Commun 6:240–267
18. Costa-Font J, Mossialos E (2006) The public as a limit to technology transfer: the influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. J Technol Transf 31(6):629–64510.1007/s10961-006-0019-3 ↗
19. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–34010.2307/249008 ↗
20. Dizon F, Costa S, Rock C, Harris A, Husk C, Mei J (2016) Genetically modified (GM) foods and ethical eating. J Food Sci 81(2):R287–R29110.1111/1750-3841.13191 ↗
21. Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013) Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 22(7):869–88510.1177/0963662512445011 ↗
22. Druckman JN (2004) Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am Polit Sci Rev 98(4):671–68610.1017/S0003055404041413 ↗
23. Druckman JN, Bolsen T (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J Commun 61(4):659–68810.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x ↗
24. Dudo A, Kahlor L, AbiGhannam N, Lazard A, Liang M-C (2014) An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nat Nanotechnol 9(10):841–84410.1038/nnano.2014.194 ↗
25. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2007) Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Earthscan, London, pp 1–49
26. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–5810.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ↗
27. EWG (Environmental Working Group) (2016) Nanoparticles in sunscreens available at https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/nanoparticles-in-sunscreen/ Accessed August 2016.
28. Fischer ARH, van Dijk H, de Jonge J, Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2013) Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Underst Sci 22(7):817–83110.1177/0963662512440220 ↗
29. Fisher E, Maricle G (2015) Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting. Sci Public Policy 42(1):72–8510.1093/scipol/scu017 ↗
30. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition. McGraw-Hill
31. Gasparro A (2015) Chipotle says it has finished removing GMO ingredients from menu. In The Wall Street Journal, April 27
32. George S, Kaptan G, Lee J, Frewer L (2014) Awareness on adverse effects of nanotechnology increases negative perception among public: survey study from Singapore. J Nanopart Res 16(12):1–1110.1007/s11051-014-2751-1 ↗
33. Giles EL, Kuznesof S, Clark B, Hubbard C, Frewer LJ (2015) Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for food nanotechnology: a systematic review. J Nanopart Res 17(12)10.1007/s11051-015-3270-4 ↗
34. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–79510.1177/0963662510392485 ↗
35. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, George S, Frewer LJ (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(8)10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4 ↗
36. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2015) Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: a comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. NanoEthics 9(2):93–10810.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 ↗
37. Hauser JR, Wernerfelt B (1990) An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J Consum Res 16(4):393–40810.1086/209225 ↗
38. 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 ↗
39. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(8):2703–271510.1007/s11051-010-0038-8 ↗
40. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–20010.1177/1075547010380386 ↗
41. Hoeffler S (2003) Measuring preferences for really new products. J Mark Res 40(4):406–42010.1509/jmkr.40.4.406.19394 ↗
42. Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):525–53110.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 ↗
43. Janiszewski C (1993) Preattentive mere exposure effects. J Consum Res 20(3):376–39210.1086/209356 ↗
44. Jones AR, Anderson AA, Yeo SK, Greenberg AE, Brossard D, Moore JW (2014) Using a deliberative exercise to Foster public engagement in nanotechnology. J Chem Educ 91(2):179–18710.1021/ed400517q ↗
45. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
46. Ladwig P, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2012) Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Sci Public Policy 39(6):761–77410.1093/scipol/scs048 ↗
47. Landau J, Groscurth CR, Wright L, Condit CM (2009) Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(3):325–33710.1177/0963662507080551 ↗
48. Lee EWJ, Ho SS (2015) The perceived familiarity gap hypothesis: examining how media attention and reflective integration relate to perceived familiarity with nanotechnology in Singapore. J Nanopart Res 17(5):1–1510.1007/s11051-015-3036-z ↗
49. Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27(2):240–26710.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
50. Lewis D (2015) Some brands are labeling products “GMO-free” even if they don’t have genes. Smithsonian Magazine, August 27
51. Liu H, Priest S (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Underst Sci 18(6):704–71810.1177/0963662508097625 ↗
52. Lucht JM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses-Basel 7(8):4254–428110.3390/v7082819 ↗
53. Maclnnis DJ, Moorman C, Jaworski BJ (1991) Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. J Mark 55(4):32–5310.2307/1251955 ↗
54. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
55. Mao H, Mariadoss BJ, Echambadi R, Chennamaneni PR (2012) Brand extensions via complements or substitutes: the moderating role of manufacturing transferability. Mark Lett 23(1):279–29210.1007/s11002-011-9153-2 ↗
56. McAlea EM, Mullins M, Murphy F, Tofail SAM, Carroll AG (2016) Engineered nanomaterials: risk perception, regulation and insurance. J Risk Res 19(4):444–46010.1080/13669877.2014.988168 ↗
57. Michelson ES (2013) “The train has left the station”: the project on emerging nanotechnologies and the shaping of nanotechnology policy in the United States. Rev Policy Res 30(5):464–48710.1111/ropr.12034 ↗
58. Mischel W, Shoda Y (1995) A cognitive-affective system-theory of personality—reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invarience in personality structure. Psychol Rev 102(2):246–26810.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246 ↗
59. Monga AB, John DR (2007) Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: the influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. J Consum Res 33(4):529–53610.1086/510227 ↗
60. 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 ↗
61. Nisbet MC, Goidel RK (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic—survey research divide. Public Underst Sci 16(4):421–44010.1177/0963662506065558 ↗
62. Nisbett R, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 108(2):291–31010.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291 ↗
63. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In communication and persuasion. Springer, New York, pp 1–24
64. 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(2):95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
65. Pillai RG, Bindroo V (2014) The moderating roles of perceived complementarity and substitutability on the perceived manufacturing difficulty–extension attitude relationship. J Bus Res 67(7):1353–135910.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.018 ↗
66. Retzbach A, Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M (2011) Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res 13(12):6231–624410.1007/s11051-011-0582-x ↗
67. RNCOS (2015) Global Nanotechnology Market Outlook 2022 Accessed June 2016
68. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2013) The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, technology, and society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(9)10.1007/s11051-013-1946-1 ↗
69. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York
70. Ronteltap A, van Trijp JCM, Renes RJ, Frewer LJ (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49(1):1–1710.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002 ↗
71. Ronteltap A, Fischer ARH, Tobi H (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies-converging societal response research? J Nanopart Res 13(10):4399–441010.1007/s11051-011-0473-1 ↗
72. Russell AW (2013) Improving legitimacy in nanotechnology policy development through stakeholder and community engagement: forging new pathways. Rev Policy Res 30(5):566–58710.1111/ropr.12037 ↗
73. 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 ↗
74. Scheufele DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. The Wellcome Trust, London, pp 20–25
75. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
76. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, T-j S, 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 ↗
77. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–37910.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
78. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007a) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
79. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007b) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–46610.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
80. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51(2):283–29010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
81. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl G-F (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1555–157110.1007/s11051-009-9653-7 ↗
82. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701
83. Steenis ND, Fischer ARH (2016) Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in food products: an attribute-based analysis. Br Food J 118(5):1254–126710.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0330 ↗
84. Trumbo CW (1999) Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal 19(3):391–400
85. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–45810.1126/science.7455683 ↗
86. van Giesen RI, Fischer ARH, van Dijk H, van Trijp HCM (2015) Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. Plos One, 10(10)10.1371/journal.pone.0141790 ↗
87. 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(2):373–38110.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
88. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–20410.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 ↗
89. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–47810.2307/30036540 ↗
90. Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technoogy: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q 36(1):157–17810.2307/41410412 ↗
91. Wiedemann P, Schutz H, Spangenberg A, Krug HF (2011) Evidence maps: communicating risk assessments in societal controversies: the case of engineered nanoparticles. Risk Anal 31(11):1770–178310.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01725.x ↗
92. Yue C, Zhao S, Cummings C, Kuzma J (2015) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res 17(7)10.1007/s11051-015-3084-4 ↗
93. Zhao M, Hoeffler S, Dahl DW (2009) The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. J Mark Res 46(1):46–5510.1509/jmkr.46.1.46 ↗
94. Zhao M, Hoeffler S, Zauberman G (2011) Mental simulation and product evaluation: the affective and cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation. J Mark Res 48(5):827–83910.1509/jmkr.48.5.827 ↗
95. Zhao M, Hoeffler S, Dahl DW (2012) Imagination difficulty and new product evaluation. J Prod Innov Manag 29(S1):76–9010.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00951.x ↗
96. Zwikael O, Ahn M (2011) The effectiveness of risk management: an analysis of project risk planning across industries and countries. Risk Anal 31(1):25–3710.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01470.x ↗