journal article·2011-10

Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research?

Amber Ronteltap, Arnout R. H. Fischer, Hilde Tobi

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 13· Issue 10
Publisher page

Abstract

Nanotechnology is an emerging technology particularly vulnerable to societal unrest, which may hinder its further development. With the increasing convergence of several technological domains in the field of nanotechnology, so too could convergence of social science methods help to anticipate societal response. This paper systematically reviews the current state of convergence in societal response research by first sketching the predominant approaches to previous new technologies, followed by an analysis of current research into societal response to nanotechnology. A set of 107 papers on previous new technologies shows that rational actor models have played an important role in the study of societal response to technology, in particular in the field of information technology and the geographic region of Asia. Biotechnology and nuclear power have, in contrast, more often been investigated through risk perception and other affective determinants, particularly in Europe and the USA. A set of 42 papers on societal response to nanotechnology shows similarities to research in biotechnology, as it also builds on affective variables such as risk perception. Although there is a tendency to extend the rational models with affective variables, convergence in social science approaches to response to new technologies still has a long way to go. The challenge for researchers of societal response to technologies is to converge to some shared principles by taking up the best parts from the rational actor models dominant in information technology, whilst integrating non-rational constructs from biotechnology research. The introduction of nanotechnology gives a unique opportunity to do so.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Risk Perception and Management · Misinformation and Its Impacts

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

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–21110.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T ↗
2. Altmann J (2004) Military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives and concerns. Secur Dialogue 35(1):61–79. doi: 10.1177/096701060404253610.1177/0967010604042536 ↗
3. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
4. Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(3):387–391. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9286-710.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
5. Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford, New York
6. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 133:319–33910.2307/249008 ↗
7. Ford CA, English A, Davenport AF, Stinnett AJ (2009) Increasing adolescent vaccination: barriers and strategies in the context of policy, legal, and financial issues. J Adolesc Health 44(6):568–574. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.11.01510.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.11.015 ↗
8. Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–119310.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002 ↗
9. Ghazinoory S, Ghazinouri R (2009) Nanotechnology and sociopolitical modernity in developing countries: case study of Iran. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15(3):395–417. doi: 10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.395-41710.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.395-417 ↗
10. Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environ Res A 80(2):S230–S24510.1006/enrs.1998.3940 ↗
11. Grinbaum A (2006) Cognitive barriers in perception of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):689–69410.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00088.x ↗
12. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/096366251039248510.1177/0963662510392485 ↗
13. Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2004) Consumer’s resistance to genetically modified foods: the role of information in an uncertain environment. J Agric Food Ind Organ 2(2):1–13
14. Jacobs A (2004) Sociological practitioners contributing to new product development: mapping the challenges. Sociol Res Online 9(4):2810.5153/sro.968 ↗
15. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–72010.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697 ↗
16. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown S, Emel J, Goble R, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–18710.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x ↗
17. Katz E, Rice RE (2009) Public views of mobile medical devices and services: a US national survey of consumer sentiments towards RFID healthcare technology. Int J Med Inform 78(2):104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.00110.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.001 ↗
18. Katz E, Solomon F, Mee W, Lovel R (2009) Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Underst Sci 18(5):531–545. doi: 10.1177/096366250708201610.1177/0963662507082016 ↗
19. Konana P, Balasubramanian S (2005) The social-economic-psychological model of technology adoption and usage: an application to online investing. Decis Support Syst 39(3):505–524. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2003.12.00310.1016/j.dss.2003.12.003 ↗
20. Kuzma J (2010) Nanotechnology in animal production: upstream assessment of applications. Livest Sci 130(1–3):14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.00610.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.006 ↗
21. Kuzma J, Paradise J, Ramachandran G, Kim JA, Kokotovich A, Wolf SM (2008a) An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal 28(5):1197–1219. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x ↗
22. Kuzma J, Romanchek J, Kokotovich A (2008b) Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: a case studies approach. Risk Anal 28(4):1081–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.0107110.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x ↗
23. Lee CJ, 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):240–267. doi: 10.1177/107554700528147410.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
24. MacOubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
25. Nakagawa Y, Shiroyama H, Kuroda K, Suzuki T (2010) Assessment of social implications of nanotechnologies in Japan: application of problem structuring method based on interview surveys and cognitive maps. Technol Forecast Soc Change 77(4):615–638. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.00210.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.002 ↗
26. O’Hara K, Morris R, Shadbolt N, Hitch GJ, Hall W, Beagrie N (2006) Memories for life: a review of the science and technology. J R Soc Interface 3(8):351–365. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2006.012510.1098/rsif.2006.0125 ↗
27. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9(2):191–210. doi: 10.1080/1369857070130690610.1080/13698570701306906 ↗
28. Rice RE, Katz JE (2008) Assessing new cell phone text and video services. Telecomm Policy 32(7):455–467. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2008.05.00510.1016/j.telpol.2008.05.005 ↗
29. Rimal AP, Moon W, Balasubramanian S (2005) Agro-biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United Kingdom. Br Food J 107(2):84–97. doi: 10.1108/0007070051057916210.1108/00070700510579162 ↗
30. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology Biotechnology Information Technology and Cognitive Science. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA
31. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7(1):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11051-004-2336-510.1007/s11051-004-2336-5 ↗
32. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York
33. 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):1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002 ↗
34. Schenk MF, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ, Gilissen LJWJ, Jacobsen E, Smulders MJM (2008) The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health Risk Soc 10(3):263–28210.1080/13698570802160947 ↗
35. Schulte PA, Salamanca-Buentello F (2007) Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. Environ Health Perspect 115(1):5–12. doi: 10.1289/ehp.945610.1289/ehp.9456 ↗
36. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–37910.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
37. Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(4):837–846. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2010.50125510.1080/10807039.2010.501255 ↗
38. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (2003) Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Anal 23(4):705–71610.1111/1539-6924.00349 ↗
39. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–466. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
40. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–28510.1126/science.3563507 ↗
41. Stebbing M (2009) Avoiding the trust deficit: public engagement, values, the precautionary principle and the future of nanotechnology. J Bioethic Inq 6(1):37–48. doi: 10.1007/s11673-009-9142-910.1007/s11673-009-9142-9 ↗
42. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Imperial College Press, London, p 111
43. Trumbo CW (1999) Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal 19(3):391–400
44. Trumbo CW (2002) Information processing and risk perception: an adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. J Commun 52(2):367–38110.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02550.x ↗
45. Wiek A, Gasser L, Siegrist M (2009) Systemic scenarios of nanotechnology: sustainable governance of emerging technologies. Futures 41(5):284–300. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2008.11.01610.1016/j.futures.2008.11.016 ↗
46. Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Val 16(1):111–12110.1177/016224399101600108 ↗