What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions
Source abstract
Abstract
Audiences are most likely to form their opinions about issues based on the aspects that are primed and easily available in their minds (Hastie and Park, Psychol Rev 93:258–268, 1986; Tversky and Kahneman, Cogn Psychol 5:207–232, 1973). In this study, we examine how priming people with various definitions of nanotechnology differently shapes public perceptions of and engagement with the technology. Using a randomized experimental design embedded in a representative survey of the U.S. population (n = 1,736), we find that defining nanotechnology in terms of novel applications increases public support for nanotechnology but does not motivate audiences to gather more information about it. In contrast, definitions highlighting the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology can increase likelihood of future information seeking.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Misinformation and Its Impacts · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Media Influence and Health
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (14)
Show source-provided references
1. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–239. doi: 10.1177/107554700528147310.1177/1075547005281473 ↗
2. Folkes VS (1988) The availability heuristic and perceived risk. J Consum Res 15:13–23. doi: 10.1086/20914110.1086/209141 ↗
3. Hastie R, Park B (1986) The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or online. Psychol Rev 93:258–268. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.93.3.25810.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258 ↗
4. Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotech 4:705–706. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.32910.1038/nnano.2009.329 ↗
5. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292. doi: 10.2307/191418510.2307/1914185 ↗
6. Kunreuther HC (2001) Protective decisions: fear or prudence. In: Hoch SJ, Kunreuther HC, Gunther RE (eds) Wharton on making decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 259–272
7. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Commun Q 83:819–834. doi: 10.1177/10776990060830040610.1177/107769900608300406 ↗
8. Peter D, Hart Associates (2006) Report findings based on a national survey of adults. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington
9. Peter D, Hart Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington
10. Peter D, Hart Associates (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, & public opinion: a report of findings, based on a national survey of adults. Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington
11. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-210.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
12. Schwarz N et al (1991) Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:195–202. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.19510.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195 ↗
13. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-910.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 ↗
14. NISE Network Content Map. Available at http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_guides/nanoscale_science_informal_learning_experiences_nise_network_content_map . Accessed 18 Jan 2013