Selective perception of novel science: how definitions affect information processing about nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This study examines how familiarity with an issue—nanotechnology—moderates the effect of exposure to science information on how people process mediated messages about a complex issue. In an online experiment, we provide a nationally representative sample three definitions of nanotechnology (technical, technical applications, and technical risk/benefit definitions). We then ask them to read an article about the topic. We find significant interactions between perceived nano-familiarity and the definition received in terms of how respondents perceive favorable information conveyed in the stimulus. People less familiar with nanotechnology were more significantly affected by the type of definition they received.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Advanced Text Analysis Techniques · Misinformation and Its Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum Res 13:411–45410.1086/209080 ↗
2. Anderson AA, Kim J, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA (2013) What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions. J Nanopart Res 15(2):1–5. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z ↗
3. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2014) The nasty effect: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(3):373–38710.1111/jcc4.12009 ↗
4. Arkes JR, Boehm LE, Xu G (1991) Determinants of judged validity. J Exp Soc Psychol 27:576–605. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(91)90026-310.1016/0022-1031(91)90026-3 ↗
5. Batra R, Stayman DM (1990) The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. J Consum Res 17(2):203–21410.1086/208550 ↗
6. Bergen L, Grimes T, Potter D (2005) How attention partitions itself during simultaneous message presentations. Hum Commun Res 31(3):311–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00874.x10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00874.x ↗
7. Bohner G, Apostolidou W (1994) Mood and persuasion: independent effects of affect before and after message processing. J Soc Psychol 134:707–709. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1994.992300410.1080/00224545.1994.9923004 ↗
8. Cappella JN (2006) Integrating Message Effects and Behavior Change Theories: Organizing Comments and Unanswered Questions. J Commun 56(s1):S265–S27910.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00293.x ↗
9. Case DO, Andrews JE, Johnson JD, Allard SL (2005) Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. J Med Libr Assoc 93(3):353
10. Chaffee S, Saphir MN, Graf J, Sandvig C, Hahn KS (2001) Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication 18(3):247–272. doi: 10.1080/1058460015240033810.1080/10584600152400338 ↗
11. Cherry EC (1953) Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25(5):975–97910.1121/1.1907229 ↗
12. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–23910.1177/1075547005281473 ↗
13. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Sci and Technol 6(4):395–405
14. Conover PJ, Feldman S (1984) How people organize the political world: a schematic model. Am J Polit Sci 28(1):95–12610.2307/2110789 ↗
15. Cowan N (1988) Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychol Bull 104(2):163–19110.1037/0033-2909.104.2.163 ↗
16. Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434. doi: 10.1177/107554700831622210.1177/1075547008316222 ↗
17. Dearborn DC, Simon HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry 21(2):140–14410.2307/2785898 ↗
18. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2012) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun 34(1):5–29. doi: 10.1177/107554701141789210.1177/1075547011417892 ↗
19. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 88(1):55–75
20. Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Harper & Row, New York10.1515/9781503620766 ↗
21. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum of impression formation from category based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 23. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–74
22. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 16–15
23. Fung TKF, Brossard D, Ng I (2011) There is water everywhere: how news framing amplifies the effect of ecological worldviews on preference for flood protection policy. Mass Communication and Society 14(5):553–577. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2010.52129110.1080/15205436.2010.521291 ↗
24. Gamson WA (1992) Talking politics. Cambridge University Press, New York
25. Garcia-Marques T, Mackie DM (2001) The feeling of familiarity as a regulator of persuasive processing. Soc Cogn 19(1):9–34. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.1.9.1895910.1521/soco.19.1.9.18959 ↗
26. Gregan-Paxton J, John DR (1997) Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. J Consum Res 24:266–284. doi: 10.1086/20950910.1086/209509 ↗
27. Hart Research Associates (2013) Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: a report of findings, based on a national survey among adults. Project on Synthetic Biology Project the Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/emergingissues-2013-07-WilsonCenter-SynbioSurvey-en.pdf
28. Hwang Y (2010) Selective exposure and selective perception of anti-tobacco campaign messages: the impacts of campaign exposure on selective perception. Health Commun 25:182–190. doi: 10.1080/1041023090347402710.1080/10410230903474027 ↗
29. Hwang H, Gotlieb MR, Nah S, McLeod DM (2007) Applying a cognitive-processing model to presidential debate effects: Postdebate news analysis and primed reflection. J Commun 57:40–59. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00328.x10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00328.x ↗
30. Iyengar S, Hahn KS, Krosnick JA, Walker J (2008) Selective exposure to campaign communication: the role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics 70(1):186–200. doi: 10.1017/S002238160708013910.1017/S0022381607080139 ↗
31. 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 ↗
32. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
33. Kim KS (2011) Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: the hostile media approach. Public Underst Sci 20(5):690–70510.1177/0963662510372313 ↗
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. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.48010.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 ↗
36. Kunreuther HC (2001) Protective decisions: Fear or prudence. In: Hoch SJ, Kunreuther HC, Gunther RE (eds) Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp 259–272
37. Ladwig P, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2012) Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Sci Public Policy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs04810.1093/scipol/scs048 ↗
38. Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitive and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. doi: 10.1177/107554700528147410.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
39. 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.
40. Olson JM, Stone J (2005) The influence of behavior on attitudes. In: Albarracı’n D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
41. Park S, Hitchon JB, Yun GW (2004) The effects of brand familiarity in alignment advertising. J. Mass Commun. Q. 81(4):750–76510.1177/107769900408100403 ↗
42. Popkin S (1994) The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
43. Schäfer MS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: an empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Sci Commun 30(4):475–505. doi: 10.1177/107554700832694310.1177/1075547008326943 ↗
44. Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC (2012) 2 Commentary Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement. Communication Yearbook 36:36–45
45. Science, Media, and the Public Research Group (SCIMEP) (2015) Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, Department of Life Sciences Communication. Available from http://scimep.wisc.edu/projects/reports/
46. Sha B, Lundy LK (2005) The power of theoretical integration: merging the situational theory of publics with the elaboration likelihood model. Presented in the 8th International Public Relations Research Conference Proceedings
47. Shen F, Edwards HH (2006) Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: a value-based account of framing effects. J Commun 55(4):795–809. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.x ↗
48. Song H, Schwarz N (2009) If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychol Sci 20(2):135–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x ↗
49. Stroud NJ (2011) Niche news: the politics of news choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001 ↗
50. Turner M, Rimal RN, Morrison D, Kim H (2006) The role of anxiety in seeking and retaining risk information: testing the risk perception attitude framework in two studies. Hum Commun Res 32:130–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00006.x10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00006.x ↗
51. Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of personality and social psychology 81(6):98910.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989 ↗
52. Wood W, Rhodes N, Biek M (1995) Working knowledge and attitude strength: an information- processing analysis. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude srength: antecedents and consequences. Mahwah
53. Wood BD, Vedlitz A (2007) Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. Am J Polit Sci 51(3):552–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00267.x10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00267.x ↗
54. Yaros RA (2011) Effects of text and hypertext structures on user interest and understanding of science and technology. Sci Commun 33(3):275–308. doi: 10.1177/107554701038680310.1177/1075547010386803 ↗