Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks
Source abstract
Abstract
Over the last decade social scientific researchers have examined how the public perceives risks associated with nanotechnology. The body of literature that has emerged has been methodologically diverse. The findings have confirmed that some publics perceive nanotechnology as riskier than others, experts feel nanotechnology is less risky than the public does, and despite risks the public is optimistic about nanotechnology development. However, the extant literature on nanotechnology and risk suffers from sometimes widely divergent findings and has failed to provide a detailed picture of how the public actually feels about nanotechnology risks when compared to other risks. This study addresses the deficiencies in the literature by providing a comparative approach to gauging nanotechnology risks. The findings show that the public does not fear nanotechnology compared to other risks. Out of 24 risks presented to the participants, nanotechnology ranked 19th in terms of overall risk and 20th in terms of “high risk.”
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (55)
Show source-provided references
1. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
2. Balbus JM, Florini K, Denison RA, Walsh SA (2007) Protecting workers and the environment: an environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9:11–2210.1007/s11051-006-9173-7 ↗
3. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2010a) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.52163310.3109/17435390.2010.521633 ↗
4. Berube DM, Faber B, Scheufele DA, Cummings CL, Gardner GE, Martin KN, Martin MS, Temple NM (2010b) Communicating risk in the 21st century: The case of nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Arlington
5. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
6. Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA (2011). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/096366251039015910.1177/0963662510390159 ↗
7. Bishop G, Oldebdick RW, Tuchfarber AJ (1984) What must my interest in politics be if I just told you ‘I don’t know”? Public Opin Quart 53:510–51910.1086/268846 ↗
8. BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: views of the general public, quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study. BMRB International Report 45101, London
9. Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew (2007) Majority of consumers view the development of nanotechnology favourably. Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew Press Release 23. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/10563 . Accessed 1 October 2010
10. Burnstein E, Vinokur A (1975) When a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:123–13710.1016/0022-1031(73)90004-8 ↗
11. Burri RV, Belluci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:387–39110.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
12. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2009). From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci doi: 10.1177/096366250934781510.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
13. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–15510.1038/nnano.2006.155 ↗
14. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
15. Einsiedel E (2005) In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnologies among Canadian and US publics. J Nanotechnol Online. http://www.azonano.com/Details.as . Accessed 1 October 2010
16. Entin EE, Serfaty JD, Forester J (1989) Sequential processing of information from multiple sources. Technical Report TR-277- 1, Alphatech Inc., Burlington
17. European Commission. (2005) Europeans, science and technology. Eurobarometer special survey 154, organized and supervised by DG Press and Communication, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf . Accessed 27 September 2010
18. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–14510.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x ↗
19. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14:1101–110810.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x ↗
20. Fox CR, Irwin JR (1998) The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psych 20:57–7010.1207/s15324834basp2001_6 ↗
21. Gaskell G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
22. Gaskell G, Eyck TA, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) From our readers: public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3:49610.1038/nmat1181 ↗
23. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report105.pdf . Accessed 29 September 2010
24. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. Academic, New York, pp 95–113
25. Hart (2006) Public awareness of nano grows––majority remain unaware. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware . Accessed 28 September 2010
26. Hart (2007) Awareness of and attitude toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of-nanotech-stuck-at-low-level . Accessed 28 September 2010
27. Hart (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/final-synbioreport.pdf . Accessed 29 September 2010
28. Hart (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and public opinion. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/ . Accessed 29 September 2010
29. Hart (2010) Awareness and impression of synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://bio.org/ind/syntheticbiology/hart2010report_final.pdf . Accessed 10 October 2010
30. In science we trust (2010) In science we trust: poll results on how you feel about science. Sci Amer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll . Accessed 1 October 2010
31. Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:705–706. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.32910.1038/nnano.2009.329 ↗
32. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511809477 ↗
33. Kaplan D (2009) Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Sage, London10.4135/9781452226576 ↗
34. Kreyling W, Semmler-Behnke M, Moller W (2006) Health implications of nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 8:543–56210.1007/s11051-005-9068-z ↗
35. Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1996) Science, values, and risk. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 545:116–12510.1177/0002716296545001012 ↗
36. Levine T (2005) Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in communication research. Commun Res Rep 22:335–33810.1080/00036810500317730 ↗
37. MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Morgan MG (1994) Perceptions of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Anal 14:815–84810.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00293.x ↗
38. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241. doi: 10.1177/096366250605699310.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
39. Morrison JT (2009) Evaluating factor analysis decisions for scale design in communication research. Commun M Meas 3:195–21510.1080/19312450903378917 ↗
40. Mussweiler T, Strack F (2001) The semantic of anchoring. Organ Behav Hum Dec 86:234–25510.1006/obhd.2001.2954 ↗
41. Park H, Daley R, Lemus D (2002) The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Hum Comm Res 28:562–57710.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00824.x ↗
42. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2009) Risk perceptions starting to shift?. U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9789-510.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 ↗
43. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39:8985–899410.1021/es0506509 ↗
44. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5:181–18910.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
45. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.26510.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
46. 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 ↗
47. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.39210.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
48. Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H (2007) Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nat Nanotechnol 2:67. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.1010.1038/nnano.2007.10 ↗
49. TA Swiss-Centre for Technology Assessment (2006) Public reactions to nanotechnology in Switzerland: report on Publifocus discussion forum “nanotechnology, health and environment”. http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_pfna.html . Accessed 26 September 2010
50. Tourangeau R, Rasinski K, Bradburn N, D’Andrade R (1989) Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opin Quart 53:495–52410.1086/269169 ↗
51. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, New York10.1017/CBO9780511819322 ↗
52. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 3:207–23210.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 ↗
53. Vitale DC, Armenakis AA, Field HS (2008) Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: possible priming effects? J Mix Method Res 2:87–10510.1177/1558689807309968 ↗
54. Wilson T, Hodges S (1991) Attitudes as temporary constructs. In: Tesser J, Martin L (eds) The construction of social judgment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 37–65
55. Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Polit Sci 36:579–61610.2307/2111583 ↗