Abstract
We report findings from a national telephone survey on levels of knowledge about and attitudes toward nanotechnology that demonstrate how people make decisions about emerging technologies. Our findings confirm previous research that suggests that people form opinions and attitudes even in the absence of relevant scientific or policy-related information. In fact, our data show that cognitive shortcuts or heuristics – often provided by mass media – are currently a key factor in influencing how the public thinks about nanotechnology and about its risks and benefits, and in determining the level of support among the public for further funding for research in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
W.S. Bainbridge (2002) ArticleTitlePublic attitudes toward nanotechnology J. Nanoparticle. Res. 4 IssueID6 561–570
M.W. Bauer I. Schoon (1993) ArticleTitleMapping variety in public understanding of science Public Understanding Sci. 2 IssueID2 141–155
M.D. Cobb J. Macoubrie (2004) ArticleTitlePublic perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust J. Nanoparticle Res. 6 IssueID4 395–405 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
P.E. Converse (2000) ArticleTitleAssessing the capacity of mass electorates Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 3 331–353
S.T. Fiske S.E. Taylor (1991) Social Cognition EditionNumber2 McGraw-Hill New York
G. Gaskell T. Ten Eyck J. Jackson G. Veltri (2004) ArticleTitlePublic attitudes to nanotechnology in europe and the united states Nature Materials 3 IssueID8 496 Occurrence Handle10.1038/nmat1181 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXmtVOhs7Y%3D
S. Iyengar (1996) ArticleTitleFraming responsibility for political issues Ann. Amer. Acad. Polit. SS 546 59–70
H.C. Kunreuther (2001) Protective decisions: Fear or prudence S.J. Hoch H.C. Kunreuther R.E. Gunther (Eds) Wharton on Making Decisions John Wiley & Sons New York, NY 259–272
J.D. Miller (1998) ArticleTitleThe measurement of civic scientific literacy Public Understanding Sci. 7 IssueID3 203–223
M.C. Nisbet D. Brossard A. Kroepsch (2003) ArticleTitleFraming science – the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics Harv. Int. J. Press-Poltics 8 IssueID2 36–70
M.C. Nisbet B.V. Lewenstein (2002) ArticleTitleBiotechnology and the american media – the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999 Sci. Commun. 23 IssueID4 359–391 Occurrence Handle10.1177/107554700202300401
B.I. Page R.Y. Shapiro (1992) The Rational public University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL
S.L. Popkin (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns EditionNumber2 University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL
V. Price D. Tewksbury (1997) News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing G.A. Barett F.J. Boster (Eds) Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion (vol 13) Ablex Greenwich, CT 173–213
M.C. Roco (2003) ArticleTitleBroader societal issues of nanotechnology J. Nanoparticle Res. 5 IssueID3–4 181–189
M.C. Roco W.S. Bainbridge (Eds) (2001) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, MA
D.A. Scheufele (1999) ArticleTitleFraming as a theory of media effects J. Commun. 49 IssueID1 103–122
D.A. Scheufele (2000) ArticleTitleAgenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication Mass Communication & Society 3 IssueID2 & 3 297–316
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scheufele, D.A., Lewenstein, B.V. The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. J Nanopart Res 7, 659–667 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2