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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–239. doi:10.1177/1075547005281473
Folkes VS (1988) The availability heuristic and perceived risk. J Consum Res 15:13–23. doi:10.1086/209141
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.93.3.258
Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotech 4:705–706. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.329
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185
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
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:10.1177/107769900608300406
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
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
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
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/s11051-005-7526-2
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//0022-3514.61.2.195
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
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
Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (Grant No. SES-0937591) and the UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale (Grant No. SES-DMR-0832760). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Ethical standards
The Social & Behavioral Science Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison approved the use of human subjects in this research. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Those contacted who did not consent to participate were terminated from the survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, A.A., Kim, J., Scheufele, D.A. et al. What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions. J Nanopart Res 15, 1421 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z