Selective perception of novel science: how definitions affect information processing about nanotechnology

  • Jiyoun Kim
  • Heather Akin
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Michael Xenos
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
Perspectives

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.

Keywords

Information processing Issue familiarity Primed encoding Definitions of emerging technology Nanotechnology Nanoscience 

References

  1. Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum Res 13:411–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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)90026-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batra R, Stayman DM (1990) The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. J Consum Res 17(2):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappella JN (2006) Integrating Message Effects and Behavior Change Theories: Organizing Comments and Unanswered Questions. J Commun 56(s1):S265–S279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):353Google Scholar
  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:10.1080/10584600152400338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherry EC (1953) Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25(5):975–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):395–405Google Scholar
  14. Conover PJ, Feldman S (1984) How people organize the political world: a schematic model. Am J Polit Sci 28(1):95–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):163–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434. doi:10.1177/1075547008316222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dearborn DC, Simon HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry 21(2):140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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:10.1177/1075547011417892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):55–75Google Scholar
  20. Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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 1–74Google Scholar
  22. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 16–15Google Scholar
  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:10.1080/15205436.2010.521291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gamson WA (1992) Talking politics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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.19.1.9.18959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregan-Paxton J, John DR (1997) Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. J Consum Res 24:266–284. doi:10.1086/209509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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:10.1080/10410230903474027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.x Google Scholar
  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/S0022381607080139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  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):690–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 69–83Google Scholar
  35. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 259–272Google Scholar
  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/scs048 Google Scholar
  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:10.1177/1075547005281474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  40. Park S, Hitchon JB, Yun GW (2004) The effects of brand familiarity in alignment advertising. J. Mass Commun. Q. 81(4):750–765Google Scholar
  41. Popkin S (1994) The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Schäfer MS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: an empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Sci Commun 30(4):475–505. doi:10.1177/1075547008326943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC (2012) 2 Commentary Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement. Communication Yearbook 36:36–45Google Scholar
  44. 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/
  45. 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 ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stroud NJ (2011) Niche news: the politics of news choice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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):989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. MahwahGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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:10.1177/1075547010386803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiyoun Kim
    • 1
  • Heather Akin
    • 2
  • Dominique Brossard
    • 3
  • Michael Xenos
    • 4
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Annenberg Public Policy CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Life Sciences CommunicationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Communication ArtsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations