Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research?

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnology is an emerging technology particularly vulnerable to societal unrest, which may hinder its further development. With the increasing convergence of several technological domains in the field of nanotechnology, so too could convergence of social science methods help to anticipate societal response. This paper systematically reviews the current state of convergence in societal response research by first sketching the predominant approaches to previous new technologies, followed by an analysis of current research into societal response to nanotechnology. A set of 107 papers on previous new technologies shows that rational actor models have played an important role in the study of societal response to technology, in particular in the field of information technology and the geographic region of Asia. Biotechnology and nuclear power have, in contrast, more often been investigated through risk perception and other affective determinants, particularly in Europe and the USA. A set of 42 papers on societal response to nanotechnology shows similarities to research in biotechnology, as it also builds on affective variables such as risk perception. Although there is a tendency to extend the rational models with affective variables, convergence in social science approaches to response to new technologies still has a long way to go. The challenge for researchers of societal response to technologies is to converge to some shared principles by taking up the best parts from the rational actor models dominant in information technology, whilst integrating non-rational constructs from biotechnology research. The introduction of nanotechnology gives a unique opportunity to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Final coding scheme available on request from corresponding author.

  2. The full list of these papers is available on request from corresponding author.

  3. This paper was in the included set because its abstract was in English.

  4. Overview available on request from the corresponding author.

  5. The full list of these papers is available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann J (2004) Military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives and concerns. Secur Dialogue 35(1):61–79. doi:10.1177/0967010604042536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(3):387–391. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9286-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 133:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford CA, English A, Davenport AF, Stinnett AJ (2009) Increasing adolescent vaccination: barriers and strategies in the context of policy, legal, and financial issues. J Adolesc Health 44(6):568–574. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazinoory S, Ghazinouri R (2009) Nanotechnology and sociopolitical modernity in developing countries: case study of Iran. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15(3):395–417. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.395-417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environ Res A 80(2):S230–S245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grinbaum A (2006) Cognitive barriers in perception of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):689–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510392485

  • Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2004) Consumer’s resistance to genetically modified foods: the role of information in an uncertain environment. J Agric Food Ind Organ 2(2):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs A (2004) Sociological practitioners contributing to new product development: mapping the challenges. Sociol Res Online 9(4):28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown S, Emel J, Goble R, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz E, Rice RE (2009) Public views of mobile medical devices and services: a US national survey of consumer sentiments towards RFID healthcare technology. Int J Med Inform 78(2):104–114. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz E, Solomon F, Mee W, Lovel R (2009) Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Underst Sci 18(5):531–545. doi:10.1177/0963662507082016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konana P, Balasubramanian S (2005) The social-economic-psychological model of technology adoption and usage: an application to online investing. Decis Support Syst 39(3):505–524. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J (2010) Nanotechnology in animal production: upstream assessment of applications. Livest Sci 130(1–3):14–24. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Paradise J, Ramachandran G, Kim JA, Kokotovich A, Wolf SM (2008a) An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal 28(5):1197–1219. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Romanchek J, Kokotovich A (2008b) Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: a case studies approach. Risk Anal 28(4):1081–1098. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. doi:10.1177/1075547005281474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacOubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa Y, Shiroyama H, Kuroda K, Suzuki T (2010) Assessment of social implications of nanotechnologies in Japan: application of problem structuring method based on interview surveys and cognitive maps. Technol Forecast Soc Change 77(4):615–638. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara K, Morris R, Shadbolt N, Hitch GJ, Hall W, Beagrie N (2006) Memories for life: a review of the science and technology. J R Soc Interface 3(8):351–365. doi:10.1098/rsif.2006.0125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9(2):191–210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice RE, Katz JE (2008) Assessing new cell phone text and video services. Telecomm Policy 32(7):455–467. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2008.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimal AP, Moon W, Balasubramanian S (2005) Agro-biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United Kingdom. Br Food J 107(2):84–97. doi:10.1108/00070700510579162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology Biotechnology Information Technology and Cognitive Science. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7(1):1–13. doi:10.1007/s11051-004-2336-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronteltap A, van Trijp JCM, Renes RJ, Frewer LJ (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49(1):1–17. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk MF, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ, Gilissen LJWJ, Jacobsen E, Smulders MJM (2008) The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health Risk Soc 10(3):263–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte PA, Salamanca-Buentello F (2007) Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnology in the workplace. Environ Health Perspect 115(1):5–12. doi:10.1289/ehp.9456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(4):837–846. doi:10.1080/10807039.2010.501255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (2003) Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Anal 23(4):705–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–466. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stebbing M (2009) Avoiding the trust deficit: public engagement, values, the precautionary principle and the future of nanotechnology. J Bioethic Inq 6(1):37–48. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Imperial College Press, London, p 111

    Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo CW (1999) Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal 19(3):391–400

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo CW (2002) Information processing and risk perception: an adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. J Commun 52(2):367–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Gasser L, Siegrist M (2009) Systemic scenarios of nanotechnology: sustainable governance of emerging technologies. Futures 41(5):284–300. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Val 16(1):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by Cefic-LRI (Long-range Research Initiative).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LEI, Part of Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 35, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Amber Ronteltap

  2. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Arnout R. H. Fischer

  3. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Research Methodology Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Hilde Tobi

Authors
  1. Amber Ronteltap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnout R. H. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hilde Tobi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amber Ronteltap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ronteltap, A., Fischer, A.R.H. & Tobi, H. Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research?. J Nanopart Res 13, 4399 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0473-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0473-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation