Perceptions and attitude effects on nanotechnology acceptance: an exploratory framework
- 653 Downloads
Existing literature in people’s attitude toward nanotechnology and acceptance of nanotechnology applications has generally investigated the impact of factors at the individual or context levels. While this vast body of research is very informative, a comprehensive understanding of how attitude toward nanotechnology are formed and factors influencing the acceptance of nanotechnology are elusive. This paper proposes an exploratory nanotechnology perception-attitude-acceptance framework (Nano-PAAF) to build a systematic understanding of the phenomenon. The framework proposes that perceptions of risks and benefits of nanotechnology are influenced by cognitive, affective, and sociocultural factors. The sociodemographic factors of consumers and contextual factors mitigate the influence of cognitive, affective, and sociocultural factors on the perception of risks and benefits. The perceived risks and benefits in turn influence people’s attitude toward nanotechnology, which then influences acceptance of nanotechnology products. This framework will need further development over time to incorporate emerging knowledge and is expected to be useful for researchers, decision and policy makers, industry, and business entities.
KeywordsRisk perception Benefit perception Attitude towards nanotechnology Nanotechnology acceptance Societal implications
Compliance with ethical standards
A part of this study (2012–2014) was supported with funds from National Science Foundation (NSF grant no. CMMI-1125674, PI: Bezbaruah), and additional work done in 2015–2016 was supported with funds from National Institute for Food and Agriculture (AFRI-USDA-NIFA, grant no. 2012-67018-30186, project no. ND05048, PI: Bezbaruah).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Amenta V, Aschberger K, Arena M, Bouwmeester H, Moniz FB, Brandhoff P, Gottardo S, Marvin HJP, Mech A, Pesudo LQ, Rauscher H, Schoonjans R, Vettori MV, Weigel S, Peters RJ (2015) Regulatory aspects of nanotechnology in the agri/feed/food sector in EU and non-EU countries. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 73(1):463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):243–254Google Scholar
- Beaudrie CEH, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH (2013) Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. PLoS One 8(11)Google Scholar
- Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerging Health Threats 3:e8Google Scholar
- Chen H, Roco MC, Son J, Jiang S, Larson CA, Gao Q (2013) Global nanotechnology development from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and effect of NSF funding. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(9)Google Scholar
- Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. Sci Commun 6:240–267Google Scholar
- Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2007) Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Earthscan, London, pp 1–49Google Scholar
- EWG (Environmental Working Group) (2016) Nanoparticles in sunscreens available at https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/nanoparticles-in-sunscreen/ Accessed August 2016.
- Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
- Gasparro A (2015) Chipotle says it has finished removing GMO ingredients from menu. In The Wall Street Journal, April 27Google Scholar
- Giles EL, Kuznesof S, Clark B, Hubbard C, Frewer LJ (2015) Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for food nanotechnology: a systematic review. J Nanopart Res 17(12)Google Scholar
- Gupta N, Fischer ARH, George S, Frewer LJ (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(8)Google Scholar
- Lewis D (2015) Some brands are labeling products “GMO-free” even if they don’t have genes. Smithsonian Magazine, August 27Google Scholar
- Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In communication and persuasion. Springer, New York, pp 1–24Google Scholar
- RNCOS (2015) Global Nanotechnology Market Outlook 2022 Accessed June 2016Google Scholar
- Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2013) The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, technology, and society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(9)Google Scholar
- Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Scheufele DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. The Wellcome Trust, London, pp 20–25Google Scholar
- Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701Google Scholar
- Trumbo CW (1999) Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal 19(3):391–400Google Scholar
- van Giesen RI, Fischer ARH, van Dijk H, van Trijp HCM (2015) Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. Plos One, 10(10)Google Scholar
- Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
- Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technoogy: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q 36(1):157–178Google Scholar
- Yue C, Zhao S, Cummings C, Kuzma J (2015) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res 17(7)Google Scholar