Skip to main content
Log in

A Computer-Aided Affective Content Analysis of Nanotechnology Newspaper Articles

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the application of an affective content analysis to a selection of nanotechnology news articles gathered from selected newspapers. Thematic content analyses dominate current efforts to mine large text collections of popular science media; the addition of an affective analysis element can yield useful information to supplement future content analysis efforts. Using Whissell’s Dictionary of Affect in Language, the analysis rates news articles gathered over a twenty-two year period for their pleasantness, activeness, and imagery, determining the mean affective tone in each category for the entire collection, four ‘content themes’ (business, national security, health, and environment), and the change in affective tone over the twenty-two year period these articles represent. Whereas the entire collection analyzed as a whole rates very similarly to the average found for everyday English language use and the ‘content themes’ show similar results, the change in affective tone over the years has been both significant and striking. A sample of results from three years of the twenty-two year period is then qualitatively explored to demonstrate to the reader the connection between the quantitative results of the Dictionary and the qualitative effect of the article’s word use and phrasing. The paper ends with a review of the technique’s success, implications for policymaking and public dialogue, and avenues for future use.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. PEN, The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed October 5, 2010. There has been some disagreement with this figure, though, and the actual number may be lower—see Berube, David; Searson, Eileen, Morton, Timothy; Cummings, Christopher (2010). Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies—Consumer Product Inventory Evaluated. Nanotechnology Law & Business 152(7): 152–163.

  2. Interestingly, the word ‘academic’ rates at 1.8, 1.5, and 2.6. I will allow the reader to come to their own conclusions.

References

  1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnologies in the news. J Risk Res 13(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British Press. Sci Commun 27(2):200–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Blackford J, Buckholtz J, Avery S, Zald D (2010) A unique role for the human amygdale in novelty detection. Neuroimage 50(3):1188–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett LF (2006) Solving the emotion paradox: categorization and the experience of emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10(1):20–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bower G (1981) Mood and memory. Am Psychol 36(2):129–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brunet P, Schmidt L (2008) Are shy adults really bolder online? It depends on the context. Cyberpsychol Behav 11(6):707–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brunet P, Schmidt L (2009) Sex differences in the expression and use of computer-mediated affective lanugage: does context matter? Soc Sci Comput Rev 28(2):194–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bush G, Luu P, Posner M (2000) Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulated cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 4(6):215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chong D, Druckman J (2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. Am Polit Sci Rev 101(4):637–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Druckman J (2001) On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? J Polit 63(4):1041–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Druckman J, McDermott R (2008) Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Polit Behav 30:297–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele D (2011) Food nanotechnology in the news: coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverge of nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Comm Q 88(1):55–75

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ebeling M (2008) Mediating uncertainty: communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Sci Commun 29(3):335–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Frewen P, Dozois D, Neufeld R, Densmore M, Stevens T, Lanius R (2010) Neuroimaging social emotional processing in women: fMRI study of script-driven imagery. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6(3):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gamson W, Modigliani A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol 95(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gamson W (1992) Talking politics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gross K, D’Ambrosio L (2004) Framing emotional response. Polit Psychol 25(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gross K, Brewer P (2007) Sore losers: news frames, policy debates, and emotions. Harv Int J Press/Polit 12(1):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gross K (2008) Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Polit Psychol 29(2):169–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hirschberg J, Benus S, Brenier J, Enos F, Friedman S, Gilman S, Girand C, Graciarena M, Kathol A, Michaelis L, Pellom B, Shriberg E, Stolcke A (2005) Distinguishing Deceptive from Non-Deceptive Speech. Proceedings of Interspeech 2005 – Eurospeech. J Risk Res 13(1):29–44

    Google Scholar 

  23. Iyengar S (1991) Is anyone responsible? University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G (2007) Nanotechnology risk perceptions: the influence of affect and values. Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

  25. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kjolberg K (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers—implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3:61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcus G, Neuman WR, Mackuen M (2000) Affective intelligence and political judgment. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  28. Massey SA, Druin A, Weeks AC (2007) Emotion, response, and recommendation: the role of affect in children’s book reviews in a digital library. In: Nahl D, Bilal D (eds) Information and emotion: the emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory. Medford, Information Today, pp 135–160

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCombs M (2004) E. Setting the agenda: mass media and public opinion, Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  30. McKechnie L, Ross CS (2007) Affective dimensions of information seeking in the context of reading. In: Nahl D, Bilal D (eds) Information and emotion: the emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory. Medford, Information Today, pp 187–195

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nelkin D (1987) Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. W.H. Freeman.

  32. Nelson T, Kinder T (1996) Issue framing and group-centrism in American public opinion. J Polit 58(November):1055–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nelson T, Clawson R, Oxley Z (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effects on tolerance. Am Pol Sci Rev 91(3):567–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C (2008) Opening the black box: scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Underst Sci 18(5):512–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Posner J, Russell J, Peterson B (2005) The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 17:715–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Posner J, Russell J, Gerber A, Gorman D, Colibazzi T, Yu S, Wang Z, Kangarlu A, Zhu H, Peterson B (2009) The neurophysiological bases of emtoion: an fMRI study of the affective circumplex using emotion-denoting words. Hum Brain Mapp 30(3):883–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ruiter C, Brosschot J (1994) The emotional stroop interference effect in anxiety: attentional bias or cognitive avoidance? Behav Res Ther 32(3):315–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Russell J (1978) Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 36(10):1152–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Russell J (2003) Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev 110(1):145–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun 49(1):103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Scheufele DA (2000) Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Comm Soc 3(2&3):297–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Scheufele D, Corley E, Shih T, Dalrymple K, Ho S (2008) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 3(4):91–94

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schutz H, Wiedermann P (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sergerie K, Armony J, Menear M, Sutton H, Lepage M (2010) Influence of emotional expression on memory recognition bias in schizophrenia as revealed by fMRI. Schizophr Bull 36(4):800–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stephens L (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and Non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tsai J, Miao F, Seppala E (2007) Good feelings in Christianity and Buddhism: religious differences in ideal affect. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33(3):409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Weaver DA, Bimber B (2009) Finding news stories: a comparison on searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism Mass Comm Q 85(3):515–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Weaver D, Lively E, Bimber B (2009) News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulations. Sci Commun 31(2):139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Whissell C (2008) Emotional fluctuations in Bob Dylan’s lyrics measured by the dictionary of affect accompany events and phrases in his life. Psychol Rep 102(2):469–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Whissell C (2009) Using the revised dictionary of affect in language to quantify the emotional undertones of samples of natural language. Psychol Rep 105:509–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Whissell C. Whissell’s dictionary of affect in language: technical manual and user’s guide. Retrieved January 20, 2011 from http://www.hdcus.com/manuals/wdalman.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dave Guston for his invaluable advice through all stages of bringing this paper to publication. I would also like to thank Brianne Wells and Chance Chandler for discussions of ideas and reviews of early paper drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, R. A Computer-Aided Affective Content Analysis of Nanotechnology Newspaper Articles. Nanoethics 5, 319–334 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0129-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0129-8

Keywords

Navigation