Psychosocial and Cultural Factors Affecting Judgments and Decisions About Translational Stem-Cell Research

  • Melissa L. Finucane
  • Andrew E. Williams
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)


Stem-cell research is touted by some as a medical revolution giving rise to unprecedented hopes. Others view it as a violation of fundamental human values. Decisions about the acceptability or non-acceptability of translational research agendas will ultimately depend on a reconciliation of many psychosocial and cultural factors affecting judgment and decision processes. In this chapter we discuss some of the key elements defining risk perceptions and influencing risk debates, including affect, qualitative characteristics of the technology, worldview, values, decision style, and social networks. Recommendations for policymakers are provided to help improve communications among stakeholders.


Cultural values Decision making Emotion Intuition Risk perception Social networks Worldview 


  1. 1.
    International Society for Stem Cell Research. Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells. 2008. Available from
  2. 2.
    Nisbet MC. The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 2005; 17:90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kass L. The wisdom of repugnance. N Repub 1997; 216:17–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webster N. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damasio AR. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon; 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 1994; 49:709–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 1996; 119:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaiken S, Trope Y. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guildford; 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slovic P. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaller J. Information, values, and opinions. Am Polit Sci Rev 1991; 85:1215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Fortworth: Harcourt Brace; 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bimber B, Gunston D. Politics by the same means: Government and science in the United States. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch TJ, editors. The handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fukuyama F. Our post-human future. New York, Giroux: Farrar, Straus; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenoir N. Europe conflicts the embryonic stem cell research challenge. Science 2000; 287:1425–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A. Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harv Int J Press/Politics 2003; 8:36–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 2008; 20:171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kühnen U, Oyserman D. Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. J Exp Soc Psychol 2002; 38:492–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 2001; 108:291–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee SC. A Confucian evaluation of embryonic stem cell research and the moral status of the human embryos. In: Lee SC, editor. The family, medical decision making, and biotechnology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007. pp. 149–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sipp D. Stem cell research in Asia: A critical view. J Cell Biochem 2009; 107:853–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal 1988; 8:177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dearing JW. Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract 2008; 14:99–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Girvan M, Newman MEJ. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99:7821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kahan DM, Slovic P. Cultural evaluations of risk: “Values” or “blunders”? Harv Law Rev 2006; 119:166–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa L. Finucane
    • 1
  • Andrew E. Williams
  1. 1.East-West CenterHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations