Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to develop instruments that assess public knowledge of nanotechnology (PKNT), public attitudes toward nanotechnology (PANT) and conduct a pilot study for exploring the relationship between PKNT and PANT. The PKNT test was composed of six scales involving major nanotechnology concepts, including size and scale, structure of matter, size-dependent properties, forces and interactions, tools and instrumentation, as well as science, technology, and society. After item analysis, 26 multiple-choice questions were selected for the PKNT test with a KR-20 reliability of 0.91. Twenty items were developed in the PANT questionnaire which can be classified as scales of trust in government and industry, trust in scientists, and perception of benefit and risk. Cronbach alpha for the PANT questionnaire was 0.70. In a pilot study, 209 citizens, varying in age, were selected to respond to the instruments. Results indicated that about 70 % of respondents did not understand most of the six major concepts involving nanotechnology. The public tended to distrust government and industry and their levels of trust showed no relationship to their levels of knowledge about nanotechnology. However, people perceived that nanotechnology provided high benefits and high risks. Their perceptions of the benefits and risks were positively related with their knowledge level of nanotechnology. People’s trust showed a negative relationship to their risk perception. Implications for using these instruments in research are discussed in this paper.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PKNT:

Public knowledge of nanotechnology

PANT:

Public attitudes toward nanotechnology

References

  • Agresti A, Finlay B (1997) Statistical methods for the social sciences, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell P, Lewenstein B, Shouse A, Feder M (2009) Learning science in informal environments-people, places, and pursuits. The National Academic Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Brossard D, Shanahan J (2006) Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Sci Commun 28(1):47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanoparticle Res 9(2):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase CI (1978) Measurement for educational evaluation, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng TJ, Lin YP, Chou KT (2009) The risk perceptions about nanotechnology in Taiwan Taipei. Environmental Protection Administration, Taiwan

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanoparticle Res 6(4):395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling A, Clift R, Grobert N, Hutton D, Oliver R, O’Neill O et al (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyehouse MA, Diefes-Dux HA, Bennett DE, Imbrie PK (2008) Development of an instrument to measure undergraduates’ nanotechnology awareness, exposure, motivation, and knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol 17(5):500–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman CT (1990) Food safety and quality for the consumer: policies and communication. In: Macdonald JF (ed) Animal biotechnology: opportunities and challenges. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, pp 121–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46(3):289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1(3):221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita Y, Yokoyama H, Abe S (2006) Perception of nanotechnology among general public in Japan—of the NRI nanotechnology and society survey project. Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly 4:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, Forrester J, Robertson L (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–1969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S, McGuckin JT, Kumbhakar SC (1994) Technical efficiency, risk attitude, and adoption of new technology: the case of the US dairy industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 46(3):269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK (ed) (1993) Models and modelling in science education. Association for Science Education, Hatfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund NE (1985) Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Sci Educ 84(3):352–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John OP, Benot-Martinez V (2000) Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In: Keis HT, Judd CM (eds) Handbook of research methods in social psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 339–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones MG, Andre T, Superfine R, Taylor R (2003) Learning at the nanoscale: the impact of students’ use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. J Res Sci Teach 40:303–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter T, Negishi A, Taylor R (2006) Haptic augmentation of science instruction: does touch matter ? Sci Educ 90:111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation (March 7, 2007). GWU legal studies research paper no. 261; Yale Law School, public law working paper no. 155; GWU Law School public law research paper no. 261; 2nd Annual conference on empirical legal studies paper. Available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=968652

  • Krimsky S, Plough A (1988) Environmental hazards: communicating risks as a social process. Auburn House, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Pub Understand Sci 18:559–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch RC (2000) Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Sci Educ 84:71–94

    Article  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 27:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewinski N, Colvin V, Drezek R (2008) Cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. Small 4(1):26–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin HS, Cheng HJ, Lawrenz F (2000) The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. J Chem Educ 77(2):235–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Pub Understand Sci 15:221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Pub Understand Sci 7:203–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) What is nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html Retrieved 20 October 2010

  • Nature (2004) Going public. Nature 431(7011):883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll VH, Scannell DP, Craig RC (1979) Introduction to educational measurement, 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliva JM (2003) The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change. Int J Sci Educ 25(5):539–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S (2011) Nanotechnology: advantages and drawbacks in the field of construction and building materials. Constr Buil Mater 25(2):582–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin IP, Palgrave RG (2005) Self-cleaning coatings. J Mater Chem 15:1689–1695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecora TA, Owen MC, Marai CNJ, Setiad DH, Chass GA (2003) Bridging the gap between pure science and the general public: comparison of the informational exchange for these extremities in scientific awareness. J Mol Str Theochem 666:699–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH (2001) Misplaced faith—Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Sci Commun 23:97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH (2008) North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. J Risk Res 11(7):877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH (2012) Nanotechnology and the public- risk perception and risk communication. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as functions of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL (2000) Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess 12(3):287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 5:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez L, Peterson JW (1999) Risks from an “unknown” technology: how iowans perceive agricultural sludge. J Environ Educ 30(3):37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RS, RAE (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi J, Votruba AR, Farokhzad OC, Langer R (2010) Nanotechnology in drug delivery and tissue engineering: from discovery to applications. Nano Lett 10(9):3223–3230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20(3):353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(3):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SY, Sutherland LM, Krajcik JS (2009) The big ideas of nanoscale science & technology. NSTA Press, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C (2005) Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. N Genet Soc 24(1):31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron AM, Spencer D, Batt CA (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 8(5):569–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119(4):41–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant NSC 100-2511-S-110-004-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Changhua University of Education, No. 1, Jin-De Rd., Changhua City, 500, Taiwan

    Shu-Fen Lin

  2. Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, No. 70, Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung, 804, Taiwan

    Huann-shyang Lin & Yi-ying Wu

Authors
  1. Shu-Fen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huann-shyang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yi-ying Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huann-shyang Lin.

Appendix: The Questionnaire Items on the PANT

Appendix: The Questionnaire Items on the PANT

Trust in Scientists

  1. 1.

    Do you trust scientists’ reports about the research outcomes of emerging technologies? (e.g., nanotechnology)

  2. 2.

    Do you trust that all emerging technologies developed by scientists are good?

  3. 3.

    Do you trust that scientists understand what is good for the public?

  4. 4.

    Emerging technologies are complicated. Do you trust that scientists would explain them clearly to improve public understanding?

  5. 5.

    Do you trust the new tech products recommended by experts (e.g., scientists, doctors)?

Trust in Government Agencies and Industry

  1. 1.

    Do you trust in government agencies’ (e.g., Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Health) management/control of emerging technology products? (e.g., nanotech products)

  2. 2.

    When the government develops emerging technologies, do you trust that it will protect public benefits and health? (e.g., nanotechnology)

  3. 3.

    Do you trust in the security guarantees for emerging technology products made by the industrial sector? (e.g., nano-toilets, nano-cosmetics, nano-photo-catalysts)

  4. 4.

    Do you trust the advertisements of emerging technology products made by the industrial sector?

  5. 5.

    Do you trust that current industries would decrease the potential risks produced by the development of emerging technologies?

Perception of Benefits

  1. 1.

    The development of nanotech products would bring people more advantages than disadvantages.

  2. 2.

    Nanotechnology can provide people with newer and better ways to cure or examine their diseases.

  3. 3.

    Nanotechnology cannot provide people with newer and better ways to make the environment clean. (–)

  4. 4.

    Nanotechnology would make our lives more comfortable.

  5. 5.

    Nanotechnology can enhance the efficacy of high-tech products.

Perception of Risks

  1. 1.

    Nanotechnology would not hurt our health. (–)

  2. 2.

    The toxicity of nano-particles may be even higher than that of large-size particles.

  3. 3.

    Nanotechnology would not pollute our environment. (–)

  4. 4.

    Nanotechnology may lead to competition between the military forces of some countries.

  5. 5.

    Tiny monitors developed in nanotechnology may result in loss of privacy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, SF., Lin, Hs. & Wu, Yy. Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 548–559 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation