Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media,interpersonal communication,and elaborative processing

Abstract

This study examines the influence of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing on public perception of benefits and risks of nanotechnology, based on a large-scale nationally representative telephone survey of U.S. adult citizens. Results indicate that cognitive processes in the form of news elaboration had a significant positive main effect on benefits outweigh risks perception. The influences of attention to science in newspapers, attention to science news on television, and interpersonal communication about science on public perception of benefits outweigh risks were moderated by elaborative processing, after controlling for socio-demographic variables, religious beliefs, trust in scientists, and scientific knowledge. The findings highlight the importance of elaborative processing when it comes to understanding how the mass media differentially influence public benefits outweigh risks perception of emerging technologies. Specifically, high elaborative processing emphasizes higher levels of perceived benefits outweigh risks than low elaborative processing. This study explores explanations for this phenomenon and offers implications for future research and policy.

Keywords

benefits elaborative processing interpersonal communication mass media nanotechnology risks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bainbridge

(2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 561–570.

Bainbridge

(2003) Religious opposition to cloning. Journal of Evolution and Technology 13: Available at (accessed 30 August 2008): http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html

Bergstein

(2008) Carbon nanotubes mimic asbestos in early study. The Associated Press 20 May.

Bodmer

(1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.

Brody

(1984) Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces 63: 209–228.

Brossard

Scheufele

Kim

Lewenstein

(2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–568.

Chang

(2008) In study, researchers find nanotubes may pose health risks similar to asbestos. The New York Times 21 May, p. A22.

Cobb

(2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 221–239.

Cobb

Macoubrie

(2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Science and Technology 6(4): 395–405.

10.

Cohen

West

Aiken

(2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11.

Coleman

(1993) The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research 20(4): 611–628.

12.

Corley

Scheufele

(2009) Of risks and regulations: How leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11: 1573–1585.

13.

Downs

(1972) Up and down with ecology: The “issue-attention cycle,” The Public Interest 28: 38–51.

14.

Dunwoody

Neuwirth

(1991) Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risks judgments. In: Wilkins

Patterson

(eds) Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risks, and Public Policy. New York: Greenwood, 11–30.

15.

Durant

Evans

Thomas

(1992) Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science 1: 161–182.

16.

Eveland

(2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research 28: 571–601.

17.

Eveland

(2002) News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 79(1): 26–40.

18.

Eveland

Shah

Kwak

(2003) Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during Campaign 2000. Communication Research 30(4): 359–386.

19.

Fredin

Kosicki

Becker

(1996) Cognitive strategies for media use during a presidential campaign. Political Communication 13: 23–42.

20.

Friedman

Egolf

(2005) Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society 24(4): 5–11.

21.

Gaskell

Eyck

Jackson

Veltri

(2004) Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials 3(8): 496.

22.

Griffin

Dunwoody

(2000) The relation of communication to risk judgment and preventive behavior related to lead in tap water. Health Communication 12(1): 81–107.

23.

(2010) Media representations of nanotechnology. In: Guston

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 412–413.

24.

Brossard

Scheufele

(2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20(2): 171–192.

25.

Scheufele

Corley

(2010) Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12(8): 2703–2715.

26.

Scheufele

Corley

(2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication 33(2): 167–200.

27.

Johnson

(1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk – Issues in Health and Safety 4(Summer): 189–212.

28.

Kosicki

McLeod

(1990) Learning from political news: Effects of media images and information-processing strategies. In: Kraus

(ed.) Mass Communication and Political Information Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 69–83.

29.

Lee

Scheufele

Lewenstein

(2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 240–267.

30.

Liu

Sun

Wang

Guo

F, et al

. (2009) PAMAM nanoparticles promote acute lung injury by inducing autophagic cell death through the Akt-TSC2-mTOR signaling pathway. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 1(1): 37–45.

31.

McComas

Shanahan

(1999) Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research 26(1): 30–57.

32.

McLeod

Kosicki

Pan

(1991) On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In: Curran

Gurevitch

(eds) Mass Media and Society. London: Edward Arnold, 235–266.

33.

Michelson

(2010) Consumer product inventory. In: Guston

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 117–121.

34.

Miller

Kimmel

(2001) Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies. New York: John Wiley.

35.

Morton

Duck

(2001) Communication and health beliefs: Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research 28(5): 602–626.

36.

National Science and Technology Council (2010) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. A report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, Washington, DC.

37.

Nelkin

Lindee

(1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman.

38.

Nisbet

(2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 90–112.

39.

Nisbet

Huge

(2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2): 3–40.

40.

Nisbet

Scheufele

(2007) The future of public engagement. The Scientist 21(10): 39–44.

41.

Nisbet

Brossard

Kroepsch

(2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in the age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8(2): 36–70.

42.

Poland

Duffin

Kinloch

Maynard

Wallace

WAH

Seaton

. (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 3(7): 423–428.

43.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2005) The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, May. Available at (accessed 14 February 2008): http://www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf

44.

Roco

Bainbridge

(2003) Nanotechnology: Societal Implications – Maximizing Benefit for Humanity. A report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Arlington, VA.

45.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122.

46.

Scheufele

(2002) Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research 29(1): 46–65.

47.

Scheufele

Lewenstein

(2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 659–667.

48.

Schutz

Wiedemann

(2005) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 17: 369–379.

49.

Science and Engineering Indicators (2008) Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. A report by the National Science Foundation. Available at (accessed 14 February 2008): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c07.pdf

50.

Sententia

(2004) Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013: 221–228.

51.

Siegrist

(1998) Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 24: 861–866.

52.

Siegrist

(2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20: 195–203.

53.

Siegrist

Keller

Kastenholz

Frey

Wiek

(2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 27(1): 59–69.

54.

Shapira

Youtie

(2010) United States. In: Guston

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 782–788.

55.

Shih

Wijaya

Brossard

(2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society 11(2): 141–160.

56.

Sparks

Shepherd

Frewer

(1994) Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agricultural and Human Values 11: 19–28.

57.

Stephens

(2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication 27(2): 175–199.

58.

Tyler

Cook

(1984) The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 693–708.