Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology

How do people judge nanotechnology risks that are completely unfamiliar to them? Drawing on results of previous studies on framing and risk perception, two hypotheses about potential influences on nanotechnology risk perception were examined in an experimental study: 1) Risk perception of nanotechnology is influenced by its benefit perception. 2) Risk perception of nanotechnology is influenced by the context in which nanotechnology is embedded, specifically by the characteristics of the enterprises that profit from nanotechnology: large multinational enterprises versus small and medium-sized enterprises. In contrast to findings for other new technologies, e.g. biotechnology, the different types of benefit did not affect risk perceptions in our study. However, we found that characterizing the enterprises as large multinational versus small or medium-sized leads to differences in risk perception. One can speculate that when personal knowledge about a technology is lacking, people use more familiar aspects from the social context as cues for their risk evaluation.

[1]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[2]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[3]  A. H. Arnall,et al.  Future Technologies, Today's Choices- Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics , 2003 .

[4]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[5]  Jonathan Jackson,et al.  Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States , 2005 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[7]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[8]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[9]  Christopher K. Hsee.  Attribute Evaluability and its Implications for Joint-Separate Evaluation Reversals and Beyond , 2006 .

[10]  medolbec.  Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming , 2010 .

[11]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  G. Gaskell,et al.  GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology , 2002 .

[14]  R. C. Schwing,et al.  Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? , 1980 .

[15]  S. Presser,et al.  Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context , 1996 .

[16]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  Characterising the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues , 1984 .

[17]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[18]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[19]  L. Sjöberg.  Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception , 2004 .

[20]  George Gaskell,et al.  Europeans and biotechnology in 2002 - Eurobarometer 58.0 : A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project "Life Sciences in European Society" , 2003 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk. , 1983 .

[23]  Michael D. Cobb.  Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology , 2005 .

[24]  J. Lassen,et al.  Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 , 2003 .

[25]  R. van Est,et al.  Om het kleine te waarderen... Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten , 2004 .

[26]  Holger Schütz,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Understanding amplification of complex risk issues: the risk story model applied to the EMF case , 2003 .

[27]  Chris Toumey,et al.  Narratives for Nanotech: Anticipating Public Reactions to Nanotechnology , 2004 .

[28]  Risk Perception and the Presentation of Self: Reflections from Fieldwork on Risk , 2006 .

[29]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk , 2005 .

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[32]  N. Weinstein,et al.  Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk Three Simulation Experiments , 1993 .