Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception: an empirical study

We analyze students' knowledge and risk perception of four technologies. The aim is to find out whether there is a relationship between area of study (self-selection) and progress of study (socialization) on the one hand and risk perception of technologies regarding health, environment and society on the other. The four technology fields under study are renewable energies, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies (ICT). Key results are: Irrespective of study area, study progress and gender, genetic engineering has the highest perceived risk and renewable energies has the lowest. This holds for all the risks studied (environmental, health, societal risks). For most risk perception variables, advanced students perceive lower risks than beginners, and students in a technical study area perceive lower risks than students in a non-technical area. Factor analyses show that common dimensions of risk are the technological areas and not the type of risk. Regression analyses show that the variables influencing perceived risks vary between the technological fields.

[1]  B. Ekehammar,et al.  Social attitudes and education: Self-selection or socialization?† , 1998 .

[2]  Paul DiMaggio.  Culture and cognition , 1997 .

[3]  U. Beck.  Risikogesellschaft auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne , 1986 .

[4]  H. Jungermann,et al.  The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: Knowledge and evaluations , 2000 .

[5]  Paul Windolf.  Selection and Self‐selection at German Mass Universities , 1995 .

[6]  N. Augustine.  Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future , 2006 .

[7]  Darla J. Twale,et al.  Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education, a Perilous Passage? , 2001 .

[8]  Monica C. Higgins,et al.  Where do alliances come from?: The effects of upper echelons on alliance formation , 2007 .

[9]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[10]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk , 1989 .

[12]  Ulrich Trautwein,et al.  Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major : A large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs , 2007 .

[13]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know , 2000 .

[14]  J. Schot,et al.  Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management , 1998 .

[15]  Arie Rip,et al.  Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology , 2007, 0911.2982.

[16]  E. Helpman.  General purpose technologies and economic growth , 1998 .

[17]  G. Urban,et al.  You have printed the following article : Modeling Multiattribute Utility , Risk , and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice , 2007 .

[18]  J. Houghton,et al.  Consistent National Policies for Converging Technologies: Some Preliminary Conclusions , 2006 .

[19]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis , 2008 .

[20]  Rabikar Chatterjee,et al.  The Innovation Diffusion Process in a Heterogeneous Population: A Micromodeling Approach , 1990 .

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

[22]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[23]  Ronald Hitzler,et al.  Literaturbesprechung zu: Beck, Ulrich: Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkarnp 1986 , 1988 .

[24]  Ortwin Renn.  Risk perception and risk management , 1989 .

[25]  Vernon W. Ruttan,et al.  General Purpose Technology, Revolutionary Technology, and Technological Maturity , 2008 .

[26]  Jane Macoubrie.  Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government , 2006 .

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

[28]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[29]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[30]  Mihail C Roco,et al.  Progress in Governance of Converging Technologies Integrated from the Nanoscale , 2006, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  10. Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods , 2003 .

[32]  W. Wood.  Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  Fb Timothy,et al.  General Purpose Technologies:Engines of Growth? Journal of Econometrics, . , 1995 .

[34]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .