IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i5p965-980.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public

Author

Listed:
  • Jiyoun Kim
  • Sara K. Yeo
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Michael A. Xenos

Abstract

Using nanotechnology as a case study, this article explores (1) how people's perceptions of benefits and risks are related to their approval of nanotechnology, (2) which information‐processing factors contribute to public risk/benefit perceptions, and (3) whether individuals’ predispositions (i.e., deference to scientific authority and ideology) may moderate the relationship between cognitive processing and risk perceptions of the technology. Results indicate that benefit perceptions positively affect public support for nanotechnology; perceptions of risk tend to be more influenced by systematic processing than by heuristic cues, whereas both heuristic and systematic processing influence benefit perceptions. People who are more liberal‐minded tend to be more affected by systematic processing when thinking about the benefits of nanotechnology than those who are more conservative. Compared to less deferent individuals, those who are more deferent to scientific authority tend to be less influenced by systematic processing when making judgments about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology. Implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:965-980
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12141
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12141?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. LeeAnn Kahlor & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin & Kurt Neuwirth & James Giese, 2003. "Studying Heuristic‐Systematic Processing of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 355-368, April.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1762-1769, November.
    4. Nick Pidgeon & Barbara Harthorn & Terre Satterfield, 2011. "Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1694-1700, November.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Donna M. Dosman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Steve E. Hrudey, 2001. "Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 307-318, April.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    8. Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    9. Craig W. Trumbo, 1999. "Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 391-400, June.
    10. Branden B. Johnson, 2005. "Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 631-650, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    2. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley, 2008. "Individual‐ and Community‐Level Effects on Risk Perception in Cancer Cluster Investigations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 161-178, February.
    3. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    4. Jooyoung Kim & Hye‐Jin Paek, 2009. "Information Processing of Genetically Modified Food Messages Under Different Motives: An Adaptation of the Multiple‐Motive Heuristic‐Systematic Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1793-1806, December.
    5. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Math J. J. M. Candel & Hein De Vries & Nanne K. De Vries, 2012. "Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 54-66, January.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    7. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    8. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    9. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    10. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    11. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    12. Quan Gao & Hye Eun Lee, 2021. "How Framed Messages Influence Depression Assessment Intentions: Interactivity of Social Media as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Violet Muringai & Ellen Goddard, 2018. "Trust and consumer risk perceptions regarding BSE and chronic wasting disease," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 240-265, March.
    14. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 2020. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2067-2086, October.
    15. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    16. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    18. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    19. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    20. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:965-980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.