Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology

Abstract

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 mediumsized 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.

Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies

“…Surprisingly little attention has been paid to many other key variables in risk research, including the effects of framing by print and television media 57,58 , activists and health and safety advocates, and intuitions about toxicology (dose insensitivity or worries about carcinogenicity generally); frames that control for benefit-risk information and tradeoffs are also largely untested. This is a particularly fruitful area of research as it might help us understand, by mimicking in survey design, frames that capture the potential social contexts of emerging risks (for example, comparing frames that emphasize positive social climates and the support or not of respected civic and activist organizations).…”

Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment

“…As an indicator of the cultural resonance of the economic story of nanotechnology, several media analysis studies have shown the excessive framing of nanotechnology in economic terms, particularly in the US media (Gorss and Lewenstein, 2005 ;Schütz and Wiedemann, 2008;Stephens, 2005;Gaskell et al, 2005) (see Section 5.145.7.3). In this highly strategic focus, there is a consensus on economic benefit, but scant coverage on any kind of risk, whether financial, environmental, health or otherwise.…”

“…Coverage by the mass media has been used as a key barometer for ideas, opinions and ideological biases towards the concept of nanotechnology (Anderson et al 2005;Cobb, 2005;Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004; Hornig Priest, 2006;Stephens, 2005;Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005;Schütz and Wiedemann, 2008). While news media will cover nanoparticle risks from time-to-time, coverage is scant across the world and, not surprisingly, awareness is limited (Anderson et al, 2005).…”

“…There are perhaps some common observations that can be made about nanotechnology in the media and of audience/reader responses: first, there is little public knowledge of the subject; second, economic and global issue frames are prominent (see also Hornig Priest (2006), Stephens (2005) and Anderson et al (2005) for the identification of these types of frames 5 ); and third, nanotechnology peaked in coverage between 2003 and 2005. Many of these studies examine audience perceptions from pre-selected newspaper frames (Cobb, 2005;Schütz and Wiedemann, 2008). Cobb uses what he calls a 'thoughtful receiver' hypothesis, which places the citizen into an active agency, yet the model of communication still suggests a linear mechanism.…”

“…For the discourse analyst, frames are a means of organizing discourse that, according to Fisher (1997), create 'common sense' patterns of images or concepts. They emphasize and omit information and, within the framing theories of Gamson (1992) (Cobb, 2005;Schütz and Wiedemann, 2008). Cobb uses what he calls a 'thoughtful receiver' hypothesis, which places the citizen into an active agency, yet the model of communication still suggests a linear mechanism.…”