Abstract
Understanding emerging trends in public perceptions of nanomaterials is critically important for those who regulate risks. A number of surveys have explored public perceptions of their risks and benefits. In this paper we meta-analyse these surveys to assess the extent to which the following four hypotheses derived from previous studies of new technologies might be said to be valid for nanotechnologies: risk aversion will prevail over benefit appreciation; an increase in knowledge will not result in reduced aversion to risks; judgements will be malleable and subject to persuasion given risk-centric information; and contextual, psychometric and attitudinal predictors of perceived risk from prior studies can help anticipate future perceptions of nanotechnologies. We find that half the public has at least some familiarity with nanotechnology, and those who perceive greater benefits outnumber those who perceive greater risks by 3 to 1. However, a large minority of those surveyed (44%) is unsure, suggesting that risk judgements are highly malleable. Nanotechnology risk perceptions also appear to contradict some long-standing findings. In particular, unfamiliarity with nanotechnology is, contrary to expectations, not strongly associated with risk aversion and reduced ‘knowledge deficits’ are correlated with positive perceptions in this early and controversy-free period. Psychometric variables, trust and affect continue to drive risk perceptions in this new context, although the influence of both trust and affect is mediated, even reversed, by demographic and cultural variables. Given the potential malleability of perceptions, novel methods for understanding future public responses to nanotechnologies will need to be developed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
There has been unprecedented interest in anticipating how the public will respond to nanotechnology, including expectations of widespread risk aversion1, given the possible health risks associated with nanomaterials2. Many in the nanotechnology community worry that public protest could follow in a manner akin to that which has shadowed biotechnology in the UK and Europe or chemical and nuclear technologies in the United States3,4. Those who explore public perceptions of risk5 have traditionally studied social and psychological responses to risks, contamination events6 and technological disasters7 once they have occurred in order to forensically unearth the drivers of controversy including its correlates and amplifying agents8,9. The objective of such work has been to understand a number of phenomena: the logic of risk perceptions including their social and management contexts (for example, processes of risk regulation and risk communication); mental models or ‘lay judgements’ of the perceived causes and consequences of risk exposure; and attitudinal or affective variables that predict patterns of aversion to or tolerance of technological risks10. The correction of factually incorrect risk perceptions per se has not been the primary concern (although some of this has occurred11). Conversely, what is now termed ‘upstream research’12 with emerging nanotechnologies involves monitoring perceptions before any widely accepted empirical evidence of potential heath risks can be inferred, or any hint of controversy can be detected. It also means measuring perceptions of nanotechnologies well before they exist as a definable entity or class of objects in the publics' imaginations or before new regulatory contexts are in place13. Perception is critical14 for a number of reasons: because human behaviour is derivative of what we believe or perceive to be true; because perceptions and biases are not easily amenable to change with new knowledge15,16; and because risk perceptions are said to be, at least in part, the result of social and psychological factors and not a ‘knowledge deficit’ about risks per se17.
In previous social studies of risk, a cluster of factors was found to drive perceptions. These include specific qualities or ‘psychometric ratings’ attributed by the perceiver to the risk object, the demographic attributes and attitudinal dispositions of the perceiver, and the perceived quality of the risk communication, management and remediation contexts associated with risk events. Specifically, perceived risk is high when the new technology is rated by different publics as dreaded, involuntarily imposed, unfamiliar or unknown, invisible18, or carrying a negative affective valence19,20. Perceived risk is also high if the technology (for example, nuclear power or genetically modified organisms) is seen as beyond one's personal control, involuntarily imposed and/or inequitably distributed18. In their aggregate, these ratings having produced characterizations or ‘mental or cognitive models’ of perceived risk that are basic to the processing, uptake or rejection of new [risk] information21. More recent work has focused on the power of ‘affect’ in perceived risk; specifically, the negative or positive valences rapidly and pre-consciously associated with a risk object are highly and efficiently predictive of perceived risk, perhaps as much or more so than all other variables22,23.
Second, in the US context, when the perceiver is male, white, high-income earning, and well educated, he will perceive the risks of most hazardous technologies as much lower than will those in all other demographic groups including white women, and all nonwhite men and women24,25. Third, high perceived risk is also attributed to attitudinal variables including those who regard themselves as vulnerable and subject to injustice26,27, as wary of science and technology28,29, skeptical of political authority or expertise30,31 and as dose insensitive (that is, they see risk as a function of ‘any exposure’, however small)32. Fourth, risk judgements are highly sensitive to negative information33,34. Thus, the stigmatization23,35 of specific technologies or risks tends to occur when risk management has been badly handled (for example, unrealistic promises of ‘no risk’ or ‘failure to accept responsibility in the face of a risk event’36), when the perceiver's distrust of risk managers and regulatory agencies is high28,37, when risk management practices are not transparent, and when a risk event (for example, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a gas leak or a contamination event) is seen to ‘signal’ worse events yet to come38.
Given earlier risk research, it is reasonable to hypothesize as follows:
-
Public response to nanotechnology would parallel other new and unknown technologies such as biotechnology and thus early evidence of risk aversion would prevail.
-
An increase in knowledge will not result in reduced aversion to risks.
-
Judgements about nanotechnology will be highly malleable and subject to persuasion given risk-centric information.
-
Contextual, psychometric and attitudinal predictors of perceived risk from earlier studies can anticipate future perceptions of nanotechnologies.
In this paper we synthesize and meta-analyse, where possible, findings from all search-available surveys of public perceptions of nanotechnology carried out in the past decade in the industrialized world, primarily in Europe and North America. We assess the extent to which these hypotheses might be rejected, confirmed or modified for emerging nanotechnologies. Table 1 lists the datasets from which we drew, and details the question sets where it was defensible to combine data and or calculate a more precise effect size due to semantic similarity in the type of questions and wording of scales. Further question sets where defensible quantitative comparison of data was possible follow below and provide a more accurate and credible overview of findings than can be provided by any one study or in non-quantitative review papers. Aspects of the datasets that could not be quantified, especially those pertaining to contextual and attitudinal factors, are analysed deductively in the light of past work on risk perception39.
Familiarity, malleability and judgement uncertainty
Public familiarity with nanotechnologies across 11 eligible studies in North America, Europe and Japan is very low, as shown in Fig. 1. When the samples were pooled, more than 51% (s.e. = 4%) of all participants who were asked about their familiarity with this new class of technology reported knowing ‘nothing at all’, although variation across individual studies was large (25–71%). Among five studies that probed more deeply into levels of familiarity, the remainder of the population split into an average 30% who reported knowing ‘just a little’, and 20% claiming to know ‘some’ or ‘a lot’. When US studies alone were considered, 47% of pooled participants self-reported ‘no’ or zero knowledge. No clear trend is evident of increased familiarity or knowledge over the period of time the surveys were performed.
The low level of familiarity invokes the two long-standing findings in the field noted above. The first has concluded that risk objects that are ‘new’, comparatively ‘unknown to science’ and ‘not observable’ (that is, not easily detected by smell, taste, touch or sight) are characteristically judged as highly risky7,18. Extrapolating to nanotechnologies, which can equally be characterized as new, with properties and behaviours as yet comparatively unknown to science, and materially intangible or invisible, one would expect high risk ratings or at least a propensity towards ‘default’ risk aversion. However, as seen in Fig. 2, the aggregated evidence so far finds that study respondents either believe that benefits outweigh risks or equal the risks, or they exhibit strong resistance to offering risk or benefit judgements of any kind.
In the nine surveys that asked a specific question on whether judgements of benefit exceed risks and vice versa, all nine surveys saw benefits as outweighing risks—an overall pattern widely reported in the survey literature to date40,41. A third of the pooled respondents felt that benefits may exceed risks—approximately 3.5 times as many as those who felt that risks will exceed benefits. Strikingly, an average of 44% of respondents (11–53% across studies) were ‘not sure’ of the risks or benefits of these technologies. This may indicate healthy judgement conservatism, but it may also suggest that the widely reported benefit centrism may be overstated. Rather, this judgement conservatism may point to considerable potential malleability of risk and benefit judgements, whereby judgements could move in either direction—a possibility explored by Kahan and colleagues42—or in response to any risk information that may yet emerge.
A second widely held claim in the perceived risk literature holds that lay persons judge many risks as higher than experts, not because of a ‘knowledge deficit’ per se, but because of the very different basis with which lay persons view and characterize risk when compared to experts (for example, lay distrust of expertise may be more important than estimates of mortality or morbidity17). However, in one study of comparisons of lay versus expert judgements of nanotechnology risks, the expert community seems to be more risk averse than the public with regard to pollution and ‘new health problems’43. Unlike the nanotechnology research analysed here, in most earlier (non-upstream) studies the risk objects under consideration have been at the centre of controversy (nuclear power, genetically modified foods, pesticide or chemical risks, mad cow disease, climate change and so on), and nested in regulatory failures and risk-amplifying media coverage9,36. This might well explain the high base rate of perceived risk among public groups when compared to experts44. It may also explain the skeptical relationship between risk perception and knowledge, in which information provided may be received as suspiciously persuasive and thus enhances risk aversion34. In studies that examine public attitudes more broadly, some have argued that rejection of the ‘knowledge deficit’ hypothesis is overstated45, and that there is a weak but persistent link between knowledge and positive attitudes toward technologies. However, trust is often an intervening variable and it depends on the subgroup (pro-industry versus pro-environment) to which one belongs46. Others find that the relationship between perceived risk and knowledge is ‘chaotic’47 suggesting a strong role for context. A more recent meta-analysis of science literacy as a correlate of non-upstream attitudes towards technologies (nuclear power, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research and so on) is comparatively definitive48. It found across 193 publicly available datasets that general knowledge of science has a weak but stable and positive effect on attitudes toward science and technology in their aggregate (0.08 for Cohen's D weighted regression coefficient), an effect that is weakened when general knowledge is compared to specific technologies, is non-significant in some cases (nuclear power and genetic medicine), and negative in other relationships (for example, environmental science knowledge and attitudes towards genetically modified foods).
This implies a need to examine domain-specific knowledge with domain-specific attitudes, an examination that is consistent with this meta-analysis. A full assessment of the benefit–knowledge relationship in the nanotechnology case is not possible yet. However, we can examine the ‘familiarity hypothesis’: the belief that benefit judgements will increase in conjunction with familiarity40. Familiarity might serve as a proxy for knowledge insofar as awareness belies some knowledge. Aggregation and regression of data across the three nanotechnology risk perception studies carried out in the United States that allowed for such a comparison indicate that familiarity does breed consent (Fig. 3)49,50,51. A strong and significant relationship exists between respondents’ self-assessed level of familiarity with nanotechnology and the belief that the benefits of nanotechnologies exceed their risks. Regression indicates a steep increase in likelihood of judging benefits as exceeding risks with each step increase in familiarity (an ∼13% increase per step), although most of this increase occurs in the movement from ‘no familiarity’ to ‘heard a little’. This study also finds a stronger relationship between knowledge and risk–benefit associations. Cohen's D measure comparing the ‘no familiarity’ group with those that have ‘a little’, ‘some’ and ‘a lot’ of familiarity shows effects sizes of 0.91, 1.08 and 1.52, respectively—all considered large effects52. Despite such a strong relationship it is not clear whether the positive-benefit effect associated with greater familiarity reflects this early stage of technological development, or a de facto function of technological optimism whereby those who seek out knowledge about nanotechnologies are positively predisposed to new technologies and their benefits28.
Optimism, affect and untested variables
Expectations that benefit judgements will further increase with knowledge or familiarity should be treated with caution. A recent study of nanotechnology judgements and cultural biases found no support for the familiarity hypothesis42. Previous risk research on controversial technologies, such as biotechnology, indicates that a nanotechnology-related risk event may change the playing field, and so convert a positive knowledge–attitude relationship to a negative one53. Assumption of benefit centrism may also under-estimate the countervailing power of known or as yet untested predictors of risk. Figure 4 demonstrates that research to date remains focused on demographic variables. Gender and race predict high perceived risk in the nanotechnology case49, but further work on how these intersect with other attitudinal factors is needed. Trust is the only non-demographic attitudinal factor more widely examined (and was found to be a significant predictor of risk judgements in all studies; Fig. 4), including trust of the regulatory agencies responsible for risk management. Affect has in part replaced more conventional psychometric variables. Affect ratings (negative versus positive valences associated with nanotechnology) were highly significant in one study when compared to knowledge, which was not significant54. A second study found perceptions to be largely ‘affect driven’, although more informed persons relied less on affect, with cultural worldview predispositions mediating affect and polarizing risk judgements49,55. Only a modicum of attention has been paid to proven predictors of risk perceptions including known psychometric ratings (dread, perceived controllability of nanotechnologies, and so on), yet evidence for their importance remains strong. Siegrist and colleagues56 found the psychometric factor ‘dread risk’ (comprising worry, control, voluntariness of exposure and so on) as the most important predictor of nanotechnology risks in a principle component analysis, whereas trust was marginally significant and ethical justifications not significant. Together, these factors accounted for 87% of the variance of perceived risk, thereby asserting the ongoing importance of psychometric dimensions in combination with other factors (trust and ethics in this case). Attitudes toward science and technology are significant predictors of benefit in three papers40,54,56 (an important finding to the extent that judgements of benefit may well be a proxy for positive attitudes towards science more broadly)28.
Surprisingly little attention has been paid to many other key variables in risk research, including the effects of framing by print and television media57,58, 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). Given that a very large portion of people (44% noted above) have reserved judgement, it is all the more important to understand how perceptions are modulated by the application domain and risk-specific information as was true in the biotechnology case59.
Scholars now need to understand how application domains with markedly different benefit–risk profiles are likely to influence perceptions of emerging nanotechnologies. Key here is whether risk aversion in one application domain is likely to carry over to all nanotechnologies, or will it be limited to the specific application or the nanomaterial in question? Surprisingly, only a few studies to date have probed this in any detail56, including a study of applications in the food industry and a cross-national deliberative study of energy versus health applications in which domain was meaningful56,59. In short, the very malleability of risk judgements here and now calls for intentional (and logically defended) framings in survey design and better use of intercepting independent variables and contextual descriptions, as a flawed but best proxy available for anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.
Conclusions
Like biotechnology before it, the scientific community sees nanotechnology as protean, with myriad applications in multiple domains. There is also awareness among scientists and technocrats that publics, particularly in the ‘risk societies’ of the industrialized world are unlikely to unquestioningly embrace the technology. The first round of applications, what Renn and Roco61 call ‘passive nanostructures’, are primarily in the realm of material applications, where the focus is likely to be on environmental and health considerations, a familiar domain of risk research. Surveys conducted over the past decade provide an empirical basis for examining emerging attitudes towards risks and benefits of these applications. Overall participants across survey studies regard nanotechnology as resulting in more benefits than risks, and familiarity with this new technology does correspond to positive evaluations of its applications. Theoretically, the generally moderate attitudes towards nanotechnology that accompany the current upstream moment provide an ideal opportunity for better understandings of benefits and not just risks. However, benefit optimism should be tempered because a large proportion of sampled publics have suspended judgement, which suggests that judgements are malleable as yet. History has demonstrated that attempts to engineer risk perceptions with education campaigns may backfire if the benefits are oversold or the risks downplayed.
Surveys of lay perspectives on nanotechnologies have emerged as critical tools for anticipating the trajectory of risk judgements, but few have exploited some of the more long-standing findings in the literature, including established theoretical propositions about the context of risk management or the psychometric properties of risk objects. The field likely needs to mature62 towards testing known factors in this upstream context including intuitions about exposure, stigmatizing versus attenuating messages, the effects of media framings on nanotechnology judgements, the effects of describing nano-enabled objects (such as sunscreen or more energy-efficient window coatings) and then providing tutorial material on different types of risks associated with nanomaterials, and variations in benefit distribution. Given the potential malleability of judgements, and sensitivity of such judgements to contextual and constructive framings63, such investigations will be crucial to understanding future responses. More broadly, as applications move as predicted towards more complex domains where bio-, information and nanotechnologies converge, the nature of the risks involved will move beyond the immediate concerns related to toxicity and enter into contentious moral and ethical terrains. As technologies converge, so will the risk debates. Seen this way, controversy might be inevitable, and perhaps the only way for societies to debate a technology with enormous and unforeseen social consequences. Social science methods and tools will need to evolve and indeed are evolving62 to meet the challenge.
Methods
A meta-analysis was carried out on 18 independent surveys conducted over the past decade aimed at characterizing the public response to nanotechnologies (Table 1). The surveys summarized here were included in 22 papers focusing on risk perceptions published between 2004 and 2009. Surveys included a mix of methods including six telephone surveys, three mail surveys, two group surveys, two web surveys, one based on interviews, one using both a telephone survey and an interview, and another using both a web survey and a telephone survey. Although a majority of the studies were carried out in North America (11 in the United States, one in Canada) the analysis includes findings from surveys done in Europe (n = 5) and Japan (n = 1). We recognize that views across nation states may differ, and so show results for aggregated cross-national samples as well as for the United States alone.
Meta-analysis is a method used for combining quantitative information on research hypotheses from various sources, particularly observational studies and clinical trials. Meta-analyses provide several advantages over literature reviews39, including avoidance of relying on the results of a single study or a non-quantitative review, the ability to aggregate data from studies carried out with diverse samples and methods, and the ability to detect, reject and combine effect sizes. Perceptions of risks and benefits of nanotechnology are emerging and so are likely to be labile and potentially malleable. Thus, variation in survey methods such as those described above could have a large impact on risk–benefit perceptions across study samples. Consequently, results that are consistent over studies done with different samples may reflect more stable findings, while those that show larger variation across studies might point to greater malleability of perceptions in risks and benefits.
Meta-analysis of survey data is relatively uncommon because survey data can be more heterogeneous than data derived from observational work64. In this work it was possible to defensibly combine data on three questions across subsets of surveys shown in Table 1. These were related to the questions on public familiarity with nanotechnology, on perceptions of the relative risks and benefits of nanotechnology, and on the role of knowledge in determining risk–benefit judgements. The ability to meta-analyse each of these data domains also depends on the semantic proximity of questions or items in the first place, so questions were carefully scrutinized for the defensibility of their inclusion. For example, most items on knowledge or familiarity asked respondents how much they had heard about nanotechnology, using the response scale ‘heard nothing at all’, ‘heard just a little’, ‘heard some’ and ‘heard a lot’. Slight variations included ‘have you heard of the term nanotechnology’ and ‘how much did you know about nanotechnology before participating [in this survey]?’ Measures of knowledge/familiarity in these data are all based on ‘self-reported’ levels of knowledge. Although four studies do use knowledge tests40,65,66,67, differences in scales and data availability rendered these unsuitable to meta-analysis. Those studies meta-analysed for comparisons on risk versus benefit findings asked very similar questions about whether ‘benefits outweighed risks’, were ‘about equal’ or whether ‘risks outweighed benefits’. Figure 2 notes the one study by Kahan et al.49 that did not ask respondents if risks ‘equalled’ benefits; wording in this study also varied from the others in asking if ‘the benefits of nanotechnology will slightly outweigh the risks’, ‘greatly outweigh the risks’ and vice versa.
Data were also presented using both weighted and unweighted approaches. In a weighted approach, metrics from different surveys are combined to produce metrics for a pooled sample. Pooling the results weights the importance of each survey by its sample size. In the unweighted approach each survey (as opposed to each instance from the sample) carries the same weight. Many surveys did ask questions on attributes of the observer, attributes of the risk object and processes of risk management. However, heterogeneity of questions meant that it was not possible to summarize responses into a common metric for quantitative comparison across surveys. Consequently, survey findings related to demographic and attitudinal variables are synthesized in a statistically descriptive manner only.
Change history
29 November 2009
In the version of this Article originally published, the data from ref. 50 used in the meta-analysis and plotted in Fig. 2 were incorrect because these data were subsequently corrected in ref. 51. This mistake does not change any of the conclusions of the paper. An error also occurred in plotting the data from ref. 40 in Fig. 2, but the correct data were used in the rest of the paper. Figure 2 (including caption) and the first two sentences of the paragraph beginning "In the nine surveys" on page 754 of this Article have been amended accordingly in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article.
References
Rip, A. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci. Cult. 15, 349–365 (2006).
Nel, A., Xia, T., Madler, L. & Li, N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311, 622–627 (2006).
Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 14, 799–806 (1994).
Siegrist, M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29, 2093–2106 (1999).
Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. Social Theories of Risk 1st edn (Praeger Publishers, 1992).
Edelstein, M. R. Contaminated Communities: Coping with Residential Toxic Exposure 1st edn (Westview Press, 2004).
Erikson, K. A New Species of Trouble: The Human Experience of Modern Disasters 1st edn (WW Norton & Company, 1995).
Kasperson, J. X. & Kasperson, R. E. The Social Contours of Risk 1st edn, Vol. 1 and 2 (Earthscan Publications, 2005).
Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk 1st edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).
Slovic, P. Perception of Risk 1st edn (Earthscan Publishers, 2002).
Morgan, M. G. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).
Davies, J. C. Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2009); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen18/>.
Freudenburg, W. R. Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science 242, 44–49 (1988).
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 672–695 (2008).
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment 1st edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13, 1–17 (2000).
Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. & Quadrel, M. J. Risk perception and communication. Annu. Rev. Public Health 14, 183–203 (1993).
Slovic, P. & Peters, E. Risk perception and affect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 322–325 (2006).
Peters, E. M., Burraston, B. & Mertz, C. K. An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal. 24, 1349–1367 (2004).
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. K. Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14, 1101–1108 (1994).
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T. A. Gender, race and perceived risk: the white male effect. Health Risk Soc. 2, 159–172 (2000).
Bord, R. J. & O'Connor, R. E. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk: research on the environment. Soc. Sci. Quart. 78, 830–840 (1997).
Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K. & Slovic, P. Discrimination, vulnerability and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal. 24, 115–129 (2004).
Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972 (2003).
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit and ethics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 22, 98–124 (1997).
Wildavsky, A. & Dake, K. Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119, 41–60 (1990).
Braman, D. & Kahan, D. M. More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions (SSRN eLibrary, 2001); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205>.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. & Slovic, P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12, 215–232 (1992).
Alhakami, A. & Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14, 1085–1096 (1994).
Morgan, M. et al. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. Risk Anal. 5, 139–149 (1985).
Gregory, R., Flynn, J. & Slovic, P. Technological stigma. Am. Sci. 83, 220–223 (May/June, 1995).
Powell, D. & Leiss, W. Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, 1997).
Siegrist, M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20, 195–204 (2000).
Slovic, P. in Social Theories of Risk Vol. 1 (eds Krimsky, S. & Golding, D.) 117–152 (Praeger, 1992).
Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M. META-ANALYSIS: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 59–82 (2001).
Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 6, 395–405 (2004).
Sims Bainbridge, W. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570 (2002).
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotech. 4, 87–90 (2009).
Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007).
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal. 13, 643–648 (1993).
Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Pub. Und. Sci. 13, 55–74 (2004).
Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 20, 713–720 (2000).
Durant, J. in Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology (eds Dierkes, M. & von Grote, C.) 131–156 (Harwood, 2000).
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Pub. Und. Sci. 17, 35–54 (2008).
Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. Affect, Values and Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation (SSRN eLibrary, 2007); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205>.
Peter, D. Hart Research Associates, I. Report Findings Based on a National Survey of Adults (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf>.
Peter, D. Hart Research Associates, I. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2007); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf>.
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, 1977).
Evans, G. & Durant, J. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Pub. Und. Sci. 4, 57–74 (1995).
Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 27, 240–267 (2005).
Kahan, D. M. et al. Biased Assimilation, Polarization and Cultural Credibility: An Experimental Study of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions (SSRN eLibrary, 2008); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090044>.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. & Wiek, A. Laypeople's and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Assess. 27, 59–69 (2007).
Cobb, M. D. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 27, 221–239 (2005).
Schutz, H. & Wiedemann, P. M. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Pub. Und. Sci. 17, 369–379 (2008).
Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).
Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. & Keller, C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51, 283–290 (2008).
Renn, O. & Roco, M. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 153–191 (2006).
Currall, S. C. New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotech. 4, 79–80 (2009).
Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. The Construction of Preference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
Rao, S. R. et al. Meta-analysis of survey data: application to health services research. Health Serv. Out. Res. Meth. 8, 98–114 (2008).
Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T. D. & Lozano, K. Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol. Soc. 27, 329–345 (2005).
Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004); available at <http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm>.
Scheufele, D. & Lewenstein, B. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-j., Dalrymple, K. E. & Ho, S. S. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotech. 4, 91–94 (2008).
Smiley Smith, S. E., Hosgood, H. D., Michelson, E. S. & Stowe, M. Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception: assessing opinion change. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 459–473 (2008).
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. The Future of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation of Two Hypotheses (SSRN eLibrary, 2008); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089230>.
Priest, S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 563–568 (2006).
Macoubrie, J. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Pub. Und. Sci. 15, 221–241 (2006).
Fujita, Y., Yokoyama, H. & Abe, S. Perception of nanotechnology among the general public in Japan—of the NRI Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project. Asia Pac. Nano. Wkly 4, 1–2 (2006).
Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).
Gaskell, G., Eyck, T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Pub. Und. Sci. 14, 81–90 (2005).
Einsiedel, E. In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and US publics. Azonano 1, 1–10 (2005).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Cooperative Agreement 0531184 between the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB); by Cooperative Agreement EF 0830117 between NSF, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UCSB and University of California, Los Angeles), and by an Alexander Graham Bell Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.S. and M.K. conceived and designed the meta-analysis. C.B. and M.K. analysed the data. T.S. wrote the paper, with M.K. and C.B. providing input on original drafts and revisions. B.H.H. and J.C. provided key materials and summaries of studies, and all authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Supplementary information
Supplementary information (PDF 371 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. et al. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotech 4, 752–758 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265
This article is cited by
-
Risk perception associated with an emerging agri-food risk in Europe: plant viruses in agriculture
Agriculture & Food Security (2022)
-
Comparing the effect of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the ability of moderately halophilic bacteria to treat wastewater
Scientific Reports (2021)
-
Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Nature Food (2020)
-
Expert stakeholders’ perception of nanotechnology: risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation
Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2019)
-
Market Potential and Economic Impacts of Food Nanotechnology Innovations
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2019)