Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selective perception of novel science: how definitions affect information processing about nanotechnology

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines how familiarity with an issue—nanotechnology—moderates the effect of exposure to science information on how people process mediated messages about a complex issue. In an online experiment, we provide a nationally representative sample three definitions of nanotechnology (technical, technical applications, and technical risk/benefit definitions). We then ask them to read an article about the topic. We find significant interactions between perceived nano-familiarity and the definition received in terms of how respondents perceive favorable information conveyed in the stimulus. People less familiar with nanotechnology were more significantly affected by the type of definition they received.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data in this study was used as a secondary source. In the original study, after reading the given definition, participants were asked to read a news post with randomly assigned comments about nanotechnology from a fictional science blog published by the Vancouver Sun newspaper (the blog post was written by a science writer and contained an equivalent amount of information regarding the risks and benefits of nanotechnology). After each treatment group read the same blog post but differently manipulated comments (i.e., comments with civility vs incivility; emotional vs rational comments; congruent vs incongruent comments), participants responded to a number of post-test questions that asked them to evaluate the arguments given in the blog post. This particular study, however, is interested in the influence of definition on message perception; so, we did not assume any theoretical effect of the experimental blog comment design for this study. Hence, we analyzed the data after controlling for the possible influence of the blog manipulations.

References

  • Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum Res 13:411–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AA, Kim J, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA (2013) What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions. J Nanopart Res 15(2):1–5. doi:10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2014) The nasty effect: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(3):373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkes JR, Boehm LE, Xu G (1991) Determinants of judged validity. J Exp Soc Psychol 27:576–605. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(91)90026-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra R, Stayman DM (1990) The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. J Consum Res 17(2):203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen L, Grimes T, Potter D (2005) How attention partitions itself during simultaneous message presentations. Hum Commun Res 31(3):311–336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00874.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner G, Apostolidou W (1994) Mood and persuasion: independent effects of affect before and after message processing. J Soc Psychol 134:707–709. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella JN (2006) Integrating Message Effects and Behavior Change Theories: Organizing Comments and Unanswered Questions. J Commun 56(s1):S265–S279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case DO, Andrews JE, Johnson JD, Allard SL (2005) Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. J Med Libr Assoc 93(3):353

  • Chaffee S, Saphir MN, Graf J, Sandvig C, Hahn KS (2001) Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication 18(3):247–272. doi:10.1080/10584600152400338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry EC (1953) Some Experiments on the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25(5):975–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Sci and Technol 6(4):395–405

  • Conover PJ, Feldman S (1984) How people organize the political world: a schematic model. Am J Polit Sci 28(1):95–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan N (1988) Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychol Bull 104(2):163–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434. doi:10.1177/1075547008316222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearborn DC, Simon HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry 21(2):140–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2012) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun 34(1):5–29. doi:10.1177/1075547011417892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 88(1):55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum of impression formation from category based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 23. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 16–15

  • Fung TKF, Brossard D, Ng I (2011) There is water everywhere: how news framing amplifies the effect of ecological worldviews on preference for flood protection policy. Mass Communication and Society 14(5):553–577. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.521291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson WA (1992) Talking politics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Marques T, Mackie DM (2001) The feeling of familiarity as a regulator of persuasive processing. Soc Cogn 19(1):9–34. doi:10.1521/soco.19.1.9.18959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregan-Paxton J, John DR (1997) Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. J Consum Res 24:266–284. doi:10.1086/209509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart Research Associates (2013) Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: a report of findings, based on a national survey among adults. Project on Synthetic Biology Project the Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/emergingissues-2013-07-WilsonCenter-SynbioSurvey-en.pdf

  • Hwang Y (2010) Selective exposure and selective perception of anti-tobacco campaign messages: the impacts of campaign exposure on selective perception. Health Commun 25:182–190. doi:10.1080/10410230903474027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang H, Gotlieb MR, Nah S, McLeod DM (2007) Applying a cognitive-processing model to presidential debate effects: Postdebate news analysis and primed reflection. J Commun 57:40–59. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00328.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar S, Hahn KS, Krosnick JA, Walker J (2008) Selective exposure to campaign communication: the role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics 70(1):186–200. doi:10.1017/S0022381607080139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim KS (2011) Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: the hostile media approach. Public Underst Sci 20(5):690–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosicki GM, McLeod JM (1990) Learning from political news. Effects of media images and information-processing strategies. In: Kraus S (ed) Mass communication and political information processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 69–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther HC (2001) Protective decisions: Fear or prudence. In: Hoch SJ, Kunreuther HC, Gunther RE (eds) Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp 259–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladwig P, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2012) Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Sci Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitive and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. doi:10.1177/1075547005281474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NISE Network Content Map. Available at http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_guides/nanoscale_science_informal_learning_experiences_nise_network_content_map. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.

  • Olson JM, Stone J (2005) The influence of behavior on attitudes. In: Albarracı’n D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Park S, Hitchon JB, Yun GW (2004) The effects of brand familiarity in alignment advertising. J. Mass Commun. Q. 81(4):750–765

  • Popkin S (1994) The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Schäfer MS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: an empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Sci Commun 30(4):475–505. doi:10.1177/1075547008326943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC (2012) 2 Commentary Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement. Communication Yearbook 36:36–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Science, Media, and the Public Research Group (SCIMEP) (2015) Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, Department of Life Sciences Communication. Available from http://scimep.wisc.edu/projects/reports/

  • Sha B, Lundy LK (2005) The power of theoretical integration: merging the situational theory of publics with the elaboration likelihood model. Presented in the 8th International Public Relations Research Conference Proceedings

  • Shen F, Edwards HH (2006) Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: a value-based account of framing effects. J Commun 55(4):795–809. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song H, Schwarz N (2009) If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychol Sci 20(2):135–138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud NJ (2011) Niche news: the politics of news choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, Rimal RN, Morrison D, Kim H (2006) The role of anxiety in seeking and retaining risk information: testing the risk perception attitude framework in two studies. Hum Commun Res 32:130–156. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00006.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of personality and social psychology 81(6):989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood W, Rhodes N, Biek M (1995) Working knowledge and attitude strength: an information- processing analysis. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude srength: antecedents and consequences. Mahwah

  • Wood BD, Vedlitz A (2007) Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. Am J Polit Sci 51(3):552–568. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00267.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaros RA (2011) Effects of text and hypertext structures on user interest and understanding of science and technology. Sci Commun 33(3):275–308. doi:10.1177/1075547010386803

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (Grant No. SES-0937591) and the UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale (Grant No. SES-DMR-0832760). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, 227 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Jiyoun Kim

  2. Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, 202 S 36th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Heather Akin

  3. Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele

  4. Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Michael Xenos

Authors
  1. Jiyoun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Akin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominique Brossard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Xenos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dietram A. Scheufele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiyoun Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

This material is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (Grant No. SES-0937591) and the UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale (Grant No. SES-DMR-0832760). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A for precise wording for the blog post

Appendix A for precise wording for the blog post

Risk vs benefits of nanosilver: U.S. EPA hearing coming up.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began a 4-day hearing today about the possibility of nanotechnology products releasing toxins into the nearby water supply. The hearing follows the release of a study suggesting potential harmful effects of that water on human health.

Silver nanoparticles are used in products like clothing or bandages to kill bacteria and reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Nanosilver also has other benefits like water—and dirt—resistance in clothing.

However, silver nanoparticles can be dangerous to humans since they are so small they are difficult to capture in water treatment systems. Silver is more toxic to aquatic plants and animals than any metal except mercury.

Despite the questions surrounding nanotechnology, more than 1000 consumer products currently contain nanoparticles. Do the benefits of nanotechnology in clothing outweigh the possible environmental costs?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J., Akin, H., Brossard, D. et al. Selective perception of novel science: how definitions affect information processing about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 19, 167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-017-3837-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-017-3837-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation