Insights into how consumer attitudes toward nanotechnology are formed and develop are crucial for understanding and anticipating possible barriers in consumer acceptance of nanotechnology applications. In this study, the influence of affect and cognition on overall opinion is investigated longitudinally for emerging nanotechnologies, and compared with conventional technologies. Overall, in attitude formation toward nanotechnology applications, people rely relatively more on affect than cognition. Over time, reliance on affect decreases whereas reliance on cognition increases for nanotechnology. This suggests that over time nanotechnology applications have become somewhat more integrated within people’s already existing knowledge structure. However, for conventional technologies the influence of affect and cognition on overall attitude remains stable over time. The current study shows that it is essential to address both affective and cognitive aspects of public opinion of nanotechnology.
AjzenI (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 27–58.
2.
BaylorAL (2001) A U-shaped model for the development of intuition by level of expertise. New Ideas in Psychology19(3): 237–244.
3.
BornsteinRF (1989) Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin106(2): 265–289.
4.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 385–404.
5.
CarlsonJPVincentLHHardestyDMO’BeardenW (2009) Objective and subjective knowledge relationships: A quantitative analysis of consumer research findings. Journal of Consumer Research35(5): 864–876.
6.
CastelliniOMWalejkoGKHolladayCETheimTJZennerGMCroneWC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. Journal of Nanoparticle Research9(2): 183–189.
7.
CBS (2014) Bevolking; kerncijfers. Available at: www.cbs.nl
8.
CloreGLHuntsingerJR (2007) How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences11(9): 393–399.
9.
CloreGLSchnallS (2005) The influence of affect on attitude. In: AlbarracínDJohnsonBTZannaMPE (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 437–489.
10.
CobbMD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 221–239.
11.
CritesSLFabrigarLRPettyRE (1994) Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20(6): 619–634.
12.
CurrallSCKingEBLaneNMaderaJTurnerS (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?Nature Nanotechnology1(3): 153–155.
13.
DaviesSR (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk. Futures43(3): 317–326.
14.
de JongeJvan TrijpHRenesRJFrewerLJ (2010) Consumer confidence in the safety of food and newspaper coverage of food safety issues: A longitudinal perspective. Risk Analysis30(1): 125–142.
15.
DesmetPMA (2003) Measuring emotion; development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In: BlytheAFMMAOverbeekeKWrightPC (eds) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 111–123.
16.
EdwardsK (1990) The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59(2): 202–216.
17.
EinsiedelEFGoldenbergL (2004) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society24(1): 28–33.
18.
FazioRH (1990) Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology23: 75–109.
19.
FazioRH (2007) Attitudes as object–evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition25(5): 603–637.
20.
FischerARHvan DijkHde JongeJRoweGFrewerLJ (2013) Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Understanding of Science22(7): 817–831.
21.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
FrewerLJFischerARHvan TrijpJCM (2011) Communication of risks and benefits of nanotechnology: The issue of societal acceptance of emerging technologies. In: FrewerLJNordeWFischerARHKampersFWH (eds) Nanotechnology in the Agri-Food Sector. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 243–256.
23.
GawronskiBBodenhausenGV (2006) Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin132(5): 692–731.
24.
Gregan-PaxtonJJohnDR (1997) Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research24(3): 266–284.
25.
GrobeARissanenME (2012) Nanotechnologies in agriculture and food - An overview of different fields of application, risk assessment and public perception. Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture4(3): 176–186.
26.
GuptaNFischerARHFrewerLJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science21(7): 782–795.
27.
GuptaNFischerARHFrewerLJ (2015) Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: A comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. NanoEthics9(2): 93–108.
28.
HansenJWänkeM (2009) Liking what’s familiar: The importance of unconscious familiarity in the mere-exposure effect. Social Cognition27(2): 161–182.
29.
KahanDMSlovicPBramanDGastilJCohenGKysarD (2007a) Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values. In: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (ed.) Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies; Research Brief, vol. 5. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 23–44.
30.
KahanDMSlovicPBramanDGastilJCohenGKysarD (2008) Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. In: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (ed.) Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies; Research Brief, vol. 5. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 45–56.
31.
KearnesMMacnaghtenPDaviesSR (2014) Narrative, nanotechnology and the accomplishment of public responses: A response to Thorstensen. NanoEthics8(3): 241–250.
32.
KlerckDSweeneyJC (2007) The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology & Marketing24(2): 171–193.
33.
KlineRB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford press.
34.
KuzmaJPriestS (2010) Nanotechnology, risk, and oversight: Learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Analysis30(11): 1688–1698.
35.
LattinJMCarrollJDGreenPE (2003) Analyzing Multivariate Data. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
36.
LeeC-JScheufeleDA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(4): 819–834.
37.
LoewensteinGFWeberEUHseeCKWelchN (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin127(2): 267–286.
38.
López-VázquezEBrunnerTASiegristM (2012) Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology applied to the food and packaging sector in México. British Food Journal114(2): 197–205.
39.
MacoubrieJ (2006) Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science15(2): 221–241.
40.
MaynardAD (2006) Nanotechnology: Assessing the risks. Nano Today1(2): 22–33.
PlessnerHCzennaS (2008) The benefits of intuition. In: PlessnerHBetschCBetschT (eds) Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 251–266.
48.
PriestSLaneTGreenhalghTHandLJKramerV (2011) Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: A three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens. Risk Analysis31(11): 1718–1733.
49.
ReischLASchollGBietzS (2011) ‘Better safe than sorry’: Consumer perceptions of and deliberations on nanotechnologies. International Journal of Consumer Studies35(6): 644–654.
50.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
51.
RussellJA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(6): 1161–1178.
52.
SandlerRKayWD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society26(1): 57–62.
53.
SatterfieldTKandlikarMBeaudrieCContiJEHHerr HarthornB (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology4(11): 752–758.
54.
SchenkMFvan der MaasMPSmuldersMJMGilissenLJWJFischerARHvan der LansIAet al. (2011) Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy. Food Quality and Preference22(1): 83–91.
55.
ScheufeleDACorleyEAShihTJDalrympleKEHoSS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology4(2): 91–94.
56.
ScheufeleDALewensteinB (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6): 659–667.
57.
SchwarzN (2007) Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition25(5): 638–656.
58.
ShivBNowlisSM (2004) The effect of distractions while tasting a food sample: The interplay of informational and affective components in subsequent choice. Journal of Consumer Research31(3): 599–608.
59.
SiegristM (2010) Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment16(4): 837–846.
60.
SiegristMCousinM-EKastenholzHWiekA (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite49(2): 459–466.
61.
SiegristMStampfliNKastenholzHKellerC (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite51(2): 283–290.
62.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2002) What’s fear got to do with it? It’s affect we need to worry about. In: Thomas GilovichDGKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–420.
63.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2007) The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1333–1352.
64.
SteenisNDFischerARH (2016) Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in food products: An attribute-based analysis. British Food Journal118(5): 1254–1267.
65.
StijnenDvan VeggelRFischerARHRonteltapAde BakkerEMintenSet al. (2011) Consumentenperceptie van nanotechnologieën in voedsel en landbouw: Een eerste verkenning [Consumer perception of nanotechnologies in food and agriculture: An initial exploration]. Wageningen: Wageningen UR Food & Biobased Research.
66.
SuLYFCacciatoreMAScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMA (2014) Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication36(3): 352–378.
67.
SujanM (1985) Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research12(1): 31–46.
68.
van GiesenRIFischerARHvan DijkHvan TrijpHCM (2015) Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PloS One10(10): e0141790.
69.
VandermoereFBlanchemancheSBiebersteinAMaretteSRoosenJ (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science20(2): 195–206.
70.
WijnhovenSWPDekkersSHagensWIde JongWH (2009) Exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products. RIVM letter report no. 340370001, 4 September, 2009. Bilthoven: RIVM.
71.
ZajoncRB (1980) Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist35(2): 151–175.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
