In this study, I examine whether Americans’ emotions and opinions about nanotechnology are influenced by how the issue is framed. Using data collected from an experiment embedded within a national survey, I find consistent framing effects even though the magnitudes of respondents’ opinion changes are not especially large. Frames about specific risks and benefits of nanotechnology are more influential than frames based on general beliefs about the merits of science, and framing nanotechnology as beneficial is only somewhat less powerful than framing it as risky. I conclude by discussing the implications of these framing effects for future mass opinions about nanotechnology.
Bainbridge, W.2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research4(6): 461–470.
2.
Brewer, P.2001. Valuewords and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?Political Psychology22(1): 45–64.
3.
Carmines, E., and J. Stimson. 1980. The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review74(1): 78–91.
4.
Chong, D.2000. Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Cobb, M., and P. Hamlett. 2005. Public Deliberation Problems: Polarization Cascades and Structured Deliberations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
6.
Cobb, M., and J. Kuklinksi. 1997. Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 88–121.
7.
Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research6(4): 395–405.
8.
Druckman, J.2001a. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics63(4): 1041–1066.
9.
Druckman, J.2001b. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23(3): 225–256.
10.
Druckman, J.2004. Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review98(4): 671–686.
11.
Druckman, J., and K. Nelson. 2003. Framing and deliberation: Howcitizens'conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science47(4): 729–745.
12.
Entman, R.1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
13.
Fiske, S., and S. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition. 2d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Frewer, L., S. Miles, and R. Marsh. 2002. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22(4): 701–711.
15.
Gamson, W.1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science285 (5426): 384–387.
17.
Greene, S.2004. The psychological perspective: 1950's to the present. In Public opinion and polling around the world: A historical encyclopedia, edited by J. Geer, 9–26. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
18.
Gross, K., and L. D’Ambrosio. 2004. Framing emotional responses. Political Psychology25(1): 1–29.
19.
Haider-Markel, D., and M. Joslyn. 2001. Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics63(2): 523–533.
Joslyn, M., and D. Haider-Markel. 2002. Framing effects on personal opinion and perceptions of public opinion: The cases of physician-assisted suicide and social security. Social Science Quarterly83(3): 690–706.
22.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 313–327.
23.
Kuklinski, J., and N. Hurley. 1994. On hearing and interpreting political messages: Acautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics56(3): 729–751.
24.
Lau, R.1985. Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science29(1): 119–138.
25.
Lewenstein, B.2004. What counts as a “social and ethical issue” in nanotechnology?International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry11(1): 5–18.
26.
Loewenstein, G., and J. Lerner. 2003. The role of affect in decision making. In Handbook of affective science, edited by R. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, and K. Scherer, 619–642. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
Macoubrie, J.Forthcoming. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science.
28.
Miller, J., and J. Krosnick. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 301–315.
29.
Monteiro-Riviere, N., R. Nemanich, A. Innan, Y. Wang, and J. Riviere. 2005. Multi-walled carbon nanotube interactions with human epidermal keratinocytes. Toxicology Letters155(3): 377–384.
30.
National Science Board. 2002. Science and engineering indicators-2002.Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB–02–1).
31.
National Science and Technology Council. 2000. National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. A report by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C.
32.
Nelson, T. E., and Z. M. Oxley. 1999. Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics61(4): 1040–1067.
33.
Nelson, T. E., Z. M. Oxley, and R. Clawson. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior19(3): 221–246.
34.
Oberdorster, E.2004. Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environmental Health Perspectives112(10): 1058–1062.
35.
Page, B., and R. Shaprio. 1992. The rational public. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
37.
Popkin, S.1994. The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Priest, S.2000. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biology18: 939–942.
39.
Roco, M.2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research5(2): 181–189.
40.
Roco, M., and W. Bainbridge, eds. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation Report. Boston: Kluwer.
41.
Siegrist, M., and G. Cvetkovich. 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis20(5): 713–720.
42.
Slovic, P.1987. Perception of risk. Science236:280–285.
43.
Slovic, P.1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis13(6): 675–682.
44.
Steward, W., T. Schneider, J. Pizarro, and P. Salovey. 2003. Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking-cessation messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology33(12): 2439–2464.
45.
Toumey, C.2004. Narratives for nanotech: Anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. Techne8(2): 88–116.
46.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211(4481): 453–458.
47.
White, M., S. Paul, M. Buehner, and A. Haye. 2003. Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes. Risk Analysis23(4): 717–726.
48.
Zaller, J.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.
49.
Zaller, J., and S. Feldman. 1992. A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36(1): 579–616.
