The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies

By Dietram A. Scheufele, Bruce V. Lewenstein. 2005

550 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d7a824e7a6b0fa941b5354eb51acfd7b4e67a17

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective (2017, background): “Cluster #2 contains such scholars as Scheufele, Siegrist, and Gaskell, who are researchers in the fields of social communication and risk governance (Gaskell et al., 2005; Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005; Siegrist et al., 2007).”
Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence (2010, background): “Previous studies have argued that this mechanism helps to explain media effects on public perceptions of science and technology (Nisbet, 2005; Nisbet & Goidel, 2007; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005), but the evidence for this claim is indirect.”
The Nasty Effect: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies (2014, methodology): “In the context of an unfamiliar emerging technology, such as the issue of interest in this study, people will rely on cognitive shortcuts, otherwise known as heuristics, in order to form judgments (Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005).”
Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies (2011, background): “First, facts have limited impact on initial opinions—no greater than alternative considerations including values and perceptions about science credibility (see also, e.g., Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005).”
Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology (2009, background): “The American public, at least for now, seems to focus mostly on these novel applications and their potential benefits and is not particularly interested in or concerned about the potential risks of the new technology (Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005).”
Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology (2015, background): “First, individuals rely on political ideology as a cognitive shortcut when forming opinions about controversial issues (Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005).”
Science Literacy or Value Predisposition? A Meta-Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits, Risks, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy (2019, background): “This supports the CMM, which states that people typically rely on cognitive shortcuts to form opinion about controversial technologies when they have limited time and resources (Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005).”
“Fracking” Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing (2014, background): “Thus, public perceptions are likely a product of factors that have been the focus of considerable investigation in other contexts: socio-demographics; perceptions of risks and benefits; affective imagery; geographic proximity; and worldviews (Hunter and Leyden, 1995; Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005; ”
Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts (2011, background): “…including religious beliefs, deference to scientific authority, science media use, and trust in scientists were key determinants of public acceptance of science and technologies (Brossard et al., 2009; Ho et al., 2008; Scheufele, Corley, Shih, Dalrymple, & Ho, 2009; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005).”
What to expect when you’re expecting robots: Futures, expectations, and pseudo-artificial general intelligence in UK news (2020, background): “These opinions and ideas appear to be heavily influenced by media descriptions and media frames (Nisbet and Lewenstein, 2002; Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005).”
From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology (2011, background): “Several studies (e.g. Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004; Scheufele et al., 2007) have shown that these variations in general attitudes cannot entirely be explained by differing levels of knowledge, and are likely due to perceptions about the potential risks and benefits (Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005).”