1 / 11

Nanotechnology Information, Risk and Regulation: Frames, Topics and Trust

Nanotechnology Information, Risk and Regulation: Frames, Topics and Trust. Susanna Hornig Priest, Ph.D., and Ted Greenhalgh University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Two projects. South Carolina panel study; 75 individuals over three years (NSEC at U of SC)

lane-mendez
Download Presentation

Nanotechnology Information, Risk and Regulation: Frames, Topics and Trust

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nanotechnology Information, Risk and Regulation: Frames, Topics and Trust Susanna Hornig Priest, Ph.D., and Ted Greenhalgh University of Nevada, Las Vegas

  2. Two projects • South Carolina panel study; 75 individuals over three years (NSEC at U of SC) • Experimental work on frames, topics and trust (NER w/John Besley)

  3. Panel study • Low awareness, but qualitative baseline interviews showed some context for nano • Not dissimilar to scientists’ perceptions • More concern with regulation • Idea of a “template” for technology – even with no familiarity, people have expectations for risks and benefits • Concerns over “social risks” greater, and rising, compared to health/environment

  4. Goals of Experimental Study • Determine whether news framing (defined “conservatively”) really matters • Pilot study implicates mention of regulation • Longitudinal study points to ELSI salience • Resonates with other studies, e.g. focus groups • Explore whether people “lump” nano applications together • Evaluate the contributions of prior attitudes

  5. The “F” Word: Framing • What we call things (labeling; e.g., Lakoff) • Common scapegoat for controversy (Frankenfoods, therapeutic cloning), but what evidence? • Partial truths and information effects (Entman?) • What goes in and what not; intention? • Classic persuasion theory suggests effects won’t last • How news practices shape stories (Tuchman) • Beat reporting; “discovering” the story • Narrative emphasis effect, not content effect

  6. Study Design • Four nano news stories: • Electronics, food processing, drug development, solar energy applications • Four manipulations of story paragraph order: • Benefits, physical risks, regulatory status, “social risks” privileged • Undergrad student subjects (41) each read one story within each application • 16 conditions systematically rotated • Pre-tested attitudes; post-tested reactions

  7. Preliminary Conclusions • Subtle framing effects exist but depend on topic, treatment • Perceived R/B ratios are higher for regulation, “social risk” frames than benefit, physical risk frames (one-tailed p = .105 for effects on society; .026 on self) • Taking DV’s separately, most effects n.s. (except food) • Nevertheless finding is interesting given limited nature of manipulation (paragraph order only) • Topic much more important (no evidence of “lumping”); some interaction w/frame • Preexisting trust factors also very important (but not other attitudes tested)

  8. Implications? • “Expanded vocabulary of risk” • Controlling physical hazards is not the only issue of public concern • Trust is crucial to attitudes toward tech • Not likely a short-term effect of news frames • People make application distinctions, not mindless generalizations • Even undergraduates reading 4 stories in a row!

  9. Where to go from here….. • That’s why you are all here!

More Related