This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cobb, M. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology

North Carolina State University

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.

Key Words: nanotechnology • framing • public opinion

Science Communication, Vol. 27, No. 2, 221-239 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281473


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, E. Kim, and B. V. Lewenstein Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 546 - 558. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. O. Stewart, D. L. Dickerson, and R. Hotchkiss Beliefs About Science and News Frames in Audience Evaluations of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research Science Communication, June 1, 2009; 30(4): 427 - 452. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Landau, C. R. Groscurth, L. Wright, and C. M. Condit Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 325 - 337. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J.W. Bos, C. M. Koolstra, and J. T.J.M. Willems Adolescent responses toward a new technology: first associations, information seeking and affective responses to ecogenomics Public Understanding of Science, March 1, 2009; 18(2): 243 - 253. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. L. Illman and F. Clark Visibility of Team Science: A Case Study of Media Coverage of the NSF Science and Technology Centers Science Communication, September 1, 2008; 30(1): 48 - 76. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Schutz and P. M. Wiedemann Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2008; 17(3): 369 - 379. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. F. E. Ebeling Mediating Uncertainty: Communicating the Financial Risks of Nanotechnologies Science Communication, March 1, 2008; 29(3): 335 - 361. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Bowman, G. A. Hodge, and P. Binks Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction Bulletin of Science Technology Society, December 1, 2007; 27(6): 435 - 445. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Jain and G. George Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells Ind. Corp. Change, August 1, 2007; 16(4): 535 - 567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]