Content uploaded by Elizabeth A. Corley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elizabeth A. Corley on Sep 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 24 No. 2 2012
ßThe Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association
for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr032 Advance Access publication 25 August 2011
RESEARCH NOTE
The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific
Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of
Information about Emerging Technologies
Ashley A. Anderson
1
, Dietram A. Scheufele
1,2,3
,
Dominique Brossard
1,2,3
and Elizabeth A. Corley
2,4
1
Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison,
2
Center for
Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University,
3
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the
Nanoscale and
4
School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University
Introduction
Who individuals trust for information on highly technical or scientific issues is an
important issue in contemporary risk society in which social change and technological
developments occur at an accelerated pace (Priest, 2008). The convergence of scien-
tific disciplines, such as nanotechnology, biomedicine, information technologies, and
cognitive science, rapidly accelerates the development of each involved domain
(Khushf, 2006). Thus, the ethical implications of each technological development
may be manageable individually, but on the whole they develop so rapidly that society
needs a mechanism for ethically evaluating them (Khushf, 2006). Experts who spe-
cialize in technical issues become important sources of information on developments,
regulation, and policy information, particularly for governmental regulatory agencies
(Jasanoff, 1990). Members of the public use trust in experts to form attitudes about
emerging and controversial technologies (e.g., Liu & Priest, 2009; Olofsson, Ohman,
& Rashid, 2006), with reliance on trust being particularly important when knowledge
about the risk issue is low (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000).
All correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Ashley A. Anderson, Department of
Life Sciences Communication, 320 Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, 53706 WI, USA.
E-mail: aaanderson3@wisc.edu.
This article was first submitted to IJPOR October 14, 2010. The final version was received April 24, 2011.
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Studies have confirmed that trust is a key predictor of attitudes toward technolo-
gies, typically in a positive direction (see, Knight, 2007; Lang & Hallman, 2005; Liu &
Priest, 2009; Olofsson et al., 2006; Priest, Bonfadelli, & Rusanen, 2003). However,
others have claimed that the process works in the opposite direction, with attitudes
toward technology influencing trust in relevant actors (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2005). In
this manner, institutional trust is an important social variable because it is integrally
connected to support for scientific issues.
Here, we explore how individuals develop trust in institutions as sources of infor-
mation for the issue of nanotechnology. The United States and the European Union
have invested $14 billion and $6billion, respectively, within the past 10 years in
nanotechnology-related research and development (Cordis Europa, 2010; National
Nanotechnology Initiative, 2010). More than 1,000 products in cosmetics, sport equip-
ment, and computer technologies (among other applications) containing some
nano-related components have already been commercialized. Nanotechnology is also
representative of increasingly complex emerging technologies with potentially contro-
versial applications since their levels of toxicity have yet to be clearly established. At
the same time, lay publics are not familiar with nanotechnology (Cobb, & Macoubrie,
2004; Scheufele, Corley, Shih, Dalrymple, & Ho, 2009; Scheufele & Lewenstein,
2005). Therefore, the social dynamics surrounding trust in institutions, such as gov-
ernmental agencies and scientists, who are the most likely to provide formal informa-
tion on nanotechnology will be of critical importance as global markets emerge for
nanotechnology.
Where Individuals Develop Trust
Different conceptualizations of trust have pointed to different ways trust in institu-
tional actors is developed. For instance, trust is based on social relations in which the
individual who trusts shares values with the trustee, which is distinct from other
concepts, such as confidence based on past performance (Earle, Siegrist, &
Gutscher, 2007; Siegrist, 2010). Poortinga and Pidgeon (2003) have identified a gen-
eral trust dimension that includes technical competence, care, fairness, and openness
of the risk managers. Scholars have also posited that engaging the public in partici-
pation in risk management decision-making may increase confidence in risk managers
(Frewer et al., 2004; Rowe & Frewer, 2000). In our study, we explore two other
potential foundations—the educational system and mass media—for the development
of individual characteristics that lead to trust in institutions as sources of information
on nanotechnology.
Individuals develop beliefs toward science and basic scientific knowledge through
formal and informal education. Those who are highly deferent to scientific authority
believe scientists know the truth for all scientific matters (even those scientific matters
with ethical and social implications) and that the public should not have a say
in decision-making related to science. The concept ‘‘represents long-term socialized
value predispositions’’ and is likely to be cultivated via educational systems and
cultural values (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007,p.27). Previous research defines defer-
ence to scientific authority as a stable predisposition or value and demonstrates
its importance in predicting opinions about science (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007;
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH226
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Ho, Brossard, & Scheufele, 2008; Ho, Scheufele, & Corley, 2010; Lee & Scheufele,
2006). While it may seem conceptually similar to institutional trust, deference to
scientific authority differs because it is developed early in life and represents a
stable worldview. Institutional trust, on the other hand, may change as individuals
are confronted with events that challenge the trust they have placed in actors. In the
risk perception context, trust comprises many layers determined by sociocultural and
individual personality characteristics, institutional characteristics, risk characteristics,
and information received (Chryssochoidis, Strada, & Krystallis, 2009). Thus, it may
not be stable, and does not represent a core belief system.
Another important concept is that of participatory attitudes toward science. In this
case, individuals believe in democratic processes for scientific decision-making and
that public opinion toward science should be taken into account when policy decisions
are made for scientific matters (Brossard & Shanahan, 2003). Deference to scientific
authority and participatory attitudes toward science are distinct conceptually and are
produced by different sociocultural factors, with fear of science likely to engender
participatory attitudes toward science and formal Western education encouraging the
development of deference to scientific authority (Brossard & Shanahan, 2003). These
concepts are in line with different perspectives on the governance of science, pointing
to a predominant reliance on either scientists’ advice (for scientific evidence) or
average citizens’ views (for moral and ethical considerations) (Gaskell et al., 2005).
Basic science knowledge is also learned through education, while knowledge about
specific science topics is usually acquired through mass media (Brossard & Shanahan,
2003). Media portrayals of science tend to influence public opinion about science and,
thus, are likely associated with trust in institutional actors. Indeed, perceptions of
science have been associated with media use (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli,
1981; Nisbet et al., 2002; Shanahan, Morgan, & Stenbjerre, 1997). Traditionally,
‘‘media malaise’’ scholarship posits that trust in institutions is undermined by negative
portrayals in the media (i.e., Patterson, 1996; Robinson, 1976), but more recent schol-
arship has shown that usage of different media types could either increase trust or
decrease trust in institutions (Chan, 1997; Moy & Pfau, 2000; Putnam, 2000).
In this study, we examine how deference to scientific authority and science know-
ledge—developed through education—media use, and nanotechnology knowledge and
nanotechnology information exposure—developed through mass media use—are
related to trust in scientists and governmental agencies as sources of information
about nanotechnology.
Methodology
Data
We used survey data collected through a nationally representative random-digit-dial
telephone survey with 1,015 adults in the United States aged 18 years and over. The
survey was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center between May
and July 2007 using a dual frame sampling method, combining national
random-digit-dial and listed household samples. The final sample size was 1,015,
with a response rate of 30.60%, calculated using AAPOR’s (2008) formula for RR3.
RESEARCH NOTE 227
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
There were attempts to minimize nonresponse bias by devoting significant resources
to additional call-backs and refusal conversations.
Independent variables
Demographics. Socioeconomic status is an index combined of z-scores of income
and education (M¼0.00,SD ¼.87). Age is measured as a continuous variable
(M¼55.3,SD ¼16.4). Forty-eight percent of respondents were male (female ¼0
and male ¼1). Eighty-eight percent of respondents were white (nonwhite ¼0,
white ¼1).
Orientations Toward Science. The means of two items measuring ‘‘par-
ticipatory attitudes toward science’’ were combined (1¼‘‘do not agree at all’’,
10 ¼‘‘agree very much’’): ‘‘Public opinion is more important than the scientists’
opinions when making decisions about scientific research’’ and ‘‘Scientists should
pay attention to the wishes of the public, even if they think citizens are mistaken
or do not understand their work’’ (Pearson’s R ¼.34,p.01). ‘‘Deference to scientific
authority’’ comprised two items: ‘‘Scientists know best what is good for the public’’
and ‘‘Scientists should do what they think is best, even if they have to persuade
people that it is right’’ (Pearson’s R ¼.39,p.01). General science knowledge is a
summative index of correct answers for five true-false questions (KR 20 ¼4.87,
M¼3.9,SD ¼1.4): ‘‘Lasers work by focusing sound waves,’’ ‘‘Antibiotics kill viruses
as well as bacteria,’’ ‘‘Electrons are smaller than atoms,’’ ‘‘Ordinary tomatoes do not
contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do,’’ and ‘‘More than half of
human genes are identical to those of a chimpanzee.’’
Media Use. Media use was measured (1¼‘‘little attention,’’ 10 ¼‘‘very close
attention’’) for different topical categories of three types of media: The Internet,
newspaper, and television. ‘‘Public affairs media use’’ is a scaled index of six items
regarding attention to news about international affairs and national government and
politics in newspaper, television, and Internet (Cronbach’s ¼.89,M¼5.57,
SD ¼2.41). ‘‘Science media use’’ (Cronbach’s ¼.89,M¼5.03,SD ¼2.00)isa
scaled index of 9items, including attention to science and technology news, news
on specific scientific developments, and news about the social or ethical implications
of nanotechnology, in newspapers and Internet. Questions on the medium of televi-
sion measuring attention to science and technology news, science fiction dramas, and
science documentaries were also included in the index of science media use.
Nanotechnology-Specific Variables. Nanotechnology knowledge is a sum-
mative index of the correct answers for six true-false questions (KR 20 ¼.47,M¼3.1,
SD ¼1.4): ‘‘U.S. corporations are not using nanotechnology yet to make products sold
today,’’ ‘‘Experts consider nanotechnology to be the next industrial revolution of the
U.S. economy,’’ ‘‘A nanometer is a billionth of a meter,’’ ‘‘Nanotechnology allows
scientists to arrange molecules in ways that do not occur in nature,’’ and ‘‘A nano-
meter is about the same size as an atom.’’ Exposure to nanotechnology (M¼3.52,
SD ¼2.42) was measured (1¼‘‘nothing at all’’, 10 ¼‘‘very much’’) using a question,
‘‘How much have you heard, read, or seen about nanotechnology?’’.
Dependent Variables. ‘‘Trust in scientists’’ was measured by asking how
much respondents trusted different sources to tell them the truth about information
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH228
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
regarding the risks and benefits of nanotechnology (0¼‘‘Do not trust their informa-
tion at all’’, 10 ¼‘‘Trust their information very much’’). Three items about university
scientists doing research in nanotechnology, scientists working for the nanotech in-
dustry, and the medical profession, were averaged into an index (Cronbach’s ¼.75,
M¼6.3,SD ¼1.8).
‘‘Trust in governmental agencies’’ was measured by asking how much respondents
trusted different sources to tell them the truth about information regarding the risks
and benefits of nanotechnology (0¼‘‘Do not trust their information at all’’,
10 ¼‘‘Trust their information very much’’). Four items about Congress, the White
House, regulatory agencies, such as the EPA or the FDA, and international institu-
tions such as the United Nations, were averaged into an index (Cronbach’s ¼.75,
M¼4.4,SD ¼1.8).
Analysis
Two hierarchical linear regressions were run using four blocks of variables.
Results
Trust in scientists as sources of information about nanotechnology is significantly
related to a number of demographic variables (Table I). Socioeconomic status
(¼.16,p.001) is significantly related to trust in scientists, which means that
those with higher salaries and more education are more likely to trust scientists.
Both age (¼.08,p.05) and gender (¼.07,p.05) are significantly related
to trust in scientists, indicating that those who are younger and female are more likely
to trust scientists. Demographic variables account for 4.1% of the variance in trust in
scientists as sources of information on nanotechnology.
The second block of the regression reveals several significant relationships between
science-related variables and trust in scientists. Deference to scientific authority was
significantly related to trust in scientists as sources of information (¼.34,p.001).
Therefore, the belief that scientists should carry on with their work regardless of what
the public wishes is related to trust in scientists for nanotechnology information.
Participatory attitudes toward science (i.e., public opinion matters more than scien-
tists’ opinions) was not related to trust in scientists. General science knowledge was
also unrelated to trust in scientists for information on a specific science, nanotech-
nology. The variables in block 2account for 12.0% of the variance in trust in
scientists.
The third model shows that media use is significantly related to trust in scientists
as sources of information about nanotechnology. Individuals who pay more attention
to science media (¼.14,p.001) and individuals who pay more attention to public
affairs media (¼.18,p.001) are more likely to trust scientists. The variables in
block 3account for 7.1% of the variance in trust in scientists.
The final block reveals that knowledge of nanotechnology (¼.12,p.001)is also
significantly related to trust in scientists for information on nanotechnology. However,
the amount of exposure to nanotechnology individuals thought they had is not
RESEARCH NOTE 229
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
significantly related to whether they trust scientists as sources of information. These
variables account for 1.3% of the variance in the amount of trust individuals have in
scientists as sources of information about nanotechnology. When taking these final
variables into account, all demographic variables are statistically significant. Race be-
comes significantly related (¼.08,p.01), indicating that whites are more likely
than non-whites to trust scientists for information on nanotechnology. All other
demographic variables that were significant in the first two blocks remain significant
in the final model. The total R
2
for the regression is .245, which indicates the model
explains 24.5% of the variance in ‘‘trust in scientists.’’
The second regression (Table II) shows that trust in governmental institutions as
sources of information about nanotechnology is significantly related to two demo-
graphic variables. Women (¼.13,p.001) and younger individuals (¼.08,
p.05) are more likely to trust governmental agencies. However, demographics
only account for 2.3% of the variance in trust in government.
As predicted, the second model reveals that deference to scientific authority
(¼.24,p.001) is significantly related to trust in government for information
about nanotechnology. However, participatory attitudes toward science (¼.15,
p.001) are also significantly related to trust in government for information about
Table I.
Impact of Orientations Toward Science and Media Use on Trust in Scientists as Sources of
Information on Nanotechnology
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Demographics r
Gender .04 .07*.08** .10*** .10***
Race .04 .05 .04 .08** .08**
Age .11*** .08*.09** .15*** .13***
SES .179*** .16*** .12*** .08*.08*
Incremental R
2
(%) 4.1***
Orientations toward science
Participatory attitudes toward science .038 .02 .01 .00
Deference to scientific authority .35*** .34*** .29*** .28***
Science knowledge .15*** .05 .01 .02
Incremental R
2
(%) 12.0***
Media use
Science media use .31*** .14*** .13***
Public affairs media use .29*** .18*** .18***
Incremental R
2
(%) 7.1***
Nanotechnology-specific orientations
Nano knowledge .22*** .12***
Perception of exposure to nano .21*** .01
Incremental R
2
(%) 1.3***
Total R
2
(%) 24.5
***p.001;**p.01;*p.05.
Note: Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH
230
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
nanotechnology. General science knowledge is unrelated to trust in government. This
block accounts for 7.9% of the variance in trust in government.
The third model reveals that science media use is not significantly related to trust
in governmental institutions as sources of information about nanotechnology but that
public affairs media use is (¼.11,p.01). This accounts for 1.5% of the variance in
the trust in government.
In the final model, neither nanotechnology knowledge nor exposure to nanotech-
nology are significantly related to trust in government for information about nano-
technology. In this final model, race (¼.07,p.05) becomes statistically significant,
indicating that whites are more likely than nonwhites to trust government for infor-
mation about nanotechnology. Other variables that were significant in previous blocks
remain significant. The total R
2
for the regression is .118, which indicates the model
explains 11.8% of the variance in trust in government.
In sum, individuals who are female, white, younger, higher in socioeconomic status,
have higher levels of deference to scientific authority, pay more attention to science
media and public affairs media, and are knowledgeable about nanotechnology are
significantly more likely to trust scientists as information sources for nanotechnology.
Trust in government agencies, on the other hand, is accounted for by public affairs
Table II.
Impact of Orientations Toward Science and Media Use on Trust in Governmental Agencies
as Sources of Information on Nanotechnology
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Demographics r
Gender .13*** .13*** .15*** .16*** .15***
Race .01 .04 .06 .08*.07*
Age .06 .08*.12*** .15*** .15***
SES .01 .02 .01 .01 .01
Incremental R
2
(%) 2.3***
Orientations toward science
Participatory attitudes toward science .12** .15*** .15** .15***
Deference to scientific authority .23*** .24*** .22*** .22***
Science knowledge .03 .05 .06 .06
Incremental R
2
(%) 7.9***
Media use
Science media use .12*** .03 .05
Public affairs media use .13*** .11** .11**
Incremental R
2
(%) 1.5***
Nanotechnology-specific orientations
Nano knowledge .03 .00
Perception of exposure to nano .02 .04
Incremental R
2
(%) 0.1
Total R
2
(%) 11.8
***p.001;**p.01;*p.05.
Note: Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
RESEARCH NOTE 231
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
media attention, along with gender, age, race, deference to scientific authority, and
participatory attitudes toward science.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to explore how trust in institutional sources of information
about nanotechnology develops among members of the U.S. population. We find
deference to scientific authority and attention to public affairs media are key factors
in development of trust in governmental agencies and trust in scientists. Science
media use and nanotechnology knowledge predict trust in scientists.
Our study reveals one key orientation toward science developed through formal
Western education—deference to scientific authority—cultivates trust in institutions
as sources of information on nanotechnology. While previous research has shown
deference to scientific authority to be a key predictor of trust in scientists
(Brossard & Nisbet, 2007), our study shows that it is also an important predictor
of trust in another institution—governmental agencies. Science knowledge is typically
associated with support for science, and previous research has shown that nanotech-
nology knowledge and deference to scientific authority are congruent mediating fac-
tors in support for nanotechnology (Lee & Scheufele, 2006). Interestingly, our study
shows that general science knowledge does not predict trust in institutions.
Nanotechnology knowledge is related to trust in scientists, but not in government.
Taken together, these findings point to the importance recent scholarship has placed
on taking into account cultural factors and value systems beyond just knowledge in
explaining attitudes toward science (e.g., Brossard et al., 2009; Ho et al., 2008).
Deference to scientific authority and media use are important predictors of trust in
institutions, which previous research demonstrates is important in the development of
public opinion about science.
While it may seem that those with positive participatory attitudes toward science
may develop skepticism of institutional actors, our study reveals they trust govern-
mental agencies. This indicates individuals who are apt to think the public plays a role
in scientific decision-making may perceive the government as a cooperative actor in
that decision-making.
Our findings regarding media use and its role in cultivating trust in institutional
sources of information may be due to the heavy dependence by the press on elite
institutional sources in its reporting. The relationship between public affairs media
use and trust in scientists and governmental agencies indicates that people develop
trust in both types of institutions when they encounter elite sources in public affairs
media. However, individuals who pay more attention to science media do not develop
a similar trust in governmental agencies that they develop for scientists. This may be
due to the absence of public affairs professionals as sources in science media coverage.
In fact, research has shown that regulatory aspects of nanotechnology have not been
covered nearly as much as other aspects of nanotechnology in the past 20 years of
media coverage (Dudo, Dunwoody, & Scheufele, 2011).
Our study addresses predispositions and habits developed through education and
mass media use that may be specific to members of the U.S. population. First, the
United States tends to be more pro-technology than other parts of the world.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH232
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Furthermore, education and mass media contexts may work differently in the U.S.
than in other cultures. For instance, past research shows differences between the U.S.
and Canada and Europe on perspectives of who should govern science and how those
varying perspectives are related to support for technology and trust in
institutions (Gaskell, et al., 2005). Future research should explore not only media
and education, but also other contextual factors in developing institutional trust in
other countries.
Interestingly, our models show differences in the amount of variance explained in
trust in scientists and trust in governmental agencies (Table III). Predispositional
orientations toward science have more unique variance than any other block of vari-
ables, while technology-specific orientations have the least amount of unique variance
for both outcomes. The unique variance for orientations toward science is higher for
trust in scientists than it is for trust in governmental agencies. Brossard and Nisbet
(2007) argued that deference to scientific authority is a central value for shaping
support for agricultural biotechnology, and our findings show that it is also a key
predictor in developing trust in both scientists and governmental agencies as sources
of information on nanotechnology. The block with media use variables has more
unique variance in explaining ‘‘trust in scientists’’ than it does for ‘‘trust in govern-
mental agencies.’’ This, combined with the importance of orientations toward science,
indicates that trust is cultivated over time through long-term media habits and def-
erence to scientific authority. The short-term orientation of nanotechnology know-
ledge does play a role for developing trust in scientists, but it has the least amount of
unique variance in the model.
It is notable that orientations toward science remain significant even after adding in
media use and nano-specific orientations. This, combined with the unique variance of
each set of variables, indicates the importance of each individual set of factors in
developing trust in institutions.
Institutional trust plays an important role in how members of the public think
about and form judgments about emerging technologies and how they may utilize
Table III.
Variance Explained in OLS Regression Models Predicting Trust in Scientists and Trust in
Governmental Agencies as Sources of Information on Nanotechnology in Percentages
Trust in
scientists
Trust in
governmental
agencies
Unique variance for demographics 3.23.8
Unique variance for orientations toward science 7.36.8
Unique variance for media use 5.31.6
Unique variance for nanotechnology-specific orientations 1.3–
Shared variance 7.4–
Note: The unique variance for the variables predicting trust in governmental agencies adds up to more than
the total variance for the model due to suppressed relationships between the predictors, such as race, and
the dependent variable that do not appear until we add later predictors into the model.
RESEARCH NOTE 233
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
products and applications of those technologies. Our study indicates long-term orien-
tations, such as deference to scientific authority, and specific technology knowledge,
more of a short-term orientation, are both important predictors of institutional infor-
mational trust. Also, given the nature of its coverage in which institutional sources
dominate, the media cultivates trust in different institutions providing technological
information.
Funding
This material is based upon work supported by grants from the National Science
Foundation to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University
(Grant No. SES-0531194) and the UW-Madison Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Center in Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale (Grant No. SES-
DMR-0832760). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Science Foundation.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary Data are available at IJPOR online.
References
Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low
information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19,24–52.
Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media,
agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in sci-
ence. Mass Communication and Society, 6,291–312.
Chan, S. (1997). Effects of attention to campaign coverage on political trust.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9,286–296.
Chryssochoidis, G., Strada, A., & Krystallis, A. (2009). Public trust in institutions and
information sources regarding risk management and communication: Towards inte-
grating extant knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 12,137–185.
Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology:
Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6,395–405.
Cordis Europa (2010). Nanotechnology in the EC Programmes. Retrieved from
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/ec_programmes.htm.
Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news:
Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88,55–75.
Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, risk perception and the
TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust
in risk management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the public mind. London, UK:
Earthscan.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH234
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G.
(2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology,
42,1181–1193.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S. H., Jackson, J., & Olsthoorn, J.
(2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310(5756), 1908–1909.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Health and medicine
on television. New England Journal of Medicine, 305,901–904.
Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions,
mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell
research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20,171–192.
Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Making sense of policy choices:
Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive pro-
cessing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
12,2703–2715.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Khushf, G. (2006). An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative
technologies. In W. S. Bainbridge & M. Roco (Eds.), Managing
Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging technologies in society (pp. 255–278).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Knight, A. (2007). Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on
support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis, 27,
1553–1563.
Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of
Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25,1241–1252.
Lee, C. J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference
toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward
nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83,819–834.
Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research:
Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public
Understanding of Science, 18,704–718.
Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence
in democratic institutions. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010). Research and development leading to a
revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the President’s FY 2011
budget. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2011_budget_supplement.pdf.
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., &
Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects
model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research,
29,584–608.
Olofsson, A., Ohman, S., & Rashid, S. (2006). Attitudes to gene technology: The
significance of trust in institutions. European Societies, 8,601–624.
Patterson, T. E. (1996). Bad news, period. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29,
17–20.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk
regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961–972.
RESEARCH NOTE 235
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or conse-
quence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199–209.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Priest, S. H. (2008). North American audiences for news of emerging technologies:
Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. Journal of Risk Research,
11(7), 877–889.
Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The ‘Trust Gap’ hypothesis:
Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust
in actors. Risk Analysis, 23,751–766.
Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise:
The case of ‘‘The Selling of the Pentagon’’. American Political Science Review, 70,
409–432.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for
evaluation. Science Technology & Human Values, 25,3–29.
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T. J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009).
Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the
United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4,91–94.
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How
citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7,
659–667.
Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown? Television and
the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 41,305–323.
Siegrist, M. (2010). Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two
concepts in research. Risk Analysis, 30,1022–1024.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust
and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20,713–719.
Biographical Notes
Ashley A. Anderson is a PhD candidate in the Department of Life Sciences
Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on
public opinion and public deliberation about emerging science and technology issues.
Dietram A. Scheufele is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the
Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–
Madison. His work focuses on public opinion, political communication, and public
attitudes toward new technologies, including nanotechnology, stem cell research, and
genetically modified organisms.
Dominique Brossard (PhD, Cornell University) is an associate professor and Director
of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Life Sciences Communication,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, and a faculty affiliate of the UW–Madison
Robert and Jean Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies. Her research
broadly focuses on the intersection between science, media and the public and on
the understanding of public opinion dynamics in the context of controversial science.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH236
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
She has recently co-edited (with Jim Shanahan and Clint Nesbit) the book The
Media, the Public, and Agricultural Biotechnology (CABI Publishing, 2007).
Elizabeth A. Corley is the Lincoln Professor of Public Policy, Ethics & Emerging
Technologies and an Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona
State University. Her research focuses on technology policy and environmental policy.
She serves as a Co-Principal Investigator for the NSF-funded Center for
Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU).
RESEARCH NOTE 237
at University of Wisconsin - Madison, General Library System on July 5, 2012http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
