Diskuze v psychologii 2023, 5(1):28-39 | DOI: 10.5507/dvp.2023.011

Attitudes towards nanotechnology: Are we developing a double-edged weapon?

Mária ©uµová*, Miroslav Popper
Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie, Slovenská Akadémia vied, v. v. i., Dúbravská cesta 5973, 841 04 Bratislava, Slovensko
Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie, Slovenská Akadémia vied, v. v. i., Dúbravská cesta 5973, 841 04 Bratislava, Slovensko

The aim of the study was to map attitudes towards nanotechnology. We were interested in how different factors interfere in shaping attitudes, focusing on the impact of the level of awareness and trust in information by experts. We explored gender differences in perceptions of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, and the role played by religiosity. We collected data through a questionnaire and focus groups. 189 participants took part in the quantitative part of the research and 18 participants took part in the qualitative part. The results of the research confirmed the association between trust towards information from experts and attitudes towards nanotechnology, as well as the association between the level of information and attitudes towards nanotechnology applications in medicine. Participants perceived medicine as the area in which nanotechnology could bring the greatest advances, while they considered defence and national security as the areas with the greatest number of risks.

Keywords: risk-benefit perception; nanomedicine; attitudes; trust in science; content analysis

Received: April 3, 2023; Revised: September 28, 2023; Accepted: October 20, 2023; Published: March 1, 2024  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
©uµová M, Popper M. Attitudes towards nanotechnology: Are we developing a double-edged weapon? Diskuze v psychologii. 2023;5(1):28-39. doi: 10.5507/dvp.2023.011.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bieberstein, A. (2012). An Investigation of Women's and Men's Perceptions and Meanings Associated with Food Risks. Munich: Springer.
    2. Bottini, M., Rosato, N., Gloria, F., Adanti, S., Corradino, N., Bergamaschi, A., & Magrini, A. (2011). Public Optimism toward Nanomedicine. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 6, 3473-3485. Go to original source...
    3. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558. Go to original source...
    4. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385-404. Go to original source...
    5. Canton, J. (2004). Designing the future: NBIC technologies and human performance enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1), 186-198. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.010 Go to original source...
    6. Chen, M., Lin, Y., & Cheng T. (2013). Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Technovation, 33(2-3), 88-96. Go to original source...
    7. Cobb, M. D., & Macourbie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405. Go to original source...
    8. Duhan, J. S., Kumar, R., Kumar, N., Kaur, P., Nehra, K., & Duhan, S. (2017). Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnology Reports, 15, 11-23. Go to original source...
    9. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99. Go to original source...
    10. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2012). Nanotechnologies: principles, applications, implications and hands-on activities (a compendium for educators), Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/76945
    11. Fabrigar, L. R., Petty, R. E., Smith, S. M., & Crites, S. L. (2006). Understanding Knowledge Effects on Attitude - Behavior Consistency: The Role of Relevance, Complexity, and Amount of Knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 556-577. Go to original source...
    12. Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Peterson.
    13. Flynn, R., Bellaby, P., & Ricci, M. (2006). Risk Perception of an Emergent Technology: The Case of Hydrogen Energy. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 19.
    14. Guston, D. H. (2010). Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. Go to original source...
    15. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R. P., Rab, S., & Suman, R. (2023). Applications of nanotechnology in medical field: a brief review. Global Health Journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 7(2), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2023.02.008 Go to original source...
    16. Hamlett, P., Cobb, M. D., & Guston, D. H. (2013). National citizens' technology forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement. In Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future (pp. 265-283). Springer Netherlands. Go to original source...
    17. Harinisri, K., Jayanthi, N., & Suresh Kumar, R. (2023). Diverse application of green nanotechnology - A review. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.06.085 Go to original source...
    18. Hariyadi, D. M., Athiyah, U., & Pathak, Y. V. (2020). Nanomedicine: Risk, Safety, Regulation, and Public Health. In: M. K. Das & Y. V. Pathak (eds.), Nano Medicine and Nano Safety. Singapore: Springer. Go to original source...
    19. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological review, 51(6), 358-374. Go to original source...
    20. 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 processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703-2715. Go to original source...
    21. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33, 167-200. Go to original source...
    22. Inshyna, N., & Chorna, I. (2022). Ethical and Societal Aspects of Nanotechnology Applications in Medicine. IEEE 12th International Conference Nanomaterials: Applications & Properties (NAP), Krakow, Poland, 2022, 1-5. Go to original source...
    23. Kamarulzaman, N. A., Lee, K. E., Siow, K. S., & Mokhtar, M. (2020). Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects. Technology in Society, 62, 101329. Go to original source...
    24. Larsson, S., Jansson, M., & Boholm, Å. (2019). Expert stakeholders' perception of nanotechnology: risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 21(3). Go to original source...
    25. Lilley, S. J. (2007). Catholic Students' Fatalism in Anticipation of Transhuman Technologies. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(1), 313 - 320. Go to original source...
    26. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., & Citkowicz, M. (2017). A Re-Examination of the Mere Exposure Effect: The Influence of Repeated Exposure on Recognition, Familiarity, and Liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459-498. Go to original source...
    27. Moscovici, S. (1961). La Psychoanalyse: son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    28. Murphy, F., Alavi, A., Mullins, M., Furxhi, I., Kia, A., & Kingston, M. (2022). The risk perception of nanotechnology: Evidence from twitter. RSC Advances 12(18), 11021-11031 Go to original source...
    29. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D., & Ulph, F. (2007). Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 159-171. Go to original source...
    30. Prnka, T., & ©perlink, K. (2004). ©estý rámcový program evropského výzkumu a technického rozvoje: NANOTECHNOLOGIE. Ostrava: Repronis.
    31. Purohit, R., Mittal, A., Dalela, S., Warudkar, V., Purohit, K., & Purohit, S. (2017). Social, Environmental and Ethical Impacts of Nanotechnology. Materials Today: Proceedings, 4, 5461-5467. Go to original source...
    32. Rathore, A., & Mahesh, G. (2021). Public perception of nanotechnology: A contrast between developed and developing countries. Technology in Society, 67, 101751. Go to original source...
    33. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667. Go to original source...
    34. 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(2), 91-94. Go to original source...
    35. Schönborn, K. J., Höst, G., & Palmerius, K. L. (2015). Measuring understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Development and validation of the nano-knowledge instrument (NanoKI). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 346-354. Go to original source...
    36. Seegebarth, B., Backhaus, C., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2019). The role of emotions in shaping purchase intentions for innovations using emerging technologies: A scenario-based investigation in the context of nanotechnology. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21228 Go to original source...
    37. Senocak, E. (2014). A Survey on Nanotechnology in the View of the Turkish Public. Science Technology & Society, 19(1), 79-94. Go to original source...
    38. Thaker, J., & Cook, Ch. (2022). Planning for a COVID-19 vaccination campaign in New Zealand: trust, affective and cognitive attitudes, and COVID-19 vaccine intention, Communication Research and Practice, 8(1), 54-69. Go to original source...
    39. Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S., & Roosen, J. (2011). The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 195-206. Go to original source...
    40. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2), 1-27. Go to original source...
    41. Zhu, X., & Xie, X. (2015). Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 35(5), 790-810. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content