Upload
bethanie-mcdowell
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
David M. BerubeProfessor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), North Carolina State University
Director: NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) Project.
CEO, Center for Emerging Technologies, LLC – social media consultancy (trade assns and food industry).
PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011.
http://pcost.org
RT
PS
RA
20
10©
B
eru
be
Jan
uar
y 19
, 2
010
– R
alei
gh
, N
C
1. Cultural worldview theories, see Kahan et al. Ideological associations between perceptions on safety and who and how to regulate (new data).
2. Religiosity theories, see Scheufele et al. Beliefs linked to perceptions (new data).
3. Familiarity hypothesis – linking perception to familiarity; deficit theory revisited.
4. Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube.
REVIEW
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Loss ofprivacy
Lead to armsrace
Loss of jobs Self-replicating
robots
May be usedby terrorists
New healthproblems
Morepollution
Res
pond
ents
(%)
UnawareAware
PERCEIVED -RISKS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS
HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?
Hart 2007
1. Effect tends to be minor and may be a reporting anomaly. Overclaims abound. Opinion surveys are weak instruments to validate hypothesis (Kahan).
2. Familiarity is highly dependent on framing (self-reported awareness). Sources (incl. opinion leaders) and trust are changing (new data).
3. Familiarity hypothesis is generally false (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007). Interest leads to information seeking behavior more than reverse.
4. Link between knowledge/familiarity/ awareness and attitudes seems to be false (Nisbet, Brossard & Kroepsch, 2003) and (Cacciatore, Scheufele & Corley, forthcoming).
FAMILIARITY HYPOTHESIS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
USA 2004 USA 2005a USA 2005b USA 2006 USA 2007
Heard little or nothing
Heard some or a lot
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (DYNAMICS)ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES USA (3 yr span)
2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie
2005a: Einsiedel2005b: Macoubrie2006: Hart2007: Kahan
IRGC, 2009
1. Bad data. Asking the wrong questions.
2. Time frame meaningless. Ex: getting information from two points on the same curve.
3. Public interest maxed out.
4. Wrong sampling (7% solution).
5. Wrong methodologies (experimental design vs. opinion sampling).
SPECULATION
Public interest in science/tech policy. Traditionally low (7-10%). Likely to be
case/region specific. Competing interests (unemployment,
economy, wars….)
Critical case studies- hold strategic importance to issues.
Experimental design (Kahan).
MOVE TO CRITICAL CASE STUDIES
Satterfield et al, 2009 (Nature Nano)
How can we tag perception levels when studies have such high variances? (Satterfield, 2009)
Should we tighten the samples? Should we stop priming the samples? Do engagement exercises involving artificial settings provide useful data sets?
Should we privilege the longitudinal data sets (Hart, 2006-08)?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
R > B B > R R = B Unsure
Hart 06
Hart 07
Hart 08
Unaided/Unprimed Evaluation - General
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES(HART 06-08)
BERUBE et al. NEW DATA (2009)
Dillman National Public Survey(w U South Carolina, N=307) Impressions of nano and
synthetic bio (non-framed),
General risk levels (Slovic), Concerns of nanoparticle
risks, Perceptions of expert ratings
of risk, Sources and use of various
media for risk info Trust Social media sources,
Demographics Religion Ideology.
Expert Delphi Study
(NCSU) Nanoparticle toxicity, Potentially
problematic uses, Potentially
problematic applications,
Estimations of public perceptions of risk.
Priming: prompting of a cognitive stimulus which may create or influence reactions to future stimuli.
For example: “How much did you know about nanotechnology before participating?”
1 = 1 = Almost nothing
2 = A little
3 = Quite a bit
4 = A great deal
(XXX, 2006)
PRIMING
UNPRIMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA
Public perceptions of nano
blank or "noidea"=47%
size= 38%
electronics= 8%
fictive= 4%
medicine= 3%
“What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”?
• “Very very small subject matter- beyond microscopic.”• “Cutting edge research and technology that has made products smaller, faster, lighter, and stronger.”• “I actually don’t have the slightest idea, but I’m going to take a guess and say that it would be the smallest pieces of technological machines that can be made.”
KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT – HYPOTHETICAL EXPERT VIEW OF PUBLIC
EXPERTS: Which current and predictably future products involving the applications of nanoparticles are potentially or actually problematic to EHS?
Rank Experts: Top 5 applications
1 Cosmetics
2 Fuel additives
3 Anti-microbial clothing
4 Toys and baby products
5 Pesticides
PUBLIC: If experts were asked which potential or actual uses of nanoparticles most concerned the public, how do you think they would rate the public’s concerns?
Rank Public: Top 5 Applications
1 Medicine
2 Pesticides
3 Food Additives
4 Anti-microbial treatments
5 Food Packaging
EXPERTS: What applications or products do you assume the public believes is potentially or actually problematic (using ordinal rankings)?
KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC - ACTUAL PUBLIC
Rank Top 5 Applications
1 Cosmetics
2 Food additives
3 Sunscreens
4 All CNTs
5 Nanobots
Rank Top 5 Applications
1 Food additives
2 Pesticides
3 Drugs
4 Food packaging
5 Water treatment
PUBLIC: how concerned are you about risk to health and safety of the following potential or actual uses of nanoparticles as a component of each of the following (on a 7-item scale).
FOOD
HEALTH AND SAFETYPUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST
PUBLIC: Which sources are you most likely to turn to FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as probably would or more)?
Rank Top 5 EHS sources for info about risks
1 Doctors and health
professionals (73%)
2 University researchers (41%)
3 Family members
4 Friends and acquaintances
5 Industrial researchers
1. “Religious leaders” 2nd to last ahead of “Elected representatives”.
2. “Industrial scientists” were deemed more trustworthy than “NGOs”.
TV and Internet News Consumption
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18- 24 25- 29 30- 34 35- 49 50- 64 65+
Age Range
% c
on
su
mp
tio
n f
rom
each
med
ium
TV 1998
TV 2008
WWW 1998
WWW 2008
12
TV viewing2008
WWW2008
How often do you use the following media sources FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as once a day or more)?
Rank Media sources
1 Television (59%)
2 Internet (44%)
3 Radio
4 Newspapers
Rank Top Web 2.0 internet sources
1 News accumulators (27%)
2 Personal accumulators (21%)
3 Health Blogs
4 Social networking sites
5 Wikis
Which internet sources do you use FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as one a week or more)?
HEALTH AND SAFETY SOURCES INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA (Web 2.0)
52.8% - SLIGHT to NO risk.
74.6% - MODERATE to NO risk.
Only 13.0% - HIGH health risk (only higher than X-Rays cell phones, transfusions, and air travel) and less risky than storms and floods.
Top 3 – street drugs, cigarette smoking, and AIDS.
Weighted Ranking - 18/24 risks.
Behind: stress, motor vehicle accidents, cloning, sun tanning, pesticide residues on foods, coal and oil burning plants, radon…
HEALTH AND SAFETYCOMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS
Flynn, Slovic & Mertz 1994/Berube 2009
RT
PS
RA
20
010©
B
eru
be
Jan
uar
y 19
, 2
010
– R
alei
gh
, N
C
COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLICAND THE MEDIA
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.
NCSU, U Wisconsin, U Minnesota, U South Carolina, & Rice U. (6 grad. students).