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).

THANKSdmberube@ncsu.edu