How is public opinion towards nanotechnology likely to evolve? The ‘familiarity hypothesis’ holds that support for nanotechnology will likely grow as awareness of it expands. The basis of this conjecture is opinion polling, which finds that few members of the public claim to know much about nanotechnology, but that those who say they do are substantially more likely to believe its benefits outweigh its risks1,2,3,4. Some researchers, however, have avoided endorsing the familiarity hypothesis, stressing that cognitive heuristics and biases could create anxiety as the public learns more about this novel science5,6. We conducted an experimental study aimed at determining how members of the public would react to balanced information about nanotechnology risks and benefits. Finding no support for the familiarity hypothesis, the study instead yielded strong evidence that public attitudes are likely to be shaped by psychological dynamics associated with cultural cognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Energy Open Access 12 December 2022
Journal of Academic Ethics Open Access 30 April 2021
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Hart Research Associates. Report findings available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf (2006).
Hart Research Associates. Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf (2007).
Macoubrie, J. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Pub. Understanding Sci. 15, 221–241 (2006).
Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 6, 395–404 (2004).
Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).
Scheufele, D. A. Five lessons in nano outreach. Mater. Today 9, 64 (May 2006).
DiMaggio, P. Culture and cognition. Ann. Rev. Sociology 23, 263–287 (1997).
Wildavsky, A. & Dake, K. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus 114, 41–60 (1990).
Douglas, M. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Routledge & K. Paul, 1966).
Gutierrez, R. & Giner-Sorolla, R. Anger, disgust and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion 7, 853–868 (2007).
Dake, K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 22, 61–82 (1991).
Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. B. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Univ. of California Press, 1982).
Peters, E. & Slovic, P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 26, 1427–1453 (1996).
Leiserowitz, A. A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25, 1433–1442 (2005).
Finucane, M. L. Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: The role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Proc. Nutrition Soc. 61, 31–37 (2002).
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: Effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personality Social Psychol. 37, 2098–2109 (1979).
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. K. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J. Empirical Legal Studies 4, 465–505 (2007).
Curall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).
Mutz, D. C. & Martin, P. S. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 95, 97–114 (2001).
Cohen, G. L. et al. Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. J. Personality & Social Psychol. 93, 415–430 (2007).
Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D. & Gastil, J. Fear of democracy: A cultural critique of Sunstein on risk. Harv. L. Rev. 119, 1071–1109 (2006).
Edwards, E. M. et al. A comparison of results from an alcohol survey of a prerecruited internet panel and the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Alcoholism: Clin. Exp. Res. 32, 222–229 (2008).
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C. & Okamoto, S. Science communication: Public acceptance of evolution. Science 313, 765–766 (2006).
Chang, L. & Krosnick, J. Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized questionnaires: an experiment. Available at http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/Krosnick/Tel%20Int%20Mode%20Experiment.pdf (under review).
Peters, E. M., Burraston, B. & Mertz, C. K. An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal. 24, 1349–1367 (2004).
Douglas, M. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (Pantheon Books, 1970).
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. K. Gender, race and perception of environmental health risk. Risk Anal. 14, 1101–1108 (1994).
Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K. & Slovic, P. Discrimination, vulnerability and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal. 24, 115–129 (2004).
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES 0621840), the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, and the Oscar Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School. We thank E. Peters for advice on the study design, and R. MacCoun for valuable comments on earlier drafts.
About this article
Cite this article
Kahan, D., Braman, D., Slovic, P. et al. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotech 4, 87–90 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341
This article is cited by
Nature Energy (2022)
Journal of Academic Ethics (2022)
Environmental and Resource Economics (2022)
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems (2021)
Nature Food (2020)