Transcript Climate Change Information - University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Nanotechnology Information,
Risk and Regulation: Frames,
Topics and Trust
Susanna Hornig Priest, Ph.D., and
Ted Greenhalgh
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Two projects
 South Carolina panel study; 75 individuals
over three years (NSEC at U of SC)
 Experimental work on frames, topics and
trust (NER w/John Besley)
Panel study
 Low awareness, but qualitative baseline
interviews showed some context for nano
– Not dissimilar to scientists’ perceptions
– More concern with regulation
 Idea of a “template” for technology – even
with no familiarity, people have
expectations for risks and benefits
 Concerns over “social risks” greater, and
rising, compared to health/environment
Goals of Experimental Study
 Determine whether news framing (defined
“conservatively”) really matters
–
–
–
–
Pilot study implicates mention of regulation
Longitudinal study points to ELSI salience
Resonates with other studies, e.g. focus groups
Explore whether people “lump” nano
applications together
 Evaluate the contributions of prior attitudes
The “F” Word: Framing
 What we call things (labeling; e.g., Lakoff)
– Common scapegoat for controversy (Frankenfoods,
therapeutic cloning), but what evidence?
 Partial truths and information effects (Entman?)
– What goes in and what not; intention?
– Classic persuasion theory suggests effects won’t last
 How news practices shape stories (Tuchman)
– Beat reporting; “discovering” the story
– Narrative emphasis effect, not content effect
Study Design
 Four nano news stories:
– Electronics, food processing, drug development, solar
energy applications
 Four manipulations of story paragraph order:
– Benefits, physical risks, regulatory status, “social risks”
privileged
 Undergrad student subjects (41) each read one
story within each application
– 16 conditions systematically rotated
 Pre-tested attitudes; post-tested reactions
Preliminary Conclusions
 Subtle framing effects exist but depend on topic,
treatment
– Perceived R/B ratios are higher for regulation, “social
risk” frames than benefit, physical risk frames (onetailed p = .105 for effects on society; .026 on self)
– Taking DV’s separately, most effects n.s. (except food)
– Nevertheless finding is interesting given limited nature
of manipulation (paragraph order only)
 Topic much more important (no evidence of
“lumping”); some interaction w/frame
 Preexisting trust factors also very important (but
not other attitudes tested)
Implications?
 “Expanded vocabulary of risk”
– Controlling physical hazards is not the only
issue of public concern
 Trust is crucial to attitudes toward tech
– Not likely a short-term effect of news frames
 People make application distinctions, not
mindless generalizations
– Even undergraduates reading 4 stories in a row!
Where to go from here…..
 That’s why you are all here!