IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v62y2020ics0160791x20300452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects

Author

Listed:
  • Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat
  • Lee, Khai Ern
  • Siow, Kim Shyong
  • Mokhtar, Mazlin

Abstract

Nanotechnology enables the development of new and improved products. However, the public is also concerned about uncertain risks associated with nanotechnology-enabled products. To address this concern, the study aims to expand the understanding about public benefit and risk perceptions as a basis for the effective formulation of policy that addresses public interests. The study investigates public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development from the psychological and sociological aspects through a questionnaire survey conducted on Klang Valley, Malaysia. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) illustrates that demographics indeed influences public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development. However, public knowledge about nanotechnology exerts no effect on public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development based on independent t-tests. Simple linear regression reveals that the lack of public trust in government increases risk perception. Public attitude perceives nanotechnology to be more beneficial than risky, thus influencing benefit perception rather than risk perception. Public lifestyle, such as culture, religious beliefs and social group influence benefit perception but not risk perception. Result is expected to deliver better communication of benefit and risk of nanotechnology to the public as well as ensure an ethical policy regarding nanotechnology development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x20300452
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X20300452
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo, 2011. "Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: Some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-108.
    2. Jing Zhang & Guoyu Wang & Deming Lin, 2016. "High support for nanotechnology in China: A case study in Dalian," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 115-127.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    4. Jonathan Brown & Jennifer Kuzma, 2013. "Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(5), pages 512-548, September.
    5. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    6. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1762-1769, November.
    8. Heleen van Dijk & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Hans J.P. Marvin & Hans C.M. van Trijp, 2017. "Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes towards a new technology: nanotechnology applications for food, water, energy and medicine," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 277-298, February.
    9. Nick Pidgeon & Barbara Harthorn & Terre Satterfield, 2011. "Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1694-1700, November.
    10. Katherine A McComas & John C. Besley, 2011. "Fairness and Nanotechnology Concern," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1749-1761, November.
    11. Vicki Stone & Martin Führ & Peter H. Feindt & Hans Bouwmeester & Igor Linkov & Stefania Sabella & Finbarr Murphy & Kilian Bizer & Lang Tran & Marlene Ågerstrand & Carlos Fito & Torben Andersen & Diana, 2018. "The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1321-1331, July.
    12. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mina, Giorgio & Peira, Giovanni & Bonadonna, Alessandro, 2023. "Public perception and social sustainability of indoor farming technologies: A systematic review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Rathore, Ankita & Mahesh, G., 2021. "Public perception of nanotechnology: A contrast between developed and developing countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    2. Tran, Van & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2019. "An economic analysis of nanofood labeling," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-20.
    3. Peter Kamstra & Brian Cook & David M. Kennedy & Barbara Brighton, 2018. "Treating risk as relational on shore platforms and implications for public safety on microtidal rocky coasts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(3), pages 1299-1316, April.
    4. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Helen Prince & Judith Bush & Christine E Dunn, 2002. "Urban Air Quality in North‐East England: Exploring the Influences on Local Views and Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 121-130, February.
    5. Bruno Chauvin & Danièle Hermand & Etienne Mullet, 2007. "Risk Perception and Personality Facets," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 171-185, February.
    6. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    9. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    10. Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    11. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    12. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    13. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    14. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    16. Ziyang Li & Qianwei Ying & Yuying Chen & Xuehui Zhang, 2020. "Managerial risk appetite and asymmetry cost behavior: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(5), pages 4651-4692, December.
    17. Abbas El‐Zein & Rola Nasrallah & Iman Nuwayhid & Lea Kai & Jihad Makhoul, 2006. "Why Do Neighbors Have Different Environmental Priorities? Analysis of Environmental Risk Perception in a Beirut Neighborhood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 423-435, April.
    18. John R. Becker–Blease & Jeffrey E. Sohl, 2011. "The Effect of Gender Diversity on Angel Group Investment," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(4), pages 709-733, July.
    19. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    20. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x20300452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.