IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v11y2008i7p877-889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Susanna Hornig Priest

Abstract

New approaches are needed to think about audiences, subcultures, and publics in the context of increasing attention to the pluralistic nature of modern societies. Subgroup differences influencing reactions to technological change abound but may not correspond neatly to national boundaries. Often attributed to the influence of media messages, these differences are more clearly associated with message interpretation than with uniform media effects. In other words, reactions are better understood as a function of what audiences bring to the interpretation of news and information than as a function of exposure to message content itself. As an example, this article considers persistent differences between the US and Canada in opinions about technology that can be traced through comparative survey data collected by the Canadian government in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Previous research by the author has suggested, based on the data from the 2004 survey, that these differences can be accounted for by differential distributions within each country of subgroups with different perspectives on the inherent value of science, on whether decisions in this area should be driven by ethics or by utilitarian concerns, and on who should make those decisions. Here, comparative Canada-US survey data from January 2005 are used to explore explanations based on media consumption, source credibility, and perceived social distance (from developers) characteristic of these groups, as well as to extend the analysis from biotechnology to nanotechnology as well. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanna Hornig Priest, 2008. "North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 877-889, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:7:p:877-889
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870802056904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870802056904
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870802056904?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. James Painter & J. Scott Brennen & Silje Kristiansen, 2020. "The coverage of cultured meat in the US and UK traditional media, 2013–2019: drivers, sources, and competing narratives," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2379-2396, October.
    2. Halder, Deepa & Pradhan, Debasis & Roy Chaudhuri, Himadri, 2021. "Forty-five years of celebrity credibility and endorsement literature: Review and learnings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 397-415.
    3. Susanna Priest & Thomas Lane & Ted Greenhalgh & Lindsey Jo Hand & Victoria Kramer, 2011. "Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three‐Year Panel Study of South Carolina Citizens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1718-1733, November.
    4. Elizabeth Seale & Gregory Fulkerson, 2015. "The Cynical Public: Claims about Science in the Discourse on Hydrofracking," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 20(3), pages 30-47, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:7:p:877-889. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.