Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies

Nature Nanotechnology volume 4, pages 752–758 (2009)Cite this article

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 01 December 2009

This article has been updated

Abstract

Understanding emerging trends in public perceptions of nanomaterials is critically important for those who regulate risks. A number of surveys have explored public perceptions of their risks and benefits. In this paper we meta-analyse these surveys to assess the extent to which the following four hypotheses derived from previous studies of new technologies might be said to be valid for nanotechnologies: risk aversion will prevail over benefit appreciation; an increase in knowledge will not result in reduced aversion to risks; judgements will be malleable and subject to persuasion given risk-centric information; and contextual, psychometric and attitudinal predictors of perceived risk from prior studies can help anticipate future perceptions of nanotechnologies. We find that half the public has at least some familiarity with nanotechnology, and those who perceive greater benefits outnumber those who perceive greater risks by 3 to 1. However, a large minority of those surveyed (44%) is unsure, suggesting that risk judgements are highly malleable. Nanotechnology risk perceptions also appear to contradict some long-standing findings. In particular, unfamiliarity with nanotechnology is, contrary to expectations, not strongly associated with risk aversion and reduced ‘knowledge deficits’ are correlated with positive perceptions in this early and controversy-free period. Psychometric variables, trust and affect continue to drive risk perceptions in this new context, although the influence of both trust and affect is mediated, even reversed, by demographic and cultural variables. Given the potential malleability of perceptions, novel methods for understanding future public responses to nanotechnologies will need to be developed.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnologies.
Figure 2: Public perceptions of the relative risks versus benefits of nanotechnology.
Figure 3: Proportion of participants judging that benefits will exceed risks given their previous familiarity with nanotechnology.
Figure 4: Number of papers exploring the role of risk communication and management variables, attitudinal variables, heuristics and biases, and demographic variables in influencing risk judgements.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 29 November 2009

    In the version of this Article originally published, the data from ref. 50 used in the meta-analysis and plotted in Fig. 2 were incorrect because these data were subsequently corrected in ref. 51. This mistake does not change any of the conclusions of the paper. An error also occurred in plotting the data from ref. 40 in Fig. 2, but the correct data were used in the rest of the paper. Figure 2 (including caption) and the first two sentences of the paragraph beginning "In the nine surveys" on page 754 of this Article have been amended accordingly in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article.

References

  1. Rip, A. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci. Cult. 15, 349–365 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nel, A., Xia, T., Madler, L. & Li, N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311, 622–627 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 14, 799–806 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegrist, M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29, 2093–2106 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. Social Theories of Risk 1st edn (Praeger Publishers, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Edelstein, M. R. Contaminated Communities: Coping with Residential Toxic Exposure 1st edn (Westview Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Erikson, K. A New Species of Trouble: The Human Experience of Modern Disasters 1st edn (WW Norton & Company, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kasperson, J. X. & Kasperson, R. E. The Social Contours of Risk 1st edn, Vol. 1 and 2 (Earthscan Publications, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk 1st edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Slovic, P. Perception of Risk 1st edn (Earthscan Publishers, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Morgan, M. G. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davies, J. C. Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2009); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen18/>.

  14. Freudenburg, W. R. Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science 242, 44–49 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 672–695 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment 1st edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13, 1–17 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. & Quadrel, M. J. Risk perception and communication. Annu. Rev. Public Health 14, 183–203 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Slovic, P. & Peters, E. Risk perception and affect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 322–325 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. K. Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14, 1101–1108 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T. A. Gender, race and perceived risk: the white male effect. Health Risk Soc. 2, 159–172 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bord, R. J. & O'Connor, R. E. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk: research on the environment. Soc. Sci. Quart. 78, 830–840 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K. & Slovic, P. Discrimination, vulnerability and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal. 24, 115–129 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit and ethics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 22, 98–124 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wildavsky, A. & Dake, K. Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119, 41–60 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Braman, D. & Kahan, D. M. More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions (SSRN eLibrary, 2001); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205>.

  32. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. & Slovic, P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12, 215–232 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alhakami, A. & Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14, 1085–1096 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Morgan, M. et al. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. Risk Anal. 5, 139–149 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gregory, R., Flynn, J. & Slovic, P. Technological stigma. Am. Sci. 83, 220–223 (May/June, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Powell, D. & Leiss, W. Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Siegrist, M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20, 195–204 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Slovic, P. in Social Theories of Risk Vol. 1 (eds Krimsky, S. & Golding, D.) 117–152 (Praeger, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M. META-ANALYSIS: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 59–82 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 6, 395–405 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sims Bainbridge, W. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotech. 4, 87–90 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal. 13, 643–648 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Pub. Und. Sci. 13, 55–74 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 20, 713–720 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Durant, J. in Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology (eds Dierkes, M. & von Grote, C.) 131–156 (Harwood, 2000).

  48. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Pub. Und. Sci. 17, 35–54 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. Affect, Values and Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation (SSRN eLibrary, 2007); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205>.

  50. Peter, D. Hart Research Associates, I. Report Findings Based on a National Survey of Adults (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf>.

  51. Peter, D. Hart Research Associates, I. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2007); available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf>.

  52. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Evans, G. & Durant, J. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Pub. Und. Sci. 4, 57–74 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 27, 240–267 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kahan, D. M. et al. Biased Assimilation, Polarization and Cultural Credibility: An Experimental Study of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions (SSRN eLibrary, 2008); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090044>.

  56. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. & Wiek, A. Laypeople's and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Assess. 27, 59–69 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cobb, M. D. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 27, 221–239 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schutz, H. & Wiedemann, P. M. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Pub. Und. Sci. 17, 369–379 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. & Keller, C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51, 283–290 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Renn, O. & Roco, M. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 153–191 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Currall, S. C. New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotech. 4, 79–80 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. The Construction of Preference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Rao, S. R. et al. Meta-analysis of survey data: application to health services research. Health Serv. Out. Res. Meth. 8, 98–114 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T. D. & Lozano, K. Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol. Soc. 27, 329–345 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004); available at <http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm>.

  67. Scheufele, D. & Lewenstein, B. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-j., Dalrymple, K. E. & Ho, S. S. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotech. 4, 91–94 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Smiley Smith, S. E., Hosgood, H. D., Michelson, E. S. & Stowe, M. Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception: assessing opinion change. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 459–473 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. The Future of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation of Two Hypotheses (SSRN eLibrary, 2008); available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089230>.

  71. Priest, S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J. Nanopart. Res. 8, 563–568 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Macoubrie, J. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Pub. Und. Sci. 15, 221–241 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Fujita, Y., Yokoyama, H. & Abe, S. Perception of nanotechnology among the general public in Japan—of the NRI Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project. Asia Pac. Nano. Wkly 4, 1–2 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Pub. Und. Sci. 14, 81–90 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Einsiedel, E. In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and US publics. Azonano 1, 1–10 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Cooperative Agreement 0531184 between the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB); by Cooperative Agreement EF 0830117 between NSF, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UCSB and University of California, Los Angeles), and by an Alexander Graham Bell Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4

    Terre Satterfield & Christian E. H. Beaudrie

  2. Liu Institute for Global Issues and Institute of Asian Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z2

    Milind Kandlikar

  3. NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA

    Joseph Conti & Barbara Herr Harthorn

Authors
  1. Terre Satterfield
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milind Kandlikar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian E. H. Beaudrie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph Conti
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barbara Herr Harthorn
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.S. and M.K. conceived and designed the meta-analysis. C.B. and M.K. analysed the data. T.S. wrote the paper, with M.K. and C.B. providing input on original drafts and revisions. B.H.H. and J.C. provided key materials and summaries of studies, and all authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terre Satterfield.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary information (PDF 371 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. et al. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotech 4, 752–758 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing