Value predispositions, communication, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts

The goals of this dissertation are twofold: (1) To use the differential gains model and the cognitive mediation model as theoretical frameworks to examine the moderating and mediating mechanisms through which cognitive and heuristic factors influence public perceived risks-versus-benefits of nanotechnology and their level of support for federal funding of nanotechnology; and (2) To compare public and experts' attitudes toward nanotechnology and examine whether experts are more objective in their judgment of nanotechnology than do the public.;In Study 1, findings indicate that the public primarily use value predispositions and positive news frames from the mass media as heuristic cues to make judgments about nanotechnology. Conversely, factual scientific knowledge is demonstrated to play a significant, but minor role in influencing perceived risks-versus-benefits. In addition, reflective integration in the form of elaborative processing had a significant negative influence on perceived risks-versus-benefits. In line with the differential gains model, the results indicate that the influence of science media use on the attitudinal outcomes, were moderated by elaborative processing, suggesting that people tended to rely on new scientific information gathered from the mass media to form attitudes about nanotechnology. By applying the cognitive mediation model, the results reveal an informational pathway and a heuristic pathway through which the mass media directly and indirectly exert its influence on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Taken together, these findings bridged the disconnection between the differential gains model and the cognitive mediation model by underscoring the simultaneous moderating and mediating roles of reflective integration when it comes to understanding how the mass media differentially influence individuals' attitudes toward emerging technologies.;Study 2 compares public and experts' attitudes toward nanotechnology and examines whether experts are more objective in their judgment of nanotechnology than do the public. First, compared with the experts, the results demonstrate that the public judged nanotechnology as having more risks and lesser benefits, and were less supportive of federal funding of the emerging technology, after controlling for all appropriate exogenous factors. Second, the findings show that experts, equipped with their professional training, used lesser heuristic cues to make judgment of nanotechnology than did the public.