↓ Skip to main content

Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanoparticle Research, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology
Published in
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, August 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shirley S. Ho, Dietram A. Scheufele, Elizabeth A. Corley

Abstract

Using a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,015 adults in the United States, this study examines how value predispositions, communication variables, and perceptions of risks and benefits are associated with public support for federal funding of nanotechnology. Our findings show that highly religious individuals were less supportive of funding of nanotech than less religious individuals, whereas individuals who held a high deference for scientific authority were more supportive of funding of the emerging technology than those low in deference. Mass media use and elaborative processing of scientific news were positively associated with public support for funding, whereas factual scientific knowledge had no significant association with policy choices. The findings suggest that thinking about and reflecting upon scientific news promote better understanding of the scientific world and may provide a more sophisticated cognitive structure for the public to form opinions about nanotech than factual scientific knowledge. Finally, heuristic cues including trust in scientists and perceived risks and benefits of nanotech were found to be associated with public support for nanotech funding. We conclude with policy implications that will be useful for policymakers and science communication practitioners.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 79 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 29%
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 34 40%
Environmental Science 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,705,774
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#80
of 902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,473
of 94,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 902 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.