This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662507087304v1 0963662507087304v2 18/5/546    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brossard, D. Articles by Lewenstein, B. V. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology

¹ School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
² Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin
³ School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin
⁴ Science Communication at Cornell University

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

Using national survey data, we examine how people use science media, factual knowledge related to nanotechnology, and predispositions such as strength of religious beliefs, to form attitudes about nanotechnology. We show that strength of religious beliefs is negatively related to support for funding of the technology. Our findings also confirm that science media use plays an important role in shaping positive attitudes toward the technology. Overall public support for funding nanotechnology is not directly related to levels of knowledge among the electorate, but on risk and benefits perceptions and the use of media frames. However, knowledge about the technology does tend to be interpreted through the lens of religious beliefs and therefore indirectly affect levels of support.

First published on September 16, 2008, doi:10.1177/0963662507087304

Public Understanding of Science 2009;18:546.

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. C. Nisbet and D. A. Scheufele What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2009; 96(10): 1767 - 1778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]