The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards
Abstract
Public perception of nanotechnology may influence the realization of technological advances. Laypeople's (N= 375) and experts' (N= 46) perception of 20 different nanotechnology applications and three nonnanotechnology applications were examined. The psychometric paradigm was utilized and applications were described in short scenarios. Results showed that laypeople and experts assessed asbestos as much more risky than nanotechnology applications. Analyses of aggregated data suggested that perceived dreadfulness of applications and trust in governmental agencies are important factors in determining perceived risks. Similar results were observed for experts and laypeople, but the latter perceived greater risks than the former. Analyses of individual data showed that trust, perceived benefits, and general attitudes toward technology influenced the perceived risk of laypeople. In the expert sample, confidence in governmental agencies was an important predictor of risks associated with nanotechnology applications. Results suggest that public concerns about nanotechnology would diminish if measures were taken to enhance laypeople's trust in governmental agencies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 590
RetractedSlovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles
Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E., & Oberdörster, J. (2005) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.7339 · Cited by 7,891
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf00143739 · Cited by 2,834
Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916596283003 · Cited by 1,187
A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit
Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x · Cited by 1,151
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,111
Self-citationThe Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Siegrist, M. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020 · Cited by 1,092
Self-citationSocial Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society
Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995) · Cited by 613
The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 · Cited by 550
Cited by
Duncan, T. V. (2011) · Journal of Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2011.07.017 · Cited by 2,029
Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature
Siegrist, M. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13325 · Cited by 606
Self-citationFactors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products
SIEGRIST, M. (2008) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017 · Cited by 536
Self-citationCox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.04.005 · Cited by 397
Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan
Chen, M.-F., Lin, Y.-P., & Cheng, T.-J. (2013) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.008 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-69
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2152916026
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 72.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x
- The paper
- Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
