The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Influence of Knowledge and Deference toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology
Abstract
Previous research suggests both cognitive and affective variables can impact how the public thinks about new scientific developments such as nanotechnology. Most studies have not explored the origins of these variables or their simultaneous, interactive influences on public opinion. Using national telephone survey data (N=706), we examine the pathways between different types of media use and attitudes toward nanotechnology, particularly potential mediating roles of nanotechnology knowledge and deference toward scientific authority. People relying on newspapers and the Internet for science information report higher levels of nanotechnology knowledge, while respondents using science TV showed higher levels of deference toward scientific authority.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“An individual's deference to, and trust in, science is associated with responses to science communication in general (e.g., Anderson et al., 2011;Lee and Scheufele, 2006).”
From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Lee and Scheufele, 2006
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Nasty Effect: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Xenos, M., & Ladwig, P. J. (2014) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009 · Cited by 716
Self-citationTrust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research
Earle, T. C. (2010) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x · Cited by 455
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291
Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2008) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.361 · Cited by 232
Self-citationCommunicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, C.-J., & Scheufele, D. A.
- Venue
- Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 819-834
- ISSN
- 1077-6990 (ISSN-L)
- 2161-430X
- OpenAlex
- W2026798544
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › General Materials Science › Nanotechnology research and applications
- Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
- Keywords
- nanotechnology, public attitudes toward science, scientific authority, deference to experts, scientific knowledge, media influence, science communication, newspapers, science television, internet use, public opinion
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
