JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 DOI10.1007/s11051-015-2926-4 RESEARCH PAPER Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies J. Brown • L. Fatehi • J. Kuzma Received:24November2014/Accepted:19February2015 (cid:2)SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2015 Abstract To better explore and understand the may be situated between different theoretical frame- public’sperceptions ofandattitudestowardemerging works that have been used for explaining perception technologies and food products, we conducted a US- and attitude. We argue that they may represent a basedfocusgroupstudycenteredonnanotechnology, convergence point among theories that each help nano-food, and nano-food labeling. Seven focus explain different aspects of both how food nanotech- groups were conducted in seven locations in two nologiesareperceivedandwhythoseperceptionsare differentUSmetropolitanareasfromSeptember2010 formed. In this paper, we first review theoretical to January 2011. In addition to revealing context- frameworks for evaluating risk perception and atti- specific data on already established risk and public tudes toward emerging technologies, then review perceptionfactors,ourgoalwastoinductivelyidentify previousworkonpublicperceptionofnanotechnology othernano-foodperceptionfactorsofsignificancefor and nano-food, describe our qualitative content consideration when analyzing why and how percep- analysis results for public perception toward nano- tions and attitudes are formed to nanotechnology in food—focusingespeciallyonaltruismandskepticism, food. Two such factors that emerged—altruism and anddiscussimplicationsofthesefindingsintermsof skepticism—are particularly interesting in that they how public attitudes toward nano-food could be formed and understood. Finally, we propose that payingattentiontothesetwofactorsmayguidemore responsibledevelopmentofnano-foodinthefuture. J.Brown DepartmentofEducationalPsychology,Collegeof EducationandHumanDevelopment,Universityof Keywords Food(cid:2)Nanotechnology(cid:2)Risk(cid:2) Minnesota,56EastRiverRoad,Minneapolis,MN55455, Consumer(cid:2)Perception(cid:2)Skepticism(cid:2)Altruism(cid:2) USA Societalimplications L.Fatehi HumphreySchoolofPublicAffairs,Universityof Minnesota,30119thAveS#307,Minneapolis, MN55455,USA Introduction J.Kuzma(&) SchoolofPublicandInternationalAffairsandGenetic Nanotechnology refers to a broad range of tools, EngineeringandSocietyCenter,NorthCarolinaState techniques, and applications that involve the ma- University,CampusBox7565,1070PartnersWay, nipulation of matter at the nanometer scale Suite5100,HuntLibrary,Raleigh,NC27606-7565,USA e-mail:[email protected] (1 nm = 10-9 m)toproduceavarietyofusefulnovel 123 122 Page2of31 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 physical, chemical, and biological properties that do importance to sales success and the availability of notexistatlargerscales(NNI2014).Applicationsof investmentfunding.Equally,ifnotmoreimportantly, nanotechnologyspanvirtuallyallindustries,withmore are the ethical aspects of consumers’ acceptance and than 1600 nanotechnology-based consumer products trust,whicharecloselyrelatedtotheirrightstoknow already on the global market (PEN 2014) and global about and to choose whether and when to consume revenuesfromnanomaterialsandnano-enabledprod- nano-food products (Throne-Holst and Strandbakken uctsforecastedtoreachover$4trillionby2018(Lux 2009). Furthermore, significant public controversies Research 2014). Given the substantial role of the have surrounded other technologies applied to food consumer in this burgeoning market, there has been productionandfoodproducts,suchasthecontroversies much recent attentiondevoted tounderstanding what aroundthesafetyofrecombinantbovinesomatotropin, thepublicthinksaboutnanotechnologyandwhy. labelingofgeneticallyengineeredfoods,pervasiveness One sector in which nanotechnology is already of pesticide residues, andorigins of mad cow disease havingamajorimpact—butforwhichpublicattitudes (e.g.,PowellandLeiss2004).Foodnanotechnologyis are under-explored—is food. Applications of nan- destinedtobeaffectedbyconsumers’memoriesofand otechnologyintheareaoffood(alsocallednano-food experienceswiththesecontroversies. or food nanotechnologies hereinafter) span the entire Despite these observations, public perceptions of chainfromproductiontoconsumption.Areasofnano- and attitudes toward food nanotechnologies among food research and development (R&D) broadly in- consumers from the United States remain an unex- clude:agriculturalproductionsystems(e.g.,precision ploredareawithveryfewstudies(BrownandKuzma farming sensors, targeted agro-chemicals); flavor, 2013;Zhuoet al. 2013).There are more studies with texture, and nutrient alterations or enhancements; European consumers (Siegrist et al. 2007, 2008, and packaging for increased freshness and shelf-life 2009; Vandermoere et al. 2011; Bieberstein et al. (i.e., for longer transport and storage) as well as for 2013) and others addressing the topic as a secondary increased food safety (e.g., improved barrier imper- consideration to broader non-food nanotechnology meability, contamination sensors, tracking systems) issues (Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden 2007; Burri and (Kuzma and Verhage 2006; Chaudhry et al. 2008). Bellucci2008;Throne-HolstandStrandbakken2009; While these applications are in varying stages of the Siegrist and Keller 2011). These studies mostly have R&D pipeline, the Project on Nanotechnologies’ relied on quantitative survey techniques that typical- inventory of nano-products currently lists 105 nano- ly are not designed to uncover the underlying foodandbeverageproducts,anumberwhichmaywell rationales and processes by which public perceptions be an underestimate (Chun 2009) and which is and decisions are formed—especially in lesser stud- expected to grow considerably (Chaudhry et al. ied and understood areas—as compared to non- 2008; House of Lords 2010) given the significant survey techniques (Brown andKuzma 2013;Morgan global investment in nano-food R&D (Berube 2006; 1996). Although these prior studies have begun to Dudoetal.2011;KuzmaandVerHage2006). address the question of what factors are influencing As investments and R&D in nano-food grow, it is public perceptions of nano-food, they have short- increasingly recognized that public and consumer comings in explaining why people hold the beliefs attitudes toward nano-food products and nanotech- that they do. nology more generally matter a great deal to the To better explore and understand public percep- development of the industry. From an economic and tionsandattitudesthroughaninductivemethodbased market standpoint, consumer needs, preferences, and on conversations among consumers, we conducted a purchasing behaviors are drivers of R&D decisions, US-based focus group study centered on nanotech- especiallyinindustry.Thepublic’sperceptionsofthe nology, nano-food, and nano-food labeling. In addi- risksandbenefitsassociatedwithnanotechnologyand tion to producing nano-food context-specific data on nano-food,aswellastheirconfidenceandtrustinthe alreadyestablishedriskandpublicperceptionfactors, institutionsinvolvedintheproductionandregulationof ourgoalwastoinductivelyidentifyanyotherunique nano-food, are likely to be significant factors for andasyetunidentifiednano-foodperceptionfactorsof consumer acceptance of nano-food products (Siegrist significance for consideration when analyzing why et al. 2007, 2008, 2009) and, thus, of paramount andhowperceptionsandattitudesareformed. 123 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 Page3of31 122 Two such factors that emerged—altruism and One is the psychometric paradigm which focuses on skepticism—are particularly interesting in that they identifying those aspects of a risk (e.g., newness, situate nano-food among a number of different dreadedness, uncertainty, voluntariness, magnitude) theoretical frameworks that have been used for that influence individuals’ affect and emotion which explaining perception and attitude in a variety of then influence perceptions of that risk and ultimately contexts. Stated otherwise, altruism and skepticism judgments and decisions about that risk (Fischhoff are significant findings in that they represent a et al. 1978). In addition to these risk factors, the convergence point among theories that each help psychometricparadigmalsoreliesonalengthylistof explain different aspects of both how food nanotech- heuristics and cognitive biases that seek to explain nologiesareperceivedandhowthoseperceptionsmay howindividualsevaluateneworambiguousinforma- beformed. tion about risks through common ‘‘mental shortcuts’’ Inthispaper,wefirstreviewsomeofthetheoretical such as referring to familiar experiences or discount- frameworks for evaluating technological perceptions ing unfavorable outcomes. Stated otherwise, the and attitudes and literature on the concepts of skep- psychometric approach ‘‘seeks to explain differences ticism and altruism. We then describe our data in how risks are perceived rather than differences in collection and analysis methodologies of nano-food how individuals perceive risks’’ (Slimak and Dietz focusgroupsintheUnitedStates.Finally,wedescribe 2006,p.1689).Thus,itfollowsthatthepsychometric qualitative content analysis results for public percep- approach has great descriptive and predictive value tiontowardnano-food—focusing especially onaltru- withrespecttonewrisksandriskeventsand,assuch, ismandskepticism—anddiscussimplicationsinterms oftenhasbeenusedtoempiricallystudyperceptionsof ofhow public attitudes toward nano-foodare formed emergingtechnologies. andunderstood. Beyondthepsychometricparadigmanditsempha- sis on risk factors, there are also a number of sociologicalandculturalframeworksforriskpercep- Theoriesofperceptionandattitude tion that emphasize the role of social factors, norms, and values. One set of frameworks is based on the Thereexistsamassiveliteratureonconsumerpercep- notion that individuals are often ill-equipped to tionandattitudeacrossarangeoftopics,technologies, accurately judge risks based on personal experience products, and disciplines. Within this literature, the and,assuch,relyonsocialnetworksandcontractsto termsperceptionandattitudeareassignedavarietyof provide information about and to manage risks statedandimplieddefinitionsand,often,areregarded (Rohrmann and Renn 2000; Tucker and Ferson as synonymous. Further complicating the matter are 2008). Consequently, trust and confidence in those related concepts such as social acceptance and social networks and contracts (i.e., the market, the consumerbehaviorwhichabutandoverlapwithsome political system, the regulatory system, news media, aspectsofperceptionandattitude.Forthepurposesof socialgroups)playanimportantroleinperceptionsof this study, perception refers to how an individual or risk,especiallywhenthoserisksarenew,uncertain,or membersofthepublicregardorfeelaboutsomething ambiguous.Beyond mereperception,trustandconfi- thatpresentsuncertainorambiguousrisksandbenefits dence have also been shown to influence people’s basedonstimuliandinformationtheyreceivefroma reactions to risk (for example, lack of trust in varietyofsources andhowtheyinterpretthatstimuli industry’s ability to handle risk is associated with and information through a variety of sensory, affec- greater levels of political activism) (Rohrmann and tive, cognitive, psychosocial, experiential, cultural, Renn 2000). One related theory is the social amplifi- and mental processes. Attitude, by contrast, refers to cationofriskframework(SARF)whichholdsthatthe the way in which an individual or the public is intermediariesthroughwhichindividualsreceiverisk predisposed to act in a particular situation based on information (e.g., media, government, industry, ad- theirperception(Schiff1970). vertising, social groups, etc.) can either amplify that Several different models attempt to explain the information such that it receives greater public processesandfactorsthatcontributetoperceptionsof attentionorattenuateitsuchthatitdoesnot(Kasper- risksandbenefitsfortechnologiesandtheirproducts. sonetal.1988). 123 122 Page4of31 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 While the approaches above are helpful for ex- versus individualistic, were used to describe four plaining the factors and mechanisms that cause predominant cultural ways of life and supporting different risks to be perceived differently across worldviews. An individual’s worldview helps deter- individuals, they are largely limited in explaining minewhichrisksheorsheregardsasworthaccepting why those factors and mechanisms influence indi- inordertoachievehisorherascribed-toculturalway viduals’riskperceptions(WA˚hlberg2001;Slimakand oflife.These worldviewshavesincebeentestedfora Dietz 2006). For instance, psychometric factors have variety of environmental, health, and technological been shown to explain only 20 % of the variance in risks. For example, Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) risk perceptions among individuals as compared to suggest that adherents of an egalitarian–collectivist 60–80 %ofthevarianceamongtypesofrisks(Sjo¨berg worldview tend to acknowledge environmental risks 2000). The psychometric approach is regarded by in order to advocate against social institutions that several scholars as poorly-suited for evaluating dif- produce inequality, while adherents of an individual- ferences in the perceptions of ecological risks and istic-hierarchical worldview tend to dismiss environ- environmentally significant behaviors (for example, mental risks in order to prevent interference with supportfornuclearenergyorrecycling),whichappear private control of activities and to defend those to be significantly more attributable to individual imbuedwithauthority. differences in value orientation (Slimak and Dietz The related cultural cognition of risk connects the 2006;DeGrootandSteg2008;DeGrootetal.2013; cultural theory of risk with the psychometric ap- HopperandNielsen1991). proach by positing that psychometric factors are the Numerous studies have demonstrated that values mechanisms by which cultural worldviews influence significantly effect and are predictive of beliefs, risk perceptions. Stated otherwise, various psycho- attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward risk and logical processes are responsible for how individuals benefits(Stern2000;SternandDietz1994;Thøgersen form their beliefs about risks such that those beliefs andO¨lander2002).Othershavedescribedhowvalues match their worldviews. Mechanisms of translating functionwhenanindividualisconfrontedwithanovel cultural worldviews to risk perception include iden- risksituationorisinthepositiontochoosewhetherto tity-protective cognition; biased assimilation and support a new technology or policy as follows: ‘‘The group polarization; cultural credibility; cultural multistep model posits that core values are relatively availability; and cultural identity affirmation, which stableoverthecourseofanindividual’slife,providing relate to believing, seeking, or paying attention to a basic referent for action, including assessing and risk information that supports one’s own worldview making use of or discarding new information.’’ or is conveyed by people with matching worldviews (Whitfieldetal.2009).Somestudieshavealsoshown (Kahan2012).Inparticular,culturalcognition ofrisk that values play a significant role in trust—the more has taken foot in the study of emerging technologies closelyalignedanindividual’svaluesarewiththoseof such as nanotechnology. For example, Kahan et al. institutionsresponsibleformanagingarisk,themore (2009) demonstrated that cultural cognition explains trust he or she will have in those institutions (Earle the majority of the differences in nanotechnology et al. 2007; Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003; Whitfield (not specific to nano-food, however) risk perception etal.2009). in the United States. Related to values that people hold, the cultural How cultural cognition and its mechanisms of theory of risk and cultural cognition of risk are two translation relate to the characteristics of risk impor- prominent and related approaches to understanding tant under the psychometric paradigm (dread, famil- riskperceptionthatemphasizetheroleofculturaland iarity,control,etc.)isnotclear(Kahan2012).Wewill group affiliations. These approaches come closest return to a discussion of this in the context of perhaps to understanding the ‘‘why’’ of risk percep- skepticism and altruism for nano-food in the final tion. According to cultural theory, differences in risk section of this article. For now, having summarized perceptionarisefromdifferencesinindividuals’views someoftheapproachestoevaluatingperceptionsand of the world and ways of living (Douglas and attitudes, we turn to the current literature on specific Wildavsky 1982). Two cross-cutting dimensions or perceptions and attitudes toward food axes, egalitarian versus hierarchical and communal nanotechnologies. 123 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 Page5of31 122 Nano-foodperceptionsandattitudes aboutthesuccessandcontinuedadvancementofnano- food and nanotechnology that may hinge on the Itismostlyconsistentacrossnanotechnologypercep- public’sacceptanceofsuchproducts(Ko¨hlerandSom tionandattitudestudiesthatasignificantpercentageof 2008; Macoubrie 2006; Royal Society and Royal the public has little or no familiarity with nanotech- AcademyofEngineering2004). nology and that even those with some familiarity are Despite this, we are aware of only a few studies often unsure about whether the risks of nanotech- addressingperceivedrisksandbenefitsinthecontext nologyoutweighthebenefitsorviceversa(Satterfield of specific nano-food applications. Studies in the EU etal.2009).Indeed,familiarity withandjudgmentsof foundthatperceivednaturalnessandtrustinthefood risksversusbenefitshavebeenacentralfocusofmost industry,scientists,andconsumerprotectionagencies ofthesestudiesasthedominantapproachhasbeento arekeyfactorsinfluencingrisk/benefitperceptionsand build on the psychometric risk paradigm by identify- acceptanceofnano-foodproducts(Freweretal.2011; ingriskcharacteristicsandheuristicsthatdemonstrate Fischer etal.2013;Siegristet al.2007,2008).These effects on nanotechnology perceptions and attitudes. studiesalsoreportthat,fromavalencestandpoint,the Among the psychometric and heuristic factors found publicintheEUishesitanttoacceptfoodcontaining tosignificantlyhavesucheffectsaremediaexposure, orprocessedwithnanotechnologyandfoodpackaging framing effects, attitudes toward science and tech- containingnanomaterials,albeitthelatterisperceived nology, intuitive toxicology, perceived naturalness, asmorebeneficialthantheformer(Siegristetal.2007; trust in regulations and risk management (Satterfield Guptaetal.2012).Similarly,consumers’willingness et al. 2009). Some studies have also found income, to buy hypothetical products with added health education, and religiosity to have a significant effect benefits resulting from nanomaterial additives have on perceptions of nano, while other studies have beenfoundtobelowerascomparedtoproductswith divergently found political leanings, race, age, and similar benefits from natural additives, even though gendertobebothsignificantandinsignificantfactors higher as compared to products with no additional (Kahanetal.2009;Satterfieldetal.2009). healthbenefitatall(Siegristetal.2009).Siegristetal. Despitethisarrayofnanoperceptionfactorsfound (2007) additionally constructed a model in which in the literature, there exists a knowledge gap about consumers’socialtrustintheinstitutionsandorgani- perceptions and attitudes toward particular nanotech- zations comprising the foodindustry moderated their nologyapplications.Foodscontaining,producedwith, affect toward nano-food information which, in turn, or packaged in materials containing nanomaterials fed into benefit and risk perceptions. Greater social (nano-food products) are an important area with trust in nano-food producers and perceptions of limited perception and attitude research, especially benefits had a positive impact on willingness to buy in the United States (Cook and Fairweather 2007; thatoutpacedthenegativeimpactofperceivedrisks. Siegrist et al. 2007; Brown and Kuzma 2013). Even In light of the above results, we set out to explore more paltry is the state of research on nano-food U.S. consumer attitudes in conversational settings labeling attitudes, with only a handful of studies during which information about nanotechnology and having addressed the issue, mostly with survey nanotechnology in food was provided in stages techniques and as a secondary consideration in followed by open-ended questions and then conver- conjunctionwithothernon-foodnanoissues(Pidgeon sations among participants. In a prior analysis de- and Rogers-Hayden 2007; Burri and Bellucci 2008; scribingresults fromthese focusgroups,we reported Throne-Holst and Strandbakken 2009; Siegrist and on consumers’ desires for nano-food labeling and Keller 2011; Brown and Kuzma 2013). From a acceptanceofdifferentnano-foodproducts,aswellas practical standpoint, poor understanding of public the need for more information about nano-food and perceptions and attitudes creates a significant chal- trustedsourcestomanagelabeling(BrownandKuzma lenge for the fair and effective development of the 2013). In addition to directly addressing these policy nano-foodindustry.Inthisregard,wearereferringto questions, we also designed the focus groups to look concerns about respecting the public’s view as a for risk perception factors already identified in the stakeholder in the development of nano-food and of literature for nano-food (e.g., trust, benefits) and nanotechnology more generally, as well as concerns uncover additional risk perception factors or 123 122 Page6of31 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 influences on consumer attitudes better revealed by into an intent to help: ‘‘(1) arousal of emotion; (2) qualitativemethods.Thispaperpresentsanddescribes activation of social expectations; or (3) activation of twonovelperceptionfactorsfornano-foodthatarose self-expectations.’’ This conception of altruism as a from the focus groups, skepticism and altruism, and valuehasbeenwidelyidentifiedasahighlysignificant situates them within the context of existing risk factor in explaining pro-environmental perceptions, perception theories. We introduce previous literature attitudes, and behaviors. Higher altruism, as defined about these factors below, and then describe the generallybyconcernforthewelfareofotherhumans methods and results of our analysis. In closing, we and species, has been shown to be correlated with a suggest a model for bridging psychometric and higher degree of concern for the environment (Stern culturaltheoriesofriskperceptionwiththesefactors. etal.1999;Dietzetal.2005;Whitfieldetal.2009)and Thismodelshouldbeconsideredfortestinginfuture higherperceptionsofenvironmentalrisk(Slimakand studiesontechnologiesandriskperceptions. Dietz 2006).Ithas alsobeen showntocorrelatewith lessfavorableperceptionsofnuclearpowertechnolo- Definingaltruism gies(Whitfieldetal.2009).Elsewhere,scholarshave describedsimilarlyaprosocialvalueorientation,like After weidentifiedskepticismand altruism aspoten- altruism,inwhichitisdesiredto‘‘optimiz[e]outcomes tiallyimportantandinterestingperceptionthemesfor forothers’’asopposedtoone’sselfandwhichresults food nanotechnology (see ‘‘Results and discussion’’ in stronger pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors section below), we conducted a literature search on (deGootandSteg2008;seealsoStern2000). whetherandhowtheseconceptshavebeendiscussed Altruism has also been described within the intheliteraturewithregardtoriskperception.Below psychometric framework for risk perception, though we present the results of these searches and how we far less explicitly than in value-based frameworks. frame and define these terms for our subsequent While they do not specifically use the term altruism, analysisofthefocusgroupconversations. Slovic and Va¨stfja¨ll (2010) argue that people’s As a broad concept, altruism can be thought of as intuitive feelings and affect are insensitive to large regard or affirmative action for the well-being of losses of life and associated natural and human another. The concept of altruism pervades numerous disasters such as poverty, starvation, disease, and disciplinary areas, including ethics, anthropology, genocideandmanifestasfailurestorespondtoandact biology, economics, psychology, and religious to alleviate such harms. They describe a ‘‘psy- philosophies,amongothers.However,theconceptual chophysical numbing’’ defined by diminishing mar- details of altruism can vary quite significantly both ginalaffectiveresponsetoincreasingnumbersoflives withinandacrossthesedifferentdisciplines.Depend- at stake. They further suggest that any positive ing on the context, altruism can alternatively or feelings associated with altruistic acts are subsumed collectively refer to mere emotional concern versus by negative feelings associated with knowing that specific motivation or action for the well-being of those acts will not go far enough to help the large others, mere selflessness versus self-sacrifice, an number in need, thereby negating the motivation to aspirational virtue versus a socially imposed duty, or act. Thus, they argue that, in keeping various heuris- anindividualethicversusaneurobiologicaltrait.For tics and cognitive biases, altruistic concerns and example,the Oxford English Dictionary provides the actions are more likely to target specifically known followingdefinitionforaltruism:‘‘1.Disinterestedor victims or high-profile stories to that are easily selflessconcernforthewell-beingofothers,esp.asa imaginable,memorable,orthatresonatepersonally. principleofaction.Opposedtoselfishness,egoism,or The concept ofaltruismhasbeen well explored in (inearlyuse)egotism.’’ economicsliteraturepertainingtohealthandenviron- Schwartz (1977) describes altruism as ‘‘intentions mental risks and decision making. Cai et al. (2008) or purposes to benefit another as an expression of describetwotypesofaltruisminfluencingwillingness internal values, without regard for the network of topay,risk-avertingbehavior,andrelatedallocations socialandmaterialreinforcements’’andattributesall of resources. The first, paternalistic altruism, occurs altruisticintentionstoexposuretoanother’sneedand when an individual derives utility from his/her own any of three internal factors translating that exposure consumption of goods and from the goods consumed 123 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 Page7of31 122 by others for which he or she is concerned. The action. Without the ability to observe participant second, non-paternalistic altruism, occurs when the behavioroutsideofthediscussions,statementsinvok- utilityofthoseforwhomanindividualisconcernedis ing altruism are taken at face value, presenting a an argument of the individual’s own utility. Others potentialforaltruisticbehavior. have also described a third form, impure altruism, in whichanindividualfurtherderivesutilityfromtheact Definingskepticism of being altruistic, sometimes referred to as ‘‘warm glow’’ (Kahneman and Knetsch 1992; Andreoni Definingskepticismforthepurposesofcodingwasa 1990). Studies have demonstrated that altruism can muchmorechallengingtask.Skepticismisanimpre- significantly affect willingness to pay and risk-avert- cise word with variable meanings both in common ing behaviors (Cai et al. 2008; Dickie and Gerking usageandinacademicparlance.Indeed,skepticismis 2007; Khwaja et al. 2006; Jones-Lee 1991; Viscusi part of a large cluster of words that includes doubt, et al. 1988; among others), but as almost all of these incredulity, uncertainty, disbelief, mistrust, distrust, studies have been either theoretical or, when em- reservation,anxiety,andmisgivingwhicharetypical- pirical,doneinthecontextofaltruismtowardfamily ly used to define one another and often used members such that this effect cannot be generalized. interchangeably without much nuance (Merriam- Atleastonestudyhasshownthatgiventhesamerisk WebsteronlineThesaurus). information, parents tend to make higher predictions As a discrete concept, skepticism is perhaps best of risk for their children than for themselves again defined within philosophy as ‘‘some degree of doubt demonstrating a form of altruism among family (Cai regardingclaimsthatelsewherearetakenforgranted’’ etal.2008). and, in its epistemological form, questions whether One particularly relevant exception to the family ourbeliefsarerational,justified,orsufficientlycertain focus of prior economic studies of altruism is Lusk to constitute knowledge (Pritchard 2004). According et al.’s (2007) study on the effect of altruism on to Klein (2010), skepticism differs from ‘‘ordinary individuals’ decisions to purchase environmentally- incredulity’’ in that the latter presupposes that our certified pork products. In this study, the authors knowledgeorbeliefsaboutsomethingaresufficiently approachedaltruismasapsychometricconstructand, true to provide the basis for doubting or questioning using survey and psychometric scaling methods, claims thatproduceaconclusioninconflictwiththat measured individuals’ levels of altruism. The study knowledge or beliefs. As such, our doubt disappears results showed that ‘‘more altruistic individuals are once theclaims beingquestionedarereconciledwith willingtopaymoreforporkproductswithpublicgood our prior knowledge or beliefs. Skepticism, by attributesthanlessaltruisticindividuals…[indicating] contrast, problematizes claims on the basis that we that private purchases of goods with public-good donotorcannothavesuchknowledgeasisnecessary attributes are not simply a result of individuals’ to settle our doubts as to a claim. Even if the perceptions of the ability to mitigate private risks questioned claims are reconciled with our prior such as food safety, but that individual are making knowledge or beliefs, doubt persists because the privatechoicestoaffectpublicoutcomes.’’ knowledgeorbeliefsarethemselvessuspect. For the purposes of this study, focus group com- Inrecentyears,therehasdevelopedagrowingbody mentswereinitiallycodedasinvokingaltruismwhen of academic literature devoted to unpacking and they demonstrated concernabout orsuggested action refining the definitions of two similarly polysemic for the benefit or welfare of other individuals or words,‘‘trust’’and‘‘uncertainty,’’thatovertimehave groups,regardlessofwhethertheindividualincluded acquired unique and significant meanings across a him or herself as part of the group benefited. Factors number of social science disciplines. The result has suchastheunderlyingsource,motivation,orpersonal been a proliferation of definitional frameworks, costofsuggestedaltruisticactionswerenottakeninto typologies, and concept models attempting to eluci- considerationforthepurposesofinitialcoding,butare date the different meanings of these terms both in discussed below in the analysis of altruism. The discipline-specific and inter-disciplinary contexts coding included statements of altruism as general (e.g., McKnight and Chervany 2001; Marsh and sentiments as well as calls for specific behavior or Dibben 2005; Mishler and Rose 1997). While the 123 122 Page8of31 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 term skepticism sometimes appears in literature on overthesituation,whichwaspreviouslyrelinquished trustanduncertainty,itisseldomdefinedordifferen- toanexpert. tiated from related terms. Furthermore, there have Takenonestepfurther,Taylor-Gooby(2006)terms been scant studies dedicated to discussing whether this new wave of an informed and vocally active skepticism is a component of trust or uncertainty or publicas‘‘newskepticism’’andconnectsittocitizen– whether it has its own unique and significant social government relations. This new skepticism reflects scientificmeaning. ideas from Bauman (1998), where end users of A few scholars have attempted to describe skepti- government policy are treated more as independent cism as a tangible idea applied to individual percep- consumersthandependentclients,andBlair(2003),in tions,buthavenotdefineditasauniquephenomenon that informed that consumer choice is emphasized separate from trust or uncertainty. As an example, in over top-down policy making, paving the way for an evaluation of public trust in social and political greater social justice. In short, Taylor-Gooby (2006) institutions in post-communist societies by Mishler argues that skepticism contributes to a stronger form and Rose (1997), respondents were asked to indicate of democratic engagement during deliberation of theirleveloftrustinseveralinstitutionsonascaleof salientissues. 1–7. Scores above a 6 were regarded as indicating Skepticism therefore arises from one’s doubt trust,below2asindicatingdistrust,andbetween3and regarding the factuality (i.e., reality, veracity, cred- 5 as indicating skepticism. No further definition of ibility, reliability), rationality, or justifiability of skepticismwasprovided. claims about events, institutions, relationships, pro- In another study of trust in government risk cesses, knowledge, or information that are elsewhere regulation, Poortinga and Pidgeon (2003) evaluated taken for granted. It relates to but is different from respondents’ answers to 11 statements describing distrust in that it does not necessarily question various dimensions oftrustingovernment (e.g.,‘‘the whether someone or something can or should be government is competent enough,’’ ‘‘the government trusted, but rather questions claims that are either isactinginthepublicinterest’’).Basedonthesurvey ascribed to that someone or something or are not results,theauthorsconcludedthattheresponsestothe ascribedtoanythingspecifically.Statedmoredirectly, 11promptsrevealedaframeworkforevaluatingtrust trust is often placed in something or someone, but basedontwodimensions:a‘‘generaltrust’’dimension skepticism is often not. Trust is ascribed to an actor concerned with respondents’ views on the govern- (whether individual or institutional), whereas skepti- ment’scompetence,care,fairness,andopenness,and cismisnotnecessarilyplacedinanactor.Skepticism a ‘‘skepticism’’ component concerned with respon- is broader and often system-wide, involving a ques- dents’ views on the government’s credibility, re- tioningaboutwhethereventsorattributeswillexistas liability, and integrity. The study, however, did not multiple parties or institutions believe or state. defineskepticismnordiditexplainwhytheyauthors Feelingsofskepticismmayrelatetoevents,processes, regarded credibility, reliability, and integrity as systems, or multiple institutions that are questioned. elementsofskepticism. To illustrate, one who distrusts private sector risk In contrast, Taylor-Gooby (2006) describes skep- assessment may doubt the reliability of such assess- ticism as an emerging ‘‘more discriminatory’’ ap- ments by questioning the assessors’ true motives proach to trust resulting from a more educated and (distrusting them), while one who is skeptical may criticalpublic.Thisskepticismisaresultofakindof question the underlying assumption that risk assess- ‘‘active trust’’ in response to ‘‘changed social and ment or its outcomes are useful in the first place cultural circumstances.’’ The author highlights Gid- (regardless of trust in the assessors). As such, skep- dens (1994), ‘‘in which self-confident and active ticism also differs from uncertainty in that, while the citizensseektointerprettheviewsofdifferentexperts later may be the result of a lack of knowledge or withvaryingclaimstoauthority.’’Theauthorpurports information, the former questions the nature of that that in situations in which credibility and trust have knowledge or information (e.g., its ability to ever be degraded,skepticismmayemergeasameanstofillthe obtainedoritsveracityorreliability)orhowitcanbe trust void or to restore the skeptic’s sense of control handled, used, or communicated toward producing a 123 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 Page9of31 122 particular outcome, even after the knowledge or exposing the underlying complexities of the process- informationhasbeenacquired. es by which participants formulate ideas or make Interestingly,wefindsupportforthisconceptionof decisions. In contrast, focus groups facilitate idea skepticism within the literature on altruism. While generation, populating the pool of relevant concepts, studies have shown that close alignment between an and encourage nuanced conversations that can individual’s value orientation and that of institutions expose and elucidate complex rationales behind responsible for managing a risk results in the indi- individuals’ preferences (Krueger and Casey 2009; vidual having greater trust in those institutions, one Morgan 1996). Focus groups can also foster a so- such study found that for individuals with altruistic called ‘‘group effect’’ in which hearing others’ value orientations having greater trust in the institu- thoughts potentially activates new ideas in the minds tions responsible for managing a risk did not reduce of other participants (Morgan and Krueger 1993; perceptions of that risk, possibly because these Carey 1994; Carey and Smith 1994). Thus, focus individuals question the power of these institutions groups can help better reveal the process and topreventrisksfromoccurring(Whitfieldetal.2009). components of decision making, as well as help Thisdoubtastothepresupposedbeliefthattrustwor- identify potential connections and relationships be- thy risk management will in fact reduce risk is tween different ideas. Furthermore, focus groups can consistentwithourapproachtoskepticism. be combined with survey methods to impart the For the purposes of our focus groups, we define benefits of the latter (e.g., the ability to make skepticism as a theme in statements or exchanges statistical inferences). Focus groups have been iden- where there is a presence of doubt or questioning tified as especially suitable for exploring the rela- regarding the factuality (i.e., reality, veracity, cred- tionship between individuals’ ‘‘lived experiences’’ ibility, reliability), rationality, or justifiability of and their feelings, attitudes, and behaviors toward claimsaboutthenature,purportedfacts,orpurported food (Rabiee 2004). outcomes of events, institutions, relationships, pro- For this study, we conducted seven 90-min focus cesses, knowledge, or information that are elsewhere groupswithseventotenparticipantsbetweenSeptem- takenforgranted.Itoftenappearednotinrelationtoa ber2010andJanuary2011intheMinnesotacitiesof particularorganizationorgroup(liketrustwould)but Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington (Hennepin rather to the food system, government decision- Country) and the North Carolina cities of Raleigh, making systems, and technology development sys- Garner,andCary(WakeCounty).Thecitiesselected tems operatingasawhole.Importantly,we approach represent the main metropolitan city, the largest skepticismnotasabehaviororact,butasanexpressed suburb, and a randomly selected city with between idea,view,attitude,ordisposition,makingitsuitable 30,000 and 60,000 residents within Hennepin and toidentifywithinverbalexpressionsofopinion. Wakecounties. Belowwedescribeourmethodologyforidentifying Participantswererecruitedwiththegoalofhaving skepticismandaltruism infocusgroup conversations anequal number offemalesand males ineach group andthendescribethemanifestationsoftheseconcepts and matching the county’s demographic profile. inrelationtofoodnanotechnology. Profiles were generated using census data and infor- mation from select city community centers and accounted for age, sex, race, education, family Methodology household income, and ideology (liberal, moderate, conservative) criteria. Individuals with prior back- Elsewhere we have described in detail the method- groundinorextensiveknowledgeofnanotechnology ology used for this study and its advantages over wereexcludedfromparticipation. other techniques (Brown and Kuzma 2013). In A total of 56 participants partook in seven focus summary, public perception studies of nanotech- groups (n1 = 8, n2 = 10, n3 = 8, n4 = 7, n5 = 8, nology have, with a few exceptions, relied almost n6 = 7, n7 = 8). The demographic distribution con- exclusivelyonquantitative,writtensurveyswhich,as tained more males (64 %, n = 36) versus females a tool, are not best suited for topics that are not well (36 %, n = 20); whites/Caucasians (84 %, n = 47) understood. They also are often less effective at versus blacks/African Americans (11 %, n = 6) and 123 122 Page10of31 JNanopartRes (2015) 17:122 Asians/PacificIslanders(4 %,n = 2);andthosewith group. Data sourcesfromeach focus group consisted apost-graduateorprofessionaldegree(27 %,n = 15) of full transcripts, in-group worksheet responses versuscollegegraduate(23 %,n = 13),somecollege (Appendix 3), and post-survey responses (Ap- (16 %, n = 9), high school graduate (14 %, n = 8), pendix 4). Focus group transcripts were analyzed technical college graduate (7 %, n = 4), some high using NVivo content analysis software by means of school (5 %, n = 3), some technical college (2 %, assigning topic or thematic codes to participants’ n = 1), and ‘‘Other’’ education (2 %, n = 1). Race/ statements.Allauthorswereinvolvedindesigningand ethnicity and education had n = 1 and n = 2 ‘‘No executing the coding scheme. Author Brown devel- Answer’’ responses, respectively. The most common oped the thematic coding scheme and did the initial age bracket was 50–60 (36 %, n = 20) compared to coding.AuthorFatehialsousedthesethemestocode ‘‘Over 60’’ (23 %, n = 13), 41–49 (23 %, n = 13), thedatainNVivo.Aninter-raterreliabilityscorewas 31–39 (7 %, n = 4), and ‘‘Under 30’’ (7 %, n = 4). derived using the percent agreement for whether two Additionally, two provided ‘‘No Answer’’ for their ratersplaceaquoteinathematiccategoryornot(p ,) a ages. (Gwet 2014). This score was 0.7 indicating 70 % Each group followed the same moderator-guided initial agreement. The two primary raters met and topicflow(Appendix 1)asfollows: resolvedtheirdifferencesincodingthedatathrougha consensusprocess.AuthorKuzmacheckedtheresults • Participants’firstthoughtsaboutnanotechnology ofthisprocessandsummarizedthem. • Moderator’s reading of a prepared background First, a large number of coding themes were statement about nanotechnology in general generated based on typical terms arising in the (Appendix 2) emerging technologies and public perception lit- • Discussion of participants’ reactions to nanotech- erature (e.g., ‘‘trust,’’ ‘‘risks,’’ ‘‘benefits’’). Second, nologygiventhegeneralbackgroundinformation numerousnewcodingthemeswerecreatedinductive- • Moderator’s reading of a prepared background ly upon reading the focus group transcripts. A multi- statement about nanotechnology in food level descriptive coding method was applied with (Appendix 2) moststatementsbeingassignedtooneormorecodes. • Discussionofparticipants’reactionstonano-food Codes mostly fell into one of the three following giventhenano-foodbackgroundinformation categories: topic, intent, or a combination of both. • Individualizedcompletionofin-groupworksheets Topiccodesreferenceaspecificsubjectraisedbythe about willingness to use different nano-food participant, while intent codes were additionally products (Appendix 3) and subsequent group assignedwhensomesortofpreferenceorrecommen- discussion dation was supplied. Since most statements involved • Discussionaboutnano-foodproductlabeling preferenceorviewsregardingoneormoretopics,the • Finalparticipantthoughts majorityofcodesrepresentedatopic-intentcombina- • Postsurvey(Appendix 4) tion.Inordertocapturetherangeofissues,scope,and The in-group worksheets listed three broad nan- complexity in numerous comments, several codes otechnology food application areas: ‘‘food additive,’’ were frequently assigned to account for concrete or ‘‘foodpackaging,’’and‘‘foodprocessing.’’Spacewas specific issues raised and larger themes participants providedforparticipantstolisttheirperceivedbenefits may knowingly or unknowingly have implied (e.g., and concerns and select their willingness to use each concernsregardingnanotechnology’suseinchildren’s application and advertised benefit on a 1–5 scale. products speaks to the concrete issue of children’s Participants were emailed post-focus groups surveys productsinadditiontothebroaderthemesofriskand asking questions about issues related to nanotech- inter-generationaldifferences). nology in food and nanotechnology in general, Sinceeachgroupfollowedthesamequestionflow, includingwillingness touse, labeling, and regulatory correspondingtranscriptswereeasilydividedintosix issues. phases:(1)unprimednanotechnologyperceptions,(2) Eachfocusgroupwasaudiorecordedandincluded general nanotechnology perceptions, (3) nano-food a moderator and a note-taker. Note-taking and audio product perceptions, (4) nano-food product willing- recordingswereusedtoconstructtranscriptsforeach ness touse worksheet and consequent discussion, (5) 123