Psychological and sociological perspectives for good governance of sustainable nanotechnology development in Malaysia

  • 82 Accesses

  • 1 Citations


Nanotechnology is developed to improve public well-being, stimulate economic growth, and provide environmental solutions, which are essential for sustainable development. However, the uncertain risks of nanotechnology may destroy public confidence and impede nanotechnology development from facilitating sustainable development. Thus, public perception is a critical component to understand public acceptance of nanotechnology and for nanotechnology development to be well governed. Good governance of nanotechnology is vital to ensure the benefits are distributed equitably while protecting the public from the risks. Hence, this study was based on psychological and sociological approaches with intervention from moderators, that is, media coverage, technology and economic development, benefit and risk of nanoapplications, and benefit and risk information. A survey was conducted in Malaysia to determine the effects of moderators’ influence on public perceptions. The study found, based on a psychological and sociological approach, that the moderating effects of moderators influenced public perception in a manner that increased or decreased the benefit and risk perception of nanotechnology. The results later serve as an input for recommending good governance strategies for applying nanotechnology to sustainable development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9


  1. Binder AR, Hillback ED, Brossard D (2016) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Anal 36(4):831–846

  2. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30(5):512–548

  3. Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. United Nations Commission 4(1):300

  4. Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W (2015) Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes. BMC Public Health 15(1):424

  5. Chuah ASF, Leong AD, Cummings CL, Ho SS (2018) Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications. J Nanopart Res 2:1–17

  6. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–239

  7. Conroy SJ, Emerson TLN (2004) Ethics and religion : as a predictor of religiosity business ethical awareness students. J Bus Ethics 50(4):383–396

  8. Corley EA, Scheufele DA (2010) Outreach going wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist 24(1):22

  9. Department of Statistics Malaysia (2010) Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010, Putrajaya

  10. Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias. Royal Anthropological Institute, p.302. Available at:

  11. Forloni G (2012) Responsible nanotechnology development. J Nanopart Res 14(8):1–17

  12. Gehrke P (2018) Government regulation of nanotechnology: imperfectly essential. In Nano - publics: communicating nanotechnology applications, risks, and regulations. South Carolina: Palgrave Pivot, pp. 51–63

  13. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  14. Gleiche, M., Hoffschulz, H. & Lenhert, S., 2006. Nanotechnology in consumer products, Available at:

  15. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press, New York

  16. Oh SH (2009) Perceptions of nanotechnology in Canada and South Korea. The University of Manitoba. Available at:

  17. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions , mass media , and attitudes toward nanotechnology : the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–200

  18. Hope DS & Petersen PE (2007) A proposal to advance understanding of nanotechnology’s sosial impact. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge, eds. Nanotechnology: societal implications individual perspectives. National Science Foundation, pp. 109–113. Available at:

  19. Hurni H, Wiesmann U (2014) Transdisciplinarity in practice: experience from a concept-based research programme addressing global change and sustainable development. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23(3):275–277

  20. Isaacs JA, Alpert CL, Bates M, Bosso CJ, Eckelman MJ, Linkov I, Walker WC (2015) Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance. Environment Systems and Decisions 35(1):24–28

  21. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(February):2–5

  22. Kamarulzaman NA, Lee KE, Siow KS (2018) Public perception of nanotechnology for good governance: a conceptual framework for psychological and sociological approaches. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 16(2):168–174

  23. Kass G 2001 Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology (153)

  24. Kishimoto A (2010) Public perception of nanotechnologies in Japan from 2005 to 2009, Japan

  25. Lee KE, Mokhtar M, Goh CT, Singh H, Chan PW (2015) Initiatives and challenges of a chemical industries council in a developing country: the case of Malaysia. J Clean Prod 86:417–423

  26. Lemanczyk S 2014 Science and national pride : the Iranian press coverage of. Sci Commun, 36(2), pp.194–218

  27. Leung Y (2007) Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer Science+Business Media, New York

  28. Lin SF, Lin H s, Wu Y y (2013) Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Sci Educ Technol 22(4):548–559

  29. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2016) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation : what role for the social sciences ? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291

  30. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government, Available at:

  31. Magill G (1992) Theology in business ethics: appealing to the religious imagination. J Bus Ethics 11(2):129–135

  32. Mamadouh V (1999) Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction. GeoJournal 47(3):395–409

  33. Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology : assessing the risks. Nano Today 1(2):22–33

  34. Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18(6):493–520

  35. El Moussaouy A (2018) Environmental nanotechnology and education for sustainability : recent progress and perspective. In: Handbook of environmental materials management. Springer, Cham, pp 1–27

  36. Petersen A, Anderson A, Wilkinzon C, Allan S (2007) Nanotechnologies, risk and society. Health Risk Soc 9(2):117–124

  37. Pieper MH (1989) The heuristic paradigm: a unifying and comprehensive approach to social work research. Smith College Studies in Social Work 60(1):8–34

  38. René Zimmer, Rolf Hertel, G.-F.B. & Risk (2010) Risk perception of nanotechnology – analysis of media coverage, Berlin: BfR Wissenschaft. Available at:

  39. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191

  40. Renn O, Swaton E (1984) Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception. Environ Int 10:557–575

  41. Rist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U, Zimmermann A (2007) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23(1):23–37

  42. Roco M, Harthorn B, Guston D, Shapira P (2011) Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. J Nanopart Res 13:441–488

  43. Roco M & Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implication of nanoscience and nanotechnology, Virginia

  44. Roco MC (2001) International strategy for nanotechnology research and development. J Nanopart Res 3(5–6):353–360

  45. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7(1):1–13

  46. Rotberg RI (2014) Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 27(3):511–518.

  47. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2008) Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: “upstream” towards sustainability. J Clean Prod 16(8–9):1010–1013

  48. Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Blanchemanche S, Goddard E, Marette S, Vandermoere F (2015) Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food. Food Policy 52:75–83

  49. Saidi T (2018) Perceived risks and benefits of nanomedicine : a case study of an anti-tuberculosis drug. Global Health Innovation 1(1):1–7

  50. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–379

  51. Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 16(4):837–846.

  52. Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1762–1769

  53. Simon HA (1977) The logic of heuristic decision making. In Models of discovery. and other topics in the methods of science. D. Reidel Publisihing Company, pp. 154–175

  54. Sjöberg L, Moen B.-E & Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, Trondheim: Rotunde. Available at:

  55. Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science, vol 165, pp 1232–1238

  56. Tangau WM (2017) Shaping the Malaysian industry for the 4th Industrial Revolution. , pp.1–6. Available at: KEYNOTE ADDRESS @SIAP CONFERENCE.pdf

  57. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, New Series 211(4481):453–458 Available at:

  58. Tyshenko MG (2014) Nanotechnology framing in the Canadian national news media. Technol Soc 37(1):38–48.

  59. UNESCAP, 2009. What is good governance ? United Nations Economic and social Comission for Asia and the Pacific, pp.1–3. Available at:

  60. West GH, Lippy BE, Cooper MR, Marsick D, Burrelli LG, Griffin KN, Segrave AM (2016) Toward responsible development and effective risk management of nano-enabled products in the U.S. construction industry. J Nanopart Res 18(2):1–27

  61. Wildavsky A (1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(1):3. Available at:–21

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Khai Ern Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamarulzaman, N.A., Lee, K.E., Siow, K.S. et al. Psychological and sociological perspectives for good governance of sustainable nanotechnology development in Malaysia. J Nanopart Res 21, 164 (2019).

Download citation


  • Public perception
  • Risk
  • Benefit
  • Nanotechnology
  • Good governance
  • Sustainable development
  • Societal implications