Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology

Scientometrics

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 299-331

  Urban, D ^a   Hoban, T J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000069307     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02457441     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. ALBRECHT, D. E., 1992. Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: An Overview of Research to Date. Unpublished Paper. Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics, Texas A & M University.
2. BAARK, E., A. JAMISON, 1990. Biotechnology and culture. The impact of public debates on government regulation in the United-States and Denmark. Technology and Society, 12: 27-44.
3. BECHMANN, G., (Ed.). 1993. Risiko und Gesellschaft. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Risikoforschung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
4. BENTLER, P. M., 1992. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual (Version 3.0). Los Angeles, CA: BMDP.
5. BERRIER, R. J., 1987. Public perceptions of biotechnology. pp. 37-51 in Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, L.R. BATRA and W. KLASSEN (Ed.) Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.
6. BORA, A., R. DOEBERT, 1993. Konkurrierende Rationalitaeten. Politischer und technisch-wissenschaftlicher Diskurs im Rahmen einer Technikfolgenabschaetzung von genetisch erzeugter Herbizidresistenz in Kulturpflanzen. Soziale Welt 44: 75-97.
7. BUTLER, D., 1993. Survey shows concern about biotechnology continues to grow. Nature, 366: 496.
8. CHOU, CHIH-PIING, P. M. BENTLER, 1995. Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. pp. 37-55 in Structural Equation Modeling, R.H. HOYLE (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. DIXON, B., 1991. Biotech a plus according to European poll. Bio/Technology, 9: 16.
10. FOREMAN, C. TUCKER, 1990. Food safety and quality for the consumer: Policies and communication. pp. 74-81 in Agricultural Biotechnology: Food Safety and Nutritional Quality for the Consumer, J.F. MACDONALD (Ed.). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
11. FREUDENBURG, W. R., 1988. Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk Assessment. Science, 242 (October 7): 44-49.
12. GOLDBURG, R. J., RICHARD A. DENISON, 1990. Public perception of biotechnology: Green revolution or green monster? pp. 113-125 in Bioprocessing Safety: Worker and Community Safety and Health Considerations, W.C. HYER (Ed.). Philadelphia: ASTM.
13. HEIMER, C. A., 1988. Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 14:491-519.
14. HALLMAN, W. K., 1996. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
15. HOBAN, T. J., 1989. Sociology and biotechnology: Challenges and opportunities. Southern Rural Sociology, 6: 45-63.
16. HOBAN, T. J., E. WOODRUM, R. CZAJA, 1991. Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology, 57: 476-493.
17. JASANOFF, S., 1995. Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. pp. 311-331 in Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, edited by M. BAUER. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
18. KASPERSON, R. E., O. RENN, P. SLOVIC, H. S. BROWN, J. EMEL, R. GOBLE, J. X. KASPERSON, S. RATICK, 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8: 177-187.
19. KRIMSKY, S., D. GOLDING (Eds), 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger.
20. LACY, W. B. et al.. 1991. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. pp. 139-161 in Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues and Choices, B. BAUMGARDT, M. MARTIN (Eds.). West Lafayette: Purdue Un. Press.
21. LEE, K., 1989. Food neophobia: Major causes and treatments. Food Technology, (December): 62-73.
22. LEWIS, H. W., 1990. Technological Risk. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
23. LOCK, R., C. MILES, 1993. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students' knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Biological Education, 27: 267-272.
24. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. NOVO INDUSTRI, 1987. The Novo Report: American Attitudes and Beliefs about Genetic Engineering. New York, NY: Research and Forecasts, Inc.
26. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 1987. New Directions in Biotechnology - Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27. PALMER, C. G. F., F. SAINFORT, 1993. Toward a new conceptualization and operationalization of risk perception within the genetic counseling domain. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2: 275-294.
28. ROGERS, E. M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition). New York, NY: The Free Press.
29. SANDMAN, P. M., 1986. Explaining Environmental Risk: Some Notes on Environmental Risk Communication. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
30. SANDMAN, P. M., 1987. Apathy versus hysteria: Public perception of risk. pp. 219-231 in Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, L.R. BATRA, W. KLASSEN (Eds). Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.
31. SCHOLTEN, A.H., M.H. FEENSTRA, A. M. HAMSTRA, 1991. Public acceptance of foods from biotechnology. Food Biotechnology, 5: 331-345.
32. SINGER, E., 1991. Public attitudes toward genetic testing. Population Research and Policy Review, 10: 235-255.
33. SINGER, E., 1993. Public attitudes toward fetal diagnosis and the termination of life. Social Indicators Research, 28: 117-136.
34. SLOVIC, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science, 236 (April 17): 280-285.
35. SLOVIC, P., B. FISCHHOFF, S. LICHTENSTEIN, 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. pp. 91-125 in Perilous Progress. Managing the Hazards of Technology, R.W. KATES (Ed.). Boulder: Westview.
36. SPARKS, P., R. SHEPERD, L. J. FREWER, 1994. Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11: 19-28.
37. SPARKS, P., R. SHEPERD, 1994. Public perceptions of potential hazards associated with food production and consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 5: 799-806.
38. SPINKS, P., 1990. Biotechnology - Public friend or foe. New Scientist, 12: 57-58.
39. TAIT, J., 1988. Public perception of biotechnology hazards. Journal of Chem. Tech. Biotechnology, 43: 363-373.
40. WYSE, R., G. G. KRIVI, 1987. Strategies for educating the public concerning biotechnology. pp. 155-164 in Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, L.R. BATRA, W. KLASSEN (Eds). Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.
41. URBAN, D., 1986. Technikentwicklung. Zur Soziologie technischen Wissens. Stuttgart: Enke.
42. URBAN, D., 1996. Quantitative measurement of public opinions on new technologies. An application of SEM-methodology to the analysis of beliefs and values toward new human applications of genetic engineering. Scientometrics, 35: 71-92.