A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 29, Issue 10, 1999, Pages 2093-2106

  Siegrist, Michael ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Abteilung Sozialpsychologie   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033201387     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
2. Baird, B. N. R. (1986). Tolerance for environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, voluntariness, and environmental attitudes. Risk Analysis, 6, 425-435.
3. Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J.-P., & Fagnani, F. (1989). Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis, 9, 215-223.
4. Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
5. Borcherding, K., Rohrmann, B., & Eppel, T. (1986). A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens, & G. Sévon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making (pp. 245-262). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
6. Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). Contemporary worldviews: Personal and policy implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 259-280.
7. Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.
8. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
9. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17, 55-65.
10. Eiser, J. R., & Van der Pligt, J. (1979). Beliefs and values in the nuclear debate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 524-536.
11. Eurobarometer. (1993). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: What Europeans think about it in 1993. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
12. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
13. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.
14. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
15. Freudenburg, W. R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71, 909-932.
16. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1995). Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? British Food Journal, 97, 31-36.
17. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1996). Effective communication about genetic engineering and food. British Food Journal, 98, 48-52.
18. Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, L. C., DeLuca, D. R., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179-197.
19. Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T., & Slovic, P. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179-193.
20. Gregory, R., & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis, 13, 259-264.
21. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H.-R., & Fischer, K. (1996). Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 16, 251-261.
25. Palmer, C. G. S. (1996). Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct. Risk Analysis, 16, 717-723.
26. Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17, 43-54.
27. Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427-1453.
28. Rabino, I. (1994). How European and U.S. genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science, Technology, Human Values, 19, 23-46.
29. Renn, O. (1995). Individual and social perception of risk. In U. Fuhrer (Ed.), Ökologisches Handeln als sozialer Prozess (pp. 27-50). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
30. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
31. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
32. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is enough? (pp. 181-214). New York, NY: Plenum.
33. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11, 19-28.
34. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111-130.
35. Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12, 870-875.