The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology

Risk Analysis

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 195-204

  Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptance of biotechnology; Gender differences; Gene technology; Risk perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENDER DISPARITY; PERCEPTION; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FEMALE; GENE TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; MALE; MODEL; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE;

SWITZERLAND;

EID: 0034086124     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.202020     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. I. Rabino, "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 (1994).
2. P. Slovic, "Perception of Risk," Science 236, 280-285 (1987).
3. P. Sparks and R. Shepherd, "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis 14, 799-806 (1994).
4. B. Zechendorf, "What the Public Thinks about Biotechnology," Bio/Technology 12, 870-875 (1994).
5. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, "Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics," Science, Technology, & Human Values 22, 98-124 (1997).
6. M. Siegrist and R. Bühlmann, "Die Wahrnehmung verschiedener gentechnischer Anwendungen: Ergebnisse einer MDS-Analyse" (Perception of different applications of gene technology: Results of an MDS-analysis), Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 30, 32-39 (1999).
7. J. Durant, M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, eds., Biotechnology in the Public Sphere (Science Museum, London, 1998).
8. T. C. Earle and G. T. Cvetkovich, Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society (Praeger, Westport, CT, 1995).
9. N. Luhmann, Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (Trust: A mechanism for the reduction of social complexity) (Enke, Stuttgart, 1989).
10. M. Siegrist, "A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 2093-2106 (1999).
11. T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering," Rural Sociology 57, 476-493 (1992).
12. G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt, eds., Social Trust and the Management of Risk (Earthscan, London, 1999).
13. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, "What Determines Trust in Information about Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis 16, 473-486 (1996).
14. D. Metlay, "Institutional Trust and Confidence: A Journey into a Conceptual Quagmire," in Social Trust and the Management of Risk, edited by G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt (Earthscan, London, 1999), pp. 100-116.
15. W. R. Freudenburg, "Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions," Social Forces 71, 909-932 (1993).
16. J. Flynn, W. Burns, C. K. Mertz, and P. Slovic, "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis 12, 417-429 (1992).
17. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz, "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis 14, 1101-1108 (1994).
18. G. Cvetkovich, "The Attribution of Social Trust," in Social Trust and the Management of Risk, edited by G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt (Earthscan, London, 1999), pp. 53-61.
19. A. S. Alhakami and P. Slovic, "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis 14, 1085-1096 (1994).
20. B. N. R. Baird, "Tolerance for Environmental Health Risks: The Influence of Knowledge, Benefits, Voluntariness, and Environmental Attitudes," Risk Analysis 6, 425-435 (1986).
21. G. T. Gardner, A. R. Tiemann, L. C. Gould, D. R. DeLuca, L. W. Doob, and J. A. J. Stolwijk, "Risk and Benefit Perceptions. Acceptability Judgments, and Self-Reported Actions toward Nuclear Power," Journal of Social Psychology 116, 179-197 (1982).
22. R. Gregory and R. Mendelsohn, "Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits," Risk Analysis 13, 259-264 (1993).
23. H. Bonfadelli, P. Hieber, M. Leonarz, W. A. Meier, M. Schanne, and H.-P. Wessels, "Switzerland," in Biotechnology in the Public Sphere, edited by J. Durant, M. W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell (Science Museum, London, 1998), pp. 144-161.
24. C. J. Brody, "Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power," Social Forces 63, 209-228 (1984).
25. M. R. Greenberg and D. F. Schneider, "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non-Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis 15, 503-511 (1995).
26. C. Karpowicz-Lazreg and E. Mullet, "Societal Risk as Seen by the French Public," Risk Analysis 13, 253-258 (1993).
27. M. Pilisuk and C. Acredolo, "Fear of Technological Hazards: One Concern or Many?" Social Behaviour 3, 17-24 (1988).
28. M. Siegrist, "Belief in Gene Technology: The Influence of Environmental Attitudes and Gender," Personality and Individual Differences 24, 861-866 (1998).
29. P. Sparks, R. Shepherd, and L. J. Frewer, "Gene Technology, Food Production, and Public Opinion: A UK Study," Agriculture and Human Values 11, 19-28 (1994).
30. P. J. M. Stallen and A. Tomas, "Public Concern about Industrial Hazards," Risk Analysis 8, 237-245 (1988).
31. R. G. Vleeming, "Factors Affecting Attitudes toward Nuclear Power in the Netherlands," Journal of Social Psychology 125, 119-125 (1985).
32. D. J. Davidson and W. R. Freudenburg, "Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research," Environment and Behavior 28, 302-339 (1996).
33. P. M. Bentler, EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual (BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles, 1993).
34. L.-T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, "Evaluating Model Fit," in Structural Equation Modelling, edited by R. H. Hoyle (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 76-99.
35. R. H. Hoyle and A. Panter, "Writing about structural equation models," in Structural Equation Modelling, edited by R. H. Hoyle (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 158-176.
36. K. G. Jöreskog, "Testing Structural Equation Models," in Testing Structural Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993), pp. 294-316.
37. B. M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994).
38. O. Renn, Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie (Risk perception of nuclear power) (Campus, Frankfurt, 1984).
39. P. Slovic, J. H. Flynn, and M. Layman, "Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste," Science 254, 1603-1607 (1991).
40. D. M. Buss and K. H. Craik, "Contemporary Worldviews: Personal and Policy Implications," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13, 259-280 (1983).
41. T. C. Earle and G. Cvetkovich, "Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management," Risk Analysis 17, 55-65 (1997).
42. E. Peters and P. Slovic, "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 (1996).
43. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, "The Influence of Realistic Product Exposure on Attitudes towards Genetic Engineering of Food," Food Quality and Preference 7, 61-67 (1996).
44. M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in Science: The Gender Gap," Social Science Quarterly 73, 101-113 (1992).