Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1707-1719

  Poortinga, Wouter ^a   Pidgeon, Nick F ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Altitudes; Altitudinal certainty; Ambivalence; GM food; Involvement

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ALTITUDINAL CERTAINTY; AMBIVALENCE; ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS; GM FOOD;

FOOD PRODUCTS;

CROP; FOOD; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TYPOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AMBIVALENCE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HUMAN; MALE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33845603214     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096.
2. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(11), 1421-1432.
3. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of attitudinal attributes:The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 637-653.
4. Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indices for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(2), 350-365.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401-423.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualisations and measures. The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-25.
7. Conner, M., Povey, R., Sparks, P., & James, R. (2003). Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 75-94.
8. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Attitudes and ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 37-70.
9. Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a debate. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. London: Allison-Wesley.
10. Cooke, R., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 159-186.
11. Durant, J., Bauer, W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1998). Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. London: Science Museums Publications.
12. Eiser, J. R. (1994). Attitudes, Chaos, and the Interconnectionist Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
13. Eiser, J. R., Miles, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2002). Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2423-2433.
14. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in the judgement of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
15. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. (1981). Acceptable Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science Technology and Human Values, 22(1), 98-124.
17. Gardner, G. T., & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9(2), 225-242.
18. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., & Julie, B. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185-194.
19. Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. W. (Eds.). (2001). Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
20. Grabner, P., Hampel, J., Lindsey, N., & Torgersen, H. (2001). Biopolitical diversity: The challenge of multilevel policy-making. In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.
21. Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., & Wynne, B. (1997). Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Opinion in Britain. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
23. Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 190-210.
24. Kaplan, K. L. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361-372.
25. Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A Social-Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21(1), 81-106.
28. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories and subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
29. Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processes of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(6), 513-536.
30. Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. London: University of Chicago Press.
31. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe (FAIR CT98-3844).
32. Pardo, R., Midden, C., & Miller, J. D. (2002). Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98(1), 9-24.
33. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Orlando: Academic Press.
34. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Pidgeon, N. F., & Beattie, J. (1998). The psychology of risk and uncertainty. In P. Calow (Ed.) Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (pp. 289-318). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
36. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D., & Turner, B. A. (1992) Risk perception. In Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (pp. 89-134). London: The Royal Society.
37. Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & O'Riordan, T. (2005). Using surveys in public participation processes for risk dsecision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation? public debate. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 467-479.
38. Plous, S. (1991). Biases in the assimilation of technological breakdowns: Do accidents make us safer? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(13), 1058-1082.
39. Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S., & Tordesillas, R. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 408-419.
40. Poortinga, W. (2004). Public perceptions of and trust in the regulation of genetically modified food. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Norwich: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
41. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1475-1486.
42. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 197-207.
43. Public Debate Steering Board. (2003). GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate (report by the Public Debate Steering Board). London: Department of Trade and Industry. Available at www.gmnation.org.uk.
44. Scott, W. A. (1966). Measures of cognitive structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 391-395.
45. Scott, W. A. (1969). Structures of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(4), 261-278.
46. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
47. Siegrist, M. (2003). Perceptions of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 6(1), 45-60.
48. Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2000). The GMcontroversy in Britain: Actors, arenas and institutional change. Politeia, 16(6), 53-67.
49. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
50. Sparks, P., Conner, M., James, R., Shepherd, R., & Povey, R. (2001). Ambivalence about health-related behaviours: An exploration in the domain of food choice. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 53-68.
51. Sparks, P., Harris, P. R., & Lockwood, N. (2004). Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 371-383.
52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. London: Allyn & Bacon.
53. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
54. Thomsen, C. J., Borgida, E., & Lavine, H. (1995). The causes and consequences of involvement. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
55. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(5), 401-421.
56. Van Harreveld, F., Van der Pligt, J., De Vries, N. K., Wenneker, C., & Verhue, D. (2004). Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 431-447.
57. Vlek, C. J. H., & Stallen, P. J. M. (1981). Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(22), 235-271.
58. White, M. P., Pahl, S., Buehner, M. J., & Haye, A. (2003). Trust in risky messages: The role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 717-726.
59. Wilson, C., Evans, G., Leppard, P., & Syrette, J. (2004). Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influence consumers' information gathering. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1311-1321.