An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: The case of GM food

Risk Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 935-946

  Allum, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

GM food; Risk perception; Shared values; Structural equation model; Trust

Indexed keywords

FOOD PROCESSING; FOOD PRODUCTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

GM FOOD RISK; HAZARD-RELATED TRUST; SHARED VALUES; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL;

RISK ANALYSIS;

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FOOD; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; MODELING; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSENSUAL VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIST; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; THEORY; TRUST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST;

EID: 35448999569     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00933.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Wynne, B. (1980). Technology, risk and participation: On the social treatment of uncertainty. In J. Conrad (Ed Society, Technology and Risk Assessment (pp. 173 208). New York:Academic Press.
2. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. et al. (1995). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16 (4 473.
3. Frewer, L. (1999). Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 28 (6 569 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 (1), 43; Pijawka, K. D., & Mushkatel, A. H. (1991). Public opposition to the siting of the high level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Studies Review, 10, 180; Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254 (5038), 1603; Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13 (6), 675; Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, pp. 277-313, 1997). Risk Analysis, 19 (4), 689.
4. Sjoberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21 (1 189 198.
5. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischoff, B. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? New York:Plenum, 181 216 Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A. et al., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (Eurobarometer 64.3). (European Commission, 2006), pp. A report to the European Commission's Directorate; Busch, L. (2001). Nature, risk and responsibility: Discourses of biotechnology. Contemporary Sociology - A Journal of Reviews, 30(2), 162-163; Kronberger, N. Dahinden, U. Allansdottir A. et al. (2001). The train departed without us: Public perceptions of biotechnology in ten European countries, Politeia63, 26-36, (2001); Priest, S. H., A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield
6. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Gaskell, G. et al. (2001). Nature in disorder: The troubled public of biotechnology. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy pp. 80 95). London:Science Museum.
7. Finucane, M. L. (2002). Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: The role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61 (1 31.
8. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W. et al. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24 (1 185.
9. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., Bauer, M. W., & Durant, J. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285, 384 387.
10. Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis, 22 (4 701 Siegrist, M. (2003). Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 6 (1), 45; Einsiedel, E. F. (2002). GM food labeling - The interplay of information, social values, and institutional trust. Science Communication, 24(2), 209; Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2).
11. Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23 (2 97.
12. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23 (5 961 972.
13. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., Wagner, W. et al. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London:Science Museum Publications Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., & Stares, S. R. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0.
14. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P. et al. (2001). Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project.
15. Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6 (3 275.
16. Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48 (4 161.
17. Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives (p. 287). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18. Covello, V. (1993). Risk communication and occupational medicine. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 35 (1 18.
19. Johnson, B. B. (1999). Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2 (4 325.
20. Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.
21. Metlay, D. (1999). Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Lofstedt (Eds Social Trust and the Management of Risk (pp. 100 116). London:Earthscan.
22. Earle, T., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger, Westport.
23. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2093 Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5); Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Gutscher, H. (2001). Shared values, social trust and the perception of geographic cancer clusters, Risk Analysis, 21(6); Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception, Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353.
24. YouGov 2003). Home Page. Available at http://www.yougov.com.
25. Osgood, G. S., & Tannenbaum, P. (1971). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL:University of Urbana Press.
26. Cvetkovich, G., & Lofstedt, R. (1999). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London:Earthscan.
27. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1999). Social trust and culture in risk management. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Lofstedt (Eds Social Trust and the Management of Risk (pp. 9 21). London:Earthscan.
28. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173.