Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications

Risk Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1553-1563

  Knight, Andrew ^a  

^a SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits; Biotechnology; Genetic modification; Knowledge; Morality; Risk perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS; INVERSE PROBLEMS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; PLANTS (BOTANY); RISK PERCEPTION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS; GENETIC MODIFICATION; MORALITY; SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS; TRUST;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; KNOWLEDGE; MORALITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; ANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGY; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DNA MODIFICATION; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; MORALITY; NORMAL HUMAN; PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECT; TELEPHONE; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MORALS; PERCEPTION; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 37249048044     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00988.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adams, A. (2003). Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values. Toronto, ON: Penguin.
2. Alhakami, A., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14 (6 1085 1096.
3. Australian Consensus Conference n.d.). Lay panel report. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.amonline.net.au/consensus/09.htm
4. Biel, A., & Nilsson, A. (2005). Religious values and environmental concern: Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 86 (1 178 191.
5. Cummins, R., & Lilliston, B. (2000). Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. New York: Marlowe & Company.
6. Davidson, D., & Freudenberg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28 (3 302 339.
7. Evensen, C., Hoban, T., & Woodrum, E. 2000. Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 13 (1 43 57.
8. Evenson, R. E., & Santaniello, V. (Eds. 2004). Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods. Cambridge, MA: CAB International.
9. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1 17.
10. Frewer, L., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 14, 19 40.
11. Frewer, L. J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997a). Objection' mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values, 14, 67 79.
12. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997b). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 22 (1 98 124.
13. Harrison, R. W., Boccaletti, S., & House, L. (2004). Risk perceptions of urban Italian and United States consumers for genetically modified foods. AgBioForum, 7 (4 195 201. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www. agbioforum.org.
14. Hoban, T., Woodrum, E., & Czaja, R. (1992). Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology, 57 (4 476 493.
15. Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W., & Adelaja, A. (2003). Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27 (5 353 365.
16. House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., Morrow, B., & Yee, W.M.S. (2004). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioForum, 7 (3 113 123. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
17. Hwang, Y. J, Roe, B., & Teisl, M. F. (2005). An empirical analysis of United States consumers' concerns about eight food production and processing technologies. AgBioForum, 8 (1 40 49. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
18. Juanillo, N. K. (2001). The risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology: Can scientific and public talk meet? American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (8 1246 1266.
19. Krueger, R. W. (2001). The public debate on agrobiotechnology: A biotech company's perspective. AgBioForum, 4 (3&4 209 220. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
20. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25 (5 1241 1253.
21. Onyango, B., Nayga, Jr., R., & Shilling, B. (2004). Role of product benefits and potential risks in consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. AgBioForum, 7 (4 202 211. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
22. Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: Genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 583 594.
23. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2001). Ethical considerations. AgBiotech Buzz. Retrieved on June 18, 2003, from http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/ index.php3?IssueID=2.
24. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2004). Genetically Modified Crops in the United States. Factsheet. Retrieved on March 10, 2006, from http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2.
25. Priest, S. H. (2000). U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939 942.
26. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20 (2 195 203.
27. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20 (5 713 719.
28. Sjoberg, L. (1998). World views, political attitudes and risk perception. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 137, 137 152.
29. Sjoberg, L. (1999). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Lofstedt (Eds. Social Trust and the Management of Risk (pp. 89 99). London: Earthscan Publications.
30. Sjoberg, L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 5, S47 S51.
31. Traill, W. B., Jaeger, S. R., Yee, W. M. S., Valli, C., House, L.O., Lusk, J.L., Moore, M., & Morrow, Jr., J.L. (2004). Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioForum, 7 (4 176 186. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
32. UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology 1994). Final report of the lay panel. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.ncbe. reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/conference.html