Determinants of reactions to gene technology: A generic approach

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-65

  Pin, Renske R ^a   Gutteling, Jan M ^a   Kuttschreuter, Margôt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive and affective factors; Gene technology; Perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

AFFECT; COGNITION; EXPERIENCE; FOOD; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENE TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH SURVEY; KNOWLEDGE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; PATH ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; POPULATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TRUST;

EID: 61649086947     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770802670258     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Bandura, A., 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175-1184.
2. Bauer, M.W. and Gutteling, J.M., 2006. Issue salience and media framing over 30 years. In: G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer, eds. Genomics and society: legal, ethical and social dimensions. London: Earthscan, 113-130.
3. Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and modelling. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Cuite, C.L., Aquino, H.L., and Hallman, W.K., 2005. An empirical investigation of the role of knowledge in public opinion about GM food. International Journal of Biotechnology, 7 (1-3), 178-194.
5. Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R., 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 119-134.
6. Finucane, M.L. and Holup, J.L., 2005. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 60 (7), 1603-1612.
7. Frewer, L., 2004. The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letters, 149 (1-3), 391-397.
8. Frewer, L., et al., 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16 (4), 473-486.
9. Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., and Bredahl, L., 2003. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23 (6), 1117-1133.
10. Gaskell, G., et al., 2004. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24 (1), 185-194.
11. Gaskell, G., et al., 2006. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Final Report on Eurobarometer 64.3. London: Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society.
12. Grunert, K.G., Bredahl, L., and Scholderer, J., 2003. Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 4 (4), 435-445.
13. Gutteling, J.M., 2005. Mazur's hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (1), 23-41.
14. Gutteling, J., et al., 2006. Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in The Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 15 (1), 103-112.
15. Hansen, J., et al., 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41 (2), 111-121.
16. Henneman, L., Timmermans, D.R.M., and van der Wal, G., 2004. Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information. Community Genetics, 7 (1), 33-43.
17. Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., and Gutteling, J.M., 2007. Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (4), 1838-1852.
18. IBT Marktonderzoek, 2002. Publieksenquête Genomics. Stichting Consument en Biotechnologie.
19. Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
20. Lazarus, R.S., 1993. Coping theory and research - past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55 (3), 234-247.
21. Leshner, A.I., 2005. Where science meets society. Science, 307, 815.
22. Moerbeek, H. and Casimir, G., 2005. Gender differences in consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29 (4), 308-318.
23. Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K., 2004. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: the mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26 (2), 186-208.
24. Mucci, A., Hough, G., and Ziliani, C., 2004. Factors that influence purchase intent and perceptions of genetically modified foods among Argentine consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15 (6), 559-567.
25. Pardo, R., Midden, C., and Miller, J.D., 2002. Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98 (1), 9-24.
26. Peters, R.G., Covello, V.T., and McCallum, D.B., 1997. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17 (1), 43-54.
27. Pin, R.R. and Gutteling, J., 2005. Publieksonderzoek Genomics 2005. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Centre for Society and Genomics.
28. Pin, R.R. and Gutteling, J., 2006. The development of public risk perception research in the genomics field: an empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Risk Analysis - Europe 2006, 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
29. Shaw, A., 2002. "It just goes against the grain." Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273-291.
30. Siegrist, M., 1999. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (10), 2093-2106.
31. 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.
32. Slovic, P., 2000. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications.
33. Slovic, P., et al., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24 (2), 311-322.
34. Statistics Netherlands, 2006. Statistical yearbook 2006. Voorburg/Heerlen, The Netherlands: CBS.
35. Tanaka, Y., 2004. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 24 (6), 1575-1583.
36. Townsend, E. and Campbell, S., 2004. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24 (5), 1385-1393.
37. Trumbo, C.W. and McComas, K.A., 2003. The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23 (2), 343-353.
38. Urban, D., 1996. Quantitative measurement of public opinions on new technologies: an application of SEM-methodology to the analysis of beliefs and values toward new human applications of genetic engineering. Scientometrics, 35 (1), 71-92.