Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volumn 11, Issue , 2010, Pages 339-359

  Condit, Celeste M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

attitude formation; genetic counseling; genetic literacy; health communication; public understanding of science; science studies

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CULTURAL FACTOR; DNA MODIFICATION; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH BELIEF; MEDICAL GENETICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOLECULAR CLONING; REVIEW;

DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 77957949038     PISSN: 15278204     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141740     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Achter P, Parrott R, Silk K. 2005. African Americans' opinions about human-genetics research. Polit. Life Sci. 23:60-66
2. Alford JR, Hibbing JR. 2004. The origin of politics: an evolutionary theory of political behavior. Perspect. Polit. 2:707-23
3. Baars BJ, Gage NM, ed 2007. Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness: Introduction to Cognitive Neuroscience. London: Academic
4. Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V. 2007. Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal. 27:921-33
5. Barnoy S, Ehrenfeld M, Sharon R, Tabak N. 2006. Knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel. New Genet. Soc. 25:21-31
6. Barr M, Rose D. 2008. The great ambivalence: factors likely to affect service user and public acceptability of the pharmacogenomics of antidepressant medication. Sociol. Health Illn. 30:944-58
7. Berth H, Balck F, Dinkel A. 2002. Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients at risk for HNPCC/FAP and the German population. Genet. Test. 6:273-80
8. Besley JC, Shanahan J. 2005. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 26:347-67
9. Calnan M, Montaner D, Horne R. 2005. How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales. Soc. Sci. Med. 60:1937-48
10. Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. 2005. Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics. J. Econ. Lit. 43:9-64
11. Case AP, Ramadhani TA, Canfield MA, Wicklund CA. 2007. Awareness and attitudes regarding prenatal testing among Texas women of childbearing age. J. Genet. Counsel. 16:655-61
12. Caulfield T, Wertz D. 2001. Creating needs? a review of survey data and concerns relevant to the commercialization of genetic testing. Community Genet. 4:68-76
13. Condit CM. 2010. Public understanding of genetics and health. Clin. Genet. 77:1-9
14. Condit CM, Gronnvoll M, Landau J, Shen L, Wright L, Harris TM. 2009. Believing in both genetic determinism and behavioral action: a materialist framework and implications. Public Underst. Sci. 18:730-46
15. Condit CM, Templeton A, Bates BR, Bevan JL, Harris TM. 2003. Attitudinal barriers to delivery of race-targeted pharmacogenomics among informed lay persons. Genet. Med. 5:385-92
16. Dahl E. Hinsck K-D, Brosig B, Beutel M. 2004. Attitudes towards preconception sex selection: a representative survey from Germany. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 9:600-3
17. Detmar S, Dijkstra N, Nijsingh N, Rijnders M, Verweij M, Hosli E. 2008. Parental opinions about the expansion of the neonatal screening program. Community Genet. 11:11-17
18. Dickinson DL. 2000. Ultimatum decision-making: a test of reciprocal kindness. Theor. Decis. 48:151-77
19. Doukas DJ, Localio AR, Li Y. 2004. Attitudes and beliefs concerning prostate cancer genetic screening. Clin. Genet. 66:445-51
20. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich
21. Evans MDR, Kelley J, Zanjani ED. 2005. The ethics of gene therapy and abortion: public opinion. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 20:223-34
22. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13:1-17
23. Finucane ML, Holup JL. 2005. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Soc. Sci. Med. 60:1603-12
24. Fishbein M, Middlestadt S. 1995. Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: fact or artifact? J. Consum. Psychol. 4:181-202
25. French DP, Marteau TM, Senior V, Weinman J. 2000. Perceptions of multiple risk factors for heart attacks. Psychol. Rep. 87:681-87
26. Frewer L. 2003. Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14:319-32
27. Furr LA. 2002. Perceptions of genetic research as harmful to society: differences among samples of African-Americans and European-Americans. Genet. Test. 6:25-30
28. Gamero JJ, Romero J-L, Peralta J-L, Corte-Real F, Guillén M, Anjos MJ. 2008. A study of Spanish attitudes regarding the custody and use of forensic DNA databases. Forensic. Sci. Int. Genet. 2:138-49
29. Gelman SA. 2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
30. Gilani AI, Jadoon AS, Qaiser R, Nasim S, Meraj R, et al. 2007. Attitudes towards genetic diagnosis in Pakistan: a survey of medical and legal communities and parents of thalassemic children. Community Genet. 10:140-46
31. Goodson ML, Vernon BG. 2004. A study of public opinion on the use of tissue samples from living subjects for clinical research. J. Clin. Pathol. 57:135-38
32. Greenspan RJ. 2007. An Introduction to Nervous Systems. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press
33. Griffin RJ, Neuwirth K, Giese J, Dunwoody S. 2002. Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Commun. Res. 29:705-32
34. Hathaway F, Burns E, Ostrer H. 2009. Consumers' desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. J. Genet. Counsel. 18:137-46
35. Houston D, Fazio RH. 1989. Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: making objective judgments subjectively. Soc. Cogn. 1:51-66
36. Hudson KL, Scott J, Faden R. 2005. Values in Conflict: Public Attitudes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center
37. Human Genetics Commission. 2001. Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information. Hum. Genet. Comm., London. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/ Document/morigeneticattitudes.pdf
38. Jallinoja P, Aro AR. 2000. Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J. Health Commun. 5:29-39
39. Jallinoja P, Hakonen A, Aro AR, Niemelä P, Hietala M, et al. 1998. Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions. Soc. Sci. Med. 10:1367-74
40. Jones I, Scourfield J, McCandless F, Craddock N. 2002. Attitudes towards future testing for bipolar disorder susceptibility genes: a preliminary investigation. J. Affect. Disord. 71:189-93
41. Kalfoglou AL, Suthers K, Scott J, Hudson K. 2004. Reproductive genetic testing: what America thinks. http://www.dnapolicy.org/pub.reports.php
42. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM. 2006. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin. Genet. 69:393-98
43. Kaphingst KA, Persky S, McCall C, Lachance C, Loewenstein J, et al. 2009. Testing the effects of educational strategies on comprehension of a genomic concept using virtual reality technology. Patient Educ. Couns. 77:224-230
44. Kasparian NA, Meiser B, Butow PN, Simpson JM, Mann GJ. 2009. Genetic testing for melanoma risk: a prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genet. Med. 11:265-78
45. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Erby L, Hudson K, Scott J. 2009. Veterans' attitudes regarding a database for genomic research. Genet. Med. 11:329-37
46. Kessler L, Collier A, Halbert CH. 2007. Knowledge about genetics among African Americans. J. Genet. Counsel. 16:191-200
47. Kolodinsky J, DeSisto TP, Narsana R. 2004. Influences of question wording on levels of support for genetically modified organisms. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28:154-67
48. Krones T, Schlü ter E, Manolopoulos K, Bock K, Tinneberg H-R, et al. 2005. Public, expert and patients' opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. Reprod. Biomed. Online 10:116-23
49. Laegsgaard MM, Mors O. 2008. Psychiatric genetic testing: attitudes and intentions among future users and providers. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part B 147B:375-84
50. Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, Kardia SLR, Anderson ES, et al. 2004. Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J. Genet. Couns. 13:305-20
51. Lucke J, Hall W, Ryan B, Owen N. 2008. The implications of genetic susceptibility for the prevention of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of older adults' understanding. Community Genet. 11:283-88
52. Macer D, Ng MAC. 2000. Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nat. Biotechnol. 18:945-47
53. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. 2008. DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet. Med. 10:46-53
54. Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O'Leary P. 2009. Australian study on public health knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 12:84-91
55. MooreT, NormanP,Harris PR, MakrisM.2008.Aninterpretive phenomenological analysis ofadaptation to recurrent venous thrombosis and heritable thrombophilia: the importance of multi-causal models and perceptions of primary and secondary control. J. Health Psychol. 13:775-84
56. Morris SH, Adley CC. 2001. Irish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foods. Trends Biotech. 19:43-48
57. National Science Board. 2004. Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators, ch 7, pp. 7-1-7-37. Natl. Sci. Found., Arlington, Virg. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/ c7i.htm
58. Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM. 2007. Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet. Med. 9:727-38
59. Peters N, Rose A, Armstrong K. 2004. The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13:361-65
60. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2009. Public praises science: scientists fault public, media. http://people-press.org/report/528/
61. Pfau M, Roskos-Ewoldsen D, Wood M, Yin S, Cho J, et al. 2003. Attitude accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Commun. Monogr. 70:39-51
62. Phoenix A, Pattynama P. 2006. Intersectionality. Eur. J. Women's Studies. 13:187-92
63. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Jones TH, Walls J, O'Riordan T. 2005. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Anal. 25:467-79
64. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Anal. 25:199-209
65. Press AL, Cole ER. 1999. Speaking of Abortion: Television and Authority in the Lives of Women. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
66. Richards M, Ponder M. 1996. Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis. J. Med. Genet. 33:1032-36
67. Rose AL, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K. 2005. Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genet. 8:145-51
68. Rose A, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K. 2005. The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States. J. Health Commun. 10:309-21
69. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. 2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. 24:1289-99
70. Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E. 2001. The polls-trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opin. Q. 65:267-81
71. Shaw JS, Bassi KL. 2001. Lay attitudes toward genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases. J. Health Psychol. 6:405-23
72. Shepherd R, Barnett J, Cooper H, Coyle A, Moran-Ellis J, Senior V, Walton C. 2007. Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Soc. Sci. Med. 65:377-92
73. Siegrist M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20:195-203
74. Singer E, Antonucci T, Van Hoewyk J. 2004. Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing. Genet. Test. 8:31-43
75. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24:311-22
76. Smerecnik CMR, Mesters I, de Vries NK, de Vries H. 2008. Educating the general public about mul-tifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genet. Med. 10:251-58
77. Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C. 2005. Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genet. Soc. 24:31-56
78. Svendsen MN. 2006. The social life of genetic knowledge: a case-study of choices and dilemmas in cancer genetic counseling in Denmark. Med. Anthropol. 25:139-70
79. Thomas A, Palmer JK, Feldman JM. 2009. Examination and measurement of halo via curvilinear regression: A new approach to halo? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39:350-58
80. Toiviainen H,JallinojaP, Aro AR, Hemminki E. 2003. Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11:565-72
81. Townsend E, Clarke DD, Travis B. 2004. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 4:1369-84
82. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F. 2002. Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 41:323-43
83. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM. 2004. Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann. Fam. Med. 2:583-94
84. Zwick MM. 2000. Genetic engineering: risks and hazards as perceived by the German public. New Genet. Soc. 19:269-81