Risk communication/perception articles the power of association: Its impact on willingness to buy GM food

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1142-1155

  Connor, Melanie ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a Institute for Environmental Decisions   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Consumer perception; Free association technique; GM food; Willingness to buy

Indexed keywords

THEOBROMA CACAO;

EID: 80052906093     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: 15497860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2011.605725     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Benthin A, Slovic P, Moran P, et al. 1995. Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: A study of word association and imagery. J Adolesc Health 17(3):143-152
2. Blaine K, Kamaldeen S, and Powell D. 2002. Public perceptions of biotechnology. J Food Sci 67(9):3200-3208
3. Braun R. 2002. People's concerns about biotechnology: Some problems and some solutions. J Biotechnol 98(1):3-8
4. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, and Lagerkvist CJ. 2004. Consumer benefits of labels and bans on genetically modified food-An empirical analysis using choice experiments. Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Denver, CO, USA
5. Chen H and Chern WS. 2002. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods, Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, CA, USA
6. Christoph IB, Bruhn M, and Roosen J. 2007. Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite 51:58-68
7. Connor M and Siegrist M. 2010. Factors influencing people's acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Sci Commun 32(4):514-538
8. Finucane M, Alhakami A, Slovic PJ, et al. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgements of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making 13:1-17
9. Frewer LJ, Howard C, and Shepherd R. 1996. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Qual Prefer 7(1):61-67
10. Frewer LJ, Howard C, and Shepherd R. 1997. Public concerns in the united kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Tech Human Values 22(1):98-124
11. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, et al. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 18(9):935-938
12. Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Aquino HL, et al. 2003. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
13. Hoban TJIV. 1996. Anticipating public reaction to the use of genetic engineering in infant nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 63:657S-662S
14. Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, and Lewenstein BV. 2005. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:240-269
15. Li Q, Curtis KR, McCluskey JJ, et al. 2002. Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in Beijing China. AgBioForum 5(4):145-152
16. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, et al. 2001. Risk as feelings. PsyB 127:267-286
17. Lorenzoni I, Leiserowitz A, Doria MD, et al. 2006. Cross-national comparisons of image associations with "global warming" and "climate change" among laypeople in the United States and Great Britain. J Risk Res 9(3):265-281
18. Magnusson MK and Hursti Koivisto U-K. 2002. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 39:9-24
19. MoonWand Balasubramanian SK. 2001. Public perceptions and willingness to pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum 4(3/4):221-231
20. Pardo R, Midden C, and Miller JD. 2002. Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotechnol 98(1):9-24
21. Siegrist M. 1998. Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Pers Indiv Differ 24:861-866
22. Siegrist M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195-204
23. Siegrist M. 2003. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. J Risk Res 6(1):45-60
24. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, et al. 2007. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459-466
25. Slovic P. 1995. The construction of preference. AmP 50:364-371
26. Slovic P, Flynn JH, and Layman M. 1991. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603-1607
27. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, et al. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311-322
28. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, et al. 2007. The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333-1352
29. Spence A and Townsend E. 2006a. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Anal 26(3):657-670
30. Spence A and Townsend E. 2006b. Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. Appetite 46(1):67-74
31. Spence A and Townsend E. 2007. Predicting behaviour towards genetically modified food using implicit and explict attitudes. Br J Soc Psychol 46:437-457
32. Szalay LB and Deese J. 1978. Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associations. Distributed by the Halsted Press Division, Hillsdale, NJ, USA
33. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, et al. 2005. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:47-50
34. Townsend E. 2006. Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudes toward, genetically modified food. J Risk Res 9(2):125-139
35. Townsend E and Campbell S. 2004. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Anal 24(5):1385-1393
36. Townsend E, Clarke DD, and Travis B. 2004. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Anal 24(5):1369-1384
37. Venkatachalam L. 2004. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(1):89-124
38. Verdurme A and Viaene J. 2003. Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness 19(1):91-113