The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: Test of an integrated psychosocial model

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 163-170

  Prati, Gabriele ^a   Pietrantoni, Luca ^a   Zani, Bruna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Attitude; Genetically modified (GM) foods; Perceived benefits; Perceived control; Perceived risks; Subjective norms; Trust

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858724178     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39) 1985, Springer, Heidelberg. J. Kuhl, J. Beckman (Eds.).
2. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
3. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 2001, 52:27-58.
4. Allum N. An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: The case of GM food. Risk Analysis 2007, 27:935-946.
5. American Association for Public Opinion Research Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2008, AAPOR, Lenexa, Kansas. 5th edition.
6. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.
7. Armitage C.J., Conner M. The theory of planned behaviour: Assessment of predictive validity and 'perceived control'. British Journal of Social Psychology 1999, 38:35-54.
8. Bredahl L. Consumers' cognitions with regards to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 1999, 33:343-360.
9. Bredahl L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods-Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 2001, 24:23-61.
10. Bredahl L., Grunert K.G., Frewer L.J. Consumer attitudes and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products. A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy 1998, 21:251-277. 10.1023/A:1006940724167.
11. Brown T.A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research 2006, Guildford Press, New York.
12. Brown J.L., Ping Y.C. Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003, 103(2):208-214.
13. Byrne B.M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 2009, Routledge, New York. 2nd ed.
14. Bollen K.A. Structural equations with latent variables 1984, Wiley Publication, New York.
15. Chen M.-F., Li H.-L. The consumer's attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:662-674.
16. Cook A.J., Kerr G.N., Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23:557-572.
17. Costa-Font J., Mossialos E. Are perceptions of ''risk" and ''benefits" of genetically modified food (in) dependent?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:173-182.
18. Costa-Font M., Gil J.M. Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:399-409.
19. Dona A., Arvanitoyannis I.S. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2009, 49:164-175.
20. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:1-17.
21. Eiser J.R. Attitudes, chaos and the connectionist mind 1994, Blackwell, Oxford.
22. Fishbein M. An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations 1963, 16:233-240.
23. Fortín D.R., Renton M.S. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in New Zealand. British Food Journal 2003, 105:42-58.
24. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values 1997, 22:98-124.
25. Frewer L.J., Scholderer J., Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:1117-1133.
26. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., & Stares, S. R. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels: European Commission.
27. Grunert K.G., Lahteenmaki L., Nielsen N.A., Poulsen J.B., Ueland O., Astrom A. Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification - Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:527-542.
28. Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., & Lang, J.T. (2003). Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (Publication number RR-1003-004). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey.
29. Lobb A.E., Mazzocchi M., Traill W.B. Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:384-395.
30. MacKinnon D.P., Fairchild A.J., Fritz M.S. Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 2007, 58:593-614. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.
31. Magnusson M.K., Hursti U.K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 2002, 39:9-24.
32. Miller H.I., Morandini P., Ammann K. Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals?. Trends in Biotechnology 2008, 26:122-125.
33. Onyango B., Ferdaus H., Hallman W., Schilling B., Adelajan A. Public perceptions of food biotechnology: Uncovering factors driving consumer acceptance of genetically modified food. Journal of Food Distribution Research 2003, 34:37-42.
34. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:961-972.
35. Qaim M. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics 2009, 1:665-693.
36. Saba A., Vassallo M. Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in tomato production. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:13-21. 10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00052-0.
37. Savadori L., Savio S., Nocotra E., Rumiati R., Finucane M., Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:1289-1299.
38. Shrout P.E., Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 2002, 7:422-445.
39. Siegrist M., Cousin M.E., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
40. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2093-2106.
41. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:195-203.
42. Siegrist M. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research 2003, 6:45-60.
43. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G., Roth C. Salient values similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perceptions. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:353-362.
44. Sparks P., Shepherd R., Frewer L. Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: The role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1995, 16:267-285.
45. Spence A., Townsend E. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis 2006, 26:657-670.
46. Traill W.B., Yee W.M.S., Lusk J.L., Jaeger S.R., House L.O., Morrow J.L., et al. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of GM foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Food Economics 2006, 3:12-19.
47. Veeman, M., Adamowicz, W., & Hu, W. (2005). Risk perceptions, social interactions and the influence of information on social attitudes to agricultural biotechnology (Project report 05-02). AARI project report 2001J025.