Pathways to support genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: Deliberate reasoning, information shortcuts, and the role of formal education

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 169-184

  Kim, Sei Hill ^a   Kim, Jeong Nam ^b   Besley, John C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

genetically modified foods; public opinion; science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874092196     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512442308     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Bandura A.Human agency in social cognitive theory.American Psychologist. 1989;44:1175-1184.
2. Bauer MW,Gaskell G.Towards a paradigm for research on social representations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 1999;29:163-186.
3. Besley JC,Shanahan J.Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology.Science Communication. 2005;26:347-367.
4. Binder AR,Dalrymple KE,Brossard D,Scheufele DA.The soul of a polarized democracy: Talk, media, and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election.Communication Research. 2009;36:315-340.
5. Borlaug NE.Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry.Plant Physiology. 2000;124:487-490.
6. Brossard D,Nisbet MC.Deference to scientific authority among low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2006;19:24-52.
7. Brossard D,Scheufele DA,Kim E,Lewenstein BV.Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:546-558.
8. Brossard D,Shanahan J.Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science.Mass Communication & Society. 2003;6:291-312.
9. Cacciatore MA,Scheufele DA,Corley EA.From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (3): 385-404.
10. Carmines EG,Stimson JA.The two faces of issue voting.American Political Science Review. 1980;74:78-91.
11. Chaiken S.Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39:752-766.
12. ChangHM (2008) 2008 Biosafety white paper. Available at: http://www.biosafety.or.kr/bbs/mboard.asp?exec=view&strBoardID=bsn_009&intPage=1&intCategory=0&strSearchCategory={pipe}s_name{pipe}s_subject{pipe}&strSearchWord=&intSeq=36241 (accessed 22 December 2010).
13. ChungH (2011) 2011 Biosafety white paper. Available at: http://www.bioin.or.kr/board.do?num=217974&cmd=view&bid=system (accessed 8 February 2012).
14. Collantes G.The dimensions of policy debate over transportation energy: The case of hydrogen in the United States.Energy Policy. 2008;36:1059-1073.
15. Converse PEIdeology and Discontent. Apter D, ed. New York: Free Press, pp; 1964:206-261.
16. Dattalo PDetermining Sample Size: Balancing Power, Precision, and Practicality. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:.
17. Delli Carpini MX,Keeter SWhat Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1996:.
18. Downs AAn Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row; 1957:.
19. Eagly A,Chaiken SThe Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1993:.
20. Eveland WP,Scheufele DA.Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation.Political Communication. 2000;17:215-237.
21. Fields J,Schuman H.Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1976;40:427-448.
22. Fishbein M,Ajzen IBelief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975:.
23. Fiske ST,Taylor SESocial Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991:.
24. Gaskell G,Allum N,Wagner W,Nielsen TH,Jelsoe E,Kohring M,Bauer MWBiotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. Gaskell GBauer M, ed. London, UK: Science Museum; 2001:53-79.
25. Gaskell G,Einsiedel E,Hallman W,Priest SH,Jackson J,Olsthoorn J.Social values and the governance of science.Policy Forum. 2005;310:1908-1909.
26. Hayes AF,Matthes J.Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations.Behavior Research Methods. 2009;41:924-936.
27. Hornig S.Reading risk: Public responses to print media accounts of technological risk.Public Understanding of Science. 1993;2:95-109.
28. Internet Statistics Information System (2011) Usage statistics. Available at: http://isis.kisa.or.kr/sub02/?pageId=020200# (accessed 20 January 2011).
29. Key S,Ma JK,Drake PM.Genetically modified plants and human health.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2008;101:290-298.
30. Kim S-H.Testing the knowledge gap hypothesis in South Korea: Traditional news media, the Internet, and political learning.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2008;20:193-210.
31. Kim S-H,Scheufele DA,Shanahan J.Who cares about the issues? Issue voting and the role of news media during the 2000 U.S. presidential election.Journal of Communication. 2005;55:103-121.
32. Kim S-H,Scheufele DA,Shanahan J,Choi D-H.Deliberation in spite of controversy? News media and the public's evaluation of a controversial issue in South Korea.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011;88:320-336.
33. Krosnick JA,Holbrook AL,Berent MK,Carson RT,Hanemann WM,Kopp RJ,Mitchell RC,Presser S,Ruud PA,Smith VK,Moody WR,Green MC,Conaway M.The impact of "no opinion" response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice?.Public Opinion Quarterly. 2002;66:371-403.
34. Kunruether HCWharton on Making Decisions. Hoch SJKunruether HCGubther RE, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001:259-272.
35. Lee C-J,Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.Public attitudes towards emerging technology: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Science Communication. 2005;27:240-267.
36. McComas KA,Besley JC,Yang Z.Risky business: Perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research.Risk Analysis. 2008;28 (6): 1539-1552.
37. Mellon M,Rissler J.Environmental effects of genetically modified food crops - Recent experience. Paper presented to the conference, "Genetically Modified Foods - the American Experiences; 2003Copenhagen, Denmark; 2003.
38. Miller JD,Kimmel LNew York: Academic Press; 2001:.
39. Moscovici SLa psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1961:.
40. Nielson TV,Jelsøe E,Öhman SBiotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Bauer MWGaskell G, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002:179-202.
41. Nisbet MC.The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17:90-112.
42. Nisbet MC,Huge M.Attention cycle and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection.Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2006;11:3-40.
43. Oh SH,Kim SY.Framing GM food in the Korean news media. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, St; 2011Louis, MO; 2011.
44. Page BI,Shapiro RYManipulating Public Opinion. Margolis MMauser GA, ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1989:294-320.
45. Park M-S.Risks of GM food in the global food system.Environmental Sociology, ECO. 2008;12:63-87.
46. Patterson TEThe Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishers; 2002:.
47. Petty RE,Cacioppo JTCommunication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986:.
48. Popkin SLThe Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1991:.
49. Raney T.Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries.Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2006;17:1-5.
50. Rosenstone SJ,Hansen JMMobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan; 1993:.
51. Satterfield T,Kandlikar M,Beaudrie CEH,Conti J,Harthorn BH.Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4:752-758.
52. Scheufele DAEmerging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. Turney J, ed. London: The Wellcome Trust; 2006:20-25.
53. Scheufele DA,Lewenstein BV.The public and nanotechonology: How citizens make sense of emerging technology.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:659-667.
54. Siegrist M.The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology.Risk Analysis. 2000;20:195-203.
55. Simon H.Bounded rationality and organizational learning.Organization Science. 1991;2:125-134.
56. Sniderman PM,Brody RA,Tetlock PEReasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1991:.
57. U.S. National Academy of Science (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. Available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804 (accessed 3 December 2010).
58. Wildavski A,Dake K.Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?.Daedalus. 1990;119:41-50.