People's reliance on the affect heuristic may result in a biased perception of gene technology

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 54, Issue , 2016, Pages 137-140

  Siegrist, Michael ^a   Sütterlin, Bernadette ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Affect heuristic; Benefit perception; Biases; Gene technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979765529     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.012     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bearth, A., Siegrist, M., Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 49 (2016), 14–23, 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003.
2. Contrary to popular belief, Nature Biotechnology, 31(9), 2013, 767.
3. Editorial, Breaking out of the bubble. Nature Biotechnology, 34(3), 2016, 213.
4. Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., Johnson, S.M., The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (2000), 1–17.
5. Frewer, L.J., Bergmann, K., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., Vereijken, C., Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22 (2011), 442–456.
6. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Shepherd, R., The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference 7:1 (1996), 61–67.
7. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), 935–938.
8. Harris, A.J.L., Corner, A., Hahn, U., Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition 110 (2009), 51–64.
9. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. 1982, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Peters, E., Slovic, P., The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26:16 (1996), 1427–1453, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00079.x.
11. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., Zani, B., The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: Test of an integrated psychosocial model. Food Quality and Preference 25:2 (2012), 163–170.
12. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40:3 (2008), 879–891, 10.3758/Brm.40.3.879.
13. Ronteltap, A., Reinders, M. J., van Dijk, S. M., Heijting, S., van der Lans, I. A., & Lotz, L. A. P. (in press). How technology features influence public response to new agrifood technologies. Journal Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9625-8.
14. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24 (2004), 1289–1299.
15. Siegrist, M., Bernauer, T., Meinung, Konsum, Kommunikation und Akzeptanz. Leitungsgruppe des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms NFP 59, (eds.) Nutzen und Risiken der Freisetzung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen, 2012, vdf Hochschulverlag, Zurich, 198–219.
16. Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., Sütterlin, B., Biased perception about gene technology: How perceived naturalness and affect distort benefit perception. Appetite 96 (2016), 509–516.
17. Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis 34:8 (2014), 1482–1494.
18. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15:6 (2006), 322–325, 10.1111/J.1467-8721.2006.00461.X.