Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology

Risk Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 1289-1299

  Savadori, Lucia ^a   Savio, Stefania ^b   Nicotra, Eraldo ^b   Rumiati, Rino ^a   Finucane, Melissa ^c   Slovic, Paul ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Affect heuristic; Biotechnology; Experts; Public; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FOOD PRODUCTS; HEALTH RISKS; MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; PUBLIC RISKS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

RISK COMMUNICATION; SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; EXPERT SYSTEM; EXPOSURE; FOOD INDUSTRY; PERCEPTION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADULT; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 8844247160     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938.
2. Durant, J., Gaskell, G., & Buer, M. (1998). Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. London: National Museum of Science and Industry.
3. Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. (2001). Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy. London: National Museum of Science and Industry.
4. Gaskell, G., & Allum, N. (2001). Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty. Notizie di Politeia, 63, 13-25.
5. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
6. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.
7. Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perceptions of everyday food hazard: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 16, 487-500.
8. Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Biotechnology, 12, 870-875.
9. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. (1995). Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: The role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 267-285.
10. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98-124.
11. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
12. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643-648.
13. Kletz, T. A. (1996). Risk-Two views: The public's and the experts. Disaster Prevention and Management, 5, 41-46.
14. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21, 14-20, 36-39.
15. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. S., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15, 661-675.
16. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215-231.
17. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum.
18. Savadori, L., Rumiati, R., & Bonini, N. (1998). Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: The case of Italy. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 101-113.
19. Wright, G., Pearman, A., & Yardley, K. (2000). Risk perception in the U.K. oil and gas production industry: Are expert loss-prevention managers' perceptions different from those of members of the public? Risk Analysis, 20, 681-690.
20. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21, 341-356.
21. Sjoberg, L. (2002). The allegedly simple structure of experts' risk perceptions: An urban legend in risk research. Science Technology and Human Values, 27, 443-459.
22. Sjoberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21, 189-198.
23. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perception of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-203.
24. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2093-2106.
25. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.
26. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607.
27. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
28. Lichtenberg, J., & MacLean, D. (1992). Is good news no news? Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 17, 362-365.
29. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? The perception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 258, 384-387.
30. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risk? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.
31. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H. R., & Fischer, K. (1996). Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 16, 251-261.
32. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
33. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
34. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.