Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Qin, W.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: effects of information formats and male/female differences

Wei Qin

RM 213 Borland Lab, Food Science Department, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA, e-mail: wuq100{at}psu.edu

J. Lynne Brown

Food Science Department, the Pennsylvania State University

Developing effective communication strategies to inform the public about genetic engineering applications in food production is critical for the successful commercialization and future development of the technology. However, few existing studies in the United States have examined how communication materials affect public understanding of new technologies. Our survey study examined the effect of two information formats developed according to public issue education principles on the public understanding of, interest in and attitude towards genetically engineered salmon. In addition, we examined male/female differences in attitude. Our results indicated that participants who read the "consequence" information learned more, expressed more interest, and indicated higher level of actual confidence in judgment than those who read the "perspective" information. Women were less approving of genetically engineered salmon than men were both before and after reading the information. Reading information led to a positive change in attitude although the effect size was not different between sexes. The male/female difference was likely due to women's higher level of concern about effects on humans and greater trust of environmental groups compared to men's. Suggestions for designing an effective print communication about a specific genetic engineering application are presented.

References

  • Barrows, R.L. (1984) "Taking a Stand: Extension and Public Policy Issues," Journal of Extension 22(2), URL: http://www.joe.org/joe/1984march/a1.html (accessed 16 March 2006).
  • Brown, J.L. and Ping, Y. (2003) "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 103(2): 208—14.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Connelly, N.A. and Knuth, B.A. (1998) "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions about Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis 18(5): 649—59.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Dale, D.D. and Hahn, A.J. (1994) Public Issues Education: Increasing Competence in Resolving Public Issues. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.
  • Davidson, D.J. and Freudenburg, W.R. (1996) "Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research," Environment and Behavior 28(3): 302—39.[Abstract]
  • Davison, A., Barns, I. and Schibeci, R. (1997) "Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology," Science, Technology, & Human Values 22(3): 317—48.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Evans, D.G.R., Maher, E.R., Macleaod, R., Davies, D.R. and Crauford, D. (1997) "Uptake of Genetic Testing for Cancer Predisposition," Journal of Medical Genetics 34: 746—8.
  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C.K. (1994) "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental-health Risks," Risk Analysis 14(6): 1101—8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1994) "Attributing Information to Different Sources: Effects on Perceived Qualities of Information, on the Perceived Relevance of Information, and on Attitude Formation," Public Understanding of Science 3: 385—401.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1995) "Ethical Concerns and Risk Perceptions Associated with Different Applications of Genetic Engineering: Interrelationships with the Perceived Need for Regulation of the Technology," Agriculture and Human Values 12: 48—57.[CrossRef]
  • Frewer, L.J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997a) "`Objection' Mapping in Determining Group and Individual Concerns Regarding Genetic Engineering," Agriculture and Human Values 14: 67—79.[CrossRef]
  • Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997b) "Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics," Science, Technology, & Human Values 22(1): 98—124.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1998) "Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology," Journal of Risk Research 1(3): 221—35.[CrossRef]
  • Greenberg, M.R. and Schneider, D.F. (1995) "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed Vs. Non-Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis 15(4): 503—11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Grudens-Schuck, N. (2003) "Public Issues Education Projects: Meeting the Evaluation Challenges," Journal of Extension 41(1), URL: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/tt1.shtml (accessed 16 March 2006).
  • Gustafson, P. (1998) "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives," Risk Analysis 18(6): 805—11.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hahn, A.J. (1988) "Resolving Public Issues and Concerns through Policy Education," Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication Information Bulletin 214: 1—32
  • Hallman, W.K. and Metcalfe, J. (1994) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents. New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
  • Hallman, W.K., Adelaja, A.O., Schilling, B.J. and Lang, J.T. (2001) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—Americans Know Not What They Eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
  • Hallman, W.K., Adelaja, A.O., Schilling, B.J. and Lang, J.T. (2002) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—Americans Know Not What They Eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
  • Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. (2003) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
  • Harris-Kojetin, I.D., Fowler, F.J., Jr., Brown, J.A., Schnaier, J.A. and Sweeny, S.F. (1999) "The Use of Cognitive Testing to Develop and Evaluate Chaps 1.0 Core Survey Items," Medical Care 37(3): MS10—21.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Heffernan, J.W. and Hillers, V.N. (2002) "Attitudes of Consumers Living in Washington Regarding Food Biotechnology," Journal of the American Dietetic Association 102(1): 85—8.
  • Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. and Czaja, R. (1992) "Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering," Rural Sociology 57(4): 476—93.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Holloway, S., Mennie, M., Crosbie, A., Smith, B., Raeburn, S., Dinwoodie, D., Wright, A., May, H., Calder, K., Barron, L. and Brock, D.J.H. (1994) "Predictive Testing for Huntington Disease: Social Characteristics and Knowledge of Applicants, Attitudes to the Test Procedure and Decisions Made after Testing," Clinical Genetics 46: 175—80.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • IFIC (International Food Information Council) (2000) " U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Food Biotechnology Iv." URL: http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18001 (accessed 8 January 2005).
  • Jabine, T.B., Straf, M.L., Tanur, J.M. and Tourangeau, R. (1984) "Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines," Paper presented at the Advanced Research Seminar on Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology, Washington, DC.
  • Jardine, C.G. and Hrudey, S.E. (1997) "Mixed Messages in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis 17(4): 489—98.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Kirk, S.F.L., Greenwood, D., Cade, J.E. and Pearman, A.D. (2002) "Public Perception of a Range of Potential Food Risks in the United Kingdom," Appetite 38: 189—97.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kolodinsky, J., Desisto, T.P. and Narsana, R. (2004) "Influences of Question Wording on Levels of Support for Genetically Modified Organisms," International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(2): 154—67.[CrossRef]
  • Levin, I.P. (1987) "Associative Effects of Information Framing," Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25: 85—6.[Web of Science]
  • Levin, I.P. and Gaeth, G.J. (1988) "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research 15(3): 374—8.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G.J. (1998) "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(2): 149—88.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Levy, A.S. and Derby, B.M. (2000) "Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology." URL: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-comm/biorpt.htm (accessed 8 March 2002).
  • Lusk, J.L. and Sullivan, P. (2002) "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Food Technology 56(10): 32—7.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Maheswaran, D. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990) "The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement," Journal of Marketing Research 27: 361—7.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Meyers-Levy, J. and Maheswaran, D. (2004) "Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic, Heuristic, or both Types of Processing Occur," Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(1&2): 159—67.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Moerbeek, H. and Casimir, G. (2005) "Gender Differences in Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," International Journal of Consumer Studies 29(4): 308—18.
  • Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2004) "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2): 186—208.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J. (2002) Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Moxey, A., O'Connell, D., McGettigan, P. and Henry, D. (2003) "Describing Treatment Effects to Patients—How They Are Expressed Makes a Difference," Journal of General Internal Medicine 18(11): 948—59 + Appendices.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • National Science Board (2000) Science and Engineering Indicators—2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
  • OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) (1987 ) New Developments in Biotechnology—Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology (No. OTA-BP-BA-45). Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
  • Pew (2002) "Consumers Evenly Divided over Environmental Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Food and Biotechnology." URL: http://pewagbiotech.org/polls/ (accessed 5 March 2002).
  • Rothman, A.J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K. and Martin, C.D. (1993) "The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 29: 408—43.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Saad, L. (2001) "Biotech Food Remains Fairly Obscure to Most Americans," The Gallup Poll Monthly August: 38—41.
  • Scholderer, J. and Frewer, L. (2003) "The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy," Journal of Consumer Policy 26: 125—57.[CrossRef]
  • Sheehy, H., Legault, M. and Ireland, D. (1998) "Consumers and Biotechnology: A Synopsis of Survey and Focus Group Research," Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 359—86.[CrossRef]
  • Siegrist, M. (1997) "Communicating Low Risk Magnitudes: Incidence Rates Expressed as Frequency Versus Rates Expressed as Probability," Risk Analysis 17: 507—10.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Siegrist, M. (1999) "A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(10): 2093—106.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Siegrist, M. (2000) "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis 20(2): 195—203.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sjoberg, L. (2000) "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis 20: 1—11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) "Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk," in R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers (eds) Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?, pp. 137—44. New York: Plenum.
  • Subar, A.F., Thompson, F.E., Smith, A.F., Jobe, J.B., Ziegler, R.G., Potischman, N., Schatzkin, A., Hartman, A., Swanson, C., Kruse, L., Hayes, R.B., Lewis, D.R. and Harlan, L.D. (1995) "Improving Food Frequency Questionnaires: A Qualitative Approach Using Cognitive Interviewing," Journal of the American Dietetic Association 95(7): 781—8.
  • Tibben, A., Frets, P.G., van de Kamp, J.J.P., Niermeijer, M.F., Vegter-van der Vlis, M., Roos, R.A.C., Vanommen, G.J.B., Uivenvoorden, H.J. and Verhage, F. (1993) "Presymptomatic DNA-testing for Huntington Disease: Pretest Attitudes and Expectations of Applicants and their Partners in the Dutch Program," American Journal of Medical Genetics 48: 10—16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211: 453—8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decision," Journal of Business 59: s251—78.[CrossRef]
  • Wolfe, A. (1993) "Risk Communication in Social Context: Improving Effective Communication," The Environmental Professional 15: 248—55.
  • Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P. and Aldrich, C. (2000) "Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism," Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 443—57.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M. and Hoban, T. (1994) "Consumer Knowledge and Concern about Biotechnology and Food Safety," Food Technology 48(11): 71—7.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, 471-488 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506065336
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
H. Crne-Hladnik, C. Peklaj, K. Kosmelj, A. Hladnik, and B. Javornik
Assessment of Slovene secondary school students' attitudes to biotechnology in terms of usefulness, moral acceptability and risk perception
Public Understanding of Science, November 1, 2009; 18(6): 747 - 758.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
C. O. Stewart, D. L. Dickerson, and R. Hotchkiss
Beliefs About Science and News Frames in Audience Evaluations of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research
Science Communication, June 1, 2009; 30(4): 427 - 452.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Qin, W.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?