T27 - Risk Perception and Risk Communication-BiotechSanta Rosa 3:30 - 5:00 pm
|
| Chair(s): Andrew Knight
|
T27.1 Determinants of trust in information about gm food. Cees J Midden, Anneloes L Meijnders; Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands c.j.h.midden@tm.tue.nl
Abstract: In evaluating complex risky technologies, people have to rely to a great extent on information that is provided by others. The question is how people determine whether they can trust the information provided by for example experts, or journalists. In two studies we examined the determinants of trust in information about gm food. The first study (N = 224) showed that whether or not information was trusted, depended not only on the credentials of the information source, but also on the stance that was taken by the source. If the source’s viewpoint corresponded with that of the receiver, he was trusted more than when his viewpoint differed. This finding was replicated in the second study (N = 261). In addition, this study showed that the effect was mediated by perceived similarity. A source that presented a pro-attitudinal viewpoint was perceived as more similar than a source that presented a counter-attitudinal viewpoint and therefore was trusted more.
These results suggest that trust formation is not a one-time judgement, but an ongoing process. The theory that shared values form the basis of trust gets support. In addition, other similarity cues appear to play a role in trust formation.
|
T27.2 Willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food . E. Townsend, S. Campbell; University of Nottingham ellen.townsend@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract: Numerous studies maintain that public attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food are overwhelmingly negative, even hostile, and that people are very worried about genetic engineering in food. However, many of the claims are based on survey data and have significant methodological problems, such as low response rates, which may indicate that only those with strong views respond, thus biasing the sample. In the present study an alternative method, involving ‘topic-blind’ recruitment of participants and a behavioural measure (a taste test to discriminate between ‘GM’, organic and traditionally grown apples), was used. In an experimental setting 93% of our sample of 100 adults willingly tasted and ate what they believed to be GM food, and 48% said they would buy GM food in the future. These results are surprising when assessed in the context of the many negative reports about attitudes and intentions towards GM food. Purchasers and non-purchasers differed in their ratings of GM food on key risk-related scales (particularly on a dread–not dread scale – a measure of integral affect - and an ethical–unethical scale). In spite of these differences, however, and despite their negative feelings, most non-purchasers (85.7%) willingly tasted the GM apple. Incidental affect (state stress and trait worry) were not found to influence risk-related judgements about GM food. Integral affect (dread of GM plants and animals used for food) and concerns about the future risks of GM animals in food were found to be significant predictors of willingness to purchase GM food. Our results, which strongly contrast with much previous research, are discussed in relation to two more recent studies (Noussair et al 2004; Lähteenmäki et al. (2003), which also demonstrate less negative results using methods other than surveys.
|
T27.3 How to misrepresent a nation: The case of the GM Nation? report. S.* Campbell, E.J. Townsend; University of Nottingham scott.campbell@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract: The GM Nation? debate report, commissioned by the United Kingdom government and released in September 2003, concluded that the United Kingdom public is overwhelmingly against GM technology. We have argued (Campbell and Townsend, Nature 425, 2003, p. 559) that the report is deeply misleading, and we demonstrate this using data from the report itself. 36 500 people completed survey questionnaires on their attitudes to GM technology. Although this is a very large sample, it is exclusively a self-selected one, and as such may be biased. To try to overcome this problem, the organizers of GM Nation? also polled 78 randomly-chosen people the same questions. The final report of GM Nation? claimed that while there some minor differences, the randomly-chosen sample was in general agreement with the larger sample. The authors of the report concluded that the general public was therefore not “a completely different audience with different values and attitudes from an unrepresentative activist minority”. However, nowhere in the massive report were the figures for the two samples compared. We collected the relevant data from the supporting documents, and constructed tables comparing the results of the two groups, and found that the differences were astounding. For example, on the question “I would be happy to eat GM food”, 86% of the large sample (the “Open Debate” group) disagreed, but this diminished to 35% in the random group. These results meant that the large sample should have been rejected as a reliable indicator of the attitudes of the wider population. We also noted that the quality of the questions was very poor - many were vague and/or leading to a degree that is completely unacceptable in a serious social science survey. Despite these failings, the report continues to be quoted in the media as evidence of widespread hostility towards GM technology in the United Kingdom.
|
T27.4 Revising Cultural Theory: The Significance of Worldviews. A.J. Knight; Arkansas State University aknight@astate.edu
Abstract: This paper provides a critique of cultural theory and, in so doing, examines whether other types of values or worldviews influence support for agricultural biotechnology applications. Cultural theory suggests that there are four particular forms of social organization in Western societies-- hierarchal, individual, egalitarian and isolationist. Each category has its own worldviews or ideologies entailing deeply held values and beliefs which influences a person’s perceptions of risks. However, empirical studies based on cultural theory have presented mixed results, and the validity and reliability of these typologies have rarely been tested empirically. Also, these typologies represent a rather narrow spectrum of possible values people could hold. This paper attempts to overcome these issues by incorporating three other indices of worldviews from the political science and environmental sociology literatures. Using data from a regional Southwest telephone survey conducted in 2004, this study investigates whether Ronald Inglehart’s Materialist/Post-Materialist values scale and Dunlap and Van Liere’s New Ecological Paradigm scale, as well as general attitudes about technology, predict support of agricultural biotechnology applications. Preliminary results suggest that that these worldviews have little influence on perceptions of agricultural biotechnology applications.
|
