IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i4p461-475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: a longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Connor
  • Michael Siegrist

Abstract

The study of public perceptions is considered to be important for making sound policy decisions, since the public decides which products will enter and sustain in the market. Stability of public perceptions is important for policy-makers; only if public attitudes and perceptions remain constant, policy-makers will be able to take them into account. The aim of the present study was to examine the stability of participants’ risk and benefit perceptions of gene technology over a period of two years. In spring, 2008 and in spring, 2010, the same sample of participants filled out an identical questionnaire. Results of structural equation modelling show that risk and benefit perceptions of gene technology applications are moderately stable ( r = .5--.7). Furthermore, results show that people distinguish between medical, plant and food applications and applications involving animals when evaluating the risk of gene technology. When evaluating the benefits, participants also take consumer-related benefits into account, such as enhancement of functional properties. Results of the present study suggest that risk research should regularly examine people’s risk perceptions in order to gain a clearer picture of the dynamics of people’s perception and preferences not only of novel technologies, but also of entrenched technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Connor & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: a longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 461-475, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:461-475
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.988169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2014.988169
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2014.988169?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    2. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    3. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    4. Schoemaker, Paul J. H. & Hershey, John C., 1992. "Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 397-424, August.
    5. Yutaka Tanaka, 2013. "Attitude gaps between conventional plant breeding crops and genetically modified crops, and psychological models determining the acceptance of the two crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 69-80, January.
    6. Chris Fife-Schaw & Gene Rowe, 2000. "Research Note: Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 167-179.
    7. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    8. Ale Smidts, 1997. "The Relationship Between Risk Attitude and Strength of Preference: A Test of Intrinsic Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 357-370, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anders Myhr & Frida Røyne & Andreas S Brandtsegg & Catho Bjerkseter & Harald Throne-Holst & Anita Borch & Alexander Wentzel & Anja Røyne, 2019. "Towards a low CO2 emission building material employing bacterial metabolism (2/2): Prospects for global warming potential reduction in the concrete industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Philip Bubeck & Lisa Berghäuser & Paul Hudson & Annegret H. Thieken, 2020. "Using Panel Data to Understand the Dynamics of Human Behavior in Response to Flooding," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2340-2359, November.
    3. Helena Wehmeyer & Annalyn H. de Guia & Melanie Connor, 2020. "Reduction of Fertilizer Use in South China—Impacts and Implications on Smallholder Rice Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2015. "Examining Public Trust in Risk‐Managing Organizations After a Major Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 57-67, January.
    2. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    3. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Yukiko Omata & Hajime Katayama & Toshi. H. Arimura, 2017. "Same concerns, same responses? A Bayesian quantile regression analysis of the determinants for supporting nuclear power generation in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 581-608, July.
    5. Geng, Liuna & Liu, Ting & Zhou, Kexin & Yang, Genmao, 2018. "Can power affect environmental risk attitude toward nuclear energy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 87-93.
    6. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    8. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    9. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Chuang, Yating & Schechter, Laura, 2015. "Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-170.
    11. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Achilleas Vassilopoulos, 2016. "Intertemporal stability of survey-based measures of risk and time preferences over a three-year course," Working Papers 2016-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    13. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    14. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    15. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    16. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    17. Liebenehm, Sabine, 2018. "Temporal Stability of Risk Attitudes and the Impact of Adverse Shocks—A Panel Data Analysis from Thailand and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 262-274.
    18. Fischer, Manuel, 2015. "Collaboration patterns, external shocks and uncertainty: Swiss nuclear energy politics before and after Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 520-528.
    19. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.
    20. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Achilleas Vassilopoulos, 2021. "Intertemporal stability of survey‐based measures of risk and time preferences," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 655-683, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:461-475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.