IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i6p1707-1719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food

Author

Listed:
  • Wouter Poortinga
  • Nick F. Pidgeon

Abstract

Although it is often thought that the British public is opposed to genetically modified (GM) food, recent qualitative work suggests that most people are ambivalent about GM food and crops. In this article we explore the structure of attitudes in order to examine whether attitudinal ambivalence can be captured by more quantitative methods. Based on the finding that the perceived risks and benefits of GM food can be treated as independent dimensions, we propose a four‐way typology of attitudes, consisting of a positive, negative, indifferent, and ambivalent group. This study showed that the differences between the four groups could best be described by three main dimensions: (1) a general evaluative dimension, (2) an involvement dimension, and (3) an attitudinal certainty dimension. While these different attitudinal dimensions have generally been studied in isolation, we argue that they should be studied collectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1707-1719
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. Carlene Wilson & Greg Evans & Phil Leppard & Julie Syrette, 2004. "Reactions to Genetically Modified Food Crops and How Perception of Risks and Benefits Influences Consumers' Information Gathering," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1311-1321, October.
    3. Gerald T. Gardner & Leroy C. Gould, 1989. "Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 225-242, June.
    4. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    6. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2003. "Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 45-60, January.
    8. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Schindler, Robert M. & Minton, Elizabeth A., 2022. "What becomes sacred to the consumer: Implications for marketers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 355-365.
    2. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    3. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang, 2020. "Public attitude toward self-driving vehicles on public roads: Direct experience changed ambivalent people to be more positive," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Liu, Peng, 2020. "Positive, negative, ambivalent, or indifferent? Exploring the structure of public attitudes toward self-driving vehicles on public roads," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 27-38.
    5. Carla Mouro & Vera Lomba & Ana Patrícia Duarte, 2021. "Pro-Environmental Behaviours at Work: The Interactive Role of Norms and Attitudinal Ambivalence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    7. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    8. Jooyoung Kim & Hye‐Jin Paek, 2009. "Information Processing of Genetically Modified Food Messages Under Different Motives: An Adaptation of the Multiple‐Motive Heuristic‐Systematic Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1793-1806, December.

    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. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    3. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    6. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    7. Chong Li & Yingqi Li, 2023. "Factors Influencing Public Risk Perception of Emerging Technologies: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-37, February.
    8. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    11. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    12. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    13. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    14. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    15. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    16. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    17. Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    18. J. Barnett & H. Cooper & V. Senior, 2007. "Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes Toward Modern Genetic Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 921-933, August.
    19. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    20. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.

    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:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1707-1719. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.