IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v27y2007i6p1553-1563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Knight

Abstract

Data from a regional Southwest telephone survey in the United States (N= 432) were used to examine the intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Results showed that perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies varied by the two applications—animals and plants. Respondents reported higher opposition to the genetic modification of animals, which is consistent with prior research. Results also indicated that morality and perceived benefits directly affected support for both animal and plant applications, but trust and knowledge only had indirect effects. Morality and perceived benefits accounted for most of the variance explained among the intervening variables. The effects of trust were mediated through perceived benefits. The effects of knowledge on support were mediated primarily through trust. The influence of sociodemographic and consumer behavior variables varied by application. Results lend support to several theoretical notions. First, the significance of perceived benefits supports that there is an inverse relationship between benefits and risks. Second, moral objections may outweigh perceived benefits for specific applications, and the genetic modification of animals is deemed to be more morally unacceptable than the genetic modification of plants. These findings demonstrate the need to understand more thoroughly the moral and ethical issues surrounding novel technologies. Third, this research supports the claim that trust is not a powerful predictor of perceptions of technological products, which is contrary to most risk perception research.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:1553-1563
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00988.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00988.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00988.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. Anders Biel & Andreas Nilsson, 2005. "Religious Values and Environmental Concern: Harmony and Detachment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(1), pages 178-191, March.
    2. L.J. Frewer & D. Hedderley & C. Howard & R. Shepherd, 1997. "‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 67-79, March.
    3. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    5. repec:ags:inpuer:188880 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Hwang, Yun Jae & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario F., 2005. "An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19128, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Onyango, Benjamin M., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Foods: The Role Of Product Benefits And Perceived Risks," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(01), pages 1-8, March.
    9. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. 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. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    2. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Caroline Ritter & Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie & Jesse Robbins & Marina A G von Keyserlingk & Daniel M Weary, 2019. "Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    7. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.

    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. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    3. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    4. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    6. Hyun Joung Jin & Dae Hee Han, 2019. "College Students’ Experience of a Food Safety Class and Their Responses to the MSG Issue," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    8. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    9. 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.
    10. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    11. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    12. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    13. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    14. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    15. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    19. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.

    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:27:y:2007:i:6:p:1553-1563. 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.