IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6124.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable

Author

Listed:
  • Josephine, Faass
  • Michael, Lahr

Abstract

This paper is an investigation into the relative importance of a wide variety of factors in influencing whether members of the American public support or oppose the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. To accomplish this end, as well as to facilitate the examination of a large number of independent variables simultaneously, several statistical methods, including factor analyses, instrumental variables analysis, and probit and logistic regressions were performed. It was determined that people’s perceptions of risks and moral acceptability were important contributors to opinion formation in this regard. The effects of expected benefits, feelings of trust in information, and knowledge about biotechnology and genetics, were also investigated and found to exert varying levels of influence depending on the identity of the expected beneficiary or information source, as well as the kind of knowledge under consideration. The roles of religious and political party affiliation were also examined and determined to be significant.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:6124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6124/1/MPRA_paper_6124.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Massimiano Bucchi & Federico Neresini, 2002. "Biotech remains unloved by the more informed," Nature, Nature, vol. 416(6878), pages 261-261, March.
    7. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    3. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Marin, Floriana & Notaro, Sandra, 2007. "Consumer attitudes toward GM food with hypothetical functional characteristics," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7878, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    15. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    17. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    19. Neha Singhal, 2018. "A Study of Consumer Behaviour towards Genetically Modified Foods and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness," Vision, , vol. 22(3), pages 306-315, September.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    genetically modified foods; biotechnology; public opinion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:6124. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.