Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 23–61 | Cite as

Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey

  • Lone Bredahl


Previous research has shown consumers to be highly sceptical towards genetic modification in food production. So far, however, little research has tried to explain how consumers form attitudes and make decisions with regard to genetically modified foods. The paper presents the results of a survey which was carried out in Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to investigate the formation of consumer attitudes towards genetic modification in food production and of purchase decisions with regard to genetically modified yoghurt and beer. Altogether, 2031 consumers were interviewed in the four countries.

Results show that attitude formation and decision-making are more comparable among Danish, German, and British consumers than with Italian consumers. Italian consumers turned out to be significantly less negative towards genetic modification in foods than particularly Danish and German consumers. Across countries, the attitude towards genetic modification in food production was deeply embedded in more general attitudes held by the consumers, in particular attitude towards nature and attitude towards technology. These general attitudes were found to influence perceived risks and benefits of the technology. Purchase decisions with regard to the two product examples were almost exclusively determined by attitudes towards purchasing the products. These were, in turn, significantly influenced by the overall attitude towards genetic modification in food production through their effects on beliefs held by consumers regarding the quality and trustworthiness of the products.

The results suggest that attitudes towards genetically modified foods are quite strong, despite their lack of basis in actual product experience. Likewise, the strong relation of product-specific attitudes to the attitude towards using genetic modification in food production suggests that at present consumers reject the technology overall rather than evaluate products on a case-by-case basis. This situation may, however, be changed by a possible increased availability of genetically modified food products on the consumer market.


Food Product Genetically Modify Food Production General Attitude Genetic Modification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control – From cognition to behavior, pp. 11–39. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, N. K. (1978). Development of a test for consumer alienation from the marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 565–575.Google Scholar
  4. Askegaard, S., & Madsen, T. K. (1995). Homogeneity and heterogeneousness in European food cultures: An exploratory analysis. In: M. Bergadaà (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th EMAC Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 25–47. Cergy-Pontoise: ESSEC.Google Scholar
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In: R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research, pp. 386–422. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bearden, W. O., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Reassessment of the dimensionality, internal consistency, and validity of the consumer alienation scale. In: P. E. Murphy (Ed.), American Marketing Association Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings, pp. 35–40. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  7. Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small samples in factor analysis models. In: K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, Part I, pp. 149–173. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Borre, O. (1990). Befolkningens tillid til genteknologi – kommunikation og tillid (The public's confidence in genetic technologies – Communication and trust). Copenhagen: Teknologinævnet. Teknologinævnets Rapporter (4).Google Scholar
  9. Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods – Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 34, 343–360.Google Scholar
  10. Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Frewer, L. J. (1998). Consumer attitudes and decisionmaking with regard to genetically engineered food products – A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 251–277.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.Google Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models, pp. 136–162. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Brunsø, K., Grunert, K. G., & Bredahl, L. (1996). An analysis of national and crossnational consumer segments using the food-related lifestyle instrument in Denmark, France, Germany and Great Britain. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business. MAPP Working Paper No. 35.Google Scholar
  14. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement – Current issues, pp. 65–115. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  15. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). “The New Environmental Paradigm. ” A proposed measurement instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.Google Scholar
  16. Durant, J., Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere – A European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  17. East, R. (1993). Investment decisions and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 337–375.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (1997). The Europeans and modern biotechnology – Eurobarometer 46.1. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  19. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behaviour consistency. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 161–202. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal of Personality, 46, 228–243.Google Scholar
  21. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233–239.Google Scholar
  22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Frewer, L. J. (1997). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food. Presentation held at the Workshop on “Expert Perceptions of Gene Technology, ” University of Lund, Sweden, February.Google Scholar
  24. Frewer, L. J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). “Objection” mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values, 14, 67–79.Google Scholar
  25. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473–486.Google Scholar
  26. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22, 98–124.Google Scholar
  27. Grunert, S. C., Grunert, K. G., & Kristensen, K. (1994). Une méthode d'estimation de la validité interculturelle des instruments de mesure: Le cas de la mesure des valeurs de consommateurs par la liste de valeurs LOV. Recherches et Applications en Marketing, 8(4), 5–28.Google Scholar
  28. Hamstra, A. M. (1991). Biotechnology in foodstuffs. Towards a model of consumer acceptance. The Hague: The SWOKA Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Hamstra, A. M. (1995). Consumer acceptance model for food biotechnology – Final report. The Hague: The SWOKA Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Heijs, W. J. M., & Midden, C. J. H. (1995). Biotechnology: Attitudes and influencing factors, third survey. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  31. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646.Google Scholar
  32. Hoogland, J. J., & Boomsma, A. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modelling. Sociological Methods and Research, 26, 329–367.Google Scholar
  33. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). PRELIS – A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  34. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S., & du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  35. Meertens, R. W., & Stallen, P. J. M. (1979). Beoordeling van kernenergie: evaluaties, beliefs en attitudes (Assessment of nuclear energy: Evaluations, beliefs, and attitudes). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 36, 45–55.Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1968). A cognitive model of attitudinal involvement. In: R. P. Abelson et al. (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook, pp. 373–383. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  37. Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–120.Google Scholar
  38. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Saba, A., Moles, A., & Frewer, L. J. (1998). Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: A comparative study between the United Kingdom and Italy. Nutrition & Science, 1, 19–29.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Experimental social psychology, pp. 1–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., & Dillon, W. R. (1989). Some results on the behavior of alternate covariance structure estimation procedures in the presence of non-normal data. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 214–221.Google Scholar
  42. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A United Kingdom study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11, 19–28.Google Scholar
  43. Steger, M. A. E., Pierce, J. C., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1989). Political culture, postmaterial values, and the New Environmental Paradigm: A comparative analysis of Canada and the United States. Political Behavior, 11, 233–254.Google Scholar
  44. Thøgersen, J., & Grunert-Beckmann, S. C. (1997). Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 182–189.Google Scholar
  45. Thomsen, C., Borgida, E., & Lavine, H. (1995). The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In: R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength – Antedecents and consequences, pp. 191–214. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lone Bredahl
    • 1
  1. 1.The Aarhus School of BrusselsAarhus VDenmark

Personalised recommendations