Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 15–30 | Cite as

The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production

  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Chaya Howard
  • Richard Shepherd
Article

Abstract

Source credibility has been thought to bean important determinant of peoples‘ reactions toinformation about technology. There has also been muchdebate about the need to communicate effectively withthe public about genetic engineering, particularlywithin the context of food production. Questionnaireswere used to investigate the impact of sourcecredibility, admission of risk uncertainty, andinitial attitude towards genetic engineering onattitudes of respondents after information provision.120 respondents with positive attitudes towardsgenetic engineering in food production were providedwith persuasive information about the technology,where both source attribution and admission of riskuncertainty were systematically varied within theexperimental design. Impact on perceptions of sourcecredibility, informational qualities, and postintervention attitudes were examined, and compared toa second group of respondents who held initiallynegative attitudes towards genetic engineering, andwho had been exposed to similar informationinterventions. As predicted by Social Judgment Theory,initial attitude was found to be an importantdeterminant of post-intervention attitude. However,admission of risk uncertainty was also found to beinfluential in increasing acceptance and reducingrejection of the technology, possibly through thefacilitation of elaborative processing. Contrary toprevious research, prior attitudes had an impact onperceptions of both source credibility andinformational quality. In terms of effectiveinformation provision about genetic engineering, itwas concluded that scientific honesty is the bestpolicy, and that lay understanding of scientificprocess is probably greater than hitherto assumed byexperts.

Genetic engineering Source credibility Prior attitudes Risk perception Trust 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Advisory Committee on Science and Technology (1992), Developments in Biotechnology. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  2. Chaiken, S., and S. M. Yates (1995), “Affective-cognitive consistency and thought-induced attitude polarization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49: 1470–1481.Google Scholar
  3. Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. (1993), “Process theories of attitude formation and change: Attribution approaches and social judgment theory,” in A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken (eds.), The Psychology of Attitudes(pp. 351–388). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  4. Eagly, A. H., W. Wood, and S. Chaiken (1978), “Causal inferences about communications and their effect on opinionchange,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36: 424–435.Google Scholar
  5. Doble, J. (1996), “Productive policy depends on public's understanding of scientific issues,” The Scientist10: 9.Google Scholar
  6. Frewer, L. J., D. Hedderley, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1997a), “ ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering,” Agriculture and Human Values14(1): 67–79.Google Scholar
  7. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1996a), “Effective communication about genetic engineering and food,” British Food Journal98: 48–53.Google Scholar
  8. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1996b), “The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of foodstuffs,” Food Quality and Preference7: 61–67.Google Scholar
  9. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd (1996c), “What determines trust in information about foodrelated risks? underlying psychological constructs,” Risk Analysis16: 473–486.Google Scholar
  10. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd (Submitted), “Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of credibility, personal relevance and persuasive content.”Google Scholar
  11. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1997b), “Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics,” Science, Technology and Human Values22: 98–124.Google Scholar
  12. Frewer, L. J., M. Raats, and R. Shepherd (1993/1994), “Modelling the media: The transmission of risk information in the British Quality Press,” Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications to Industry5: 235–247.Google Scholar
  13. Frewer, L. J., and R. Shepherd (1994), “Attributing information to different sources: Effects on the perceived qualities of the information, on the perceived relevance of information and effects on attitude formation,” Public Understanding of Science3: 385–401.Google Scholar
  14. Frewer, L. J., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks (1994), “Biotechnology and food production: Knowledge and perceived risk,” British Food Journal96: 26–33.Google Scholar
  15. Frewer, L. J., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks (1994), “The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of foodrelated hazards targeted at the self, other people and society,” Journal of Food Safety 14: 19–40.Google Scholar
  16. Habict, F. H. (1992), Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors. Washington, DC: Office of the Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  17. Harkins, S. G., and R. E. Petty (1981), “Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40: 401–413.Google Scholar
  18. Heijs, W. J. M., C. J. H. Midden, and R. A. J. Drabbe (1993), Biotechnology: Attitudes and Influencing Factors. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Heller, A. (1988), General Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 73.Google Scholar
  20. Himmelfarb, S. (1972), “Integration and attribution theories in personality impression Formation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology23: 309–313.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, B. B., P. M. Sandman, and P. Miller (1992), “Testing the role of technical information in public risk perception,” Risk: Issues of Health Safety3: 341–364.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, B. B., and P. Slovic (1995), “Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust,” Risk Analysis15: 485–495.Google Scholar
  23. Joss, S., and Durant, J. (1995), Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  24. Kasperson, R. E., D. Golding, and S. Tuler (1992), “Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks,” Journal of Social Issues48: 161–187.Google Scholar
  25. Kates, R., C. Hohenemser, and R. Kasperson (1995), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  26. Kelly, H. H. (1972), “Attribution in social interaction,” in E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior(pp 1–26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nisbett, R., and L. Ross, L. (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Office of Science and Technology (1995), Technology Foresight: Progress through Partnership. No 7. Food and Drink. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  29. Rothenberg, L. (1994), “Biotechnology's issue of credibility,” Tibtech12: 435–438.Google Scholar
  30. Shamos, M. H. (1991), “Scientific literacy: Can it decrease public anxiety about science and technology?” in D. J. Roy, B. E. Wynne, and R. W. Old. (eds.), Bioscience Society. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Sherif, M., and C. W. Sherif (1967), “Attitude as the individual's own categories: The social judgmentinvolvement approach to attitude and attitude change,” in C. W. Sherif and M. Sherif (eds.), Attitude, Ego Involvement and Change(pp. 105–139). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Slovic, P. (1993), “Perceived risk, trust and democracy: A systems perspective,” Risk Analysis13: 675–682.Google Scholar
  33. Smink, G. C. J., and A. M. Hamstra (1996), Informing Consumers About Foodstuffs Made With Genetic Engineering: A Constructive Contribution To The Issue. Leiden: SWOKA Instituut voor Consumentenenonderzoek.Google Scholar
  34. Sparks, P., and R. Shepherd (1994), “Public perceptions of the hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study,” Risk Analysis14: 79–86.Google Scholar
  35. Sparks, P., and R. Shepherd (In preparation), “Attitude polarization and gene technology.”Google Scholar
  36. Sparks, P., R. Shepherd, and L. J. Frewer (1994), “Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study,” Agriculture and Human Values11(1): 19–28.Google Scholar
  37. Tesser, A. (1978), “Selfgenerated attitude change,” in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11(pp. 289–338). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Touraine, A. (1995), “The crisis of ‘progress’,” in M. Bauer (ed.), Resistance to New Technology(pp. 45–57). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zechendorf, B. (1994), “What the public thinks about biotechnology,” Bio/Technology12 (September): 870–875.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn J. Frewer
    • 1
  • Chaya Howard
    • 1
  • Richard Shepherd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Consumer Sciences, Reading LaboratoryInstitute of Food ResearchReadingU.K

Personalised recommendations