IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7700-d432672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China

Author

Listed:
  • Longji Hu

    (School of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Rongjin Liu

    (School of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Wei Zhang

    (School of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Tian Zhang

    (School of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China)

Abstract

Most studies exploring the public acceptance of genetically modified food (GMF) are based on social trust and the establishment of a causal model. The underlying premise is that social trust indirectly affects public acceptance of GMF through perceived risks and perceived benefits. The object of social trust is trust in people, organizations, and institutions. Different from the social trust, epistemic trust refers to people’s trust in scientific knowledge behind the technology of concern. It has been shown that epistemic trust, like social trust, is also an important factor that affects the public perception of applicable risks and benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate epistemic trust into the causal model to derive a more complete explanation of public acceptance. However, such work has not been conducted to date. The causal model proposed in this paper integrated epistemic trust and social trust and divided social trust into trust in public organizations and trust in industrial organizations. A representative questionnaire survey (N = 1091) was conducted with Chinese adults. The model was analyzed by the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method. Three major findings were obtained: First, epistemic trust is an important antecedent of perceived risks and perceived benefits and exerts a significant indirect effect on the acceptance of GMF. Secondly, trust in industrial organizations negatively impacts perceived risks, while trust in public organizations positively impacts perceived benefits. Thirdly, contrary to the common opinion, trust in industrial organizations did not exert a significant direct effect on perceived benefits, and trust in public organizations did not demonstrate a significant direct effect on perceived risks. Therefore, trust in industrial organizations and trust in public organizations utilize different influence paths on GMF acceptance. This study enriches the understanding of the influence path of trust with regard to the acceptance of emerging technologies and is of great significance to relevant risk-management practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7700-:d:432672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7700/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7700/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn & Christina Benighaus, 2013. "Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 293-313, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    4. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    5. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Yasunobu Maeda & Makota Miyahara, 2003. "Determinants of Trust in Industry, Government, and Citizen's Groups in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 303-310, April.
    7. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    10. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2008. "Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1553-1569, December.
    11. Lennart Sjöberg & Elisabeth Engelberg, 2010. "Risk Perception and Movies: A Study of Availability as a Factor in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 95-106, January.
    12. Lennart Sjoberg & Misse Wester Herber, 2008. "Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 30-44.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    14. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1762-1769, November.
    16. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    17. Animashaun, Jubril O., 2019. "Consumers’ evaluation of genetically modified (GM) Food: A meta- review and implications for policy regulation in Africa," 2019 Sixth International Conference, September 23-26, 2019, Abuja, Nigeria 295906, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    18. 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.
    19. Lennart Sjöberg, 2001. "Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 189-198, February.
    20. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    21. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    22. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226316529 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. J. Richard Eiser & Amy Donovan & R. Stephen J. Sparks, 2015. "Risk Perceptions and Trust Following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic Volcanic Ash Crises," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 332-343, February.
    24. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    25. 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.
    26. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    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. António Raposo & Fernando Ramos & Dele Raheem & Ariana Saraiva & Conrado Carrascosa, 2021. "Food Safety, Security, Sustainability and Nutrition as Priority Objectives of the Food Sector," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-4, July.
    2. Young-Jae Kim & Seung-Woo Kang, 2021. "An Analysis of the Relationship between the Modified Theory of Planned Behavior and Leisure Rumination of Korean Employees," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Houman Hashemzadeh & Alireza Karbasi & Hosein Mohammadi & Ali Firoozzare & Flavio Boccia, 2022. "Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Wenlong Li & Suocheng Dong & Haiying Lin & Yu Li & Zehong Li & Zhuang Jin & Bing Xia, 2022. "Influence of Rural Social Capital and Production Mode on the Subjective Well-Being of Farmers and Herdsmen: Empirical Discovery on Farmers and Herdsmen in Inner Mongolia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Macht, Janine & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2023. "Don't forget the locals: Understanding citizens' acceptance of bio-based technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    4. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    5. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    9. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    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. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Del-Real, Cristina & Díaz-Fernández, Antonio M., 2021. "Lifeguards in the sky: Examining the public acceptance of beach-rescue drones," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    19. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7700-:d:432672. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.