IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v14y1997i1p67-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering

Author

Listed:
  • L.J. Frewer
  • D. Hedderley
  • C. Howard
  • R. Shepherd

Abstract

Whilst there has been much debateregarding the importance of public acceptance ofgenetic engineering and its applications, there isevidence to indicate that objections to the technologyare likely to focus on specific applications of thetechnology, rather than genetic engineering per se.Thus it becomes important to examine the extent ofobjections associated with individual applications,rather than to assess public feeling regarding thetechnology overall. Survey data were collected from200 respondents regarding their objections to generalapplications of genetic engineering (where thetangible benefits were not obvious). Similar objectiondata were collected from 200 different respondents,who were presented with specific applications withmore obvious tangible benefits. Overall patterns ofobjection to different applications were identifiedusing a novel method of objection mapping, inconjunction with analysis of variance to identifyindividual differences in the samples. For generalapplications, the results indicate that mostrespondents object less to applications involvingplants and microorganisms than to those involvinganimals or human genetic material. Individualdifferences in objection focus on applicationsinvolving animals or human genetic material, withwomen and those who are very concerned with theenvironment having greatest objections to theseapplications. Individual differences tend to reducewhen specific applications are used as stimuli,although the focus of concern is still on applicationsinvolving animals and human genetic material. However,gender differences were not statistically significant,and those respondents who have high levels ofenvironmental concern are differentiated by increasedobjections to large-scale agricultural applications.It is argued that effective communication regardingthe technology should focus on specific applications,and address issues of environmental impact within thecontext of these applications, if the public is tomake an informed choice regarding their acceptance ofthe products of the technology. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:14:y:1997:i:1:p:67-79
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007331524432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007331524432
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1007331524432?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd & Lynn Frewer, 1994. "Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(1), pages 19-28, December.
    2. D. G. Altman, 1978. "Plotting Probability Ellipses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 27(3), pages 347-349, November.
    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. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2010. "Differences in Consumer Abstraction Levels as a Function of Risk Perception," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 34-59, February.
    4. Annelies Verdurme & Jacques Viaene, 2003. "Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 91-113.
    5. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.

    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. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    2. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    3. Ellen Townsend & David D. Clarke & Betsy Travis, 2004. "Effects of Context and Feelings on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1369-1384, October.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2003. "Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 45-60, January.
    5. Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.
    6. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    7. David Smith & J. Skalnik & Patricia Skalnik, 1997. "The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 59-66, March.
    8. Louise Heslop, 2006. "If we label it, will they care? The effect of GM-ingredient labelling on consumer responses," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 203-228, June.
    9. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    10. Klein, A. & Zapilko, M. & Menrad, K. & Gabriel, A., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Rapeseed-Oil – A Discrete-Choice-Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 45, March.
    11. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    12. Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Affective Influences on Risk Perceptions of, and Attitudes Toward, Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 125-139, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public attitudes; Genetic engineering;

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:14:y:1997:i:1:p:67-79. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.