Mapping social and environmental concerns and the acceptability of genetically modified organisms in the European Union
Simultaneous conflicting attitudes towards an object make both predicting and explaining behaviour a complex endeavour. This paper explores the hypothesis of social ambivalence (so called as well or approach-avoidance conflict) as a phenomenon influencing attitudes towards the environmental effects of the introduction of GMOs (Genetic Modified Organisms). If social ambivalence exists it would be suggestive of an interplay between rational models or behaviour and normative or moral models of behaviour. This paper provides some quantitative analysis based on a representative sample of the European Union, using unique data from the Eurobarometer 58.0 (2002) examining public perceptions of environmental risks. Our findings suggest that GMOs are perceived as having a non-neutral impact on the environmental and social life and that as hypothesized there is evidence of social ambivalence, which appears to be more significant when environmental effects of GM foods are taken into account. Consistently with the hypothesis of interplay between rational and normative models of behaviour, respondents perceive some risks while benefits are not perceived by the public and moral concerns regarding technologies being developed by international corporations are important. A specific type of social ambivalence is found, namely GMO are not accepted for Europeans but they are in less developed countries.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:40:y:2011:i:6:p:903-908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.