IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v63y2020ics0160791x19302957.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects

Author

Listed:
  • Monaghan, Conal
  • Bizumic, Boris
  • Van Rooy, Dirk

Abstract

Applications of biotechnology to humans have grown dramatically in the last few decades. As public perception of these biotechnologies plays an important role in their development, we investigated the nature, strength, and psychological predictors of these attitudes. Study 1 (N = 303; 56.11% male, mean age = 50.73) developed measures of general and specific attitudes towards human biotechnologies using exploratory factor analyses and correlational analyses with a range of external scales. Study 2 (N = 648; 45.83% male, mean age = 47.13) then replicated these findings in a larger nationally representative sample of the Australian public. Participants held a single general attitude that was, on average, neutral to marginally positive. In contrast, participants generally supported and reported positive emotions towards Bionic Enhancement and Therapeutic and Preventive, whereas they opposed and reported unpleasant emotions towards Non-Corrective Genetic applications. Unique patterns of demographic and psychological variables predicted support, and support related strongly to behavioural intentions.

Suggested Citation

  • Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19302957
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X19302957
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101376?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. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. Meuter, Matthew L. & Ostrom, Amy L. & Bitner, Mary Jo & Roundtree, Robert, 2003. "The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 899-906, November.
    3. Violina P. Rindova & Antoaneta P. Petkova, 2007. "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 217-232, April.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Selin, Cynthia & Hudson, Rebecca, 2010. "Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 173-182.
    6. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Aquino, Helen L. & Cuite, Cara L. & Lang, John T., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study Of American Knowledge And Opinion," Research Reports 18174, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    7. 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.
    8. Seoyong Kim & Sang-Ok Choi & Jaesun Wang, 2014. "Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 44-57.
    9. Calnan, Michael & Montaner, David & Horne, Rob, 2005. "How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1937-1948, May.
    10. Smits, Martijntje, 2006. "Taming monsters: The cultural domestication of new technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 489-504.
    11. Szocik, Konrad & Wójtowicz, Tomasz, 2019. "Human enhancement in space missions: From moral controversy to technological duty," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    12. J. Barnett & H. Cooper & V. Senior, 2007. "Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes Toward Modern Genetic Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 921-933, August.
    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. Ahn, Sang-Jin & Yoon, Ho Young & Lee, Young-Joo, 2021. "Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    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. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. 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.
    3. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    4. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    5. Laurentiu Mincu & Thorsten Gruber, 2013. "Exploring the Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Self-Service Technologies: An Eastern European Perspective," The International Journal of Economic Behavior - IJEB, Faculty of Business and Administration, University of Bucharest, vol. 3(1), pages 59-84, December.
    6. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Saqib Ali & Habib Ullah & Minhas Akbar & Waheed Akhtar & Hasan Zahid, 2019. "Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Purchase Energy-Saving Household Products in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Chidera C. Ugwuanyi & Chukwunonso Oraedu & Chuka U. Ifediora & Ernest E. Izogo & Simplice A. Asongu & Ikechukwu J. Attamah, 2022. "Understanding drivers of self-service technologies (SSTs) satisfaction and marketing bottom lines: Evidence from Nigeria," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 22/025, African Governance and Development Institute..
    10. Jahanmir, Sara F. & Silva, Graça Miranda & Gomes, Paulo J. & Gonçalves, Helena Martins, 2020. "Determinants of users’ continuance intention toward digital innovations: Are late adopters different?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 225-233.
    11. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. El Barachi, May & Salim, Taghreed Abu & Nyadzayo, Munyaradzi W. & Mathew, Sujith & Badewi, Amgad & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph, 2022. "The relationship between citizen readiness and the intention to continuously use smart city services: Mediating effects of satisfaction and discomfort," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Leung, Louis & Chen, Cheng, 2019. "E-health/m-health adoption and lifestyle improvements: Exploring the roles of technology readiness, the expectation-confirmation model, and health-related information activities," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 563-575.
    14. Noppadol Phaosathianphan & Adisorn Leelasantitham, 2019. "Understanding the Adoption Factors Influence on the Use of Intelligent Travel Assistant (ITA) for Eco-Tourists: An Extension of the UTAUT," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Herbjørn Nysveen & Per Egil Pedersen, 2016. "Consumer adoption of RFID-enabled services. Applying an extended UTAUT model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 293-314, April.
    16. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    17. Wu, Ruijuan & Li, Peiyu, 2023. "Continuance intention to use self-delivery boxes: An empirical study in Tianjin, China," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Gabrielė Stupurienė & Tatjana Jevsikova & Anita Juškevičienė, 2022. "Solving Ecological Problems through Physical Computing to Ensure Gender Balance in STEM Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Chi Kwong Bruce Wan & Adaobi J. Onuike, 2021. "Illuminating Opportunities for Smart Tourism Innovation That Foster Sustainable Tourist Well-Being Using Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Laukkanen, Tommi, 2016. "Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2432-2439.

    More about this item

    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:eee:teinso:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19302957. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.