IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v3y2019i3d10.1038_s41562-018-0520-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most

Author

Listed:
  • Philip M. Fernbach

    (University of Colorado)

  • Nicholas Light

    (University of Colorado)

  • Sydney E. Scott

    (Washington University in St. Louis)

  • Yoel Inbar

    (University of Toronto)

  • Paul Rozin

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

There is widespread agreement among scientists that genetically modified foods are safe to consume1,2 and have the potential to provide substantial benefits to humankind3. However, many people still harbour concerns about them or oppose their use4,5. In a nationally representative sample of US adults, we find that as extremity of opposition to and concern about genetically modified foods increases, objective knowledge about science and genetics decreases, but perceived understanding of genetically modified foods increases. Extreme opponents know the least, but think they know the most. Moreover, the relationship between self-assessed and objective knowledge shifts from positive to negative at high levels of opposition. Similar results were obtained in a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France and Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology (gene therapy). This pattern did not emerge, however, for attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0520-3
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0520-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:909-925 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hartung, Frank & Krause, Dörthe & Sprink, Thorben & Wilhelm, Ralf, 2024. "Anwendungen der Grünen Gentechnik in der Landwirtschaft: Potenziale und Risiken," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2024, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    4. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. Khachatryan, Hayk & Wei, Xuan & Rihn, Alicia, 2021. "Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), April.
    8. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    9. Milošević Đorđević, J. & Mari, S. & Vdović, M. & Milošević, A., 2021. "Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    10. Shen-Long Yang & Feng Yu & Kai Li & Ting-Ting Rao & Da-Peng Lian, 2022. "No Control, No Consumption: Association of Low Perceived Control and Intention to Accept Genetically Modified Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    12. 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.
    13. Ethan A. Meyers & Martin H. Turpin & Michał Białek & Jonathan A. Fugelsang & Derek J. Koehler, 2020. "Inducing feelings of ignorance makes people more receptive to expert (economist) opinion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 909-925, November.
    14. Carola Grebitus & Ellen J. Van Loo, 2022. "Relationship between cognitive and affective processes, and willingness to pay for pesticide‐free and GMO‐free labeling," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 407-421, May.
    15. Romain Espinosa & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Do people really want to be informed? Ex-ante evaluations of information-campaign effectiveness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1155, December.
    16. Wilson, Lacey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Caroline Ritter & Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie & Jesse Robbins & Marina A G von Keyserlingk & Daniel M Weary, 2019. "Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Ivan Savin & Jeroen Bergh, 2021. "Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Garrett M. Broad, 2023. "Improving the agri-food biotechnology conversation: bridging science communication with science and technology studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 929-938, September.
    20. Christopher B. Barrett, 2021. "Overcoming Global Food Security Challenges through Science and Solidarity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 422-447, March.

    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:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0520-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.nature.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.