IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i5p1385-1393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological Determinants of Willingness to Taste and Purchase Genetically Modified Food

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Townsend
  • Scott Campbell

Abstract

Decreasing acceptance of biotechnologies over time has been reported in Europe. Studies claim that attitudes are negative, even hostile, and that people are very worried about genetic engineering in food and medicine. However, such studies are mostly based on surveys and these have significant methodological problems, such as low response rates, which may indicate that only those with strong views respond, thus biasing the sample. Here an alternative method, involving “topic‐blind” recruitment of participants and a behavioral measure (food tasting), was used. We show that in a topic‐blind sample of 100 individuals, 93% willingly tasted and ate what they believed to be genetically modified (GM) food in an experimental setting, and 48% said they would buy GM food in the future, results that are surprising in the context of other reports about attitudes and intentions toward GM food. Purchasers and nonpurchasers differed in their attitudes toward GM food on key risk‐related scales (particularly on a dread‐not dread scale—a measure of integral affect—and an ethical‐unethical scale). Despite these differences, however, and despite their negative attitude, most nonpurchasers (85.7%) still tasted the GM apple. Incidental affect (state stress and trait worry) was not found to influence risk‐related judgments about GM food. Integral affect (dread of GM plants and animals used for food) and concerns about the future risks of GM animals in food were found to be key predictors of willingness to purchase GM food.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Townsend & Scott Campbell, 2004. "Psychological Determinants of Willingness to Taste and Purchase Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1385-1393, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1385-1393
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00533.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00533.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00533.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Lynn J Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Understanding public attitudes to technology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 221-235, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    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. Alexa Spence & Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Examining Consumer Behavior Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Food in Britain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 657-670, June.
    2. à frica Martínez-Poveda & Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá & Francisco José del Campo Gomis & Laura Martínez Carrasco Martínez & Asunción Agulló Torres, 2019. "Consumer Perception of Gm Foods. Profiles of Potential Consumers and Non-Consumers in Spain," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 942-952, August.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    4. Yutaka Tanaka, 2013. "Attitude gaps between conventional plant breeding crops and genetically modified crops, and psychological models determining the acceptance of the two crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 69-80, January.
    5. Neha Singhal, 2018. "A Study of Consumer Behaviour towards Genetically Modified Foods and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness," Vision, , vol. 22(3), pages 306-315, September.
    6. 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. 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.
    2. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    5. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    6. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    7. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    8. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    9. Costanza Nosi & Antonella D’Agostino & Margherita Pagliuca & Carlo Alberto Pratesi, 2017. "Securing Retirement at a Young Age. Exploring the Intention to Buy Longevity Annuities through an Extended Version of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2014. "Will consumers use biodiesel? Assessing the potential for reducing CO2 emissions from private transport in Spain," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182802, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    13. 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).
    14. Lee, Karen M.Y. & Lee, John C.K. & Ma, Anson T.H. & Cheung, Lewis T.O., 2019. "Does human rights awareness spur environmental activism? Hong Kong’s ‘country park’ controversy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    16. Pi-Yueh Cheng & Mei-Chin Chu, 2014. "Behavioral Factors Affecting Students’ Intentions to Enroll in Business Ethics Courses: A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory Using Self-Identity as a Moderator," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 35-46, September.
    17. Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda & Ardestani, Roshanak Shafiei, 2015. "Governance of energy transition in Iran: Investigating public acceptance and willingness to use renewable energy sources through socio-psychological model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 565-573.
    18. Halder, Pradipta & Pietarinen, Janne & Havu-Nuutinen, Sari & Pöllänen, Sinikka & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2016. "The Theory of Planned Behavior model and students' intentions to use bioenergy: A cross-cultural perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 627-635.
    19. De Cannière, Marie Hélène & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Geuens, Maggie, 2009. "Relationship Quality and the Theory of Planned Behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 82-92, January.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1385-1393. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.