IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i5p1385-1393.html

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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Nguyen Thi Hao & Seifeddine Ben Taieb & Masahiro Moritaka & Susumu Fukuda, 2026. "Consumer acceptance and valuation of quality‐improved food products derived by genome editing technology. A case study of rice in Vietnam," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 29-50, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    12. Saeed Gholamrezai & Vahid Aliabadi & Pouria Ataei, 2021. "Understanding the pro-environmental behavior among green poultry farmers: Application of behavioral theories," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16100-16118, November.
    13. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    14. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 862-869.
    15. Yanjing Gao & Lijun Chen, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 Risk Perception on Residents’ Behavioural Intention towards Forest Therapy Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Furqan A. Bhat & Ashish Verma, 2025. "Consumer intention to accept electric two-wheelers in India: a valence theory approach to unveil the role of identity and utility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 537-577, April.
    17. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    18. Ilknur Ayar & Ahmet Gürbüz, 2021. "Sustainable Consumption Intentions of Consumers in Turkey: A Research Within the Theory of Planned Behavior," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    19. Patel, Jayesh D. & Trivedi, Rohit H. & Yagnik, Arpan, 2020. "Self-identity and internal environmental locus of control: Comparing their influences on green purchase intentions in high-context versus low-context cultures," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.

    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.