Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology

This study uses the contemporary debate over agricultural biotechnology to conceptualize a theoretical model that can be used to explain how citizens reach judgments across a range of science and technology controversies. We report findings from a mail survey of New York State residents that depicts a ‘low information’ public relying heavily on heuristics such as value predispositions, trust, and schema to form an opinion about agricultural biotechnology. Science knowledge does play a modest role, with the news media serving as an important source of informal learning. Contrary to expectations and past research, we do not find any direct effects for news attention on support for agricultural biotechnology. Deference to scientific authority is a central value predisposition shaping support for agricultural biotechnology. Positively correlated with education, deference to scientific authority is the strongest influence on support for agricultural biotechnology in our model. Part of the variable's influence is direct, but part of it is also indirect, as deference to scientific authority is a key predictor of both trust in the sponsors of biotechnology and generalized reservations about the impacts of science.

[1]  Stephen Hilgartner,et al.  The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses , 1990 .

[2]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[3]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research , 2005 .

[4]  R. Andersen,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers , 1991 .

[5]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? , 2002, Commun. Res..

[6]  S. Chaffee,et al.  How Americans Get Political Information: Print Versus Broadcast News , 1996 .

[7]  A. Irwin.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[8]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  F. Rutherford.  Science for all Americans / F. James Rutherford , 1990 .

[10]  H. P. Peters,et al.  Attitudes towards genetic engineering , 2000 .

[11]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1988 .

[12]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions , 1993 .

[13]  J. Lassen,et al.  Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 , 2003 .

[14]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Social Theories of Risk , 1992 .

[15]  B. Keller,et al.  Consequences of classical and biotechnological resistance breeding for food toxicology and allergenicity , 1997 .

[16]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[17]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic—survey research divide , 2007 .

[18]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[19]  Michael A. Xenos,et al.  Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment , 2005 .

[20]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Exploring the Roots of Public Participation in the Controversy Over Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning , 2006 .

[21]  Philip Meyer,et al.  Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index , 1988 .

[22]  D. Guston,et al.  24 Politics by the Same Means Government and Science in the United States , 1995 .

[23]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  A. Cornelius Benjamin,et al.  Science, Technology, and Human Values , 1966 .

[25]  W. Hallman,et al.  PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS: A NATIONAL STUDY OF AMERICAN KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION , 2003 .

[26]  J. Ray.  An “attitude to authority” scale , 1971 .

[27]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Social Structure and Citizenship: Examining the Impacts of Social Setting, Network Heterogeneity, and Informational Variables on Political Participation , 2004 .

[28]  Walter F. Bodmer,et al.  The Public Understanding of Science , 1986 .

[29]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology , 1991 .

[30]  E. Lambeth.  With Malice toward All? the Media and Public Confidence in Democratic Institutions , 2000 .

[31]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate , 1995 .

[32]  P. Chisnall.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[33]  Jon D. Miller,et al.  Public perceptions of science and technology : a comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada , 1997 .

[34]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[35]  Janet Kaye,et al.  Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies , 2002 .

[36]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation , 1999 .

[37]  Edna Einsiedel,et al.  Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia: , 2001 .

[38]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[39]  Gerald M. Kosicki,et al.  Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse , 1993 .

[40]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis , 2008 .

[41]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[42]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing as a theory of media effects , 1999 .

[43]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Environmental Concern, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects , 2003 .

[44]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology , 2002 .

[45]  B. Altemeyer,et al.  The Authoritarian Specter , 1996 .

[46]  George Gaskell,et al.  In the public eye: representations of biotechnology in Europe , 2001 .

[47]  M. Bauer.  Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy , 2005 .

[48]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate , 2006 .

[49]  H. Bonfadelli,et al.  Mass Media and Biotechnology: Knowledge Gaps Within and Between European Countries , 2005 .

[50]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures That May End the “Science War” , 2000 .

[51]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 1995 .

[52]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Pathways to Political Participation? Religion, Communication Contexts, and Mass Media , 2003 .

[53]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Biotechnology and the American Media , 2002 .

[54]  Stein DankerT. Kolstoe.  Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship , 2000 .

[55]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Biotechnology - the Making of a Global Controversy , 2002 .

[56]  James Shanahan,et al.  Television and Authoritarianism: Exploring the Concept of Mainstreaming , 1998 .

[57]  P. J. Conover,et al.  Where is the Schema? Critiques , 1991, American Political Science Review.

[58]  James Shanahan.  Television viewing and adolescent authoritarianism , 1995 .

[59]  S. Bonny.  Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe , 2003 .

[60]  Brian Johnson,et al.  GM crops and equivocal environmental benefits , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[61]  J. Bryant,et al.  Media effects : advances in theory and research , 2002 .

[62]  A. Ahlgren,et al.  Science for all Americans , 1990 .

[63]  Cees Midden,et al.  Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. , 2002, Journal of biotechnology.

[64]  Ben Martin,et al.  The schema , 1999 .

[65]  J. Besley,et al.  Media Attention and Exposure in Relation to Support for Agricultural Biotechnology , 2005 .

[66]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Understanding Deliberation , 1999 .

[67]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[68]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Political Implications of Prime-Time Drama and Sitcom Use: Genres of Representation and Opinions Concerning Women's Rights , 2003 .

[69]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Framing Science , 2003 .

[70]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Connecting News Media Use with Gaps in Knowledge and Participation , 2000 .

[71]  Douglas M. McLeod,et al.  RESURVEYING THE BOUNDARIES OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTS , 2002 .

[72]  G. Gaskell,et al.  GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[73]  Susanna Hornig Priest.  Misplaced Faith , 2001 .

[74]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield , 1999 .

[75]  D. Brossard,et al.  Do Citizens Want to Have Their Say? Media, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Authoritarian Views of Democratic Processes in Science , 2003 .

[76]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press , 2005 .

[77]  T. Nielsen,et al.  Traditional blue and modern green resistance , 2002 .

[78]  Napoleon K. Juanillo.  The Risks and Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology , 2001 .

[79]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[80]  E. Carlson.  :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .