Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food

Although it is often thought that the British public is opposed to genetically modified (GM) food, recent qualitative work suggests that most people are ambivalent about GM food and crops. In this article we explore the structure of attitudes in order to examine whether attitudinal ambivalence can be captured by more quantitative methods. Based on the finding that the perceived risks and benefits of GM food can be treated as independent dimensions, we propose a four-way typology of attitudes, consisting of a positive, negative, indifferent, and ambivalent group. This study showed that the differences between the four groups could best be described by three main dimensions: (1) a general evaluative dimension, (2) an involvement dimension, and (3) an attitudinal certainty dimension. While these different attitudinal dimensions have generally been studied in isolation, we argue that they should be studied collectively.

[1]  Sabine Pahl,et al.  Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Charles Vlek,et al.  Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large , 1981 .

[3]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland , 2003 .

[5]  J. N. Bassili.  Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. , 1996 .

[6]  S. Plous,et al.  Biases in the Assimilation of Technological Breakdowns: Do Accidents Make Us Safer? , 1991 .

[7]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength and resistance processes. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  J. van der Pligt,et al.  Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. , 2004, British Journal of Social Psychology.

[9]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. , 1994 .

[10]  Mark Conner,et al.  Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. , 2003, The British journal of social psychology.

[11]  M. Conner,et al.  Ambivalence and Attitudes , 2002 .

[12]  K. Kaplan.  On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. , 1972 .

[13]  J. Eiser,et al.  Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes Toward Food Technologies , 2002 .

[14]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

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

[16]  Carlene Wilson,et al.  Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  W. Poortinga,et al.  Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  W. A. Scott,et al.  Structure of natural cognitions. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  M. Diehl,et al.  Effects of Attitudinal Ambivalence on Information Processing and Attitude-Intention Consistency☆ , 1997 .

[20]  Bell,et al.  Ambivalence and Persuasion: The Processing of Messages about Immigrant Groups , 1996, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[21]  John L. Sullivan,et al.  On the Relationship Between Attitude Involvement and Attitude Accessibility: Toward a Cognitive-Motivational Model of Political Information Processing , 2000 .

[22]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement , 1989 .

[23]  Richard Shepherd,et al.  Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics , 1997, Science, technology & human values.

[24]  Mark Conner,et al.  Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key Hypotheses , 2000 .

[25]  W. A. Scott.  Brief Report : Measures Of Cognitive Structure. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[26]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[27]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[28]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  Leroy C. Gould,et al.  Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology1 , 1989 .

[30]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[32]  Steven J. Breckler,et al.  A Comparison of Numerical Indexes for Measuring Attitude Ambivalence , 1994 .

[33]  M. Conner,et al.  Ambivalence about health-related behaviours: an exploration in the domain of food choice. , 2001, British journal of health psychology.

[34]  P. Sheeran,et al.  Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations: a meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. , 2004, The British journal of social psychology.

[35]  Peter R Harris,et al.  Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. , 2004, The British journal of social psychology.