Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness

There is a need to develop effective communication strategies with the public about the risks and benefits of applied genetic engineering. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was used to systematically investigate the impact of source factors (trust) and the perceived personal relevance of information, including the persuasiveness of the information, on attitudes towards genetic engineering, and whether these factors resulted in more thoughts about genetic engineering. The results from 160 respondents indicated an interaction between source effects and persuasiveness. People tended to respond more to information low in persuasiveness if it was attributed to a highly trusted source, and more to information high in persuasiveness if it were from a source low in public trust. In this context, respondents tended to express concern about the technology. It was concluded that source characteristics are important determinants of public responses to information about genetic engineering.

[1]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production , 1998 .

[2]  L. Frewer,et al.  Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: a comparative study between the UK and Italy , 1998 .

[3]  D Hedderley,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Communication About Food Risks , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Renato Schibeci,et al.  Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology , 1997 .

[5]  Lawrence Busch,et al.  Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research , 1997 .

[6]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering , 1997 .

[7]  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.

[8]  R Shepherd,et al.  What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Effective communication about genetic engineering and food , 1996 .

[10]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food , 1996 .

[11]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology , 1995 .

[12]  S. Michie,et al.  A comparison of public and professionals' attitudes towards genetic developments , 1995 .

[13]  R. Petty,et al.  Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny , 1995 .

[14]  J. Durant,et al.  The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain , 1995 .

[15]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[16]  Steven J. Breckler,et al.  Cognitive responses in persuasion: affective and evaluative determinants , 1991 .

[17]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[18]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[19]  Chezy Ofir,et al.  Context Effects on Judgment under Uncertainty , 1984 .

[20]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 1984 .

[21]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[22]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[23]  Jo Liska.  Situational and topical variations in credibility criteria , 1978 .

[24]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change , 1978 .

[25]  M. King.  Assimilation and Contrast of Presidential Candidates'Issue Positions, 1972 , 1977 .

[26]  A G Greenwald,et al.  Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  A. Greenwald.  6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

[28]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production , 1967 .

[29]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .