Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods

In three waves, this study investigates the impact of risk and benefit knowledge on attitude formation toward genetically modified (GM) foods as well as the moderating effect of knowledge level on attitude change caused by receiving information. The data in Wave 1 (N = 561) demonstrate that both benefit and risk knowledge either directly contribute to attitude formation or indirectly affect attitudes through the mediating roles of benefit and risk perceptions. Overall, benefit and risk knowledge affect consumer attitudes positively and negatively, respectively. In Wave 2, 486 participants from Wave 1 were provided with information about GM foods, and their attitudes were assessed. Three weeks later, 433 of these participants again reported their attitudes. The results indicate that compared with the benefit and mixed information, risk information has a greater and longer lasting impact on attitude change, which results in lower acceptance of GM foods. Furthermore, risk information more strongly influences participants with a higher knowledge level. The moderating effect of knowledge on attitude change may result from these participants' better understanding of and greater trust in the information. These findings highlight the important role of knowledge in attitude formation and attitude change toward GM foods as well as the necessity of considering the determinants of attitude formation in attitude change studies.

[1]  Mei-Fang Chen,et al.  The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan , 2007 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Jikun Huang,et al.  Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy genetically modified foods in Urban China , 2006, Appetite.

[4]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Kristen M. Klein,et al.  Persistence of attitude change and attitude–behavior correspondence based on extensive processing of source information , 2012 .

[6]  Sara R. Jaeger,et al.  Objective and Subjective Knowledge: Impacts on Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Foods in the United States and the European Union , 2004 .

[7]  J. Roosen,et al.  Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany , 2008, Appetite.

[8]  Benjamin M. Onyango.  CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS: ROLE OF PRODUCT BENEFITS AND PERCEIVED RISKS , 2003 .

[9]  R. Nickerson.  Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[10]  K. L. Zimmermann,et al.  Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013 .

[11]  Jikun Huang,et al.  A consumer segmentation study with regards to genetically modified food in urban China , 2010 .

[12]  A. Pearman,et al.  Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom , 2002, Appetite.

[13]  W. Hallman,et al.  An empirical investigation of the role of knowledge in public opinion about GM food , 2005 .

[14]  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.

[15]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

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

[17]  L. Bredahl,et al.  Consumers» Cognitions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries , 1999, Appetite.

[18]  N. Bronfman,et al.  A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  H. Steur,et al.  Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China , 2010, Appetite.

[20]  B. Schilling,et al.  Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods , 2003 .

[21]  B. Verplanken,et al.  Understanding Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food: The Role of Values and Attitude Strength , 2004 .

[22]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[24]  J. Sweeney,et al.  The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods , 2007 .

[25]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production , 2003 .

[28]  Susan Miles,et al.  Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards , 2003 .

[29]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[30]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  Elias Mossialos,et al.  Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in)dependent? , 2007 .

[32]  Leandre R. Fabrigar,et al.  The role of amount, cognitive elaboration, and structural consistency of attitude‐relevant knowledge in the formation of attitude certainty , 2008 .

[33]  R. Petty,et al.  The Role of the Affective and Cognitive Bases of Attitudes in Susceptibility to Affectively and Cognitively Based Persuasion , 1999 .

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

[35]  Norman Miller,et al.  Intergroup Competition, Attitudinal Projection, and Opinion Certainty: Capitalizing on Conflict , 2001 .

[36]  R. Govindasamy,et al.  Public approval of plant and animal biotechnology in South Korea: an ordered probit analysis , 2008 .

[37]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[38]  Bruna Zani,et al.  The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: Test of an integrated psychosocial model , 2012 .

[39]  J. Scholderer,et al.  The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy , 2003 .

[40]  Wei Qin,et al.  Consumer Opinions about Genetically Engineered Salmon and Information Effect on Opinions , 2006 .

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

[42]  Mitchell Ness,et al.  The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty , 2003 .

[43]  Wendy Wood,et al.  Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes , 1985 .

[44]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Effects of different information strategies , 2000 .

[45]  X. Gellynck,et al.  Consumer acceptance of GM food: a basis for segmentation , 2003 .

[46]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Genetically Modified Food in The Eyes of the Public and Experts , 2008 .

[47]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness , 1999 .

[48]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. , 2008 .

[49]  Susan Miles,et al.  The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[50]  T. Little,et al.  To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits , 2002 .

[51]  R. Nayga,et al.  Acceptance of genetically modified food: comparing consumer perspectives in the United States and South Korea , 2006 .

[52]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[53]  W. Chern,et al.  A Continuum of Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Foods in the United States , 2006 .

[54]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[55]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Factors Influencing People’s Acceptance of Gene Technology: The Role of Knowledge, Health Expectations, Naturalness, and Social Trust , 2010 .

[56]  A. Knight.  Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[57]  Joseph R. Rausch,et al.  Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[58]  M. Siegrist.  Belief in gene technology : The influence of environmental attitudes and gender , 1998 .

[59]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[60]  Keith F. Widaman,et al.  Unidimensional Versus Domain Representative Parceling of Questionnaire Items: An Empirical Example , 1994 .

[61]  R. Petty,et al.  What doesn't kill me makes me stronger: the effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[62]  Yutaka Tanaka.  Major Psychological Factors Affecting Acceptance of Gene‐Recombination Technology , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[63]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  Communicator Attributes and Persuasion , 1988, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[64]  G. Maio,et al.  Should Persuasion Be Affective or Cognitive? The Moderating Effects of Need for Affect and Need for Cognition , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[65]  W. Gamble,et al.  Pathways of Influence: Marital Relationships and Their Association with Parenting Styles and Sibling Relationship Quality , 2008 .

[66]  Jose Maria Gil,et al.  Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study , 2009 .

[67]  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.

[68]  Benjamin M. Onyango,et al.  Product Attributes and Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Foods , 2004 .

[69]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance , 1995 .

[70]  L. Bredahl.  Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey , 2001 .