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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Office of Science and Technology , Technology Foresight: Progress Through Partnership, No. 7, Food and Drink (London: HMSO, 1995).
2.
S. Joss and J. Durant, Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (London: Science Museum, 1995).
3.
G. Evans and J. Durant, “The Relationship Between Knowledge and Attitudes in Public Understanding of Science in Britain,”Public Understanding of Science4 (1995): 57-74.
4.
See, for example, C. I. Hovland and W. Weiss, “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness,”Public Opinion Quarterly15 (1951): 635-650.
5.
A. H. Eagly , W. Wood, and S. Chaiken, “Causal Inferences about Communicators and Their Effect on Opinion Change,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36 (1978): 424-435.
6.
R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986).
7.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, “The Development of Effective Risk Communication about Consumption Hazards: Application of the Elaboration Likelihood Model,”Risk Analysis17 (1997): 6, 269-281.
8.
S. Michie , H. Drake, M. Bowbrow, and T. Marteau, “A Comparison of Public and Professionals' Attitudes towards Genetic Developments,”Public Understanding of Science4 (1995): 243-255.
9.
E. McGinnies and C. D. Ward, “Better Liked than Right: Trustworthiness and Expertise as Factors in Credibility,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin6 (1980): 467-472.
10.
M. H. Shamos , “Scientific Literacy: Can It Decrease Public Anxiety about Science and Technology,” in D. J. Roy, B. E. Wynne, and R. W. Old, eds., Bioscience Society (London: Wiley, 1991).
11.
T. J. Hoban and P. A. Kendall, Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production (Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University, 1992).
12.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, “What Determines Trust in Information about Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs,”Risk Analysis16 (1996): 473-486.
13.
L. J. Frewer , D. Hedderley, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, ` “Objection' Mapping in Determining Group and Individual Concerns Regarding Genetic Engineering,”Agriculture and Human Values14 (1997): 67-79.
14.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, “The Influence of Realistic Product Exposure on Attitudes Towards Genetic Engineering of Foodstuffs,”Food Quality and Preference7 (1996): 61-67.
15.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, “Public Concerns about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit and Ethics,”Science, Technology, and Human Values22 (1997): 98-124.
16.
R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,”Advances in Consumer Research11 (1984): 668-672.
17.
A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken, The Psychology of Attitudes (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993).
18.
Frewer, Howard, Hedderley , and Shepherd, “The Development of Effective Risk Communication,”6, 269-281.
19.
A. G. Greenwald , “Cognitive Response Analysis: An Appraisal,” in R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, and T. C. Brock, eds., Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981), 127-133.
20.
R. E. Petty , J. E. Cacioppo, and D. E. Schumann, “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,”Journal of Consumer Research10 (1983): 135-146.
21.
R. E. Petty and J. T. Caccioppo, “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19 (San Diego: Academic Press, 1986), 123-205.
22.
J. R. Priester and R. E. Petty, “Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21 (1995): 637-654.
23.
A. Eagly , W. Wood, and S. Chaiken, “Causal Inferences about Communications and their Effect on Opinion Change,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36 (1978): 424-435.
24.
J. Liska , “Situational and Topical Variations in Credibility Criteria,”Communication Monographs45 (1978): 85-92.
25.
L. J. Frewer , C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, “What Determines Trust in Information about Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs,”Risk Analysis16 (1996): 473-486.
26.
A. G. Greenwald , “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,”Psychological Foundations of Attitudes edited by A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (San Diego: Academic Press, 1968), 147-170.
27.
S. J. Breckler and E. C. Wiggins, “Cognitive Responses in Persuasion: Affective and Evaluative Determinants,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology27 (1991): 180-200.
28.
J. T. Cacioppo and R. E. Petty, “The Need for Cognition,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42 (1982): 116-131.
29.
Frewer, Howard , and Shepherd, “Public Concerns about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering,”98-124.
30.
N. Miller and D. E. Colman, “Methodological Issues in Analyzing the Cognitive Mediation of Persuasion,” in Petty, Ostrom, and Brock, Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, 105-125.
31.
P. McCullagh and J. A. Nelder, Generalised Linear Models (London: Chapman and Hall, 1989).
32.
A. Davison , I. Barns, and R. Schibeci, “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology,”Science, Technology, and Human Values22 (1997): 317-348.
33.
R. B. Cialdini and R. E. Petty, “Anticipatory Opinion Effects,” in Petty, Ostrom, and Brock, Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, 217-235.
34.
T. M. Ostrom , “Interdependence of Attitude Theory and Measurement,” in A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, and A.G. Greenwald, eds., Attitude Structure and Function (Hillsdale, N.J.: Earlbaum, 1989), 11-36.
35.
Breckler and Wiggins, “Cognitive Responses in Persuasion.”
36.
S. Chaiken , A. Liberman, and A. H. Eagly, “Heuristic and Systematic Processing within and Beyond the Persuasion Context,” in J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh, eds., Unintended Thought (New York: Guilford Press, 1989), 212-252.
37.
Frewer, Hedderley, Howard , and Shepherd, ` “Objection' Mapping in Determining Group and Individual Concerns,”67-79.
38.
Davison, Barns , and Schibeci, “Problematic Publics”
39.
G. Middendorf and L. Busch, “Inquiry for the Public Good: Democratic Participation in Agricultural Research,”Agriculture and Human Values14 (1997): 45-57.
