Developing effective communication strategies to inform the public about genetic engineering applications in food production is critical for the successful commercialization and future development of the technology. However, few existing studies in the United States have examined how communication materials affect public understanding of new technologies. Our survey study examined the effect of two information formats developed according to public issue education principles on the public understanding of, interest in and attitude towards genetically engineered salmon. In addition, we examined male/female differences in attitude. Our results indicated that participants who read the “consequence” information learned more, expressed more interest, and indicated higher level of actual confidence in judgment than those who read the “perspective” information. Women were less approving of genetically engineered salmon than men were both before and after reading the information. Reading information led to a positive change in attitude although the effect size was not different between sexes. The male/female difference was likely due to women's higher level of concern about effects on humans and greater trust of environmental groups compared to men's. Suggestions for designing an effective print communication about a specific genetic engineering application are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barrows, R.L. (1984) “Taking a Stand: Extension and Public Policy Issues,” Journal of Extension22(2), URL: http://www.joe.org/joe/1984march/a1.html (accessed 16 March 2006).
2.
Brown, J.L. and Ping, Y. (2003) “Consumer Perception of Risk Associated with Eating Genetically Engineered Soybeans Is Less in the Presence of a Perceived Consumer Benefit,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association103(2): 208—14.
3.
Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media. London and New York: Routledge.
4.
Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press .
5.
Connelly, N.A. and Knuth, B.A. (1998) “Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions about Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information,” Risk Analysis18(5): 649—59.
6.
Dale, D.D. and Hahn, A.J. (1994) Public Issues Education: Increasing Competence in Resolving Public Issues. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.
7.
Davidson, D.J. and Freudenburg, W.R. (1996) “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research,” Environment and Behavior28(3): 302—39.
8.
Davison, A., Barns, I. and Schibeci, R. (1997) “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology,” Science, Technology, & Human Values22(3): 317—48.
9.
Evans, D.G.R., Maher, E.R., Macleaod, R., Davies, D.R. and Crauford, D. (1997) “Uptake of Genetic Testing for Cancer Predisposition,” Journal of MedicalGenetics34: 746—8.
10.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C.K. (1994) “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental-health Risks,” Risk Analysis14(6): 1101—8.
11.
Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1994) “Attributing Information to Different Sources: Effects on Perceived Qualities of Information, on the Perceived Relevance of Information, and on Attitude Formation,” Public Understanding of Science3: 385—401.
12.
Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1995) “Ethical Concerns and Risk Perceptions Associated with Different Applications of Genetic Engineering: Interrelationships with the Perceived Need for Regulation of the Technology,” Agriculture and Human Values12: 48—57.
13.
Frewer, L.J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997a) “`Objection' Mapping in Determining Group and Individual Concerns Regarding Genetic Engineering,” Agriculture and Human Values14: 67—79.
14.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997b) “Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics,” Science, Technology, & Human Values22(1): 98—124.
15.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1998) “Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology ,” Journal of Risk Research1(3): 221—35.
16.
Greenberg, M.R. and Schneider, D.F. (1995) “Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed Vs. Non-Stressed Environments,” Risk Analysis15(4): 503—11.
17.
Grudens-Schuck, N. (2003) “Public Issues Education Projects: Meeting the Evaluation Challenges,” Journal of Extension41(1), URL: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/tt1.shtml (accessed 16 March 2006).
18.
Gustafson, P. (1998) “Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives,” Risk Analysis18(6): 805—11.
19.
Hahn, A.J. (1988) “Resolving Public Issues and Concerns through Policy Education,” Cornell Cooperative Extension PublicationInformation Bulletin214: 1—32
20.
Hallman, W.K. and Metcalfe, J. (1994) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents. New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
21.
Hallman, W.K., Adelaja, A.O., Schilling, B.J. and Lang, J.T. (2001) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—Americans Know Not What They Eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
22.
Hallman, W.K., Adelaja, A.O., Schilling, B.J. and Lang, J.T. (2002) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—Americans Know Not What They Eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
23.
Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. (2003) Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods—National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University .
24.
Harris-Kojetin, I.D., Fowler, F.J., Jr., Brown, J.A., Schnaier, J.A. and Sweeny, S.F. (1999) “The Use of Cognitive Testing to Develop and Evaluate Chaps 1.0 Core Survey Items,” Medical Care37(3): MS10—21.
25.
Heffernan, J.W. and Hillers, V.N. (2002) “Attitudes of Consumers Living in Washington Regarding Food Biotechnology,” Journal of theAmerican Dietetic Association102(1): 85—8.
26.
Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. and Czaja, R. (1992) “Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering ,” Rural Sociology57(4): 476—93.
27.
Holloway, S., Mennie, M., Crosbie, A., Smith, B., Raeburn, S., Dinwoodie, D., Wright, A., May, H., Calder, K., Barron, L. and Brock, D.J.H. (1994) “Predictive Testing for Huntington Disease: Social Characteristics and Knowledge of Applicants, Attitudes to the Test Procedure and Decisions Made after Testing,” Clinical Genetics46: 175—80.
28.
IFIC (International Food Information Council) (2000) “ U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Food Biotechnology Iv.” URL: http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18001 (accessed 8 January 2005).
29.
Jabine, T.B., Straf, M.L., Tanur, J.M. and Tourangeau, R. (1984) “Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines,” Paper presented at the Advanced Research Seminar on Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology, Washington, DC.
30.
Jardine, C.G. and Hrudey, S.E. (1997) “Mixed Messages in Risk Communication,” Risk Analysis17(4): 489—98.
31.
Kirk, S.F.L., Greenwood, D., Cade, J.E. and Pearman, A.D. (2002) “Public Perception of a Range of Potential Food Risks in the United Kingdom,” Appetite38: 189—97.
32.
Kolodinsky, J., Desisto, T.P. and Narsana, R. (2004) “Influences of Question Wording on Levels of Support for Genetically Modified Organisms,” International Journal of Consumer Studies28(2): 154—67.
33.
Levin, I.P. (1987) “Associative Effects of Information Framing ,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society25: 85—6.
34.
Levin, I.P. and Gaeth, G.J. (1988) “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research15(3): 374—8.
35.
Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G.J. (1998) “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76(2): 149—88.
36.
Levy, A.S. and Derby, B.M. (2000) “Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology .” URL: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-comm/biorpt.htm (accessed 8 March 2002).
37.
Lusk, J.L. and Sullivan, P. (2002) “Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods,” Food Technology56(10): 32—7.
38.
Maheswaran, D. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990) “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,” Journal of Marketing Research27: 361—7.
39.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Maheswaran, D. (2004) “Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic, Heuristic, or both Types of Processing Occur,” Journal of Consumer Psychology14(1&2): 159—67.
40.
Moerbeek, H. and Casimir, G. (2005) “Gender Differences in Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods,” International Journal of Consumer Studies29(4): 308—18.
41.
Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2004) “Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage,” Review of Agricultural Economics26(2): 186—208.
42.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J. (2002) Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Moxey, A., O'Connell, D., McGettigan, P. and Henry, D. (2003) “Describing Treatment Effects to Patients—How They Are Expressed Makes a Difference,” Journal of General Internal Medicine18(11): 948—59 + Appendices.
44.
National Science Board (2000) Science and Engineering Indicators—2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
45.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) (1987 ) New Developments in Biotechnology—Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology (No. OTA-BP-BA-45). Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment .
46.
Pew (2002) “Consumers Evenly Divided over Environmental Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Food and Biotechnology.” URL: http://pewagbiotech.org/polls/ (accessed 5 March 2002).
47.
Rothman, A.J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K. and Martin, C.D. (1993) “The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology29: 408—43.
48.
Saad, L. (2001) “Biotech Food Remains Fairly Obscure to Most Americans,” The Gallup Poll Monthly August: 38—41.
49.
Scholderer, J. and Frewer, L. (2003) “The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy,” Journal of Consumer Policy26: 125—57.
50.
Sheehy, H., Legault, M. and Ireland, D. (1998) “Consumers and Biotechnology: A Synopsis of Survey and Focus Group Research,” Journal of Consumer Policy21: 359—86.
51.
Siegrist, M. (1997) “Communicating Low Risk Magnitudes: Incidence Rates Expressed as Frequency Versus Rates Expressed as Probability,” Risk Analysis17: 507—10.
52.
Siegrist, M. (1999) “A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology29(10): 2093—106.
53.
Siegrist, M. (2000) “The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology,” Risk Analysis20(2): 195—203.
54.
Sjoberg, L. (2000) “Factors in Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis20: 1—11.
55.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk,” in R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers (eds) Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?, pp. 137—44. New York: Plenum.
56.
Subar, A.F., Thompson, F.E., Smith, A.F., Jobe, J.B., Ziegler, R.G., Potischman, N., Schatzkin, A., Hartman, A., Swanson, C., Kruse, L., Hayes, R.B., Lewis, D.R. and Harlan, L.D. (1995) “Improving Food Frequency Questionnaires: A Qualitative Approach Using Cognitive Interviewing,” Journal of theAmerican Dietetic Association95(7): 781—8.
57.
Tibben, A., Frets, P.G., van de Kamp, J.J.P., Niermeijer, M.F., Vegter-van der Vlis, M., Roos, R.A.C., Vanommen, G.J.B., Uivenvoorden, H.J. and Verhage, F. (1993) “Presymptomatic DNA-testing for Huntington Disease: Pretest Attitudes and Expectations of Applicants and their Partners in the Dutch Program,” American Journal of Medical Genetics48: 10—16.
58.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science211: 453—8.
59.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decision ,” Journal of Business59: s251—78.
60.
Wolfe, A. (1993) “Risk Communication in Social Context: Improving Effective Communication,” The Environmental Professional15: 248—55.
61.
Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P. and Aldrich, C. (2000) “Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism ,” Journal of Social Issues56(3): 443—57.
62.
Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M. and Hoban, T. (1994) “Consumer Knowledge and Concern about Biotechnology and Food Safety,” Food Technology48(11): 71—7.
