The study of European attitudes toward biotechnologies underlines a situation that is relatively contrasting in Europe. However, as different effects of time can influence the social attitudes (a life-cycle effect, a generational effect, and an exogenous temporal effect potentially affecting the entire population), an appropriate methodology should be used. To this end, age-period-cohort-country models have thus been estimated based on Eurobarometer data from 1991 onward. Applied to different data subsets, these models give similar results underlining the importance of the life-cycle effects as well as the heterogeneity of the link between political affiliation and biotechnologies attitudes across the European countries.
AerniPBernauerT (2005) Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust. World Development34(3): 557–575.
2.
AkaikeH (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19(6): 716–723.
3.
AlakasenJMyhrAI (2007) The worth of a wildflower: Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs. Ecological Economics60: 489–497.
4.
AlstonJMBradfordKJKalaitzandonakesN (2006) The economics of horticultural biotechnology. Journal of Crop Improvement18(1): 413–431.
5.
AminLAzadMAKGausmianMHZulkifliF (2014) Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon. PLoS ONE9(1): E86174.
6.
AuerC (2008) Ecological risk assessment and regulation for genetically-modified ornamental plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences27: 255–271.
7.
AustinPC (2010) Estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters is low. The International Journal of Biostatistics6(1): Article 16.
8.
BarnettJCooperHSeniorV (2007) Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes towards modern genetic science. Risk Analysis27(4): 921–933.
9.
BellAJonesK (2014) Another “futile quest”? A simulation study of Yang and Land’s hierarchical age-period-cohort model. Demographic Research30(11): 333–360.
10.
BonnyS (2008) How have opinions about GMOs changed over time? The situation in the European Union and the USA. CAB reviews: Perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science. Nutrition and Natural Resources3(93): 1–17.
11.
BourdieuP (1990) Sociology in Question. London: SAGE.
12.
BrowneWJ (2009) MCMC Estimation in MLwiN, Centre for Multilevel Modelling. Bristol: University of Bristol.
13.
BrowneWJDraperD (2006) A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models. Bayesian Analysis1(3): 473–514.
BurnhamKAndersonD (2004) Multimodal inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research33(2): 261–304.
16.
CameronACTrivediPK (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CanavariMNaygaR (2009) On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Applied Economics41(1): 125–137.
18.
ChauvelLSchröderM (2015) The impact of cohort membership on disposable incomes in West Germany, France, and the United States. European Sociological Review31(3): 298–311.
19.
ChenRWongKALeeHC (2001) Age, period, and cohort effects on life insurance purchases in the US. The Journal of Risk and Insurance68(2): 303–327.
20.
ClementsB (2014) Political party supporters’ attitudes towards and involvement with green issues in Britain. Politics34(4): 362–377.
21.
Costa-FontJMossialosERudisillC (2008) Are feelings of genetically modified food politically driven?Risk Management10(3): 218–234.
22.
DannenbergA (2009) The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics68: 2182–2192.
23.
DeRosierCSulemanaIJamesHSJrValdiviaCFolkWSmithRD (2015) A comparative analysis of media reporting of perceived risks and benefits of genetically modified crops and foods in Kenyan and international newspapers. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 563–581.
24.
DurantRFLeggeJS (2005) Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy. European Union Politics6(2): 181–200.
25.
EinsiedelEFMedlockJ (2005) A public consultation on plant molecular farming. AgBioForum8(1): 26–32.
26.
FiechterA (ed.) (2000) History of Modern Biotechnology I. Dordrecht: Springer.
27.
FreireA (2008) Party polarization and citizens’ left-right orientations. Party Politics14(2): 189–209.
28.
FrewerLJMilesSMarshR (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22(4): 701–711.
29.
FukudaK (2006) Age-period-cohort decomposition of aggregate data. Journal of Applied Econometrics21: 981–998.
30.
FukudaK (2011) A comparative study of U.S. and Japanese meat consumption using age-period-cohort decomposition. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing23(2): 151–166.
31.
GaskellGAllansdottirAAllumNCastroPEsmerYFischlerC. (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010, winds of change?A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research, London School of Economics, London, October2010.
32.
GaskellGAllansdottirAAllumNCastroPEsmerYFischlerC. (2011) The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology29(2): 113–114.
33.
GaskellGAllumNWagnerWKronbergerNToergersenHHampelJ. (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis24(1): 185–194.
34.
GaskellGStaresSAllansdottirAAllumNCorcheroCFischlerC. (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005. Report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research, London School of Economics, London, May2006.
35.
GoldsteinH (2003) Multilevel Statistical Models, 3rd edn. London: Edward Arnold.
36.
Green-PedersenC (2007) The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies55: 607–628.
37.
HallBHMairesseJTurnerL (2007) Identifying age, cohort, and period effects in scientific research productivity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology16(2): 159–177.
38.
HolmgreenLL (2008) Biotech as “biothreat”? Metaphorical constructions in discourse. Discourse & Society19(1): 99–110.
39.
HouseLLuskJJaegerSTraillBMooreMValliC. (2004) Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumers’ demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and European Union. AgBioForum7(3): 113–123.
40.
HuffmanWERousuMShogrenJFTegeneA (2004) Who do consumers trust for information: The case of genetically modified foods?American Journal of Agricultural Economics86(5): 1222–1229.
41.
InglehartR (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
JolyP-BMarrisC (2003) Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM? [Have the Americans accepted GMOs?]. Cahiers d’économie et Sociologie Rurales68–69: 12–45.
43.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
44.
KassRERafteryAE (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association90(430): 773–795.
45.
KlingemanWEHallCR (2006) Risk, trust and consumer acceptance of plant biotechnology. Journal of Crop Improvement18(1): 451–486.
46.
KnightTBarnettJ (2010) Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance. Public Understanding of Science19(4): 386–402.
47.
KvakkestadVVatnA (2011) Governing uncertain and unknown effects of genetically modified crops. Ecological Economics70: 524–532.
48.
LarsenKPetersenJHBudtz-JørgensenEEndhalL (2000) Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics56(3): 909–914.
49.
LuoL (2013) Assessing validity and application scope of the intrinsic estimator approach to the age-period-cohort problem. Demography50: 1945–1967.
50.
MarquesMDCritchleyCRWalsheJ (2015) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 601–618.
51.
MarrisC (2001) Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports2(7): 545–548.
52.
MarrisCRoseN (2010) Open engagement: Exploring public participation in the Biosciences. PLoS Biology8(11): 1–2.
53.
MasonKOMasonWMWinsboroughHHPooleWK (1973) Some methodological issues in cohort analysis of archival data. American Sociological Review38(2): 242–258.
54.
MoriHSaegusaY (2010) Cohort effects in food consumption: What they are and how they are formed. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review7(1): 43–63.
55.
NakamuraT (1986) Bayesian cohort models for general cohort table analyses. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics38(1): 353–370.
56.
NgESWCarpenterJRGoldsteinHRasbashJ (2006) Estimation in generalised linear mixed models with binary outcomes by simulated maximum likelihood. Statistical Modelling6: 23–42.
57.
NielsenTH (1997) Public perception: Behind the color code of no. Nature Biotechnology15: 1320–1321.
58.
NielsenTHJelsøeEÖhmanS (2002) Traditional blue and modern green resistance. In: BauerMWGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–202.
59.
O’BrienRMHudsonKStockardJ (2008) A mixed model estimation of age, period, and cohort effects. Sociological Methods & Research36(3): 402–428.
60.
PardoREngelhardMHagenKJorgensenRBRehbinderESchniekeA. (2009) The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. EMBO Reports10: 1069–1075.
61.
PawarBS (2009) Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification in Organizational Studies. London: SAGE.
62.
PriestSBonfadelliKRusanenM (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis. Risk Analysis23(4): 751–766.
63.
RafteryAELewisSM (1992) How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? In: BernardoJBerferJDawidAPSmithAFM (eds) Bayesian Statistics 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 765–776.
64.
RamaniS (2001) Introduction to the special issue on biotechnology. International Journal of Biotechnology3(1–2): 1–3.
65.
RecoursFHébelP (2007) Evolution des comportements alimentaires: Le rôle des générations [Evolution of eating behaviours: Generational effects]. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales. 82–83: 79–108.
66.
ReitherNLandKCJeonSYPowersDAMastersRKZhengH. (2015) Clarifying hierarchical age-period-cohort models: A rejoinder to Bell and Jones. Social Science & Medicine145: 125–128.
67.
RodgersWL (1982) Reply to comment by Smith, Mason and Fienberg. American Sociological Review47(6): 787–793.
68.
RousselièreDRousselièreS (2010) On the impact of trust on willingness to purchase GM food: Evidence from a European survey. Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies91(1): 5–26.
69.
RousselièreDRousselièreS (2013) Assiste-t-on (réellement) à une polarisation du débat sur les OGM? Une perspective internationale sur la période 2000–2010 [Is there (really) a polarization of attitudes toward GMO? An international inquiry on the 2000–2010 period]. Revue d’économie politique123(4): 593–622.
70.
SchaningerCMDankoWD (1993) A conceptual and empirical comparison of alternative household life cycle models. Journal of Consumer Research19(4): 580–594.
71.
ScholzEZuellC (2012) Item non-response in open-ended questions: Who does not answer on the meaning of left and right?Social Science Research41: 1415–1428.
72.
SiroIKapolnaEKapolnaBLugasiA (2008) Functional food: Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance, a Review. Appetite51: 456–467.
SpiegelhalterDJBestNGCarlinBPVan Der LindeA (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B64: 583–639.
75.
StefaniG (2008) Micro-simulation of households: A new tool to assess the impact on society of food safety policies. Innovation21(2): 171–176.
76.
SturgisPCooperHFife-SchawC (2005) Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society24(1): 35–58.
77.
VeltriGASuerdemAK (2011) Worldviews and discursive construction of GMO-related risk perceptions in Turkey. Public Understanding of Science22(2): 137–154.
78.
VerbeekM (2008) Pseudo-panels and repeated cross-sections. In: MatyasLSevestreP (eds) The Econometrics of Panel Data. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 369–383.
79.
YangY (2008) Social inequalities in happiness in the United States, 1972 to 2004: An age-period-cohort analysis. American Sociological Review73(2): 204–226.
80.
YangYLandKC (2008) Age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys: Fixed or random effects?Sociological Methods and Research36(3): 297–326.
81.
YangYLandKC (2013) Age-Period-Cohort Analysis: New Models, Methods and Empirical Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
82.
ZepedaLDouthittRYouSY (2003) Consumer risk perceptions toward agricultural biotechnology, self-protection, and food demand: The case of milk in the United States. Risk Analysis23(5): 973–984.
