In this work, using experiments, we investigate the role of the name of a technology on the informed evaluation of that technology. We argue that a name can influence interpretations by activating cognitive structures. Using genomics-accelerated breeding as a case, we show that the name ‘genomics’ makes people evaluate related information as similar to genetic modification. Replacing the name ‘genomics’ with ‘natural crossing’ causes evaluations similar to those for traditional breeding. The results show that a name can have a strong influence on public attitudes, and we call for more consideration in choosing a name for a technology.
BatraRAhtolaOT (1991) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters2(2): 159–170.
2.
BodmerWF (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
3.
BosMJWKoolstraCMWillemsJ (2009) Adolescent responses toward a new technology: First associations, information seeking, and affective responses to ecogenomics. Public Understanding of Science, 18(2): 243–253.
4.
BosMJWKoolstraCMWillemsJTJM (2010) Early exposures to ecogenomics: Effects of priming and web site interactivity among adolescents. Science Communication32(2): 232–255.
5.
BredahlLGrunertKGFrewerLJ (1998) Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products–a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy21(3): 251–277.
6.
BucchiM (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, pp. 57–76.
7.
CramerDHowittDL (2005) The Sage Dictionary of Statistics: A Practical Resource for Students in Social Sciences. London: SAGE.
8.
CurrallSCKingEBLaneNMaderaJTurnerS (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?Nature Nanotechnology1: 153–155.
9.
De LiverYVan Der PligtJWigboldusD (2005) Unpacking attitudes towards genetically modified food. Appetite45(3): 242–249.
10.
DijkstraAMGuttelingJM (2012) Communicative aspects of the public–science relationship explored: Results of focus group discussions about biotechnology and genomics. Science Communication34(3): 363–391.
11.
FergusonMJBarghJA (2004) How social perception can automatically influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8: 33–39.
12.
FrewerLJHowardCShepherdR (1995) Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance?British Food Journal97(8): 31–36.
13.
GregoryJLockSJ (2008) The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass2(4): 1252–1265.
14.
GrunertKGBredahlLScholdererJ (2003) Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies4(4): 435–445.
15.
GuptaNFischerARFrewerLJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science21(7): 782–795.
16.
HallR (2010) CBSG2012 A public-private partnership in the plant sciences. In: ZwartH (ed.) CSG Researchers Days 2010: Symposium Organized at the Meeting of CSG Centre for Society and the Life Sciences. Berg en Dal:CSG, pp. 9–14.
17.
HerrPM (1986) Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1106–1115.
18.
HigginsET (1996) Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: HigginsETKruglanskiAW (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 133–168.
19.
IngoldTKurttilaT (2000) Perceiving the environment in Finnish Lapland. Body & Society6(3–4): 183–196.
KruglanskiAWWebsterDM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: ‘Seizing’ and ‘freezing’. Psychological Review103(2): 263–283.
22.
KruglanskiAWWebsterDMKlemA (1993) Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology65(5): 861–876.
23.
LokenBBarsalouLWJoinerC (2008) Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology: Category representation and category-based inference. In: HaugtvedtCPHerrPMKardesFR (eds) Handbook of Consumer Psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 133–163.
MogendorffKTe MolderHVan WoerkumCGremmenB (2015) Turning experts into self-reflexive speakers: The problematization of technical-scientific expertise relative to alternative forms of expertise. Science Communication38(1): 26–50.
26.
MunafòMRNosekBABishopDVMButtonKSChambersCDDu SertNPet al. (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour1: 0021.
27.
MuthukrishnanAVWeitzBA (1991) Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brand extension. In: HolmanRHSolomonMR (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 407–413.
28.
PinRRGuttelingJM (2008) The development of public perception research in the genomics field: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Science Communication31(1): 57–83.
29.
RoschE (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General104(3): 192–233.
30.
RoschE (1978) Principles of categorization. In: RoschELoydBB (eds) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.
31.
RoschEMervisCBGrayWDJohnsonDMBoyes-BraemP (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology8(3): 382–439.
32.
RozinPSprancaMKriegerZNeuhausRSurilloDSwerdlinAet al. (2004) Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite43(2): 147–154.
33.
ScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6): 659–667.
34.
SedikidesCSkowronskiJJ (1991) The law of cognitive structure activation. Psychological Inquiry2(2): 169–184.
35.
SturgisPBrunton-SmithIFife-SchawC (2010) Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science19(2): 166–180.
36.
TesterMLangridgeP (2010) Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science327(5967): 818–822.
37.
ToncarMMunchJ (2001) Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising30(1): 55–65.
38.
Van DamFDe VriendH (2002) Publieksonderzoek Genomics 2002. Den Haag: Stichting Consument en Biotechnologie.
39.
Van Den HeuvelTRenesRJVan TrijpHGremmenBVan WoerkumC (2008) Consumer judgment regarding genomics. In: Etmaal Van De Communicatiewetenschap [Communication Science Day] 2008. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Available at: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/363447
40.
Van Den HeuvelT (2008) Consumers and Plant Genomics. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
41.
Van Den HeuvelTVan TrijpHVan WoerkumCRenesRJGremmenB (2007) Linking product offering to consumer needs; inclusion of credence attributes and the influences of product features. Food Quality and Preference18(2): 296–304.
42.
Van HaperenPFGremmenBJacobsJ (2012) Reconstruction of the ethical debate on naturalness in discussions about plant-biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics25(6): 797–812.
43.
WunderlichSGattoKA (2015) Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal6(6): 842–851.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
