The impact of knowledge on public attitudes toward scientific issues remains unclear, due in part to ill-defined differences in how research designs conceptualize knowledge. Using genetically modified foods as a framework, we explore the impacts of perceived familiarity and factual knowledge, and the moderating roles of media attention and a food-specific attitudinal variable (food consciousness), in shaping these relationships. Based on the differential effects on “negative attitudes” toward genetically modified foods, we provide further evidence that the measures of knowledge are separate concepts and argue against a one-dimensional view of scientific knowledge. We discuss implications for understanding the relationship between knowledge and science attitudes.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI. (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
2.
BanwartMC (2007) Gender and young voters in 2004: The influence of perceived knowledge and interest. American Behavioral Scientist50: 1152–1168.
3.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science, Technology, & Human Values25: 30–51.
4.
BlankJMShawD (2015) Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658: 18–35.
5.
BrossardD (2012) Social challenges: Public opinion and agricultural biotechnology. In: PoppJJahnMMatlockM (eds) The Role of Biotechnology in a Sustainable Food Supply. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–32.
6.
BrossardDLewensteinBV (2010) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In: KahlorLStoutP (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 11–39.
7.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 24–52.
8.
BrossardDShanahanJ (2006) Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication28: 47–63.
9.
BrossardDShanahanJE (2007) Perspectives on communication about agricultural biotechnology. In: BrossardDShanahanJENesbitCT (eds) The Public, the Media & Agricultural Biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: CABI/Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20.
10.
BrossardDScheufeleDAKimELewensteinBV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18: 546–558.
11.
BruhnCM (2005) Explaining the concept of health risk versus hazards to consumers. Food Control16: 487–490.
12.
BruhnCMPetersonSPhillipsPSakovidhN (1992) Consumer response to information on integrated pest management. Journal of Food Safety12: 315–326.
13.
ChenM-FLiH-L (2007) The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference18: 662–674.
14.
ChristophIBBruhnMRoosenJ (2008) Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite51: 58–68.
15.
CohenJCohenPWestSGAikenLS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
Costa-FontMGilJMTraillWB (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy33: 99–111.
17.
DillmanDASmythJDChristianLM (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
DreezensEMartijnCTenbültPKokGde VriesNK (2005) Food and values: An examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Appetite44: 115–122.
19.
EinsiedelEF (2000) Understanding “publics” in the public understanding of science. In: DierkesMvon GroteC (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 144–150.
20.
EvelandWPCooperKE (2013) An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110: 14088–14095.
21.
FlipseSMOsseweijerP (2013) Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective. Public Understanding of Science22: 185–202.
22.
FrewerLJMilesSMarshR (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22: 701–711.
23.
FrewerLJScholdererJBredahlL (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis23: 1117–1133.
24.
FrewerLJvan der LansIAFischerARHReinderscMJMenozziDZhangXet al. (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology30: 142–152.
25.
GaskellGBauerMWDurantJAllumNC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science285: 384–387.
26.
HansenJHolmLFrewerLRobinsonPSandøeP (2003) Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite41: 111–121.
27.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research20: 171–192.
29.
HossainFOnyangoB (2004) Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies28: 255–267.
30.
HossainFOnyangoBSchillingBHallmanWAdelajaA (2003) Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies27: 253–365.
31.
HouseLLuskJJaegerSYeeWMS (2005) Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioForum7: 113–123.
32.
HuWVeemanMMAdamowiczWL (2005) Labelling genetically modified food: Heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics53: 83–102.
33.
HughnerRSMcDonaghPProtheroAShultzCJIIStantonJ (2007) Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour6: 94–110.
34.
IrwinAWynneB (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
JohnsonBB (1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk: Issues in Health & Safety4: 189–212.
36.
KnightAJ (2005) Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology. AgBioForum8: 221–227.
37.
KrugerJDunningD (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77: 1121–1134.
38.
LadwigPDalrympleKEBrossardDScheufeleDACorleyEA (2012) Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy39: 761–774.
39.
LangJTHallmanWK (2005) Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis25: 1241–1252.
40.
LeggeJSDurantRF (2010) Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research27: 59–76.
41.
LuHMcComasKABesleyJC (2017) Messages promoting genetic modification of crops in the context of climate change: Evidence for psychological reactance. Appetite108: 104–116.
42.
LuskJLHouseLOValliCJaegerSRMooreMMorrowJLet al. (2004) Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics31: 179–204.
43.
MabePAWestSG (1982) Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology67: 280–296.
44.
McComasKABesleyJCSteinhardtJ (2014) Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite78: 8–14.
45.
MacfarlaneR (2002) Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: The role of science and other factors. Food Policy27: 65–80.
MalkaAKrosnickJALangerG (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis29: 633–647.
48.
MarquesMDCritchleyCRWalsheJ (2015) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science24: 601–618.
49.
MeyerG (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return?Public Understanding of Science25: 433–446.
50.
MoerbeekHCasimirG (2005) Gender differences in consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies29: 308–318.
NieCZepedaL (2011) Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic and local food consumption. Appetite57: 28–37.
53.
RockEMIrelandMResnickMDMcNeelyCA (2005) A rose by any other name? Objective knowledge, perceived knowledge, and adolescent male condom use. Pediatrics115: 667–672.
54.
RungeKKBrossardDScheufeleDARoseKMLarsonBJ (2017) Attitudes about food and food-related biotechnology. Public Opinion Quarterly81:577–596.
55.
SaherMLindemanMHurstiU-KK (2006) Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite46: 324–331.
56.
ScheufeleDA (2007) Opinion climates, spirals of silence and biotechnology: Public opinion as a heuristic for scientific decision-making. In: BrossardDShanahanJNesbittTC (eds) The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: CABI, pp. 231–241.
57.
ScheufeleDA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110: 14040–14047.
58.
ScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7: 659–667.
59.
ScholdererJFrewerLJ (2003) The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy26: 125–157.
60.
ScottSEInbarYWirzCDBrossardDRozinP (2018) An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annual Review of Nutrition38: 459–479.
61.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25: 400–414.
62.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis24: 311–322.
63.
StoutenboroughJWVedlitzA (2016) The role of scientific knowledge in the public’s perceptions of energy technology risks. Energy Policy96: 206–216.
64.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
65.
SuLY-FCacciatoreMAScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMA (2014) Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication36: 352–378.
66.
TraillWBJaegerSRYeeWMValliCHouseLOLuskJLet al. (2004) Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioForum7: 176–186.
67.
TurnbullD (1997) Reframing science and other local knowledge traditions. Futures29: 551–562.
68.
VenturaVFrisioDGFerrazziGSilettiE (2017) How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy. Public Understanding of Science26: 547–563.
69.
VerbekeW (2005) Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics32: 347–368.
70.
Vilella-VilaMCosta-FontJ (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics37: 2095–2106.
71.
ZhuXXieX (2015) Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods. Risk Analysis35: 790–810.
