Constructs derived from Schlenker's triangle model of accountability were used to explore the relationship between perceptions of the accountability of government, industry, and the regulatory process and survey respondents' knowledge and attitude toward potential applications of plant genetic engineering. Regression analysis indicated that accountability was a better predictor of attitude toward potential applications of plant genetic engineering than respondents'level of knowledge. The results lend support to the argument that perceptions of accountability may play a significant role in consumer reactions to food biotechnology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1994. Project 2061, Benchmarks for science literacy (Part I: Achieving science literacy). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2.
Andrews, L., J. Fullerton, N. Holtzman, and A. Motulsky, eds. 1994. Assessing genetic risks: Implications for health and social policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
Armstrong, J.2000. The value of biotechnology as an incentive for moral evolution [online]. Available: http://www.anth.org/ifgene/contents.htm.
4.
Beachy, R.1999. Facing fear of biotechnology. Editorial. Science285 (16 July): 335-335.
5.
Burkhardt, J. 2000. Determining the acceptability of GMOs/GM foods: Science, ethics, or something else entirely? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Meat Science Association, 21 June, Columbus, OH.
6.
Caswell, J.1998. Should use of genetically modified organisms be labeled?AgBioForum [online]. Available: http://www.agbioforum.org/vol1no1/cswll.html.
7.
Food Marketing Institute. 1996. Trends in the United States: Consumer attitudes and the super-market. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute.
8.
Food & Ag Biotech. 2000. Food biotechnology and product labeling [online]. Available: http://www.bio.org/food&ag/labeling.html.
Frewer, L., C. Howard, D. Hedderly, and R. Shepherd. 1997. “Objection” mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values14:67-79.
11.
Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.Science285 (16 July): 384-387.
12.
Goldberg, M. E., M. Fishbein, and S. E. Middlestadt, eds. 1997. Social marketing: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Goodman, T.2000. Expert: StarLink biotech corn a test for regulatory needs [online]. CNN. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2000/FOOD/news/11/30/starlink.epa/index.html.
14.
Hallman, W., and J. Metcalfe. 1995. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents. [online]. USDA National Agricultural Library. Available: http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Pubpercep/
15.
Hoban, T.1998. Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum [online]. Available: http://www.agbioforum.org/vol1no1/hoban.html.
16.
International Food Information Council. 2000. Americans support FDA food biotech policies [online]. July. IFIC Foundation. Available: http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19301.
17.
Israel, G., and T. Hoban. 1992. Concern about eating genetically engineered food. Southern Rural Sociology9:23-43.
18.
James, C.2000. Global status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2000. ISAAA Briefs No. 21: Preview [online]. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural Biotechnology (ISAAA). Available: http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_21.htm.
19.
Nordquist, D. J.2001. Consumer awareness of genetically modified foods may be taking root [online]. June. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Available: http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/062601.php3.
20.
Persley, G., and J. Siedow. 1999. Applications of biotechnology to crops: Benefits and risks. [online]. December. CAST Issue Paper 12. Available: http://www.cast-science.org/biotc_ip.htm.
21.
Peterson, R.2000. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology and pesticides: Recent understandings and implications for risk communication. American Entomologist46 (spring): 8-16.
22.
Phillips, P., and G. Isaac. 1998. GMO labeling: Threat or opportunity?AgBioForum1:25-30.
23.
Priest, S. H.2000. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biotechnology18:939-942.
24.
Rogers, E.1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
25.
Salwen, M. B., and D. W. Stacks, eds. 1996. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Schlenker, B., T. Britt, J. Pennington, R. Murphy, and K. Doherty. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review101:632-652.
27.
Schlenker, B., and M. Weigold. 1989. Self-identification and accountability. Impression management in the organization, edited by R. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld, 21-43. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Schlenker, B., M. Weigold, and K. Doherty. 1991. Coping with accountability: Self-identification and evaluative reckonings. In Handbook of social and clinical psychology, edited by C. Snyder and D. Forsyth, 96-115. New York: Pergamon.
29.
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2001. StarLink genetic material found in 2001 seed corn. Chemically Speaking March 3:3-3.
30.
Vestal, T., and G. Briers. 2000. Exploring knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of newspaper journalists in metropolitan markets in the United States regarding food biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural Education41 (4): 134-144.
31.
Zepeda, L., and R. Douthitt. 1991. Labeling milk from rbST treated cows: Returns to Wisconsin dairy farmers from product differentiation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Council on Consumer Interests, 3-6 April, Cincinnati, OH.
32.
Zepeda, L., and R. Douthitt. 1999. Consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology: The role of labeling and risk perceptions on food demand. Paper prepared for the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research, University of Rome “Tor Vergata,” Italy.
33.
Zinnen, T.1994. Risky business: Issues in teaching about safety and regulation. Genetic Engineering14: 21-21.
