This article aims to examine which factors influence people’s perception of gene technology. Data come from a mail survey in the German speaking part of Switzerland (N = 830). Principal component analyses for acceptance, risks, and benefits of 12 gene technology applications resulted in two factors: one related to medical applications and the other to nonmedical applications. Results showed that three different types of knowledge did not substantially influence perceived risks or perceived benefits of gene technology. Overall results suggest that the experiential system and not the analytical system determines lay people’s perception of gene technology.
Bundesamt für Statistik. (2009). Statistik Des Jährlichen Bevölkerungsstandes (Espop) Und Der Natürlichen Bevölkerungsbewegung (Bevnat) 2008. Provisorische Ergebnisse. [Swiss Federal Department of Statistics. Annual population data according to census results 2008. Temporary results.]Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Author.
2.
Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U., & Leonarz, M. ( 2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science , 11, 113-130.
3.
Bonfadelli, H., Hieber, P., Leonarz, M., Meier, W.A., Schanne, M., & Wessels, H.-P. (1998). Switzerland. In J. Durant, W. Bauer Martin , & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the public sphere (144-160). London: Science Museum.
4.
Bredahl, L. ( 1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods: results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 33, 343-360.
5.
Christoph, I.B., Bruhn, M., & Roosen, J. ( 2007). Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite, 51, 58-68.
6.
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., & Traill, W.B. ( 2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33, 99-111.
7.
Cuite, C.L., Aquino, H.L., & Hallman, W.K. ( 2005). An empirical investigation of the role of knowledge in public opinion about GM food. International Journal of Biotechnology , 7(1-3), 178-194.
8.
Davidson, D.J., & Freudenberg, W.R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339.
9.
Einsele, A. ( 2007). The gap between science and perception: The case of plant biotechnology in Europe. In T. Scheper (Ed.), Greene gene technology, research in an area of social conflict. Berlin: Springer.
10.
Evans, G., & Durant, J. ( 1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57-74.
11.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. ( 1995). Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance?British Food Journal, 97(8), 31-36. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd , R. (1996a). Effective communication about genetic engineering and food. British Food Journal, 98(415), 48-52.
12.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. ( 1996b). The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference , 7, 61-67.
13.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. ( 1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 22, 98-124.
14.
Frewer, L.J., & Shepherd, R. ( 1995). Ethical concerns and risk perception associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12, 48-57.
15.
Ganiere, P., Chern, W.S., & Hahn, D. ( 2006). A continuum of consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods in the US. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31, 129-149.
16.
Gaskell, G. ( 1998). Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996. In J. Durant, W. Bauer Martin, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the public sphere (189-213). London: Science Museum.
17.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and theEuropean public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938.
18.
Gaskell, G., & Bauer Martin, W. (2006). Genomics and society, legal, ethical & social dimensions. London: Earthscan.
19.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., & Allum, N.C. ( 1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285, 384-387.
20.
Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf
21.
Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L., & Lang, J.T. ( 2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
22.
Hamstra, A.M., & Smink, C. ( 1996). Consumers and biotechnology in the Netherlands. British Food Journal, 98(4/5), 34-38.
23.
Hayes, B.C., & Tariq, V.N. ( 2000). Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 433-447.
24.
Hoban, T.J.I.V. ( 1996). Anticipating public reaction to the use of genetic engineering in infant nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 63, 657S-662S.
25.
Hoban, T.J. ( 1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology . AgBioForum, 1(1), 3-7.
26.
Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W., & Adelaja, A. ( 2003). Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 353-365.
27.
House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W.B., Moore, M., Valli, C., et al. (2004). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and theEuropean Union. AgBioForum, 7(3), 113-123.
28.
Huotilainen, A., & Tuorila, H. ( 2005). Social representation of new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust. Quality and Preference, 16, 565-572.
29.
Irani, T., Sinclair, J., & O’Malley, M. (2002). The importance of being accountable: The relationship between perceptions of accountability, knowledge, and attitude toward plant genetic engineering. Science Communication , 23, 225-241.
30.
Klerck, D., & Sweeney, J.C. ( 2007). The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 171-193.
31.
Maeseele, P.A., & Schuurman, D. ( 2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication, 29, 435-471.
McInerney, C., Bird, N., & Nucci, M. ( 2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication , 26, 44-74.
34.
Miles, S., Ueland, O., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2005). Public attitudes towards genetically modified food. British Food Journal, 107, 246-262.
35.
Millstone, E., & Lang, T. ( 2008). The atlas of food. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
Priest, S.H. ( 1995). Information equity, public understanding of science, and biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45, 39-54.
37.
Prokop, P., Leskova, A., Kubiatko, M., & Diran, C. ( 2007). Slovakian students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education , 29, 895-907.
38.
Qin, W., & Brown, J.L. ( 2006). Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and information effect on opinions: A qualitative approach. Science Communication, 28, 243-272.
39.
Scholderer, J., & Frewer, L.J. ( 2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125-157.
40.
Siegrist, M. ( 1998). Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences , 24, 861-866.
41.
Siegrist, M. ( 2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-204.
42.
Siegrist, M. ( 2003). Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 45-60.
43.
Siegrist, M. ( 2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology , 19, 603-608.
44.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-720.
45.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H.A.L. ( 2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 211-222.
46.
Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. ( 2008). Perceived risks and benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 51, 283-290.
47.
Slovic, P. ( 1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-287.
48.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & Macgregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.
49.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. ( 2004). Science in society: Reevaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
50.
Tenbült, P., De Vries, N.K., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. ( 2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47-50.
51.
Verdurme, A., & Viaene, J. ( 2003). Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness, 19, 91-113.
52.
Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.F., & Devries, N.K. ( 2007). How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis , 27, 715-727.
