This research examined public opinion toward genetically modified plants and animals for food, and how trust in organizations and media coverage explained attitudes toward these organisms. Nationally representative samples (N=8821) over 10 years showed Australians were less positive toward genetically modified animals compared to genetically modified plants for food, especially in years where media coverage was high. Structural equation modeling found that positive attitudes toward different genetically modified organisms for food were significantly associated with higher trust in scientists and regulators (e.g. governments), and with lower trust in watchdogs (e.g. environmental movement). Public trust in scientists and watchdogs was a stronger predictor of attitudes toward the use of genetically modified plants for food than animals, but only when media coverage was low. Results are discussed regarding the moral acceptability of genetically modified organisms for food, the media's role in shaping public opinion, and the role public trust in organizations has on attitudes toward genetically modified organisms.

Experimenters observed the number of sport-team-identified fans who contributed money to charity workers before and after 6 football games. Charity workers were identified as supporters of 1 of the 2 teams competing, or of neither team. Consistent with predictions, more fans contributed to in-group than to out-group-supporting charity workers. In addition, charity workers identified with either team received a higher frequency of contributions from fans of both teams together after the game relative to before; this pattern was reversed among charity workers not identified with a team. This unexpected finding suggests an increased salience of a general sport-fan identification after the game relative to before. Finally, fans of winning teams in particular contributed more to any charity worker (i.e., collapsed across in-group, out-group, and neutral supporters) after the game than before, but this pattern was reversed among fans of losing teams. This final finding is discussed with reference to both self-categorization theory and the literature on mood and prosocial behavior.

Background and Objective: New and more efficient methods of gene editing have intensified the ethical and legal issues associated with editing germlines. Yet no research has separated the impact of hereditary concern on public attitudes from moral concern. This research compares the impact these two concerns have on public attitudes across five applications including, the prevention of human disease, human and animal research, animals for the use of human food and the enhancement of human appearance. Methods: A sample of 1004 Australians responded to either a telephone (n = 501; randomly selected) or online survey (n = 503; sourced by Qualtrics). Both samples were representative in terms of States and Territories as well as gender (51% female), though the online sample was younger (M = 40.64, SD = 16.98; Range = 18-87) than the telephone sample (M = 54.79, SD = 18.13; Range = 18-96). A 5 (application) by 3 (type of cell) within groups design was utilized, where all respondents reported their level of approval with scientists editing genes across the 15 different contexts. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the impact of moral (embryo vs. germ) and hereditary (germ vs. somatic) concern on attitudes across all applications. Results: Australians were comfortable with editing human and animal embryos, but only for research purposes and to enhance human health. The effect of moral concern was stronger than hereditary concern, existing in all applications except for the use of animals for human purposes. Hereditary concern was only found to influence attitudes in two applications: improving human health and human research. Moral concern was found to be accentuated amongst, women, more religious individuals and those identifying as Australian, while hereditary concern was strongest amongst non-Australians, those with stronger trust in scientists, and more religious respondents. Critchley et al. Public Attitudes Toward Editing Germlines Conclusion: Moral and hereditary concerns are distinct, and require different approaches to public education, engagement and possibly regulation. Further research needs to explore hereditary concern in relation to non-human applications, and the reasons underlying cultural and gender differences.

collected UK and Japanese data on behalf of the Centre for Law & Genetics and Osaka University respectively. Critchley and Charbonneau prepared the initial draft with all authors contributing to the final article. Walshe programmed the survey and contributed to specific data preparation, analysis and literature review for this article. Yamamoto and Kato contributed to survey translation.

In many parts of the world, older adults continue to face significant barriers to digital inclusion, but the source of that inequality is not well understood. However, we do not know enough about differences among older people seeking to improve their digital skills. Examining the impact of a national three-year digital inclusion programme reaching more than 580,000 older adults in Australia, this study explores factors that affect digital skills and literacy later in life. A mixed-methods approach involving a two time-point survey (N = 337) along with participant interviews (N = 30) examined the effectiveness of programme elements. A latent class analysis was applied to examine differences in the way older adults engage with digital technologies. Qualitative analysis helped to detail those differences. Programme outcomes were far from uniform, reflecting diverse motivations, lifecourse experiences, needs and capabilities among older adults, countering much existing research that tends to elide those differences. With reference to the concept of situated literacies, we highlight the importance of life experiences, needs and motivations to the outcomes of digital inclusion interventions. Our findings emphasise the need to disaggregate older adult internet users, and account for differences in life experiences, needs and motivations in the design and delivery of digital inclusion interventions at scale.