Attitudes, values, and socio‐demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in Australia

Abstract

Studies of community reactions to biotechnology and genetic engineering (GE), in particular, have identified a number of correlates of acceptance, including the field of application of a technology and various characteristics of the perceiver. Factor analysis of acceptability ratings (N=686) of 12 applications of new technologies revealed three factors, denoting medical, societal, and indulgent applications. Acceptability ratings of each application and of GE in principle were regressed onto 18 demographic, attitudinal, trust, and value variables previously identified as potential correlates of acceptance. Predictive profiles for acceptance of medical and societal applications were largely similar. General receptiveness toward science and technology was the primary predictor of GE acceptance and a major predictor of acceptance for each application area. Environmental concern and self-transcendent (e.g., pro-nature) values did not predict acceptance in any instance. Findings clarify considerations associated with acceptance of biotechnological innovations and support arguments against knowledge-and trust-deficit explanations of resistance to technology.

Factors Influencing Young Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food in India

“…Moreover, Onyango and Govindasamy (2004) and Lusk et al (2002) found that despite the US consumer general negative attitude toward GM technology, the direct health, environmental, and production-related benefits had a positive effect on consumer acceptance of GMF. Similar results were evidenced for Australian consumers (Mohr et al, 2007). From the economic perspective, in the UK (Spence and Townsend, 2006), New Zealand (Knight et al, 2005) and the US (Qin & Brown, 2008), it is found that when consumers perceive price benefits, they are more likely to purchase GMF.…”

“…The reason for this difference was that the Italian consumers had a more positive attitude toward technology than other EU nations. The supportive results were found in studies in the EU (Gaskel et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2003;Lahteenmaki et al, 2002) and Australia (Mohr et al, 2007). Concerning developing nations, similar findings were evidenced in Malaysia that consumer attitude toward modern technology has a positive relationship with consumer support for the GM soybean (Amin et al, 2006).…”

“…The same argument was made by Han and Harrison (2007). In Australia, Mohr et al (2007) found that male consumers were more supportive of the use of sophisticated innovations than females, and higher education level had a negative effect on consumer acceptance of GMF technology. In the United States, Hossain et al (2003) found that consumer characteristics such as gender, age, and ethnic background influenced consumer acceptance of GMF, only if GMF provided benefits to the US consumers; otherwise, these variables had no influence on the US consumer acceptance of GMF.…”

Australian consumers’ preferences for conventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: A conjoint study

“…In contrast, cluster group 3, characterised as more concerned about the safety of technology, predominantly focused on the source of LCO3FA, with other attributes such as the type of product and labelling being of lesser concern. Notably, they also gave greatest relative utility to the food regulator (FSANZ) in contrast to the other cluster groups, who gave higher utilities to other sources of information (Government science agency and, particularly the National Heart Foundation) that have previously been found to be trusted and credible (Mohr et al, 2007;Noakes & Crawford, 1991).…”

“…For example, our laboratory (CSIRO, a government science agency) is known to be trusted and have credibility (Cormick, personal communication;Mohr, Harrison, Wilson, Baghurst, & Syrette, 2007) in certain contexts. We also wanted to know if the national food regulator (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ) would also be perceived as trustworthy and credible, as, unlike the USA where the FDA is well known (Rowlands & Hoadley, 2006), FSANZ has an unknown public profile.…”