Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food “Morally Absolutist”? A Consequence-Based Perspective

Royzman, Edward B.; Cusimano, Corey; Metas, Stephen; Leeman, Robert F.

doi:10.1177/1745691619873550

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parents who cited health considerations when discussing GMO-based product decisions were similar in number to those who used moral language (30% vs. 29%). The same was true for discussions of organic-based product decisions (29% vs. 30%), which implies that parents' stronger preferences for non-GM foods and organic foods are not driven primarily by health considerations (consistent with findings from Royzman, Cusimano, Metas, & Leeman, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods

Shtulman

Silber-Marker

et al. 2020

Cognitive Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies indicate that Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are safe to consume, but many adults remain skeptical. What kind of input are children receiving about GMOs? And how does that input shape their understanding of what GMOs are? We investigated this question in the context of parent-child conversations about food product decisions. Seventy parent-child dyads were shown a series of food product pairings and asked to discuss their preferences. The products differed by whether they were made from GMOs, as well as whether they contained gluten and whether they were grown organically. Non-GM foods were preferred over gluten-free foods, and conversations about GM foods contained more moral language than conversations about gluten. Preferences for organic foods equaled preferences for non-GM foods, and conversations about organic foods were as morally charged, but parents were less knowledgeable about the meaning of GMO than they were about the meaning of organic. Children's knowledge of these terms varied with their parents' knowledge, and their participation in the food-product conversations varied with their parents' use of moral language. Taken together, these findings suggest that children's conceptions of GMOs are shaped by their parents' conceptions, despite the fact that parents' preferences and attitudes toward GMOs outstrip their knowledge of what GMOs actually are.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods

Shtulman

Silber-Marker

et al. 2020

Cognitive Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the #metoo age, companies have both a moral and financial incentive to understanding the barriers to whistleblowing (Weidman et al, 2019). When faced with the imminent threat of climate change and global food insecurity, understanding the nature of people’s moral aversion to genetically modified food has immediate policy implication (Royzman, Cusimano, Metas, & Leeman, 2020; this issue, pp. 250–272).…”

Section: Contextualizing Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Royzman and colleagues’ body of research consistently demonstrates how to conduct studies that accurately gauge human experience (Royzman, Cassidy, & Baron, 2003; Royzman et al, 2015). In this issue, Royzman, Cusimano, Metas, & Leeman (2020) demonstrate the importance of carefully considering how participants interpret research questions. They lay out two prerequisites for making valid inferences from survey questions: the comprehension requirement (do participants understand the question) and the task-acceptance requirement (do participants have “the cognitive aptitude .…”

Section: Contextualizing Judgesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…to execute the task in question”; p. 254). In a series of studies, Royzman et al (2020) found that participants do not fully grasp the intended meaning of Scott et al’s (2016) initial question. By carefully taking participants’ understanding of the question into consideration and examining what “no matter the costs” really means, they were able to simultaneously replicate and undermine Scott et al’s (2016) initial claims.…”

Section: Contextualizing Judgesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Note: GMOs = genetically modified organisms. a Hester and Gray (2020). bRoyzman, Cusimano, Metas, and Leeman (2020). cWatkins (2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Schein

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a gap between morality as experienced and morality as studied. In our personal and professional lives, moral judgments are embedded within a specific context. We know the who, what, where, and when and often can infer the why; we know the broader context of actions; and we may have a specific relationship with the actors. However, scholarly theorizing is often built on inferences from participants’ responses to decontextualized, impoverished stimuli. In our quest for uncovering general psychological truths, moral psychologists have examined evaluations of poorly guarded trolleys, strangers with odd sexual proclivities, and endorsement of abstract principles. The four articles included in this section demonstrate the power of contextualizing morality. In the current article, I place these papers within a broader framework for how scholars can contextualize morality research. I then argue why contextualizing morality matters: not only do contextualized questions better reflect the nuances of reality but also contextualized judgments might be key for improving predictions of moral behavior and understanding moral change.

show abstract

Moral foundations and future pro‐environmental lifestyles choices in the Finnish population

Silfver-Kuhalampi

Niva

Salmivaara

et al. 2023

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to examine citizens' perceptions of their preferred pro‐environmental lifestyle choices in the future. We examined how these choices relate to different socio‐demographic factors and moral foundations in a Finnish population survey sample (N = 1,020). Consistent with previous research, endorsing care and fairness foundations related positively to using plant‐based food and local and natural food, as well as using sustainable energy, materials, housing and transportation solutions. However, also endorsing binding moral foundations, loyalty, authority and sanctity, related positively to using local and natural food and to using an electric car or biofuels. Most pro‐environmental practices were related to being a woman, younger age and having higher education, but preferred choices differed according to living environment (urban or rural). We conclude that different pro‐environmental choices are appealing to different socio‐demographic groups with different moral views. Promoting different ways of contributing to ecologically sustainable future could be a way to reach different societal groups. In addition, re‐framing more sustainable practices, such as plant‐based diets, could contribute to such practices becoming a feasible option for more diverse groups. Individuals' preferred future lifestyles are those that align with their moral views, and therefore policymakers should embrace this (moral) diversity in the design of future policies.

show abstract

Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food “Morally Absolutist”? A Consequence-Based Perspective

Cited by 21 publications

References 100 publications

OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods

OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Moral foundations and future pro‐environmental lifestyles choices in the Finnish population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About