Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Previous research on risk perception suggests that levels of education and information influence concerns over the effects of new technology. This article reports analysis of the impact of several cognitive factors (including education and knowledge) on the perception of risks attributed to applications of modern biotechnology (based on genetic engineering) to food production and agriculture. Using data from a 1992 US-nationwide telephone survey the statistical research identifies those cognitive factors that significantly influence risk perceptions. Additionally, the study reveals those potential influences that, despite their prominence in political and popular debates on risk communication and science education, do not determine the perception of risks on biotechnology in any significant manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht, D. E., 1992.Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: An Overview of Research to Date. Unpublished Paper. Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics, Texas A & M University.

  • Baark, E., A. Jamison, 1990. Biotechnology and culture. The impact of public debates on government regulation in the United-States and Denmark.Technology and Society, 12: 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, G. (Ed.). 1993.Risiko und Gesellschaft. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Risikoforschung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., 1992.EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual (Version 3.0). Los Angeles, CA: BMDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrier, R. J., 1987. Public perceptions of biotechnology. pp. 37–51 inPublic Perceptions of Biotechnology,L. R. Batra andW. Klassen (Ed.) Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bora, A., R. Doebert, 1993.Konkurrierende Rationalitaeten. Politischer und technisch-wissenschaftlicher Diskurs im Rahmen einer Technikfolgenabschaetzung von genetisch erzeugter herbizidresistenz in Kulturpflanzen.Soziale Welt 44: 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., 1993. Survey shows concern about biotechnology continues to grow.Nature, 366: 496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, Chih-Piing, P. M. Bentler, 1995. Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. pp. 37–55 inStructural Equation Modeling,R.H. Hoyle (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, B., 1991. Biotech a plus according to European poll.Bio/Technology, 9: 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, C. Tucker, 1990. Food safety and quality for the consumer: Policies and communication. pp. 74–81 inAgricultural Biotechnology: Food Safety and Nutritional Quality for the Consumer,J.F. Macdonald (Ed.). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. R., 1988. Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk Assessment.Science, 242 (October 7): 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldburg, R. J., Richard A. Denison, 1990. Public perception of biotechnology: Green revolution or green monster? pp 113–125 inBioprocessing Safety: Worker and Community Safety and Health Considerations,W.C. Hyer (Ed.). Philadelphia: ASTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimer, C. A., 1988. Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk.Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 491–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallman, W. K., 1996.Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J., 1989. Sociology and biotechnology: Challenges and opportunities.Southern Rural Sociology, 6: 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J., E. Woodrum, R. Czaja, 1991. Public opposition to genetic engineering.Rural Sociology, 57: 476–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S., 1995. Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. pp. 311–331 inResistance to New Technology, Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, edited byM. Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, S. Ratick, 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework.Risk Analysis, 8: 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S., D. Golding (Eds), 1992.Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, W. B. et al., 1991. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. pp. 139–161 inAgricultural Biotechnology: Issues and Choices,B. Baumgardt,M. Martin (Eds.). West Lafayette: Purdue Un. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. 1989. Food neophobia: Major causes and treatments.Food Technology, (December): 62–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. W., 1990.Technological Risk, New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, R., C. Miles, 1993. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students' knowledge and attitudes.Journal of Biological Education, 27: 267–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council, 1989.Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novo Industri, 1987.The Novo Report: American Attitudes and Beliefs about Genetic Engineering. New York, NY: Research and Forecasts, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.New Directions in Biotechnology-Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C. G. F., F. Sainfort, 1993. Toward a new conceptualization and operationalization of risk perception within the genetic counseling domain.Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2: 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M., 1983.Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition). New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M., 1986.Explaining Environmental Risk: Some Notes on Environmental Risk Communication. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M., 1987. Apathy versus hysteria: Public perception of risk. pp. 219–231 inPublic Perceptions of Biotechnology,L.R. Batra,W. Klassen (Eds). Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholten, A. H., M. H. Feenstra, A. M. Hamstra, 1991. Public acceptance of foods from biotechnology.Food Biotechnology, 5: 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., 1991. Public attitudes toward genetic testing.Population Research and Policy Review, 10: 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., 1993. Public attitudes toward fetal diagnosis and the termination of life.Social Indicators Research, 28: 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk.Science, 236 (April 17): 280–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, S. Lichtenstein, 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. pp. 91–125 inPerilous Progress. Managing the Hazards of Technology,R.W. Kates (Ed.). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., R. Sheperd, L. J. Frewer, 1994. Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study.Agriculture and Human Values, 11: 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., R. Sheperd 1994. Public perceptions of potential hazards associated with food production and consumption: An empirical study.Risk Analysis, 5: 799–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinks, P., 1990. Biotechnology-Public friend or foe.New Scientist, 12: 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J., 1988. Public perception of biotechnology hazards.Journal of Chem. Tech. Biotechnology, 43: 363–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyse, R., G. G. Krivi, 1987. Strategies for educating the public concerning biotechnology. pp. 155–164 inPublic Perceptions of Biotechnology,L.R. Batra,W. Klassen (Eds). Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, D., 1986.Technikentwicklung. Zur Soziologie technischen Wissens. Stuttgart: Enke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, D., 1996. Quantitative measurement of public opinions on new technologies. An application of SEM-methodology to the analysis of beliefs and values toward new human applications of genetic engineering.Scientometrics, 35: 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Research, University of Stuttgart, 70174, Stuttgart, (Germany)

    D. Urban

  2. Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, 27695, Raleigh, NC, (USA)

    T. J. Hoban

Authors
  1. D. Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. J. Hoban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper is based on work supported by the Extension Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, North Carolina State University, and Colorado State University under special project number 91-EXCA-3-0155.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Urban, D., Hoban, T.J. Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology. Scientometrics 40, 299–331 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457441

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457441

Keywords