Literature DB >> 12926568

The "trust gap" hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors.

Susanna Hornig Priest1, Heinz Bonfadelli, Maria Rusanen.   

Abstract

Using results from the 1999 Eurobarometer survey and a parallel telephone survey done in the United States in 2000, this study explored the relationship between levels of knowledge, educational levels, and degrees of encouragement for biotechnology development across a number of medical and agricultural applications. This cross-cultural exploration found only weak relationships among these variables, calling into question the common assumption that higher science literacy produces greater acceptance (whether or not mediated by lower perceived risk). The relationship between encouragement and trust in specific social institutions was also weak. However, regression analysis based on "trust gap" variables (defined as numerical differences between trust in specific pairs of actors) did predict national levels of encouragement for several applications, suggesting an opinion formation climate in which audiences are actively choosing among competing claims. Differences between European and U.S. reactions to biotechnology appear to be a result of different trust and especially "trust gap" patterns, rather than differences in knowledge or education.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12926568     DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  10 in total

1.  Hype and public trust in science.

Authors:  Zubin Master; David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Trust in early phase research: therapeutic optimism and protective pessimism.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Robert G Holloway; Samuel Frank; Renee Wilson; Karl Kieburtz
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2008-07-16

3.  The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. A differentiated landscape of public perceptions of pharming.

Authors:  Rafael Pardo; Margret Engelhard; Kristin Hagen; Rikke Bagger Jørgensen; Eckard Rehbinder; Angelika Schnieke; Mariana Szmulewicz; Felix Thiele
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences.

Authors:  Michael F Dahlstrom
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology.

Authors:  Shirley S Ho; Dietram A Scheufele; Elizabeth A Corley
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 2.253

6.  Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study.

Authors:  Vanessa Köneke
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis.

Authors:  Damien Rousselière; Samira Rousselière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment.

Authors:  Luis Sanz-Menéndez; Laura Cruz-Castro
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2019-04-17

9.  Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security.

Authors:  Woźniak-Gientka Ewa; Tyczewska Agata; Perisic Milica; Beniermann Anna; Eriksson Dennis; Vangheluwe Nick; Gheysen Godelieve; Cetiner Selim; Abiri Naghmeh; Twardowski Tomasz
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2022-12-31       Impact factor: 3.118

10.  The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists.

Authors:  Ralph M Barnes; Heather M Johnston; Noah MacKenzie; Stephanie J Tobin; Chelsea M Taglang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.