Literature DB >> 32522592

Recency negativity: Newer food crops are evaluated less favorably.

Yoel Inbar1, Jordan Phelps2, Paul Rozin3.   

Abstract

Food crops produced by new technologies such as genetic engineering are widely opposed (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 1999; Scott, Inbar, Wirz, Brossard, & Rozin, 2018). Here, we examine one reason for this opposition: recency. More recently-developed crops are evaluated less favorably, whether they are produced by artificial selection (i.e., conventional breeding), natural or man-made irradiation, or genetic engineering. Negative effects of recency persist in a within-subjects design where people are able to explicitly compare crops developed at different times, and an internal meta-analysis shows that the negative effect of recency is robust across measures and stimuli. These results have implications for the evaluation of crops produced using new modification techniques, including the widespread opposition to genetic engineering.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32522592     DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appetite        ISSN: 0195-6663            Impact factor:   3.868


  1 in total

Review 1.  Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Authors:  Armin Spök; Thorben Sprink; Andrew C Allan; Tomiko Yamaguchi; Christian Dayé
Journal:  Front Genome Ed       Date:  2022-08-31
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.