Suchergebnisse

Trust is important for the perception of many types of risk, including those relating to genetically modified (GM) food. Who the public trusts in any given circumstance, however, is not well understood. In this study of public trust regarding GM food, an exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation reveals public classification of three common institutional types—evaluators, watchdogs, and merchants. The structure of relationships among these stakeholders can act to enable or constrain public support for this new technology. Evaluators—scientists, universities, and medical professionals—are the most trusted. Watchdogs—consumer advocacy organizations, environmental organizations, and media sources—are moderately trusted. Merchants—grocers and grocery stores, industry, and farmers—are least trusted. While the federal government is seen as closest to being an evaluator, it is not highly correlated with any of the factors. The lack of trust in the organizations with the greatest resources and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of GM food should be seen as an important obstacle to the adoption of the technology.

Visitors to three recreational parks located in Lyme disease endemic counties in New Jersey were surveyed to assess public awareness of recommended precautions against tick bites and how these precautions are being adopted. Interviews were conducted with 178 adult respondents. In open-ended questions, 84% of the respondents could name at least one precaution against Lyme disease; however, only 43% reported taking any precautions. Taking precaution was associateded with the belief that a person they knew with Lyme disease was bitten by a tick while in a place frequented by the respondent, and with the belief that Lyme disease is difficult to cure. Precaution adoption was not associated with gender or with measures of personal experience with Lyme disease, perceived seriousness of the disease, attitudes about and personal experiences with ticks, beliefs that there are infected ticks in the park, or the perceived costs and benefits of taking precautions. These results emphasize the importance of getting people to practice the precautions they already know about, and helping people to recognize situations where taking precautions is appropriate.

Perceptions of institutions that manage hazards are important because they can affect how the public responds to hazard events. Antecedents of trust judgments have received far more attention than antecedents of attributions of responsibility for hazard events. We build upon a model of retrospective attribution of responsibility to individuals to examine these relationships regarding five classes of institutions that bear responsibility for food safety: producers (e.g., farmers), processors (e.g., packaging firms), watchdogs (e.g., government agencies), sellers (e.g., supermarkets), and preparers (e.g., restaurants). A nationally representative sample of 1,200 American adults completed an Internet‐based survey in which a hypothetical scenario involving contamination of diverse foods with Salmonella served as the stimulus event. Perceived competence and good intentions of the institution moderately decreased attributions of responsibility. A stronger factor was whether an institution was deemed (potentially) aware of the contamination and free to act to prevent or mitigate it. Responsibility was rated higher the more aware and free the institution. This initial model for attributions of responsibility to impersonal institutions (as opposed to individual responsibility) merits further development.

Noticing medical symptoms can cause one to search for explanatory labels such as "ate bad food" or even "exposed to anthrax," and perhaps these labels may cause new symptom reports. The present study examined whether there is empirical support for this symptom‐label "symmetry rule." We interviewed veterans (N= 362) from the Gulf War Registry in 1995 and 2002 about their medical symptoms and about their exposure to war‐related hazards and stressors. Health symptom reports were strongly correlated between the two time periods and showed relatively stable mean levels, whereas recall of war‐related exposures was notably unstable. Veterans starting with fewer medical symptoms recalled fewer war‐related exposures seven years later. Initial recollection of chemical and biological warfare exposure (but not other exposures) longitudinally predicted novel medical symptoms. The findings generally support the symmetry rule hypotheses, although the evidence for the label to symptom link was less strong. The findings account for some variability in symptoms and exposure recall over time, but they do not, on their own, account for the Gulf War veterans' elevated number of unexplained medical symptoms.

The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.

AbstractBased on the scholarship of abstract/concrete cognition, mental schema, and the integrated model of behavior change, this study found that using concrete over abstract language increased support for specific genetically modified (GM) applications and GM in general, and improved intentions to purchase products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). An online survey with an embedded 3 × 2 experiment was conducted using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,470). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions that varied in abstract/concrete conceptualization of GMOs and were prompted to assess GM risk and benefit perceptions with respect to human health and the environment. Regardless of whether they assessed risks or benefits, participants who assessed GMOs through concrete terms compared to abstract terms showed an increase in positive emotions, which in turn increased their support for specific GM applications and GM in general, and their intentions to buy products with GMOs.

Experts typically presume to speak with authority about complex concerns, such as agricultural biotechnology. Research indicates, however, that the effectiveness of risk communication depends on perceptions about the trustworthiness of the institutions and experts providing information. This exploratory study investigates how experts from a range of food-associated professions and institutions perceive their own roles in communicating about biotechnology. Most of the respondents rated scientists and other experts as most likely to tell the truth about biotechnology, but many felt that members of the public were most influenced by the mass media and by critics of biotechnology. ; This research was supported by a grant provided to the Rutgers Food Policy Institute by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), under the Initiative for the Future of Agricultural Food Systems (IFAFS) grant #2002-52100-11203, Evaluating Consumer Acceptance of Food Biotechnology in the United States, Dr. William K. Hallman, Principal Investigator. ; Includes bibliographical references