The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition
Open accessAbstract
Public opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains strong. By contrast, studies demonstrate again and again that GM crops make a valuable contribution to the development of a sustainable type of agriculture. The discrepancy between public opinion and the scientific evidence requires an explanation. We argue that intuitive expectations about the world render the human mind vulnerable to particular misrepresentations of GMOs. We explain how the involvement of particular intuitions accounts for the popularity, persistence, and typical features of GM opposition and tackle possible objections to our approach. To conclude, we discuss the implications for science education, science communication, and the environmental movement.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Public opposition to GMOs remains strong despite scientific evidence that GM crops do not pose specific health or environmental risks and can benefit farmers. The authors argue that evolved intuitions—especially folk biology, teleological/intentional thinking, and disgust—make the human mind especially receptive to anti-GMO representations.
Key findings
- The paper proposes a cognitive explanation for GMO opposition: intuitive expectations about nature make people vulnerable to misrepresentations of GMOs, and anti-GMO campaigns successfully tap into these intuitions.
- Psychological essentialism leads people to interpret DNA as an organism’s essence; in a United States survey, more than half of respondents did not reject the idea that tomatoes modified with catfish DNA would taste like fish.
- Teleological and intentional intuitions contribute to views of genetic engineering as “unnatural,” “playing god,” or “Frankenfood,” while disgust can make GM food seem contaminating or impure.
- The authors argue that education can partly reduce the intuitive appeal of negative GMO representations, but it is “certainly not foolproof,” and communication should emphasize benefits such as Bt corn containing less mycotoxins, herbicide-resistant crops requiring less tilling, Bt crops enhancing insect biodiversity, and biotech crops helping reduce poverty in India.
Methods
- Conceptual/cognitive analysis rather than an empirical study: the authors use ideas from cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and cultural attraction to explain the popularity, persistence, and typical features of GMO opposition.
- The argument draws on cited literature and illustrative examples, including a US survey and experimental findings on disgust and essentialism.
- No primary data collection, sample, or statistical analysis is reported.
Limitations
- The authors state that their cognitive analysis does not render every public concern unfounded a priori; some apprehensions can be legitimate, such as herbicide resistance in weeds where farmers over-relied on glyphosate-tolerant crops.
- The authors state that education is not foolproof and that intuitive thinking remains a trap even for experts.
- Evident from the text: the paper is a review/opinion-style synthesis without systematic empirical testing of the proposed cognitive mechanisms, relying instead on examples and cited studies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 Own interpretation · 19 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given
In the paper
“Although generally we feel as if we control willfully what we think and do, much of our thinking 38 depends on intuitions, of which the working largely stays below the radar of conscious 39 awareness [14].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, when lay people are 61 confronted with and have to evaluate information about GMOs and the risks involved, they will 62 predominantly rely on their intuitive mind.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Lay people are often unable or simply not interested in investing large amounts of time and energy to acquire a profound grasp of complex technologies.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Apparently, people assumed that the fish's essence 89 had been introduced into these tomatoes, including a fishy taste.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Folk biology 73
hedgedn = 87- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“but, when confronted with abstract and complex situations, these 43 intuitions tend to break down [17].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Public opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains strong.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“Concerns about health, environmental and socio-economic hazards have resulted in a strong 12 public opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [1-3].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“studies demonstrate again and again that GM crops make a valuable contribution to the 2 development of a sustainable type of agriculture.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, lay people tend to prefer GMO 63 representations that are most in line with their intuitive expectations, because these are easier to 64 understand and remember.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, in spite of the obvious adaptive rationality of this cognitive predisposition, 83 psychological essentialism regularly interferes with a scientifically informed biological 84 understanding [27].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Folk biology 73
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that intuitive expectations 4 about the world render the human mind vulnerable to particular misrepresentations of 5 GMOs.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“We argue that intuitions 31 and emotions make the mind highly susceptible to particular negative representations of GMOs.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We explain how the involvement of particular intuitions accounts for the 6 popularity, persistence and typical features of GM opposition and tackle possible 7 objections to our approach.”
- Also stated in: § 66 · plain
“show how our approach explains the popularity, persistence and typical features of the GMO 68 hostility”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 66 · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, they fail to explain why opposition also occurs in non-Christian 26 cultures, why people do not reject every technology that brings no immediate benefits or why 27 people prefer romantic views in the first place.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One constituent of 74 this folk biology is psychological essentialism [25] that amounts to the belief that organisms hold 75 an unobservable, immutable core determining their identity and, thus, their development and 76 behavior.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Folk biology 73
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“That people systematically 90 prefer cisgenic over transgenic organisms provides another indication of an essentialist bias [3].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Folk biology 73
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, research shows that cultivation of GM crops does not pose any specific health 21 or environmental risks, but instead can bring benefits to local farmers [8-11].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Anti-GMO groups have successfully tapped into people's intuitions to 65 promote their cause, thus making their campaign highly attractive to the human mind [Box 1].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [Box 1]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Under ecologically relevant conditions, these intuitions tend to generate 42 rational responses [16]”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In their campaigns, opponents of GMOs explicitly appeal to these essentialist intuitions by 92 distributing edited images of tomatoes with fish tails or by claiming that biotech companies 93 insert scorpion DNA elements into corn (Zea mays) to produce crispy corn flakes.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 91
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Notoriously, it impedes people's understanding of basic aspects of 85 evolutionary theory, but it also affects people's comprehension of GMOs, primarily because they 86 interpret DNA as the essence of organisms [28].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Folk biology 73
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The intuitive mind is not well equipped to address intricate questions, such as”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Education can, at least to a certain extent, abate the intuitive appeal of negative GMO 205 representations.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 204
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of GM food, feelings of disgust possibly arise because of 130 psychological essentialism by which people intuitively interpret gene modification as an 131 unwarranted and contaminating intervention into the organism's essence, rendering the organism 132 impure and, therefore, no longer consumable.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 111
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the resulting 170 negative affect is consciously registered and, consequently, prompts people to justify their 171 feelings.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 168
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some reports and studies have 377 claimed that GMOs per se badly affect health, environment, and small farmers in developing 378 countries.These studies, however, turned out to be unsubstantiated.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A form of motivated reasoning emerges, in which arguments become highly prominent”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 168
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these 390 concerns are typically unrelated to the technology of genetic modification, but result from 391 unsound agricultural practices and policy that also can cause problems in the case of 392”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The human mind comprises evolved intuitions that shape and constrain cultural preferences.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 221
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By leading people to choose the wrong adversaries and to urge policy makers to take counter-222 effective measures, negative GMO representations may indeed exert a fatal attraction.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 221
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“GMOs can be a formidable tool in the realization of a sustainable form of agriculture.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 218
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These intuitions tend to translate in religious beliefs, but they can also contribute to a 103 quasi-religious view on nature [30,31].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Teleological and intentional intuitions 100
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the cognitive science of religion, religion is 105 commonly assumed to be a byproduct, generated by the peculiarities of our mental make-up that 106 includes essentialist thinking, but that is also highly receptive to the feeling that the world has 107 been designed for a particular purpose [32][33][34][35].”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > Teleological and intentional intuitions 100
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32][33][34][35]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect will probably be enhanced when the 133 introduced DNA comes from a different species, or a species that is considered dirty.”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 111
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The negative representations produced by anti-GMO 162 activists happen to reflect essentialist and intentional understandings of nature and suggest 163 contamination, hence, becoming highly salient to the corresponding intuitions (Figure 1).”
§ Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition > 138
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Lay people are often unable or simply not interested in investing large amounts of time and energy to acquire a profound grasp of complex technologies.
“Lay 59 people are often unable or are simply not interested in investing large amounts of time and 60 energy to acquire a profound grasp of complex technologies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Typical weed characteristics are the result of the interplay of numerous genes.
“On the contrary, 96 typical weed characteristics, such as withstanding harsh environments, competing for light, water 97 and minerals and fast reproduction are the result of the interplay of numerous genes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Large parts of Europe, where resistance against GM food is strong, are highly secular.
“Indeed, large parts of Europe, where the resistance 104 against GM food is strong, are highly secular.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Intuitions are universally shared.
“As intuitions are universally shared, appropriate 158 representations stand a greater chance of becoming widely distributed and culturally stable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The opposition to GMOs is not everywhere as strong as it is in Europe, although it is more common than people tend to think.
“Indeed, the opposition to GMOs is not everywhere as strong as it is in 190 Europe, although it is more common than people tend to think.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For instance, humans may favour machines catering to non-factual stories and narratives that match concepts and ideas preferred by human cognition 157 , such as those appealing to intuitive expectations about the natural world 158,159 or to specific religious practices 160 .”
From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [159]
Citations
Cites
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
The Adapted mind : evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992) · Cited by 5,222
The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
Sloman, S. A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 · Cited by 3,942
Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.483 · Cited by 3,147
Goldman, A. I. (1999) · doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001 · Cited by 2,206
The Handbook of evolutionary psychology
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-0622 · Cited by 2,128
Religion explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-2732a · Cited by 1,935
Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach.
Barkow, J. H., & Sperber, D. (1998) · Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · doi:10.2307/3034541 · Cited by 1,805
Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains.
Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.703 · Cited by 1,216
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The heat‐shock protein/chaperone network and multiple stress resistance
Jacob, P., Hirt, H., & Bendahmane, A. (2016) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12659 · Cited by 776
Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M., & van der Lee, R. (2017) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167217741314 · Cited by 381
Trevors, G., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Winne, P. H. (2016) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2015.1136507 · Cited by 171
Cognitive attraction and online misinformation
Acerbi, A. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0224-y · Cited by 161
Four misunderstandings about cultural attraction
Scott‐Phillips, T., Blancke, S., & Heintz, C. (2018) · Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.21716 · Cited by 164
Self-citationRutjens, B. T., Heine, S. J., Sutton, R. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2017) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.08.001 · Cited by 163
eIF4E Resistance: Natural Variation Should Guide Gene Editing
Bastet, A., Robaglia, C., & Gallois, J. (2017) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.01.008 · Cited by 140
Cultural Evolution in the Digital Age
Acerbi, A. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198835943.001.0001 · Cited by 143
Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Derex, M., Müller, T. F., Nussberger, A.-M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffiths, T. L., Henrich, J., et al. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01742-2 · Cited by 132
Modifying attitudes about modified foods: Increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes
McPhetres, J., Rutjens, B. T., Weinstein, N., & Brisson, J. A. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.012 · Cited by 106
Gauffier, C., Lebaron, C., Moretti, A., Constant, C., Moquet, F., Bonnet, G., Caranta, C., & Gallois, J. (2016) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13136 · Cited by 102
Egolf, A., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2019) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13279 · Cited by 96
Robinson, G. M. (2018) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023303 · Cited by 88
A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks
Sikder, O., Smith, R. E., Vivo, P., & Livan, G. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62085-w · Cited by 91
Heine, S. J., Dar‐Nimrod, I., Cheung, B. Y., & Proulx, T. (2016) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.003 · Cited by 84
Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale
Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2018) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3501 · Cited by 80
Linger, R. J., Belikoff, E. J., Yan, Y., Li, F., Wantuch, H. A., Fitzsimons, H. L., & Scott, M. J. (2016) · BMC Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12896-016-0263-z · Cited by 74
Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience
Blancke, S., Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2016) · Theoria · doi:10.1111/theo.12109 · Cited by 80
Self-citationPublic perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security
Woźniak, E., Tyczewska, A., Perišić, M., Beniermann, A., Eriksson, D., Vangheluwe, N., Gheysen, G., Selim, C., Abiri, N., & Twardowski, T. (2022) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2111946 · Cited by 80
Trump, B. D., Cummings, C. L., Klasa, K., Galaitsi, S., & Linkov, I. (2023) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.1052371 · Cited by 71
Human cumulative culture and the exploitation of natural phenomena
Derex, M. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0311 · Cited by 69
Genetically modified foods: Consumer awareness, opinions and attitudes in selected EU countries
Popek, S., & Halagarda, M. (2017) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12345 · Cited by 60
Cook, J., Zhang, J. Y., Norrie, J., Blal, B., & Cheng, Z. (2018) · Marine Drugs · doi:10.3390/md16070221 · Cited by 56
Chowdhury, A. H., Kabir, K. H., Abdulai, A., & Alam, M. F. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15064753 · Cited by 57
Mueller, N. G., & Flachs, A. (2021) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10265-3 · Cited by 49
Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227 · Cited by 43
Faking science: scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience
Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2019) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646 · Cited by 47
The future of plant biotechnology in a globalized and environmentally endangered world
MONTAGU, M. V. (2020) · Genetics and Molecular Biology · doi:10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2019-0040 · Cited by 46
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication
Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & zu Belzen, A. U. (2021) · Education sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11090522 · Cited by 34
Todaro, N. M., Gusmerotti, N. M., Daddi, T., & Frey, M. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135964 · Cited by 46
Translational Research: Exploring and Creating Genetic Diversity
Jacob, P., Avni, A., & Bendahmane, A. (2017) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.10.002 · Cited by 45
Lifelong Consumption of Plant-Based GM Foods
Ogwu, M. C. (2019) · Advances in human services and public health (AHSPH) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7635-8.ch008 · Cited by 44
Royzman, E. B., Cusimano, C., & Leeman, R. F. (2017) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006495 · Cited by 45
González, F. G., Rigalli, N., Miranda, P. V., Romagnoli, M., Ribichich, K. F., Trucco, F., Portapila, M., Otegui, M. E., & Chan, R. L. (2020) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00178 · Cited by 45
East of nature. Accounting for the environments of social sciences
Roth, S., & Valentinov, V. (2020) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106734 · Cited by 41
Are current EU policies on GMOs justified?
Christiansen, A. T., Andersen, M. M., & Kappel, K. (2019) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00120-x · Cited by 43
Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot
Altay, S., Schwartz, M., Hacquin, A.-S., Allard, A., Blancke, S., & Mercier, H. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01271-w · Cited by 39
Self-citationA review of progress toward field application of transgenic mosquitocidal entomopathogenic fungi
Lovett, B., Bilgo, E. M., Diabaté, A., & Leger, R. J. S. (2019) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5385 · Cited by 37
Koch, J. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & van Ittersum, K. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101645 · Cited by 40
Rationalizing the GMO Debate: The Ordonomic Approach to Addressing Agricultural Myths
Hielscher, S., Pies, I., Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph13050476 · Cited by 36
“Antiscience Zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
Biddle, J. B. (2018) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/697749 · Cited by 32
Perceptions and attitudes of the Mexican urban population towards genetically modified organisms
Montesinos-López, O. A., Pérez, E. F., Fuentes, E. E. S., Espinoza, I. L., & Cuevas, F. A. (2016) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-06-2016-0247 · Cited by 33
Willingness to transmit and the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs
Mercier, H., Majima, Y., & Miton, H. (2018) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3413 · Cited by 31
Genetic modification technology for nutrition and improving diets: an ethical perspective
Glass, S., & Fanzo, J. (2016) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.11.005 · Cited by 31
Adams, W. M. (2016) · Progress in Human Geography · doi:10.1177/0309132516646641 · Cited by 29
Children, Object Value, and Persuasion
Gelman, S. A., & Echelbarger, M. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1097 · Cited by 30
Tizard, M. L., Hallerman, E. M., Fahrenkrug, S. C., Newell‐McGloughlin, M., Gibson, J. P., de Loos, F. A. M., Wagner, S., Laible, G., Han, J. Y., D’Occhio, M. J., et al. (2016) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9965-1 · Cited by 26
De-Problematizing ‘GMOs’: Suggestions for Communicating about Genetic Engineering
Blancke, S., Grunewald, W., & Jaeger, G. D. (2017) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.12.004 · Cited by 26
Self-citationReproductive modification in forest plantations: impacts on biodiversity and society
Strauss, S. H., Jones, K. N., Lu, H., Petit, J. D., Klocko, A. L., Betts, M. G., Brosi, B. J., Fletcher, R. J., & Needham, M. D. (2017) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.14374 · Cited by 26
Genetically Modified Labeling Policies: Moving Forward or Backward?
Borges, B. J. P., Arantes, O. M. N., Fernandes, A. A. R., Broach, J. R., & Fernandes, P. M. B. (2018) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2018.00181 · Cited by 24
Biological control of pests and a social model of animal welfare
Mankad, A., Kennedy, U., & Carter, L. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.080 · Cited by 24
Advantages, risks and legal perspectives of GMOs in 2020s
Uslu, T. (2021) · Plant Biotechnology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11816-021-00714-0 · Cited by 23
How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy
Ventura, V., Frisio, D. G., Ferrazzi, G., & Siletti, E. (2016) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516638634 · Cited by 22
How teachers' attitudes on GMO relate to their environmental values
Castéra, J., Clément, P., Munoz, F., & Bogner, F. X. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.04.002 · Cited by 21
Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food “Morally Absolutist”? A Consequence-Based Perspective
Royzman, E. B., Cusimano, C., Metas, S., & Leeman, R. F. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619873550 · Cited by 23
GMOs in Mediterranean & Balkan countries: state of affairs, research, and regulation
Emmanouil, K., Antoniou, M. N., Robinson, C., Alexander, V., & Tsatsakis, A. M. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823903-2.00007-x · Cited by 20
Blancke, S., & Boudry, M. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-022-00373-9 · Cited by 20
Self-citationPlant biology education: A competency‐based vision for the future
Hubbard, K. (2024) · Plants People Planet · doi:10.1002/ppp3.10503 · Cited by 20
The ethical concerns about transgenic crops
Ricroch, A., Guillaume-Hofnung, M., & Kuntz, M. (2018) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bcj20170794 · Cited by 20
The Differential Effects of Knowledge on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food Safety
Hasell, A., & Stroud, N. J. (2019) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edz020 · Cited by 20
Reasonable Irrationality: the Role of Reasons in the Diffusion of Pseudoscience
Blancke, S., Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2019) · Journal of Cognition and Culture · doi:10.1163/15685373-12340068 · Cited by 20
Self-citationGenetically Modified Crops, Inclusion, and Democracy
Hicks, D. (2017) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00251 · Cited by 19
Walker, B., & Malson, J. L. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1761853 · Cited by 20
Crop biotechnology: a pivotal moment for global acceptance
Hallerman, E. M., & Grabau, E. A. (2016) · Food and Energy Security · doi:10.1002/fes3.76 · Cited by 19
Hanssen, L., Dijkstra, A. M., Sleenhoff, S., Frewer, L. J., & Gutteling, J. M. (2018) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.17040201 · Cited by 19
Choi, S. Y., Lee, Y. J., Seo, H. U., Kim, J. H., & Jang, C. S. (2022) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/ppl.13718 · Cited by 18
Public Perception of Animal Biotechnology
Eenennaam, A. L. V., & Young, A. E. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92348-2_13 · Cited by 18
Are science festivals a good place to discuss heated topics?
Altay, S., & Lakhlifi, C. (2020) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.19010207 · Cited by 19
Hiaeshutter-Rice, D., Chinn, S., & Chen, K. (2021) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.642394 · Cited by 17
Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., Irani, T., & Ellis, J. D. (2018) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547018819935 · Cited by 17
Impacts of growing and utilising genetically modified crops and forages – a New Zealand perspective
Caradus, J. R. (2022) · New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research · doi:10.1080/00288233.2022.2077380 · Cited by 17
Variables Affecting Secondary School Students’ Willingness to Eat Genetically Modified Food Crops
Maes, J., Bourgonjon, J., Gheysen, G., & Valcke, M. (2017) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9580-4 · Cited by 16
Hasell, A., Lyons, B. A., Tallapragada, M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1746377 · Cited by 15
Paudel, B., Kolady, D., Just, D. R., & Ishaq, M. (2023) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104825 · Cited by 15
The cognitive foundations of misinformation on science
Marie, A., Altay, S., & Strickland, B. (2020) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.202050205 · Cited by 14
García‐Arch, J., Ballestero‐Arnau, M., Hoyas, L. P., & Giaiotti, F. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3914 · Cited by 14
Khumsupan, P., Donovan, S., & McCormick, A. J. (2019) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/ppl.12937 · Cited by 14
Living standards shape individual attitudes on genetically modified food around the world
Levi, S. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104371 · Cited by 13
Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses
Cruz, T. D. D., van der Lee, R., & Beersma, B. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430221991232 · Cited by 13
Consumers' Evaluations of Genetically Modified Food Messages
Ruth, T. K., & Rumble, J. N. (2019) · Journal of Applied Communications · doi:10.4148/1051-0834.2193 · Cited by 12
Lull, R. B., Akin, H., Hallman, W. K., Brossard, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2019) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1685558 · Cited by 12
Parker, C., Bernaola, L., Lee, B. W., Elmquist, D. C., Cohen, A. L., Marshall, A. T., Hepler, J. R., Pekarcik, A. J., Justus, E. J., King, K., et al. (2019) · Journal of Insect Science · doi:10.1093/jisesa/iez069 · Cited by 12
Batalha, L., Foroni, F., & Jones, B. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.657133 · Cited by 11
Lim, S. D., Lee, S. C., Choi, S. Y., Lee, J., Hwang, S., & Jang, C. S. (2020) · Environmental and Experimental Botany · doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104057 · Cited by 11
How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa
Bendixen, T. (2020) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00634-4 · Cited by 14
Charisma and agrarian crisis: Authority and legitimacy at multiple scales for rural development
Flachs, A. (2021) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.010 · Cited by 11
Inghelbrecht, L., Goeminne, G., Huylenbroeck, G. V., & Dessein, J. (2016) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9742-z · Cited by 11
Pattanapomgthorn, J., Sutduean, J., & Keohavong, B. (2020) · World Food Policy · doi:10.1002/wfp2.12007 · Cited by 11
Nothing about collective irrationalities makes sense except in the light of cooperation
Blancke, S. (2023) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2023.2169602 · Cited by 10
Self-citationMiton, H. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.013.4 · Cited by 10
Concern About Hunger May Increase Receptivity to GMOs
Carter, B. E., Conn, C. C., & Wiles, J. R. (2016) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2016.05.003 · Cited by 10
OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods
Shtulman, A., Share, I., Silber-Marker, R., & Landrum, A. R. (2020) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100895 · Cited by 10
Yu, Q. P., & Su, K. (2026) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2025.2610592 · Cited by 9
Morin, O., & Sobchuk, O. (2023) · Poetics Today · doi:10.1215/03335372-10824226 · Cited by 9
Psychological essentialism from first principles
Quillien, T. (2018) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.07.003 · Cited by 9
Obstacles to the spread of unintuitive beliefs
Mercier, H., Majima, Y., Claidière, N., & Léone, J. (2019) · Evolutionary Human Sciences · doi:10.1017/ehs.2019.10 · Cited by 10
Enlightened oversight of genetically engineered crops for the next generation
Herman, R. A., Gaffney, J., & Storer, N. P. (2020) · Agricultural & Environmental Letters · doi:10.1002/ael2.20004 · Cited by 10
Science, ideology and daily life
MONTAGU, M. V. (2018) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.005 · Cited by 9
(2017) · OECD economic surveys. Austria · doi:10.1787/eco_surveys-aut-2017-graph59-en · Cited by 9
Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2021) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.20070205 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Blancke, S., Van Breusegem, F., De Jaeger, G., Braeckman, J., & Van Montagu, M.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Blancke, Stefaan
- Venue
- Trends in Plant Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 414-418
- ISSN
- 1360-1385 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127228400
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 2.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trends in Plant Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Keywords
- genetically modified organisms, intuitive thinking, cognitive biases, science communication, science education, environmental movement, sustainable agriculture, public perception of science
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Public Opinion, Plants, Genetically Modified
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
