CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Risk Perception and ManagementGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production

Open access
Frewer, Lynn J., Howard, Chaya, Shepherd, Richard·1998·Agriculture and Human Values
DOI 10.1023/a:1007465730039
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1007465730039

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • People with initial negative attitudes toward GMOs were more accepting of proposed GMO applications if the information contained statements about scientists' uncertainty.

    “people with initial negative attitudes toward GMOs were more accepting of proposed GMO applications if the information contained statements about scientists' uncertainty (Frewer, Howard, and Shepherd, 1998).”

    From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Frewer, Howard, and Shepherd, 1998

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. (1993), “Process theories of attitude formation and change: Attribution approaches and social judgment theory,” in A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken (eds.), The Psychology of Attitudes(pp. 351–388). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  2. Doble, J. (1996), “Productive policy depends on public's understanding of scientific issues,” The Scientist10: 9.
  3. Habict, F. H. (1992), Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors. Washington, DC: Office of the Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency.
  4. Heijs, W. J. M., C. J. H. Midden, and R. A. J. Drabbe (1993), Biotechnology: Attitudes and Influencing Factors. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.
  5. Heller, A. (1988), General Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 73.
  6. Office of Science and Technology (1995), Technology Foresight: Progress through Partnership. No 7. Food and Drink. London: HMSO.
  7. Shamos, M. H. (1991), “Scientific literacy: Can it decrease public anxiety about science and technology?” in D. J. Roy, B. E. Wynne, and R. W. Old. (eds.), Bioscience Society. London: Wiley.
  8. Sherif, M., and C. W. Sherif (1967), “Attitude as the individual's own categories: The social judgmentinvolvement approach to attitude and attitude change,” in C. W. Sherif and M. Sherif (eds.), Attitude, Ego Involvement and Change(pp. 105–139). New York: Wiley.
  9. Smink, G. C. J., and A. M. Hamstra (1996), Informing Consumers About Foodstuffs Made With Genetic Engineering: A Constructive Contribution To The Issue. Leiden: SWOKA Instituut voor Consumentenenonderzoek.
  10. Tesser, A. (1978), “Selfgenerated attitude change,” in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11(pp. 289–338). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R.
Affiliations
Quadram Institute (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Agriculture and Human Values
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1998-03
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
15-30
ISSN
  • 0889-048X (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8366
DOI
10.1023/a:1007465730039
OpenAlex
W1578977344
Cited by
131
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 10
FWCI
16.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Agriculture and Human Values (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Office of Science
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Keywords
genetic engineering, genetically modified foods, public attitudes, source credibility, risk and uncertainty, persuasive messages, social judgment theory, elaborative processing, information quality, technology acceptance, science communication

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.

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