The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology
Abstract
This study uses the contemporary debate over agricultural biotechnology to conceptualize a theoretical model that can be used to explain how citizens reach judgments across a range of science and technology controversies. We report findings from a mail survey of New York State residents that depicts a ‘low information’ public relying heavily on heuristics such as value predispositions, trust, and schema to form an opinion about agricultural biotechnology. Science knowledge does play a modest role, with the news media serving as an important source of informal learning. Contrary to expectations and past research, we do not find any direct effects for news attention on support for agricultural biotechnology. Deference to scientific authority is a central value predisposition shaping support for agricultural biotechnology. Positively correlated with education, deference to scientific authority is the strongest influence on support for agricultural biotechnology in our model. Part of the variable's influence is direct, but part of it is also indirect, as deference to scientific authority is a key predictor of both trust in the sponsors of biotechnology and generalized reservations about the impacts of science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 590
RetractedMail and internet surveys : the tailored design method
Dillman, D. A. (2007) · Cited by 9,587
(2013) · Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,486
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Babbie, E., & Dillman, D. A. (1982) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2068433 · Cited by 6,852
Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/229213 · Cited by 4,971
Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999) · Cited by 3,550
Handbook of Science and Technology Studies
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, J., & Pinch, T. (1995) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412990127 · Cited by 2,367
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991) · Cited by 2,339
Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States
Jasanoff, S. (2005) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400837311 · Cited by 2,338
Framing as a Theory of Media Effects
Scheufele, D. A. (1999) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x · Cited by 2,179
Cited by
Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news
Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115 · Cited by 878
New media landscapes and the science information consumer
Brossard, D. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110 · Cited by 430
Self-citationThe Public's Bounded Understanding of Science
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572 · Cited by 282
Communicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231
Dixon, G. N., & Clarke, C. E. (2013) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547012458290 · Cited by 225
Metadata
- Authors
- Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-03-13
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-52
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2170806945
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 18.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ijpor/edl003
- The paper
- Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2006). Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.