The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Abstract
A causal model explaining acceptance of gene technology was tested. It was hypothesized that trust in institutions using gene technology or using modified products has a positive impact on perceived benefit and a negative influence on perceived risk of this technology. Furthermore, perceived benefit and perceived risk determine acceptance of biotechnology. In other words, trust has an indirect influence on the acceptance of the technology. The postulated model was tested using structural equation modeling procedures and data from a random quota sample of 1001 Swiss citizens between 18 and 74 years old. Results indicated that the proposed model fits the data very well. The same causal model explains females' and males' acceptance of gene technology. Gender differences were found for the latent variables trust, perceived benefit, and acceptance of gene technology. Females indicated more trust, perceived less benefit, and demonstrated less acceptance than did males. No significant difference was observed for perceived risk. The implications of the results are discussed.
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
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: a UK study
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/bf01534445 · Cited by 142
Cited by
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114 · Cited by 607
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 · Cited by 543
Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides
Saba, A., & Messina, F. (2003) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(02)00188-x · Cited by 438
Decisional factors driving organic food consumption: Generation of consumer purchase intentions
Teng, C.-C., & Wang, Y.-M. (2015) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-12-2013-0361 · Cited by 391
Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2006) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003 · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegrist, M.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-204
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2076518901
- Cited by
- 1,092
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 40.54
- 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: The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
- The paper
- Siegrist, M. (2000). The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202020
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.
