Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology?
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, a significant amount of research has focussed on the analysis of consumers' aversion to new technologies in food production and processing. At the same time, research has shown that environmental attitudes may be related to purchasing behaviour of consumers. This paper presents the result of an investigation into Canadian attitudes towards nanotechnology, in general, and in applications in the food industry. The relationship between the food technology neophobia scale, environmental attitudes and nanotechnology is examined. The results suggest that food technology neophobia is significant in explaining attitudes towards nanotechnology, in general, and for food packaging and foods. Environmental attitudes are important in explaining respondents' attitudes towards nanotechnology in general but not in explaining attitudes towards nanotechnology in food packaging or food applications. Survey respondents' views of the role of science and technology in society (makes society worse or better off) are a more important determinant of attitudes towards nanotechnology than whether they had heard of nanotechnology prior to the survey.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Consumers' perception of risks and benefits is mainly determined by general attitude towards new technology, nanotechnology knowledge, and social trust.
“Consumers' perception of risks and benefits is, in turn, mainly determined by general attitude towards new technology (neophobia/neophilia), nanotechnology knowledge, and social trust”
From Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry (2018) · cites this paper as Matin et al., 2012
Cites
Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-w · Cited by 2,137 · see citing works
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,400 · see citing works
Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns
Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916596283003 · Cited by 1,191 · see citing works
The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Siegrist, M. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020 · Cited by 1,100 · see citing works
Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. T., & Roth, C. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.203034 · Cited by 905 · see citing works
Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production
Bouwmeester, H., Dekkers, S., Noordam, M. Y., Hagens, W. I., Bulder, A. S., de Heer, C., ten Voorde, S. E. C. G., Wijnhoven, S., Marvin, H. J. P., & Sips, A. J. A. M. (2008) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.10.008 · Cited by 813 · see citing works
Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods
Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/0167-4870(94)00034-8 · Cited by 766 · see citing works
Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence
Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C. (2005) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/1366987032000105315 · Cited by 639 · see citing works
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products
Siegrist, M. (2008) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.04.005 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics
Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of Environmental Risks
Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/00139160021972513 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Scholderer, J. (2003) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/s1466-8564(03)00035-3 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food
Hu, W. (2004) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/31.3.389 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Environmental Beliefs and Endorsement of Sustainable Development Principles in Water Conservation
Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. B. P. (2008) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0013916507308786 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Business-Environment Attitudes and the New Environmental Paradigm
Shetzer, L. I., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. (1991) · The Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1080/00958964.1991.9943057 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation
Larue, B., West, G. E., Gendron, C., & Lambert, R. (2004) · Agribusiness · doi:10.1002/agr.20006 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology
Waldron, A. M., Spencer, D., & Batt, C. A. (2006) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain
Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., et al. (2009) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662509350139 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationEhrlich, P. R., Wolff, G. H., Daily, G. C., Hughes, J. B., DAILY, S. C., DALTON, M. G., & Goulder, L. H. (1999) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00130-x · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Reliability and predictive validity of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale
Evans, G., Kermarrec, C., Sable, T., & Cox, D. N. (2009) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.014 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender
Siegrist, M. (1998) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00021-x · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Relationship among values, beliefs, norms and ecological behaviour.
López, A. G., & Cuervo-Arango, M. A. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 71 · see citing works
How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks
Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F., & de Vries, N. K. (2007) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00915.x · Cited by 70 · see citing works
MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption
Risku-Norja, H., & Mäenpää, I. (2006) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.001 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S., & Roosen, J. (2009) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Self-citationNanotechnologies, food, and agriculture: next big thing or flash in the pan?
Busch, L. (2008) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9119-z · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., Baets, B. D., et al. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.013 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Consumers' Food Choices with Voluntary Access to Genetic Modification Information
Hu, W., Veeman, M. M., Adamowicz, W., et al. (2006) · Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00068.x · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Nanotechnology: social consequences and future implications
Dunkley, R. W. S. (2004) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.03.013 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Roberts, J. A. (1991) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska) · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Muringai, V., & Goddard, E. W. (2011) · Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · doi:10.1080/15287394.2011.529327 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationInvisible but tangible? Societal opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies
Türk, V., Kaiser, C., & Schaller, S. (2007) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.012 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Myae, A. C., Goddard, E. W., & Aubeeluck, A. (2011) · Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · doi:10.1080/15287394.2011.618983 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumer Perceptions of Genetically Modified FoodPreprint
Hallman, W. K., Aquino, H. L., Hallman, W. K., et al. (2003) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.22058 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Canadian Consumers' Preferences for Food Safety and Agricultural Environment SafetyPreprint
Veeman, M. M., Li, Y., Veeman, M. M., et al. (2006) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.91557 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Onyango, B. M., Govindasamy, R., Nayga, R. M., et al. (2004) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.19964 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Investigating Changes in Canadian Consumers' Food Safety Concerns, 2003 and 2005Preprint
Veeman, M. M., Li, Y., Veeman, M. M., et al. (2007) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.7710 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Knowing Nanotech Is Knowing the Future of Food and Nutrition
Boyce, B. (2009) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.06.380 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry
Santeramo, F. G., Carlucci, D., De Devitiis, B., Seccia, A., Stasi, A., Viscecchia, R., & Nardone, G. (2018) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
- Authors
- Matin, A. H., Goddard, E., Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S., & Roosen, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Goddard, Ellen
- Venue
- International Journal of Consumer Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-02-21
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-157
- ISSN
- 1470-6423 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-6431
- OpenAlex
- W1920433742
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 24.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Consumer Studies (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Alberta
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanotechnology research and applications
- Keywords
- nanotechnology, consumer attitudes, environmental attitudes, food technology neophobia, food packaging, food applications, perceived benefits, Canadian consumers
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