Cited by 96Risk Perception and ManagementGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchNanotechnology research and applications

Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology?

Matin, Anahita Hosseini, Goddard, Ellen, Vandermoere, Frédéric, Blanchemanche, Sandrine, Bieberstein, Andrea, Marette, Stephan, Roosen, Jutta·2012·International Journal of Consumer Studies

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01090.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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