4.5 Article

Influence of scientific-technical literacy on consumers' behavioural intentions regarding new food

期刊

APPETITE
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 193-202

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.028

关键词

GM food; Consumers' acceptance; Consumers' literacy fields; Partial Least Squares

资金

  1. Andalusian Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IFAPA)
  2. European Social Fund (FSE) Operative Program of Andalusia via incorporating program of young PhDs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of genetic engineering to agriculture has led to an important and controversial innovation in the food sector, so-called Genetically Modified (GM) food. A great deal of literature has studied cognitive and attitudinal factors conditioning consumers' acceptance of GM food, knowledge being one of the most inconsistent variables. Notwithstanding, some authors suggest closer attention should be paid to science literacy, even more so than knowledge. This paper studies the potential role of consumer literacy fields - i.e. consumer scientific-technical or social-humanistic literacy - in determining consumer choice behaviour towards GM foods. We analyse the strength of the moderating effects produced by consumer university training in some of the most important factors which influence consumers' innovative product acceptance, such as perceived benefits and risks, attitudes to GM technology, trust in institutions or knowledge. The research is performed in southern Spain, using a variance-based technique called Structural Equation Modelling by Partial Least Squares (PLSs). The results show that perceived benefits and risks play a significant role in shaping behavioural intentions towards GM food, the attitude to GM technology being the main driver of consumers' beliefs about risks and benefits. Additionally, behavioural intentions display some differences between the scientific-technical and social-humanistic literacy fields, the variables of trust in institutions and knowledge registering the most striking differences. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据