Researchers Test Dual-process Framework for Understanding Acceptance of Genetic Modification

National surveys on genetic modification conducted in China showed that scientists are more sensitive to risk-related social norms, while the lay public is more concerned with norms linked to benefits. The results are published in Risk Analysis.

Communication research about scientific topics was mostly focused on the deficit model, wherein it is believed that more scientific understanding leads to public acceptance. However, many questions about this model have been raised because of the inconclusive influence of knowledge on acceptance. Thus, a dual-process framework was proposed by Shenzhen University researchers and partners. The framework combined the deficit model (with scientific knowledge as a key predictor) and a normative opinion process model (where perceived majority opinion plays a crucial role) to predict people's risk/benefit perceptions and their support for genetic modification (GM).

The researchers analyzed the data from two studies, one with 5,145 laypeople as respondents, and the other one with over 12,000 scientists as respondents. The findings revealed positive and significant correlations between scientific knowledge or perceived majority opinion and GM support, mediated by risk/benefit perceptions. Furthermore, the normative pathway exerts a stronger direct and indirect impact on GM support than scientific knowledge across both scientists and laypeople.

Read the research article in Risk Analysis.