21 pages., via online journal., Scholars are divided over whether communicating to the public the existence
of scientific consensus on an issue influences public acceptance of the
conclusions represented by that consensus. Here, we examine the
influence of four messages on perception and acceptance of the scientific
consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): two
messages supporting the idea that there is a consensus that GMOs are safe
for human consumption and two questioning that such a consensus exists.
We found that although participants concluded that the pro-consensus
messages made stronger arguments and were likely to be more
representative of the scientific community’s attitudes, those messages did
not abate participants’ concern about GMOs. In fact, people’s premanipulation attitudes toward GMOs were the strongest predictor of of our outcome variables (i.e. perceived argument strength, post-message GMO
concern, perception of what percent of scientists agree). Thus, the results
of this study do not support the hypothesis that consensus messaging
changes the public’s hearts and minds, and provide more support, instead,
for the strong role of motivated reasoning.
14 pages, via online journal, Social judgement theory was utilized to determine if men and women showed different acceptance of messages about genetically modified (GM) foods. The primary objective was to determine if females and males had a different latitude of acceptance toward statements about GM foods. Researchers found significant differences between males and females with more males accepting messages about GM foods than females. Additionally, there were several statements with wide latitudes of acceptance across genders. These statements represent a common ground and are a good starting point for conversations about GM food.
