Major Psychological Factors Affecting Acceptance of New Breeding Techniques for Crops

References

• Araki, M., Nojima, K., & Ishii, T. (2014). Caution required for handling genome editing technology. Trends in Biotechnology, 32(5), 234–237. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.03.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Bronfman, N. C., Vazquez, E. L., Gutierrez, V. V., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2008). Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. Journal of Risk Research, 11(5–6), 755–773. doi:10.1080/13669870801967184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fear and anger: Antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3–4), 435–446. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.636835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risk and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::aid-bdm333>3.0.co;2-s
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffe, G. (2014). Consumer issues relating to products from new DNA-editing techniques. In A. Eaglesham & R. W. F. Hardy (Eds.), NABC Report 26 New DNA-editing approaches: Methods, applications and policy for agriculture (pp. 169–174). New York: North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC). http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/Publications/Reports/nabc_26/26_4_3_Jaffe.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hartung, F., & Schiemann, J. (2014). Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: Opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. The Plant Journal, 78(5), 742–752. doi:10.1111/tpj.12413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanchiswamy, C. N., Sargent, D. J., Velasco, R., Maffei, M. E., & Malnoy, M. (2015). Looking forward to genetically edited fruit crops. Trends in Biotechnology, 33(2), 62–64. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, C., Bostrom, A., Kuttschreuter, M., Savadori, L., Spence, A., & White, M. (2012). Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: A review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3–4), 237–256. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.634523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses, 7(8), 4254–4281. doi:10.3390/v7082819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusser, M., Parisi, C., Plan, D., & Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2011). New plant breeding techniques: State-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development, Joint Research Centre Technical Report EUR 24760 EN. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC63971.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McNally, B., & Titchener, K. (2012). The role of affective processes on young drivers’ risk perceptions: A dual process model approach. Journal of Risk Research, 15(1–2), 39–51. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.601321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC). (2017). Result of the population estimates. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), Statistics Bureau. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/2.htm
   Google Scholar
• Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199–209. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiemann, J. & Hartung, F. (2014). EU perspectives on new plant-breeding techniques. In A. Eaglesham & R. W. F. Hardy (eds.), NABC Report 26 New DNA-editing approaches: methods, applications and policy for agriculture (pp. 201–210). New York: North American Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC). http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/Publications/Reports/nabc_26/NABC%20Report%2026.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(10), 2093–2106. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefit on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–203. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y. (2004a). Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1575–1583. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00551.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y. (2004b). Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), 1147–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02000.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y. (2013). Attitude gaps between conventional plant breeding crops and GM crops, and psychological models determining the acceptance of the two crops. Journal of Risk Research, 16(1), 69–80. doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.726236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, Y., Kitayama, M., Arai, S., & Matsushima, Y. (2015). Major psychological factors affecting consumer’s acceptance of food additives: Validity of a new psychological model. British Food Journal, 117(11), 2788–2800. doi:10.1108/bfj-02-2015-0062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, X. F., Wang, M., Zhang, R. G., Li, J., & Yu, Q. Y. (2011). The role of emotions in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 31(3), 450–465. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01530.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar