Sex differences in risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicine

Two hypotheses of sex difference in risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicine - a gender role and an institution trust hypothesis - were evaluated in the present psychometric study using a student sample(N=519). The gender role hypothesis that emphasizes differences in social roles proposes that the female care takers should feel strong risk perception because they are sensitive to risks. The institution trust hypothesis explains gender differences in risk perception by differences in the trust in risk management systems and/or institutions. The present study replicated the finding that the female participants had stronger risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicines than did the male participants. No sex differences were found in the knowledge and fear dimension regarding the risk perception of genetic engineering. Though the female and male participants did not show any difference in their trust in the risk managements systems, a clear sex difference was observed in the fear response. A regression analysis demonstrated that a fear variable did indeed predict the strength of risk perception whereas a trust variable did not. Furthermore, the finding that the fear variable was the strongest predictor for the female participants also supports the gender role hypothesis while rejecting the institution trust hypothesis.

keywords: 위험 지각, 유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품, 성차, 성역할 이론, 제도신뢰가설, Risk perception, genetically engineered food and medicine, sex difference, the gender role theory, the institution trust hypothesis.

Reference

권영근 (2000). 녹색혁명과 유전자조작식품, 권영근 편 위험한 미래, 도서출판 당대, 서울, 89-122.

이영애, 이나경 (2005). 위험지각의 심리적 차원. 인지과학, 16(3). 199-211.

임형백, 이종민 (2000). 환경사회학의 관점에서 본 유전자변형식품의 사회상 연구, 한국농촌지도학회지, 7(2), 2000년 12월호.

환경운동연합 (2005). 통제불능에 빠져드는 유전자조작 생명체들, 함께 사는 길, 143. 64-65.

Barke, R., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perception of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 167-176.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Davidson, D. & Freudenberg, W. (1996). Gender and environmetal risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339.

Earle, T. & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Toward a cosmopolitan Society. In Praege, Westport, CT.

Finucane, M. (2002). Mad cow, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically- modified food. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61, 31-37.

10.

Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T. (2000). Gender, race and perceived risk: the 'White male' effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159-172.

11.

Flynn, J., Burns, W, Mertz, C. & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-430.

12.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. (1994). Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.

13.

Frewer, L., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22, 98-124.

14.

Gaskell, G. Allum, N. & Wagner, W. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24, 185-194.

15.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N. & Bauer, M. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938.

16.

Groothuis, P. & Miller, G. (1997). The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: a study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15, 241-257.

17.

Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18(16). 805-811.

18.

Guttling J. M. & Wiegman, O. (1993). Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sexroles, 28, 433-447.

19.

Harlander, S. (1991). Social, moral and ethical issues in food biotechnology. Food Technology (May), 152-159.

20.

Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. & Czaja, R. (1992). Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology, 57, 476-493.

21.

Kamaldeen, S. & Powell, D. (2000). Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food Safety Network Technical Report, No17.

22.

National Science Foundation (2000). Science and engineering indicators. Food Industry Environmental Network, June 29.

23.

Raats, M. & Shepherd, R. (1996). Developing a subject derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in food. Risk Analysis, 16, 133-147.

24.

Savadori, L., Savio, S. & Nicotra, E. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289-1299.

25.

Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.

26.

Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 2093-2106.

27.

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-204.

28.

Sjoeberg, L. & Droty-Sjoeberg, B.M. (1993). Attitudes toward nuclear waste(Rhizikon Research Report No 12). Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research.

29.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

30.

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding(eds.), Social theories of risk, 117-152, NewYork:Praeger.

31.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust and democracy, Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.

32.

Slovic, P., Flynn, J. & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste, Science, 254, 1603-1607.

33.

Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.

34.

Spiegner, C. Hawkins, W. & Loren, W. (1993). Gender differences in perception of risk associated with alcohol and drug use among college students. Women and Health, 2, 87-97.

35.

Steger, M. A. & Witte, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and US. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 627-649.

36.

Stern, P. C.. Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.

37.

Townsend, E., Clarke, D. & Travis, B. (2004). Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24, 1369-1384.

38.

Zechndorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12, 870-875.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.27 No.2

Sex differences in risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicine

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General