程萧潇,金兼斌

• 1:清华大学新闻与传播学院

摘要(Abstract)：

转基因议题是我国近年来经久不衰的社会热点议题,也是过去二十年世界范围内受到持续关注的科学传播研究选题之一。在各种有关转基因的科学传播和风险传播研究中,如何理解公众对转基因的态度形成,是其中的核心关切之一,且累积了数量可观的分析框架、概念工具和研究发现。然而,由于不同的经验研究是在不同的社会和时代环境下展开的,而转基因议题又是在特定社会的文化和媒介环境中被人们感知和理解的,这使得这些研究无论是分析框架的选择、关键概念的界定还是具体的研究发现等,彼此之间都呈现出诸多的差异,亟须进行系统的梳理和整合。本文即就公众对转基因技术的态度形成机制所进行的理论和文献梳理。我们以转基因科学传播相关文献为基础,综合其他争议性科技的风险传播研究,提出了一个包含社会人口学、认知、心理记录、体验和社会文化五大因素的综合性分析框架,来总结迄今为止人们对转基因技术的态度形成机理的理论认识,探讨现有科学传播理论模型可能蕴含的内在缺陷及面临的挑战。本文认为,基于公众细分的科学传播研究取向,或将是今后此类研究走向深入并具有科普实践指导价值的关键。

关键词(KeyWords)： 转基因;感知风险;感知自然性;文化世界观;细分研究

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 国家转基因生物新品种培育重大专项重大课题支持项目（2016ZX08015002）的阶段性成果

作者(Author): 程萧潇,金兼斌

DOI: 10.16602/j.gmj.20190038

参考文献(References)：

• 戴佳、曾繁旭、郭倩(2015):风险沟通中的专家依赖:以转基因技术报道为例,《新闻与传播研究》,第5期,32-45页。
• 范敬群、贾鹤鹏、艾熠、彭光芒(2014):转基因争议中媒体报道因素的影响评析——对SSCI数据库21年相关研究文献的系统分析,《西南大学学报(社会科学版)》,第40卷第4期,133-141页。
• 胡安宁(2019):主观变量解释主观变量:方法论辨析,《社会》,第39卷第3期,183-209页。
• 贾鹤鹏、范敬群(2015):转基因何以持续争议——对相关科学传播研究的系统综述,《科普研究》,第1期,83-92页。
• 贾鹤鹏、刘立、王大鹏、任安波(2015):科学传播的科学——科学传播研究的新阶段,《科学学研究》,第33卷第3期,330-336页。
• 贾鹤鹏、苗伟山(2017):科学传播、风险传播与健康传播的理论溯源及其对中国传播学研究的启示,《国际新闻界》,第2期,66-89页。
• 贾鹤鹏、 闫隽(2017):科学传播的溯源、变革与中国机遇,《新闻与传播研究》,第2期,64-75页。
• 金兼斌(2018):《科学传播:争议性科技的社会认知及其改变》,北京:清华大学出版社。
• 金兼斌、程萧潇(2018):媒介消费对科学知识沟演变的影响,《新闻与写作》,第2期,32-38页。
• 金兼斌、楚亚杰(2015):科学素养、媒介使用、社会网络:理解公众对科学家的社会信任,《全球传媒学刊》,第2卷第2期,65-80页。
• 金兼斌、吴欧、楚亚杰、林成龙、张雪(2018):科学家参与科学传播的知行反差:价值认同与机构奖惩的角度,《新闻与传播研究》,第2期,20-33页。
• 刘翠霞(2017):公众理解科学:模型变革与范式改进,《南京师大学报(社会科学版)》,第6期,47-58页。
• Akin,H.,Yeo,S.K.,Wirz,C.D.,Scheufele,D.A.,Brossard,D.,Xenos,M.A.& Corley,E.A.(2019).Are attitudes toward labeling nano products linked to attitudes toward GMO?Exploring a potential ‘spillover’ effect for attitudes toward controversial technologies.Journal of Responsible Innovation,6(1),50-74.doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1495026
• Almeida,C.& Massarani,L.(2018).Farmers prevailing perception profiles regarding GM crops:A classification proposal.Public Understanding of Science,27(8),952-966.doi:10.1177/0963662518766281
• Amin,L.,Azad,M.A.K.,Gausmian,M.H.& Zulkifli,F.(2014).Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon.PLoS One,9(1),e86174.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086174
• Anderson,A.A.,Brossard,D.& Scheufele,D.A.(2010).The changing information environment for nanotechnology:Online audiences and content.Journal of Nanoparticle Research,12(4),1083-1094.doi:10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2
• Besley,J.C.(2018).Audiences forscience communication in the United States.Environmental Communication,12(8),1005-1022.doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067
• Blank,J.M.& Shaw,D.(2015).Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy?The case for ideology and religion.The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,658(1),18-35.doi:10.1177/0002716214554756
• Box,G.E.P.& Draper,N.R.(1987).Empirical model-building and response surfaces.New York,NY:John Wiley & Sons.
• Bredahl,L.(2001).Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food-results of a cross-national survey.Journal of Consumer Policy,24(1),23-61.doi:10.1023/A:1010950406128
• Brewer,P.R.& Ley,B.L.(2013).Whose science do you believe?Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment.Science Communication,35(1),115-137.doi:10.1177/1075547012441691
• Brosig,S.& Bavorova,M.(2019).Association of attitudes towards genetically modified food among young adults and their referent persons.PLoS One,14(2),e0211879.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211879
• Brossard,D.& Nisbet,M.C.(2007).Deference to scientific authority among a low information public:Understanding U.S.opinion on agricultural biotechnology.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,19(1),24-52.doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003
• Brossard,D.,Scheufele,D.A.,Kim,E.& Lewenstein,B.V.(2009).Religiosity as a perceptual filter:Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science,18(5),546-558.doi:10.1177/0963662507087304
• Bruce,T.W.,Yee,W.M.S.,Lusk,J.L.,Jaeger,S.R.,House,L.O.,Morrow,J.L.,Jr,Valli,C.& Moore,M.(2006).Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume.Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica,Section C—Food Economics,3(1),12-19.doi:10.1080/16507540600733900
• Cacciatore,M.A.,Scheufele,D.A.& Corley,E.A.(2011).From enabling technology to applications:The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science,20(3),385-404.doi:10.1177/0963662509347815
• Christoph,I.B.,Bruhn,M.& Roosen,J.(2008).Knowledge,attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany.Appetite,51(1),58-68.doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.12.001
• Cormick,C.& Romanach,L.M.(2014).Segmentation studies provide insights to better understanding attitudes towards science and technology.Trends in Biotechnology,32(3),114-116.doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.12.005
• Costa-Font,M.,Gil,J.M.& Traill,W.B.(2008).Consumer acceptance,valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food:Review and implications for food policy.Food Policy,33(2),99-111.doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002
• Deng,H.Y.,Hu,R.F.,Pray,C.& Jin,Y.H.(2019).Perception and attitude toward GM technology among agribusiness managers in china as producers and as consumers.Sustainability,11(5),1342.doi:10.3390/su11051342
• Dixon,G.(2016).Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions:New insights and additional questions.Journal of Communication,66(6),888-908.doi:10.1111/jcom.12260
• Dixon,G.& Hubner,A.(2018).Neutralizing the effect of political worldviews by communicating scientific agreement:A thought-listing study.Science Communication,40(3),393-415.doi:10.1177/1075547018769907
• Feindt,P.H.& Poortvliet,P.M.(2019).Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies:Mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products.Journal of Risk Research,1-15.doi:10.1080/13669877.2019.1591487
• Fernbach,P.M.,Light,N.,Scott,S.E.,Inbar,Y.& Rozin,P.(2019).Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most.Nature Human Behaviour,3(3),251-256.doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3
• Finucane,M.L.,Slovic,P.,Mertz,C.K.,Flynn,J.& Satterfield,T.A.(2000).Gender,race,and perceived risk:The “white male” effect.Health,Risk & Society,2(2),159-172.doi:10.1080/713670162
• Fischer,A.R.H.& De Vries,P.W.(2008).Everyday behaviour and everyday risk:An approach to study people’s responses to frequently encountered food related health risks.Health,Risk & Society,10(4),385-397.doi:10.1080/13698570802166449
• Fischhoff,B.(2013).The sciences of science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,110(Supplement 3),14033-14039.doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110
• Fischhoff,B.& Scheufele,D.A.(2013).The science of science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,110(Supplement 3),14031-14032.doi:10.1073/pnas.1312080110
• Francisco,F.& Gon?alves-Sá,J.(2019).A little knowledge is a dangerous thing:Excess confidence explains negative attitudes towards science.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11193
• Frewer,L.J.,van der Lans,I.A.,Fischer,A.R.H.,Reinders,M.J.,Menozzi,D.,Zhang,X.Y.,van Den Berg,I.& Zimmermann,K.L.(2013).Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—A systematic review and meta-analysis.Trends in Food Science & Technology,30(2),142-152.doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003
• Gaskell,G.,Allum,N.,Wagner,W.,Kronberger,N.,Torgersen,H.,Hampel,J.& Bardes,J.(2004).GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.Risk Analysis:An International Journal,24(1),185-194.doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x
• Gregorowius,D.,Lindemann-Matthies,P.& Huppenbauer,M.(2012).Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops:A review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,25(3),265-293.doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9330-6
• Guenther,L.& Weingart,P.(2018).Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics:A culture-sensitive approach.Public Understanding of Science,27(1),47-58.doi:10.1177/0963662517693453
• Gupta,N.,Fischer,A.R.H.& Frewer,L.J.(2012).Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies:A review.Public Understanding of Science,21(7),782-795.doi:10.1177/0963662510392485
• Hossain,F.& Onyango,B.(2004).Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods.International Journal of Consumer Studies,28(3),255-267.doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00352.x
• House,L.,Lusk,J.,Jaeger,S.,Traill,W.B.,Moore,M.,Valli,C.,Morrow,B.& Yee,W.M.S.(2004).Objective and subjective knowledge:Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union.AgBioForum,7(3),Article 3.
• Huxster,J.K.,Slater,M.H.,Leddington,J.,LoPiccolo,V.,Bergman,J.,Jones,M.,McGlynn,C.,Diaz,N.,Aspinall,N.,Bresticker,J.& Hopkins,M.(2018).Understanding “understanding” in public understanding of science.Public Understanding of Science,27(7),756-771.doi:10.1177/0963662517735429
• Kahan,D.M.,Slovic,P.,Braman,D.& Gastil,J.(2006).Fear of democracy:A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk.Harvard Law Review,119(4),1071-1109.
• Kahan,D.M.,Braman,D.,Gastil,J.,Slovic,P.& Mertz,C.K.(2007).Culture and identity-protective cognition:Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,4(3),465-505.doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
• Kahan,D.M.,Jenkins-Smith,H.& Braman,D.(2011).Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.Journal of Risk Research,14(2),147-174.doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
• Kahan,D.M.(2012).Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk.In Roeser,S.,Hillerbrand,R.,Sandin,P.& Peterson,M.(Eds.),Handbook of Risk Theory:Epistemology,Decision Theory,Ethics,and Social Implications of Risk (pp.725-759).Amsterdam:Springer.
• Kahan,D.M.(2015).Climate-science communication and the measurement problem.Political Psychology,36(S1),1-43.doi:10.1111/pops.12244
• Kahan,D.M.,Landrum,A.,Carpenter,K.,Helft,L.& Hall Jamieson,K.(2017).Science curiosity and political information processing.Political Psychology,38(S1),179-199.doi:10.1111/pops.12396
• Kato-Nitta,N.,Maeda,T.,Iwahashi,K.& Tachikawa,M.(2018).Understanding the public,the visitors,and the participants in science communication activities.Public Understanding of Science,27(7),857-875.doi:10.1177/0963662517723258
• Kim,J.,Yeo,S.K.,Brossard,D.,Scheufele,D.A.& Xenos,M.A.(2014).Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public.Risk Analysis,34(5),965-980.doi:10.1111/risa.12141
• Kim,S.H.,Kim,J.N.,Choi,D.H.& Jun,S.(2015).News media use,informed issue evaluation,and South Koreans’ support for genetically modified foods.International Journal of Science Education,Part B,5(1),23-43.doi:10.1080/21548455.2013.826397
• Kondoh,K.& Jussaume,R.A.(2006).Contextualizing farmers’ attitudes towards genetically modified crops.Agriculture and Human Values,23(3),341-352.doi:10.1007/s10460-006-9004-6
• Kraft,P.W.,Lodge,M.& Taber,C.S.(2015).Why people “don’t trust the evidence”:Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs.The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,658(1),121-133.doi:10.1177/0002716214554758
• Krapp,A.& Prenzel,M.(2011).Research on interest in science:Theories,methods,and findings.International Journal of Science Education,33(1),27-50.doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
• Kronberger,N.,Holtz,P.& Wagner,W.(2012).Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation:Focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology.Public Understanding of Science,21(2),174-187.doi:10.1177/0963662511400331
• Ladwig,P.,Dalrymple,K.E.,Brossard,D.,Scheufele,D.A.& Corley,E.A.(2012).Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge?Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding.Science and Public Policy,39(6),761-774.doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048
• Lee,S.& Kim,S.H.(2018).Scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science in South Korea:Does knowledge lead to favorable attitudes?Science Communication,40(2),147-172.doi:10.1177/1075547017753189
• Legge,J.S.,Jr.& Durant,R.F.(2010).Public opinion,risk assessment,and biotechnology:Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union.Review of Policy Research,27(1),59-76.doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00427.x
• Lin,W.,Ortega,D.L.,Caputo,V.& Lusk,J.L.(2019).Personality traits and consumer acceptance of controversial food technology:A cross-country investigation of genetically modified animal products.Food Quality and Preference,76,10-19.doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.03.007
• Lu,H.,McComas,K.A.& Besley,J.C.(2017).Messages promoting genetic modification of crops in the context of climate change:Evidence for psychological reactance.Appetite,108,104-116.doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.026
• Lyons,B.A.,Hasell,A.,Tallapragada,M.& Jamieson,K.H.(2019).Conversion messages and attitude change:Strong arguments,not costly signals.Public Understanding of Science,28(3),320-338.doi:10.1177/0963662518821017
• Malka,A.,Krosnick,J.A.& Langer,G.(2009).The association of knowledge with concern about global warming:Trusted information sources shape public thinking.Risk Analysis,29(5),633-647.doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x
• Metag,J.,Maier,M.,Füchslin,T.,Bromme,L.& Sch?fer,M.S.(2018).Between active seekers and non-users:Segments of science-related media usage in Switzerland and Germany.Environmental Communication,12(8),1077-1094.doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1463924
• Metag,J.& Sch?fer,M.S.(2018).Audience segments in environmental and science communication:Recent findings and future perspectives.Environmental Communication,12(8),995-1004.doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1521542
• Mielby,H.,Sand?e,P.& Lassen,J.(2013).The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies.Public Understanding of Science,22(2),155-168.doi:10.1177/0963662511430577
• Moon,W.& Balasubramanian,S.K.(2004).Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology:The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust,awareness,and outrage.Review of Agricultural Economics,26(2),186-208.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00170.x
• Nisbet,E.C.,Cooper,K.E.& Garrett,R.K.(2015).The partisan brain:How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science.The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,658(1),36-66.doi:10.1177/0002716214555474
• Nisbet,M.C.& Lewenstein,B.V.(2002).Biotechnology and the American media:The policy process and the elite press,1970 to 1999.Science Communication,23(4),359-391.doi:10.1177/107554700202300401
• Olofsson,A.& Rashid,S.(2011).The white (male) effect and risk perception:Can equality make a difference?Risk Analysis:An International Journal,31(6),1016-1032.doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01566.x
• Pardo,R.,Midden,C.& Miller,J.D.(2002).Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union.Journal of Biotechnology,98(1),9-24.doi:10.1016/S0168-1656(02)00082-2
• Pechar,E.,Bernauer,T.& Mayer,F.(2018).Beyond political ideology:The impact of attitudes towards government and corporations on trust in science.Science Communication,40(3),291-313.doi:10.1177/1075547018763970
• Peters,H.P.,Lang,J.T.,Sawicka,M.& Hallman,W.K.(2007).Culture and technological innovation:Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,19(2),191-220.doi:10.1093/ijpor/edm004
• Pham,N.& Mandel,N.(2019).What influences consumer evaluation of genetically modified foods?Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,38(2),263-279.doi:10.1177/0743915618818168
• Popkin,S.L.(1994).The reasoning voter:Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
• Potvin,P.& Hasni,A.(2014).Interest,motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels:A systematic review of 12 years of educational research.Studies in Science Education,50(1),85-129.doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
• Rose,K.M.,Howell,E.L.,Su,L.Y.F.,Xenos,M.A.,Brossard,D.& Scheufele,D.A.(2019).Distinguishing scientific knowledge:The impact of different measures of knowledge on genetically modified food attitudes.Public Understanding of Science,28(4),449-467.doi:10.1177/0963662518824837
• Rutjens,B.T.,Heine,S.J.,Sutton,R.M.& van Harreveld,F.(2018).Attitudes towards science.In Olson J.M.(Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.57,pp.125-165).New York:Academic Press.
• Sch?fer,M.S.,Füchslin,T.,Metag,J.,Kristiansen,S.& Rauchfleisch,A.(2018).The different audiences of science communication:A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns.Public Understanding of Science,27(7),836-856.doi:10.1177/0963662517752886
• Scheufele,D.A.(2013).Communicating science in social settings.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,110(Supplement 3),14040-14047.doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110
• Scheufele,D.A.(2018).Beyond thechoir?The need to understand multiple publics for science.Environmental Communication,12(8),1123-1126.doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1521543
• Scott,S.E.,Inbar,Y.& Rozin,P.(2016).Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States.Perspectives on Psychological Science,11(3),315-324.doi:10.1177/1745691615621275
• Scott,S.E.,Inbar,Y.,Wirz,C.D.,Brossard,D.& Rozin,P.(2018).An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food.Annual Review of Nutrition,38(1),459-479.doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
• Slovic,P.,Finucane,M.L.,Peters,E.& MacGregor,D.G.(2004).Risk as analysis and risk as feelings:Some thoughts about affect,reason,risk,and rationality.Risk Analysis,24(2),311-322.doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
• Sniderman,P.M.,Brody,R.A.& Tetlock,P.E.(1993).Reasoning and choice:Explorations in political psychology.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
• Starr,C.(1969).Social benefit versus technological risk.Science,165(3899),1232-1238.
• Torgersen,H.& Schmidt,M.(2013).Frames and comparators:How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve?Futures,48,44-54.doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002
• van der Linden,S.(2015).The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions:Towards a comprehensive model.Journal of Environmental Psychology,41,112-124.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
• van der Linden,S.(2016).A conceptual critique of the cultural cognition thesis.Science Communication,38(1),128-138.doi:10.1177/1075547015614970
• Waytz,A.& Young,L.(2019).Aversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences,374(1771),1-10.doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0041
• Weber,E.U.(2006).Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk:Why global warming does not scare us (yet).Climatic Change,77(1-2),103-120.doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
• Whittingham,N.,Boecker,A.& Grygorczyk,A.(2019).Personality traits,basic individual values and GMO risk perception of twitter users.Journal of Risk Research,1-19.doi:10.1080/13669877.2019.1591491
• Xu,Q.,Yu,N.& Song,Y.Y.(2018).User engagement in public discourse on genetically modified organisms:The role of opinion leaders on social media.Science Communication,40(6),691-717.doi:10.1177/1075547018806526
• Yeo,S.K.,Sun,Y.,McKasy,M.& Shugart,E.C.(2019).Disgusting microbes:The effect of disgust on perceptions of risks related to modifying microbiomes.Public Understanding of Science,28(4),433-448.doi:10.1177/0963662519832200
• Zhang,M.& Liu,G.L.(2015).The effects of consumer’s subjective and objective knowledge on perceptions and attitude towards genetically modified foods:Objective knowledge as a determinant.International Journal of Food Science & Technology,50(5),1198-1205.doi:10.1111/ijfs.12753
• Zhang,Y.& Sun,Y.Y.(2018).The effect of ideology on attitudes toward GM food safety among Chinese internet users.Sustainability,10(11),4326.doi:10.3390/su10114326
• Zhu,X.Q.& Xie,X.F.(2015).Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods.Risk Analysis,35(5),790-810.doi:10.1111/risa.12319
• Zia,A.& Todd,A.M.(2010).Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science:How to improve communication across ideological divides?Public Understanding of Science,19(6),743-761.doi:10.1177/0963662509357871