Recency negativity: Newer food crops are evaluated less favorably

Food crops produced by new technologies such as genetic engineering are widely opposed (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 1999; Scott, Inbar, Wirz, Brossard, & Rozin, 2018). Here, we examine one reason for this opposition: recency. More recently-developed crops are evaluated less favorably, w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAppetite Vol. 154; p. 104754
Main Authors Inbar, Yoel, Phelps, Jordan, Rozin, Paul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Elsevier Ltd 01.11.2020
Subjects
appetite
artificial selection
Crops, Agricultural - genetics
Genetic Engineering
Humans
irradiation
meta-analysis
people
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Food crops produced by new technologies such as genetic engineering are widely opposed (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 1999; Scott, Inbar, Wirz, Brossard, & Rozin, 2018). Here, we examine one reason for this opposition: recency. More recently-developed crops are evaluated less favorably, whether they are produced by artificial selection (i.e., conventional breeding), natural or man-made irradiation, or genetic engineering. Negative effects of recency persist in a within-subjects design where people are able to explicitly compare crops developed at different times, and an internal meta-analysis shows that the negative effect of recency is robust across measures and stimuli. These results have implications for the evaluation of crops produced using new modification techniques, including the widespread opposition to genetic engineering.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0195-6663
1095-8304
1095-8304
DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2020.104754