Public Attitudes and Beliefs About Genetics

Literature Cited

1. Achter P, Parrott R, Silk K. 1.  2005. African Americans' opinions about human-genetics research. Polit. Life Sci. 23:60–66 [Google Scholar]
2. Alford JR, Hibbing JR. 2.  2004. The origin of politics: an evolutionary theory of political behavior. Perspect. Polit. 2:707–23 [Google Scholar]
3. Baars BJ, Gage NM. 3.  2007. Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness: Introduction to Cognitive Neuroscience London: Academic [Google Scholar]
4. Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V. 4.  2007. Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal. 27:921–33 [Google Scholar]
5. Barnoy S, Ehrenfeld M, Sharon R, Tabak N. 5.  2006. Knowledge and attitudes toward human cloning in Israel. New Genet. Soc. 25:21–31 [Google Scholar]
6. Barr M, Rose D. 6.  2008. The great ambivalence: factors likely to affect service user and public acceptability of the pharmacogenomics of antidepressant medication. Sociol. Health Illn. 30:944–58 [Google Scholar]
7. Berth H, Balck F, Dinkel A. 7.  2002. Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients at risk for HNPCC/FAP and the German population. Genet. Test. 6:273–80 [Google Scholar]
8. Besley JC, Shanahan J. 8.  2005. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 26:347–67 [Google Scholar]
9. Calnan M, Montaner D, Horne R. 9.  2005. How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales. Soc. Sci. Med. 60:1937–48 [Google Scholar]
10. Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. 10.  2005. Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics. J. Econ. Lit. 43:9–64 [Google Scholar]
11. Case AP, Ramadhani TA, Canfield MA, Wicklund CA. 11.  2007. Awareness and attitudes regarding prenatal testing among Texas women of childbearing age. J. Genet. Counsel. 16:655–61 [Google Scholar]
12. Caulfield T, Wertz D. 12.  2001. Creating needs? a review of survey data and concerns relevant to the commercialization of genetic testing. Community Genet. 4:68–76 [Google Scholar]
13. Condit CM. 13.  2010. Public understanding of genetics and health. Clin. Genet. 77:1–9 [Google Scholar]
14. Condit CM, Gronnvoll M, Landau J, Shen L, Wright L, Harris TM. 14.  2009. Believing in both genetic determinism and behavioral action: a materialist framework and implications. Public Underst. Sci. 18:730–46 [Google Scholar]
15. Condit CM, Templeton A, Bates BR, Bevan JL, Harris TM. 15.  2003. Attitudinal barriers to delivery of race-targeted pharmacogenomics among informed lay persons. Genet. Med. 5:385–92 [Google Scholar]
16. Dahl E, Hinsck K-D, Brosig B, Beutel M. 16.  2004. Attitudes towards preconception sex selection: a representative survey from Germany. Reprod. BioMed. Online. 9:600–3 [Google Scholar]
17. Detmar S, Dijkstra N, Nijsingh N, Rijnders M, Verweij M, Hosli E. 17.  2008. Parental opinions about the expansion of the neonatal screening program. Community Genet. 11:11–17 [Google Scholar]
18. Dickinson DL. 18.  2000. Ultimatum decision-making: a test of reciprocal kindness. Theor. Decis. 48:151–77 [Google Scholar]
19. Doukas DJ, Localio AR, Li Y. 19.  2004. Attitudes and beliefs concerning prostate cancer genetic screening. Clin. Genet. 66:445–51 [Google Scholar]
20. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 20.  1993. The Psychology of Attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich [Google Scholar]
21. Evans MDR, Kelley J, Zanjani ED. 21.  2005. The ethics of gene therapy and abortion: public opinion. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 20:223–34 [Google Scholar]
22. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. 22.  2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13:1–17 [Google Scholar]
23. Finucane ML, Holup JL. 23.  2005. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Soc. Sci. Med. 60:1603–12 [Google Scholar]
24. Fishbein M, Middlestadt S. 24.  1995. Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: fact or artifact?. J. Consum. Psychol. 4:181–202 [Google Scholar]
25. French DP, Marteau TM, Senior V, Weinman J. 25.  2000. Perceptions of multiple risk factors for heart attacks. Psychol. Rep. 87:681–87 [Google Scholar]
26. Frewer L. 26.  2003. Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14:319–32 [Google Scholar]
27. Furr LA. 27.  2002. Perceptions of genetic research as harmful to society: differences among samples of African-Americans and European-Americans. Genet. Test. 6:25–30 [Google Scholar]
28. Gamero JJ, Romero J-L, Peralta J-L, Corte-Real F, Guillén M, Anjos MJ. 28.  2008. A study of Spanish attitudes regarding the custody and use of forensic DNA databases. Forensic. Sci. Int. Genet. 2:138–49 [Google Scholar]
29. Gelman SA. 29.  2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
30. Gilani AI, Jadoon AS, Qaiser R, Nasim S, Meraj R. 30.  et al. 2007. Attitudes towards genetic diagnosis in Pakistan: a survey of medical and legal communities and parents of thalassemic children. Community Genet. 10:140–46 [Google Scholar]
31. Goodson ML, Vernon BG. 31.  2004. A study of public opinion on the use of tissue samples from living subjects for clinical research. J. Clin. Pathol. 57:135–38 [Google Scholar]
32. Greenspan RJ. 32.  2007. An Introduction to Nervous Systems Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press [Google Scholar]
33. Griffin RJ, Neuwirth K, Giese J, Dunwoody S. 33.  2002. Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Commun. Res. 29:705–32 [Google Scholar]
34. Hathaway F, Burns E, Ostrer H. 34.  2009. Consumers' desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. J. Genet. Counsel. 18:137–46 [Google Scholar]
35. Houston D, Fazio RH. 35.  1989. Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: making objective judgments subjectively. Soc. Cogn. 1:51–66 [Google Scholar]
36. Hudson KL, Scott J, Faden R. 36.  2005. Values in Conflict: Public Attitudes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center [Google Scholar]
37. 37. Human Genetics Commission 2001. Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information. Hum. Genet. Comm., London. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/morigeneticattitudes.pdf
38. Jallinoja P, Aro AR. 38.  2000. Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J. Health Commun. 5:29–39 [Google Scholar]
39. Jallinoja P, Hakonen A, Aro AR, Niemelä P, Hietala M. 39.  et al. 1998. Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions. Soc. Sci. Med. 10:1367–74 [Google Scholar]
40. Jones I, Scourfield J, McCandless F, Craddock N. 40.  2002. Attitudes towards future testing for bipolar disorder susceptibility genes: a preliminary investigation. J. Affect. Disord. 71:189–93 [Google Scholar]
41. Kalfoglou AL, Suthers K, Scott J, Hudson K. 41.  2004. Reproductive genetic testing: what America thinks. http://www.dnapolicy.org/pub.reports.php
42. Kaphingst KA, Janoff JM, Harris LN, Emmons KM. 42.  2006. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin. Genet. 69:393–98 [Google Scholar]
43. Kaphingst KA, Persky S, McCall C, Lachance C, Loewenstein J. 43.  et al. 2009. Testing the effects of educational strategies on comprehension of a genomic concept using virtual reality technology. Patient Educ. Couns. 77:224–230 [Google Scholar]
44. Kasparian NA, Meiser B, Butow PN, Simpson JM, Mann GJ. 44.  2009. Genetic testing for melanoma risk: a prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genet. Med. 11:265–78 [Google Scholar]
45. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Erby L, Hudson K, Scott J. 45.  2009. Veterans' attitudes regarding a database for genomic research. Genet. Med. 11:329–37 [Google Scholar]
46. Kessler L, Collier A, Halbert CH. 46.  2007. Knowledge about genetics among African Americans. J. Genet. Counsel. 16:191–200 [Google Scholar]
47. Kolodinsky J, DeSisto TP, Narsana R. 47.  2004. Influences of question wording on levels of support for genetically modified organisms. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28:154–67 [Google Scholar]
48. Krones T, Schlüter E, Manolopoulos K, Bock K, Tinneberg H-R. 48.  et al. 2005. Public, expert and patients' opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. Reprod. Biomed. Online 10:116–23 [Google Scholar]
49. Laegsgaard MM, Mors O. 49.  2008. Psychiatric genetic testing: attitudes and intentions among future users and providers. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part B 147B:375–84 [Google Scholar]
50. Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, Kardia SLR, Anderson ES. 50.  et al. 2004. Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J. Genet. Couns. 13:305–20 [Google Scholar]
51. Lucke J, Hall W, Ryan B, Owen N. 51.  2008. The implications of genetic susceptibility for the prevention of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of older adults' understanding. Community Genet. 11:283–88 [Google Scholar]
52. Macer D, Ng MAC. 52.  2000. Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nat. Biotechnol. 18:945–47 [Google Scholar]
53. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. 53.  2008. DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet. Med. 10:46–53 [Google Scholar]
54. Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O'Leary P. 54.  2009. Australian study on public health knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 12:84–91 [Google Scholar]
55. Moore T, Norman P, Harris PR, Makris M. 55.  2008. An interpretive phenomenological analysis of adaptation to recurrent venous thrombosis and heritable thrombophilia: the importance of multi-causal models and perceptions of primary and secondary control. J. Health Psychol. 13:775–84 [Google Scholar]
56. Morris SH, Adley CC. 56.  2001. Irish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foods. Trends Biotech. 19:43–48 [Google Scholar]
57. 57. National Science Board 2004. Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators, ch 7, pp. 7-1–7-37. Natl. Sci. Found., Arlington, Virg.. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7i.htm
58. Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM. 58.  2007. Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet. Med. 9:727–38 [Google Scholar]
59. Peters N, Rose A, Armstrong K. 59.  2004. The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13:361–65 [Google Scholar]
60. 60.  Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 2009. Public praises science: scientists fault public, media. http://people-press.org/report/528/
61. Pfau M, Roskos-Ewoldsen D, Wood M, Yin S, Cho J. 61.  et al. 2003. Attitude accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Commun. Monogr. 70:39–51 [Google Scholar]
62. Phoenix A, Pattynama P. 62.  2006. Intersectionality. Eur. J. Women's Studies. 13:187–92 [Google Scholar]
63. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Jones TH, Walls J, O'Riordan T. 63.  2005. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Anal. 25:467–79 [Google Scholar]
64. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. 64.  2005. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Anal. 25:199–209 [Google Scholar]
65. Press AL, Cole ER. 65.  1999. Speaking of Abortion: Television and Authority in the Lives of Women Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
66. Richards M, Ponder M. 66.  1996. Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis. J. Med. Genet. 33:1032–36 [Google Scholar]
67. Rose AL, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K. 67.  2005. Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genet. 8:145–51 [Google Scholar]
68. Rose A, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K. 68.  2005. The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States. J. Health Commun. 10:309–21 [Google Scholar]
69. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. 69.  2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. 24:1289–99 [Google Scholar]
70. Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E. 70.  2001. The polls-trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opin. Q. 65:267–81 [Google Scholar]
71. Shaw JS, Bassi KL. 71.  2001. Lay attitudes toward genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases. J. Health Psychol. 6:405–23 [Google Scholar]
72. Shepherd R, Barnett J, Cooper H, Coyle A, Moran-Ellis J, Senior V, Walton C. 72.  2007. Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Soc. Sci. Med. 65:377–92 [Google Scholar]
73. Siegrist M. 73.  2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20:195–203 [Google Scholar]
74. Singer E, Antonucci T, Van Hoewyk J. 74.  2004. Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing. Genet. Test. 8:31–43 [Google Scholar]
75. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 75.  2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24:311–22 [Google Scholar]
76. Smerecnik CMR, Mesters I, de Vries NK, de Vries H. 76.  2008. Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genet. Med. 10:251–58 [Google Scholar]
77. Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C. 77.  2005. Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genet. Soc. 24:31–56 [Google Scholar]
78. Svendsen MN. 78.  2006. The social life of genetic knowledge: a case-study of choices and dilemmas in cancer genetic counseling in Denmark. Med. Anthropol. 25:139–70 [Google Scholar]
79. Thomas A, Palmer JK, Feldman JM. 79.  2009. Examination and measurement of halo via curvilinear regression: A new approach to halo?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39:350–58 [Google Scholar]
80. Toiviainen H, Jallinoja P, Aro AR, Hemminki E. 80.  2003. Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11:565–72 [Google Scholar]
81. Townsend E, Clarke DD, Travis B. 81.  2004. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 4:1369–84 [Google Scholar]
82. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F. 82.  2002. Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 41:323–43 [Google Scholar]
83. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM. 83.  2004. Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann. Fam. Med. 2:583–94 [Google Scholar]
84. Zwick MM. 84.  2000. Genetic engineering: risks and hazards as perceived by the German public. New Genet. Soc. 19:269–81 [Google Scholar]