1. C o m m i s s i o n e r : D r s . I n g . R e g i n a l d B o e r s m a e . a .
E x p e r t : D r . R e i n t - J a n R e n e s
C o a c h : P r o f . D r . B a r t G r e m m e n
Nienke Runge 860709717010
Dorien Ripping 880614697040
Oldrich Studynka 870120815070
Richard Palan 850724640090
Alena Matejkova 860825547010
Roman Puchko 880830673060
June
2010
Perception of Genomics
Final ACT Project – Team 673

2. Acknowledgement
We would like to thank to the coach Prof. Dr. Bart Gremmen, the commissioner Drs. Ing.
Reginald Boersma e.a., and the expert Dr. Reint Jan Renes for the support, valuable
comments, and suggestions during the project.

3. Table of Content
1. Introduction....................................................................................................3
Relevance of Research........................................................................................................... 4
Cross-cultural Study: Differences and Reasoning.................................................................. 5
General Research Question................................................................................................... 7
2. Literature Review............................................................................................9
Influence of Mind-set on Consumer Perception................................................................... 9
Manipulation Technique ..................................................................................................... 11
Social Representation Theory.............................................................................................. 12
Categorization ..................................................................................................................... 13
Need for Closure.................................................................................................................. 14
Research Objective and Research Questions...................................................................... 15
General hypotheses............................................................................................................. 16
3. Methodology ................................................................................................18
Questionnaire Design.......................................................................................................... 18
4. Results..........................................................................................................25
Description of the respondents........................................................................................... 25
Food vs. Bio-fuel in the Netherlands and Ukraine .............................................................. 27
Perception of Genomics ...................................................................................................... 30
Perception of Genomics in the Netherlands and Ukraine................................................... 31
Association of Genetic Manipulation and Genomics .......................................................... 32
Need for Closure.................................................................................................................. 34
5. Discussion.....................................................................................................36
Limitations of the study....................................................................................................... 36
Practical implications of the study ...................................................................................... 39
Scientific implications of the study...................................................................................... 40
6. References....................................................................................................41
Appendix I Dutch Questionnaire..........................................................................45

4. 1. Introduction
Genomics is one of the new plant breeding practices which make use of the sequencing the
genomes of various plant varieties to make better informed crossing in a traditional way.
Genomics could be used for various purposes, i.e. the production of food products or bio-
fuels.
The present research focuses on the general public’s initial perception and acceptance of
Genomics. The study has been developed on the basis of a previous research by Drs. Ing.
Reginald Boersma who researched consumers’ perception of genomics, when related to
food production. His research showed that consumers associate Genomics with Genetic
modification technology. As genetic modification technology is regarded unsafe, unethical
and unnatural (Van den Heuvel, 2008), this could lead, in turn, to adverse consequences of
the acceptance of genomics. Because of this perceived relation between Genomics and
genetic modification, research regarding the acceptance of GM has been taken as a starting-
point for the current research.
The main point in the acceptance of GM food is the perceived absence of benefits for the
consumer, and not so much the misperception of the risks (Gaskell, 2004). European
consumers do not experience any benefits of GM foods, and therefore, they do not see the
utility and value of GM to produce food next to other non-GM alternatives (Gaskell, Allum et
al. 2004). According to Eurobarometer (2005), only one third of the EU citizens supports
GM technology in food production. In general, according to the research of Bäckström
(2003), the use of GM technology in combination with food production caused the rejection
of the produced food.
With regard to bio fuel production with the help of GM, both benefits and doubts can be
observed in the society (Verbeke, 2007). As to bio-fuel production with help of GM, there
might be a similar fear for unknown human and/or animal health effects as for food
production. This fear results among others from an uncertainty about the possible risks as a
result of cross contamination, the use of GM bio-fuel by-products for animal feeding, and
the chance of food crop shortfalls. Especially the concern regarding GM entering into the
animal and human food chain, brings the debate of GM for bio-fuel production back to the
food debate, with all concern related to personal well-being coming into play. On the other
hand, there is the fear for food crop shortfalls as a result of shifting production factors
because more crops might be used for renewable energy production than for animal feed
and human food production (Verbeke 2007). Despite all these concerns, the Eurobarometer

5. of 2005 showed that over 70% of the respondents support bio-fuel developments and 68%
of European consumers would prefer bio-fuels above conventional fuels when it was not
paired with extra costs. Moreover, benefits seem to be related to genomics in the context of
bio fuel because of is could be a solution for the currently revealing shortage of fossil fuels.
In addition to this it could be stated that, the benefit of genomics for food might be not as
obvious as for bio fuel since there are no problematic issues regarding food production in
the Western society. As Verbeke (2007) says, “the balance between the benefit of
sustainability and the conflict GM brings with itself seems to turn the scale towards rejection
of GM bio-fuels, although, more research on this topic is required”.
The researchers assume that the way of presenting the Genomics technology to the general
public could influence their perception of the technology. In the present research the
hypothesis that the introduction of genomics presented as a way to increase bio-fuel
production, receives a higher support from the general public compared to presented as a
way to increase food production, will be tested.
This study is focused on the acceptance of new food technologies by the general public. This
means that the interest is in the General Publics positive or negative association with
Genomics, rather than in their fact-based opinion. It will be assessed how perception of
genomics changes when presented as a way to increase food production compared to when
presented as a way to increase bio fuel production. The study has been implemented in a
cross cultural way, by researching the general public’s perception of Genomics both in the
Netherlands and Ukraine.
Relevance of Research
New food technologies and products are being developed continuously. The reason for
developing new food products is two fold: "On one hand, new foods are being developed in
order to satisfy consumer needs for improved health and variety, as well as to satisfy
particular nutritional and ethical criteria. On the other hand, food industry companies are of
course interested in increasing their market shares" (Backstram, 2003). It can thus be stated
that developments in food technologies are both market and supplier driven.
According to Tuorila (2001) new foods are being developed in the following five categories:
functional foods with clinically demonstrated beneficial health effects; genetically modified
products which are produced using gene technology; nutritionally modified foods containing
more fiber or less fat, salt or sugar than conventional foods; organic foods which are

6. produced in a natural way without synthetic materials, and ethnic foods which are familiar
to other food cultures.
Despite the innovativeness of the food industry, many food companies have a hard time
struggling for market share in this competitive environment. This is being illustrated by the
low success rates of new food product developments. (Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003). It is
even estimated that 80 percent of all new food products fail within one year of introduction
(Rudolph, 1995).
Although Genomics has been developed in order to fulfill consumer needs and preferences
regarding vegetable food characteristics, the technology itself is primary driven by the food
industry rather than by the community (Moors et al, 2003). Furthermore, the technology is
currently unknown. The potential lack of support for Genomics among the general public,
creates a risky environment for the introduction of the technology to the market.
In order to safeguard a successful introduction of the technology in the future, research
regarding the perception of Genomics among the general public, is necessary.
Cross-cultural Study: Differences and Reasoning
In order to bring an additional value to the project, make it more challenging, informative
and practically relevant for the commissioner, the decision to execute the cross-cultural
study was made. the Netherlands, being a bright representative of Western Europe with a
highly-developed capitalistic economy and rather liberal public attitude towards new
technologies (Eurobarometer 2005), will be compared with a country from the opposite
edge of Europe, being Ukraine.
When regarding the introduction of new food technologies in general and the Genetic
Manipulation technique in specific, the Ukraine shows facts and processes which cannot be
left beside. Remarkable issues regarding the legislation and labeling of genetically modified
food products, as well as the political debate in Ukraine, attracted the researchers to
investigate the public’s perception of new food technologies in the Ukraine.
When observing the legislative process and the political debate regarding Genetic
Manipulation in the Ukraine during the past three years, the issues stated below were
regarded as remarkably different to the Netherlands. Consequently the researchers expect
to find some relevant differences between the Netherlands and Ukraine, with regard to the
consumer’s perception of Genomics.

7. Although there was no legislation on the labeling of GM food at that time, food producers
started labeling their products themselves with "Without GMO" sign three years ago.
The first legislative initiative regarding labeling GM food begun in 2009 when the Parliament
adopted the law #1778 “About changes to the Law of Ukraine “About the safety and quality
of food products” on the 17th of December 2009. This law forced producers to provide
information on the content of GMO in their products. As from the adoption of this law, all
food products in the Ukraine should be labeled with either a "With GMO" or "Without GMO"
sign ( The Law of Ukraine “About the safety and quality of food products (2009)).
Three month later, the changes to the law were annulled because of legislative and logical
loophole, however, the initiative led to noticeable consequences. During almost three
months, no single product with "With GM" sign was produced, in spite it did contain GM.
Instead, a large number of products labeled ”Without GM” entered the market.
A spot check conducted in December 2009 by the government agency that certifies and
controls food standards “Poltava Standartmetrologia”, found that 70% of prepared frozen
meat products contained genetically modified soya, while the label indicated they were
“Without GMO”. Protests against these abuses followed (KyivPost, 2010).
According to the law concerning the biological security dd. May 31, 2007, Ukraine allows
using GM plants after the registration process only. Remarkably enough, the country has not
registered any GM plant, food or feed product, yet. Today only one application for
registration of GM soy exists in the Institute of hygiene and toxicology, but it has not been
approved yet (Institute of ecohygiene and toxicology, 2010). The lobbying in favor of GM is
quite weak. Nowadays, the country has effective anti-biotechnological lobby, but not the
lobby for genetically modified products (AgriMarket.Info, 2010).
In addition to the legislative process elaborated on above, it must be emphasized that the
Ukrainian government to date seem to have a negative attitude regarding Genetic
manipulation. During last presidential elections in Ukraine (January-February 2010), all major
candidates declared their negative attitude towards GMO.
In the Netherlands 18 types of genetically modified organisms are allowed. Research
regarding GM is allowed as long as it is of social relevance and does not harm animal health
(European Union, 2010) The public debate regarding GM is ongoing, and support both in
favor and against GM comes about. The researchers assume that the Dutch general public
has a rather neutral attitude towards GM, compared to Ukraine. In order to measure if the

8. negative attitude jumps from GM to Genomics, not only the Netherlands, but also Ukraine it
worthwhile to be taken into account.
Relying on the findings regarding the legislation and debate on Genetically Modified food
products in Ukraine, compared to the Dutch situation, differences in perception and
acceptance of Genomics, being a new food technology as well, are expected by the
researchers.
It is hypothesized that the perception of genomics will be more negative in Ukraine than in
the Netherlands, regardless whether it is presented in the context of bio fuel or food. This
hypotheses is based on the observed negative attitude towards GM in Ukrainian legislation
as well as among Ukrainian politicians and lobbyists. The hypothesis H3 is formulated like:
“The general public in Ukraine perceives genomics as more negative compared to the
general public in the Netherlands.”
Moreover, it is hypothesized that especially Genomics related to food is perceived as
negative in the Ukraine. When presented as a way to increase bio-fuel production is not
expected to meet that much resistance of the general public. In fact, it is expected that the
differences between the two conditions will be more present in Ukraine than in the
Netherlands. Therefore the hypothesis H4 is formulated like:
“There is a bigger significant difference to the positive side in perception of Genomics for bio
fuel compared to Genomics for food in Ukrainian case, than in Dutch.”
General Research Question
This research focuses on solving a problematic issue concerning new technologies and their
acceptance by public. Specifically, it deals with the perception of genomics by Dutch as well
as by Ukrainian general public. Within this study it is assessed how genomics are perceived
and to what extend they are accepted, when they are presented in the context of increasing
bio-fuel production and when they are presented in the context of increasing food
production. From the knowledge gap stated above, the following main research questions is
formulated:
"What is the difference in general public’s perception and acceptance of Genomics if they
are presented as a way of increasing food production compared to presented as a way of
increasing bio-fuel production, both in the Netherlands and Ukraine?"

9. In addition to this, it will be checked whether more correlations between each of the
individual variables exists. For example, it will be assessed how the perception of the
General Public regarding Genomics is being influence by their (possible) association with GM.
In order to answer the main research question empirical research is done among general
public in the Netherlands as well as in Ukraine. The statistical results of the empirical
research will be analyzed both separately and combined for the Netherlands and Ukraine.
The results of the empirical research will be complemented by a literature study in the field
of psychology and marketing sciences regarding the psychological mechanisms in consumer
perception.

10. 2. Literature Review
Discoveries of new technologies have always drawn attention of general public. (Wagner,
Kronberger, 2001) as the technologies become an important part of our lives. The aim of the
study is to examine the perception of new technologies, genomics in particular, by general
public. In this chapter, we will provide the theoretical insight in this topic. There are several
theories that explain how consumers integrate new information in their memory they are
confronted with.
Influence of Mind-set on Consumer Perception
Consumer perception and attitude have to do with certain stages of the consumer behaviour.
These stages are: receiving information, processing it and making up the decision, and taking
action (Gollwitzer, 1990). In this study we are mostly interested in the “processing
information and making the decision” stage. Therefore, it’s relevant to analyze the effect of
mind-set on consumer behaviour.
In the scientific literature the analysis of mindset’s effects on individual’s behaviour is very
related to specific action phases. Gollwitzer (1990) distinguishes four action phases: the
predecisional phase, the postdecisional but still preactional phase, the actional phase, and
the postactional phase. The corresponding mind-sets to these four phases are: deliberative,
implemental, actional and evaluative mind set (Gollwitzer, 1990). As the current research is
focused on the consumer’s predecisional phase, in which the decision to either accept or
reject the introduced technology, the delibaretive mind set will be analyzed.
At a predecisional stage individuals reflect on the desirability and feasibility of their wishes in
order to determine their decision. The feasibility of their wishes is determined by the extent
to which the desired outcome is practically achievable. The desirability of the respondent’s
wishes is determined by his estimation of the value of the outcome of the decision.
For a deliberate mindset it is required that an individual is primarily concerned with
information relevant to the positivity-negativity of the expected consequences of a given
wish's outcome in order to estimate its desirability (Gollwitzer, 1990). This information may
originate from external sources, but also may yield from personal mental processes, for
instance, stereotyping, prejudice, personal beliefs etc. The research of Xu and Wier (2007)
indicates that once a judgment has been made, it is used as a basis for subsequent
judgments independent from original information on which it was based.

11. In 1929, Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci wrote that he was “a pessimist because of
intelligence, but an optimist because of will” (Gramsci, p. 299). The experiment of David A.
Armor and Shelley E. Taylor showed that the careful consideration of goals and motives that
occurs prior to making decisions (deliberative mindset) leads to relative pessimism and wilful
determination (implemental mindset) was found to foster relative optimism. Moreover,
these effects appear to be self-fulfilling, demonstrating that mindsets can have behavioural
as well as cognitive consequences (Armor, 2003).
Actually, the mind-set that clearly facilitates the task of the pre-decisional phase (i.e. to
choose the most desirable wish that is also feasible) should evidence the following
characteristics: first, there should be cognitive tuning towards information relevant for the
issues of feasibility and desirability. Second, there should be an orientation towards accurate
and impartial processing of such information. And finally, there should be an open-
mindedness or heightened receptivity to information in general (Gollwitzer, 1990). The latter
characteristic is especially important with regard to issue of new technologies acceptance by
consumers. The open-mindedness or receptivity to information in general can be measured
by using the Need for Closure theory. This Need for Closure theory will be focused on in this
literature review as well (Kruglanski, 1993).
Relying on the information, stated above, it can be concluded that public perception of
Genomics will be influenced by the desirability of the product that this technology is used in,
for instance food. Furthermore the feasibility and benefits of the desired outcome are taken
into consideration.
However, what if there is no determination upon “desirability” because some information is
missing or possible consequences are uncertain? What happens when consumers face
unfamiliar subject? With the help of Social Representation theory in further parts of this
chapter, the process of translating something unknown to something more familiar will be
analyzed. But first, let’s look to the manipulation techniques which may affect and/or
change one’s opinion. What happens when the subject is important for the individual and
what if not? What are the personal concerns about the topic and possible after-effects in
both cases? Manipulation techniques theory (e.g. Chaiken, 1980; Kruglanski & Higgins, 2003)
is elaborating on this in the next part.

12. Manipulation Technique
The manipulation technique takes into account some other important factors that are
dependent on the consumer’s evaluation of new information. It distinguishes between a
systematic and a heuristic view of persuasion. The systematic view is based on the theory
that recipients put effort in performing a task, when they actively try to understand and
execute the message’s arguments and, at the same time, valuate validity in correlation to
the message’s conclusion. The second view, a heuristic view of persuasion says that
respondent gives little effort in judging message validity, but he rather responds to more
available information (Chaiken, 1980). Employing a systematic rather than heuristic
processing strategy depends on recipients. A heuristic strategy includes the economic
advantage of requesting a minimum of cognitive effort. A systematic strategy is employed
when recipients perceive that formulating a highly accurate or veridical opinion judgment is
important (Kruglanski and Higgins, 2003). When consumers are faced with new information,
which is related to personally important topics or if they feel that their opinion judgments
can have important after-effects for themselves (e.g. they can expect to discuss or defend
their opinions, or to behave in their opinion) or for other people (e.g. judicial decision) When
an opinion on an unimportant topic is asked, or opinion judgment is perceived as irrelevant,
recipients may use economic concerns greater weight and use a heuristic processing
strategy (Kruglanski and Higgins, 2003). In to present research, we can expect that if
consumers are interested in new technologies, and it is an important issue they want to
think about, they will employ a systematic view. In case those consumers do not consider
new technologies as important, they will use the heuristic processing. According to the
Eurobarometer (2005), Europeans have become more knowledgeable about and interested
in biotechnology and genetics since 2002. A majority say they are ”often” or “sometimes”
interested in science and technology and “keep up to date on what is going on in science and
technology”. The result on the questions about the interest in new food technologies is of
special interest since it turned out that the mode of engagement is related with the
perception of the technology. It has been shown that Europeans, who are “attentive” (15%)
or “actively” (10%) engaged in science, are more optimistic about the contribution of
technology to society (Eurobarometer, 2005). Therefore we can deduce a hypothesis H5
based on the Manipulation theory and results from EB, that “The general public has a more
positive perception of genomics when they perceive genomics as relatively important.”

13. Social Representation Theory
Social representation theory provides a useful theory in order to examine everyday
knowledge and the way science is integrated in the domain of everyday thinking (Backstrom,
2003), and that is exactly about what the study aims at. This theory explains how to
transform something unknown to something familiar and known. It can be achieved in two
ways: 1) anchoring the unfamiliar to a familiar reference point, 2) transform abstractions
into something concrete, intelligible, and communicable (Backstram, 2003).
The emphasis is put on the first way of processing which was formalized by Moscovici (1988).
Anchoring is a process that allows new information to be incorporated in the pre-existing
systems of thought. It refers to an operation leading to “the familiarization of the strange”.
The insertion of the new information in an accustomed frame gives it a signification. For the
group to come to a basic understanding of the unfamiliar phenomenon it is vital to name it
and to attribute characteristics which let the phenomenon to be communicated and talked
about (Gal,Berente, 2008). If it is given unfamiliar, the group lacks a specific representation.
It is similar to the process of categorization, in which existing representations assumed to be
applicable come to the fore and are used for naming and understanding (Marková and
Wilkie, 1987). Based on this theory, we can assume that consumers can anchor genomics as
unfamiliar information to something they are familiar with, e.g. GM.
Perception of risk and perception of safety are closely related subjects. Safety, risk and
benefit are highly discussed in articles about the perception of GM foods. In the focus group
study of Bäckström et al. (2003), participants rejected GM from the beginning as it had
something dangerous. According to the Eurobarometer statistics (2005), levels of support
declined with an increase in perceived risk. This was especially the case for GM food, which
showed a high perceived risk together with discouragement of the use of this technique
(Gaskell, Allensdottir et al. 2006). On the other hand, the picture for the use of bio-fuels
seems to be much more positive, at least in Belgium. Van de Velde et al. (2009) found that
Belgians perceived bio-fuels as safe. In Europe, there is a lot of support among the general
public regarding the development of bio-fuels. Over 70 per cent of the respondents of the
Eurobarometer (2005) showed their support towards bio-fuel developments, and even over
68 per cent of all respondents expressed their willingness to choose bio-fuels over ordinary
fuels (Eurobarometer, 2005).
In the current research Genomics will be presented to the respondents either as a way to
increase food production or as a way to increase bio fuel production. In both cases the

14. respondents do not have any information on Genomics yet, so they will base their
perception on intuit, feelings and associations. The association between Genomics and GM
had already been proven and therefore functions as a basis for the following two hypotheses:
H1: “The general public in the Netherlands perceives genomics more positively when
presented in the context of increasing bio fuel production than when presented in the
context of increasing food production."
H2: “The general public in Ukraine perceives genomics more positively when presented in
the context of increasing bio fuel production than when presented in the context of
increasing food production."
Categorization
The categorization is an approach to information processing that deals with how consumers
store new information in memory, and it is very similar to Social Representation Theory. It
assumes that the information is stored around a set of category expectations (Rosch, 1975).
Categorization is based on the comparison of a marketing stimulus with knowledge stored in
memory (Basu, 1993). “Categorization theory is particularly relevant to understanding
consumer behaviour because consumers face a complex choice environment replete with
brands having both shared and unique features; consumers may use categorization to
simplify and structure their environment” (Sujan and Tybout, 1988, p. 50).
There are two main models, which can contribute to understanding the grouping of similar
concepts which result in the information processing related to new products or technologies,
such as genomics. These are similarity-based and knowledge-based models.
The category of similarity-based models is based on the assumption that similar object are
grouped together. Similarity is the most essential determinant of this category. This category
takes a bottom-up or stimulus-based view of categorization where the perception of salient
features of stimuli is essential when determining category membership (Ratneshwaret al.,
2001).
On the other hand, knowledge-based models offer a different view. According to Gentner
(1989), the knowledge from a familiar domain (e.g., an existing category) is transferred to an
unfamiliar target. The notion of categorization-based knowledge transfer is especially
applicable to research on new technology perception, where a novel item is classified as a
member of an existing product category, and information in that category is transferred to
the novel item and used to structure the new representation (Moreau, Markman, and

15. Lehmann, 2001). This process occurs via four types of comparisons (mere appearance
matches, literal similarities, analogies, and applications of abstractions). ”Analogies” (i.e.,
relational comparisons), one of the four types, are comparisons where relations (deep
similarity) are mapped, but few or no object-attributes (surface similarity) are transferred
between domains. This kind of categorization can be applied to categorization of genomics
as it relates to new products or technologies. Consumers find it difficult to classify new
technologies to an existing mental category based on similar object-attributes. Therefore,
they seek for higher order analogies to go through three stages of (1) accessing an
analogical category, (2) mapping information and knowledge from one or more existing
categories (‘the base’) onto the new instance (‘the target’), and (3) generate inferences
pertaining to the target (Genter, 1989; Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002; Moreau, Lehmann, &
Markman, 2001).
This process of categorization is flexible and depends on the specific category that is made
salient by the consumer when confronted with a new technology. New technologies do not
match in any existing mental category; therefore, consumer acceptance may vary in
categorization (Gregan-Paxton, et al., 2005). If the genomics provides higher perceived
overlap with the GM category in memory, that is what we assume on the basis on previous
research, consequent inferences and evaluations related to the GM category will be mapped
onto perceptions of the genomics technology, which may lead to a different interpretation
and evaluation of the new technology. The final evaluation of genomics depends on the
consumer’s attitude towards GM.
Need for Closure
Need for Closure is an approach that concerns the formation of new judgments, in our case
judgments about genomics. According to Kruglanski (1993), the Need for Closure is
described as "the desire for a definite answer on some topic, any answer as opposed to
confusion and ambiguity”. The Need for Closure symbolizes the individual desire for a clear,
definite or unambiguous knowledge that will guide perception and action (Vermeir, 2003).
The opposite of ‘closure’ is ambiguity and confusion. When someone has a high Need for
Closure, this implies that this person is very much in favour of having a definite answer on a
judgmental topic, rather than being ambiguous or confused. It has been found that Need for
Closure influences the way people seek for information prior to making judgments or taking
decisions. It is assumed that the benefits of closure differ between situations (Kruglanski,
1993). The Need for Closure is weighted against the benefits of it in every situation.

16. Generally speaking, the Need for Closure may be proportionate to the perceived benefits of
possessing closure or to the costs of lacking closure. This is related to the present study in a
way that depending on prior information, need for closure may differently impact
individuals' mode of information processing and this may affect their reactions to persuasion
process (Kruglanski, 1993).
Webster (1993) manipulated the Need for Closure through varying the perceived
attractiveness of an attitude-attribution task (Jones & Harris, 1967). He measured the
‘correspondence bias’; an effect which occurs when people link their observations directly to
the person they observe rather than taking environmental influences into account. When
the task was perceived as unattractive, people were more likely to exhibit the
"correspondence bias" than when the task was perceived as moderately attractive.
Furthermore, when the task was perceived as highly attractive the tendency to exhibit the
correspondence bias was almost zero. (Webster et all, 1994)
All effects mentioned above represent the various effects of the Need for Closure on the
judgmental process. (Webster et all, 1994) In fact, Need for Closure also influences different
stages of the consumers’ decision process (Vermeir, 2003). Vermeir (2003) distinguishes
several aspects of the consumer’s decision making process, like: external information search,
information processing, attention and retention, the pre-purchase alternative evaluation,
the decision itself and the decision outcomes. According to Vermeir (2003) each of these
aspects, as well as the entire decision process and decision time are highly determined by
the respondent’s Need for Closure. This implies that the consumer’s decision making process,
and his acceptance or rejection of Genomics products, might be influenced by the extent to
which the consumer has a Need for Closure. Previous research show clues towards the fact
that respondents with a high Need for Closure are less open-minded towards new
technologies and might therefore tend to reject them more easily. From this, a hypothesis
H7 can be deduced and formulated as follows: “People with a high need for closure will have
a lower acceptance of Genomics”.
Research Objective and Research Questions
The research questions concerning the main drivers of perception towards new food
technologies (e.g. genomics) will be analyzed. The research questions were defined as
follows:

17. General research question
"What is the difference in general public’s perception and acceptance of Genomics
presented in the context of increasing food production compared to presented in the
context of increasing bio-fuel production, both in the Netherlands and Ukraine?"
Specific research questions
What is the public’s perception of genomics presented in the context of increasing food
production, in the Netherlands?
What is the public’s perception of genomics presented in the context of increasing bio-fuel
production, in the Netherlands?
What is the difference between the public’s perception of Genomics presented as a way of
increasing food production compared to presented as a way of increasing bio-fuel
production, in the Netherlands?
What is the public’s perception of genomics presented in the context of increasing food
production, in Ukraine?
What is the public’s perception of genomics presented in the context of increasing bio-fuel
production, in Ukraine?
What is the difference between the public’s perception of Genomics presented as a way of
increasing food production compared to presented as a way of increasing bio-fuel
production, in Ukraine?
To what extent do the public’s perception and acceptance of genomics, differ between the
Netherlands and Ukraine?
General hypotheses
According to earlier research of Drs. Ing. Reginald Boersma it can be assumed that
consumers tend to associate genomics with GM. This association might have a negative
effect on the acceptance of genomics in food production, because GM foods are perceived
as unsafe, unethical and unnatural by European citizens (Van Den Heuvel, 2008). Therefore,
the researchers hypothesize that the general public’s perception and acceptance of
genomics will be influenced by the context it is used in, being either bio-fuel or food.
Moreover, the researchers expect, based on their findings regarding the low acceptance of
Genetic Modification in Ukraine, that the perception of Genomics in the Ukraine is more
negative than in the Netherlands.

18. The general hypotheses are stated as follows:
H1: “The general public in the Netherlands perceives genomics more positively when
presented in the context of increasing bio fuel production than when presented in the
context of increasing food production."
H2: “The general public in Ukraine perceives genomics more positively when presented in
the context of increasing bio fuel production than when presented in the context of
increasing food production."
H3: “The general public in Ukraine perceives genomics as more negative compared to the
general public in the Netherlands.”
H4: “There is more significant difference to the positive side in perception of Genomics for
biofuel compared to Genomics for food in Ukrainian case, than in Dutch.”
H5: “The general public has a more positive perception of Genomics when they perceive
Genomics as relatively important.”
H6: “Consumers associate Genomics with Genetic Modification.”
H7: “Consumers with a high need for closure will have a lower acceptance of Genomics.”

19. 3. Methodology
This chapter includes the description of the research technique, questionnaire design,
description of place and population, and implementation of the questionnaire.
Questionnaire Design
The research technique used for the data collection was a structured questionnaire as main
benefits of such a method of data collection are that questionnaires are relatively quick to
complete, economical, and usually easy to analyze.
The questionnaire was developed on the basis of previous research by Boersma. In addition,
concepts from literature regarding the perception and acceptance of Genomics were
gathered in order to be able to develop the questionnaire. Within the questionnaire, there is
a focus on food and bio-fuel as a way to present Genomics to the respondents. This focus
has been chosen since the researchers hypothesize that there will be a difference in the
perception of Genomics presented as a way to increase bio-fuel production, compared to
presented as a way to increase food production.
All questions included in the questionnaire are closed. Closed questions provide a variety of
possible responses for the respondent to chose from. It is very easy to code the responses
and produce some statistical analysis on the data.
Likert scale was used as the response instrument to measure the dis/agreement with the
questions. This scale uses fixed choice response format designed to measure attitudes.
Respondents were offered a seven precoded responses with the neutral point being neither
agree nor disagree (Rattray, Jones, 2007).
The questionnaire begins with an overall introduction telling the respondents the aims and
giving clear instructions about how to complete it. In addition, as the questionnaire is
arranged in several sections, the small introduction is provided for each section to make it
understandable.
There are four variations of questionnaires. The purpose of the variations is to examine the
influence of the framing of the problem on the consumers' perceptions regarding genomics.
The questionnaire consists of a short story in which technology of either classical breeding or
genetic manipulation is presented. Afterwards, respondents will be asked to associate

20. technology from the text with genomics and express their opinion towards genomics used in
bio fuel production/food production. As shown in Figure 1, the first version includes a short
story about classical breeding related to bio fuel production. The second version starts with
a story about GM in relation to bio fuel production. The third version presents a story about
classical breeding linked to food production. The last version begins with a story about GM
connected to food production. After introduction and short story several sets of questions
follow.
Figure 1: Variations of the Questionnaire
In the first set of questions, respondents were asked to provide background information.
The multiple choice questions concern information on gender, age, education level and
occupation.
Each version of questionnaire includes ten questions on Genomics in the second set,
whereof the last question has the shape of a proposition. Following ten questions in the
third set differ according to which version of the questionnaire is presented. Version 1 and 3
include questions on Classical Breeding, and version 2 and 4 include question on Genetic
Manipulation.
Because of similarity between some of the questions, the ten questions from each section
are subdivided into 5 clusters. These clusters are as follows: 1) useful (useful, beneficial,
valuable), 2) risk (safe, harmful consequences), 3) health (natural, polluting/environmental
friendly, healthy), 4) heuristics (pleasure), and 5) general encouragement (problems). As
result of the formation of these clusters, the questions changed in order. Therefore, all

21. questions are numbered in a way that corresponds with the numbers of the questionnaire in
appendix 1.
Cluster 1: Useful
This cluster describes the value of three closely related questions of the questionnaire.
These questions are about the perceived utility, perceived benefits and perceived value of
the technology to create new plant species. These three questions were formulated as
follows:
1) To which extent do you think that [technology] is a useful way of creating new plant
species? (very useless – very useful)
2) To which extent do you think that using [technology] is a beneficial way of producing new
plant species? (very harmful --- very beneficial)
4) To which extent do you think that [technology] is valuable for the creating of new plant
species? (not valuable --- very valuable)
Cluster 2: risk
This cluster describes the value of two risk related questions. These questions are on the
perceived harmful consequences and the perceived safety of the production technology. The
question on perceived harmful consequences was formulated as follows:
3) To which extent do you think that using [technology] for creating new plant species may
lead to harmful consequences? (harmful consequences --- no harmful consequences)
6) To which extent do you think it is safe to use [technology] for creating new plant species?
(very unsafe---very safe)
Cluster 3: health
The third cluster compromises three questions that are related to health, namely question
on the perceived naturalness, the perceived profit/damage for the environment, and the
perceived healthiness of the production technology. The first question of this cluster was
formulated as following:
7) To which extent do you think that [technology] is a ‘natural’ way of creating new plant
species? (very unnatural --- very natural)
The next question of this cluster is about the perceived environmental profit/damage. This
question was formulated as follows:

22. 8) To which extent do you consider that [technology] is a polluting or environmental friendly
way of creating new plant species? (very polluting --- very environmental friendly)
9) To which extent do you think that it is healthy to use [technology] for creating new plant
species? (very unhealthy---very healthy)
Cluster 4: Heuristics
The questionnaire included also one question on heuristics. More specific this question is
about the perceived pleasure of the production technology.
5) To which extent do you think it is pleasant that [technology] is used for creating new plant
species? (very unpleasant--- very pleasant)
Cluster 5: general encouragement/support
The last cluster on general encouragement includes only the last question of the
questionnaire. This is the only question of the questionnaire that is formulated differently
for the different versions. Version 1 and 2 include question 10a on bio-fuel, while version 3
and 4 include question 10b on food.
10a) I do not have any problems with buying bio fuels that were created with the help of
[technology]. (Totally disagree --- totally agree)
10b) I do not have any problems with consuming food that is created with the help of
[technology]. (Totally disagree --- totally agree)
The cluster general encouragement and support, as representing the group of questions
regarding the personal motivation of the respondents towards new food technologies,
focuses on the problems people might have with buying/consuming bio-fuels/food produced
with this novel technology.
As to the reliability of the second set of questions concerning genomics, all ten questions
together had a reliability of 0.915 for the Netherlands. All ten questions in the Ukrainian
questionnaire had a reliability of 0.909. Therefore, these questions were averaged to create
an overall mean of all the questions.
Questions on interest (concern development, importance, certainty attitude)
In order to measure the general public’s concern towards new technology developments,
the importance people attach to it and their certainty of attitude about it, question on
interest were inserted in the questionnaire.

23. 1) To which extent do you feel concerned about the subject of new food/bio fuel
developments (Not concerned at all– very concerned)
2) How important do you consider the way in which new kind of foods/bio fuels are being
developed? (Not important at all – very important)
4) To which extent do you have doubts upon your attitude towards the subject of new kinds
of food/bio fuel developments? (No doubts – a lot of doubts)
For the analysis, the question on importance was divided into two groups, namely 1) lower
and equal than four, and 2) higher than four. As a result, the first group included
respondents for whom the development was not really important, and the second group
included respondents for whom the development had high importance. The first and second
group were compared with each other with help of an independent sample t-test.
Questions similarity technologies
In the forth set, the perceived similarity between the different novel food technologies is
measured because it should show to which extent the general public associate the
technologies with each other, and what the background of this association is. Seven images
were shown to the respondents and they were asked to select the image that represent
their opinion about the similarity or difference between two methods the best, by choosing
the corresponding number.
Questions about knowledge
The question regarding the respondent’s knowledge on Genomics in relation to GM is
actually a kind of control question, since the respondents are expected to have very little
knowledge regarding this novel technology. Three of four questions were about their
connection, relation and similarity of Genomics to GM. As the question about connection
(“When I heard the name Genomics for the first time, my connection to GM was … “)
decreased the reliability of the mean of all three question nearly by 0.15 point, this question
was not selected to create an overall mean for the association between GM and Genomics.
Relation and similarity questions were used to calculate an overall mean for the association
(reliability = 0.923). One-sample t-test was used to check whether the association between
GM and Genomics and the result was significantly higher than neutral (=4).
Need for Closure
In the Ukrainian version additional set of questions about Need for Closure has been
examined in order to measure the relationship between the respondent’s need for clear and
definitive answers to a certain issue and his/her perception of new food technologies. This

24. set of questions includes 25 statements about everyday preferences and the respondents
are asked to indicate on the 7-point scale (totally disagree – totally agree) to which extent
they agree with the statements.
7 out of the 25 answer scales had to be reversed in order to create a mean of all question
together with 1= low need for closure and 7= high need for closure. The questions, whose
answer scales were reversed, were the questions with the following numbers: 2, 10, 11, 13,
15, 19 and 24 (see Appendix 1). After the reliability was tested, five questions were excluded
from the overall need for closure variable, namely the questions 15 (reversed), 12, 19
(reversed), 13 (reversed) and 2 (reversed). This resulted in an overall reliability of 0.842 for
the variable capturing the Need for Closure questions.
The mean of all Need for Closure questions was divided into two groups: 1) mean is equal to
or lower than 4, and 2) mean is higher than 4. An independent sample t-test was used to see
whether there was a significant difference between these two groups for the mean
perception of Genomics.
Description of Subject Population and Place
The baseline recruitment of respondents in both countries will be described.
In the Netherlands, the experiment was executed with the help of a research agency called
Thesistools that disposes of a database with possible respondents. The questionnaire was
created and uploaded on the website of the agency and then published. The agency posted a
link with an invitation to the questionnaire on their website for a limited time, and
respondents who were in their online panel could fill in the questionnaire. Hence,
respondents with the Internet access only were enabled to fill out the questionnaire. The
respondents were selected randomly; however, several criteria for the selection were
applied based on the theory stated above.
The criteria were following:
• Respondents represent the general public
• Respondents must be 18 years old or older
• The proportion of males and females must be more or less equal
• Respondents of low to high level of education should be included
In the Ukraine, respondents were selected in a similar way. The Ukrainian agency iVOX
dealing with the execution of market researches was asked for cooperation. Respondents

25. were contacted by e-mail and were selected randomly based on the same criteria as in case
of the Dutch research.
Implementation of the questionnaire
Ukrainian questionnaire
The data collection was executed with the help of a research agency called iVOX located
in Ukraine. We as the ACT group provided iVOX with a questionnaire in the text format with
the detailed description of questionnaire routing. The agency has programmed and prepared
the online questionnaire for respondents. Questionnaires were created using specialized
research software (Socratos) which ensures quality control while filling out the survey. The
study was conducted using iVOX online panel. iVOX database size is around 30,000
respondents all over Ukraine. The sample of 408 respondents was selected from the online
panel based on the criteria described in the following chapter (age, region, gender) to target
the needed audience with the questionnaire. This kind of drawing sample method is called
sampling fraction (Oppenheim, 2005). The agency has sent a larger amount of special e-mail
invitations than needed to selected respondents to ensure the final quantity of completed
questionnaires. After collecting all filled in questionnaires, the SPSS dataset was delivered to
the ACT group who analyzed the results.
Dutch questionnaire
In the Netherlands, the data collection was executed with the help of a research agency as
well. The agency is called Thesistools and it enables to researches to upload and distribute
their own questionnaires. The sample of 139 respondents was selected from the online
panel. As the service of the agency is almost free of charge, a reward for filling in the
questionnaire was offered to respondents in order to increase the response rate. Several
criteria were applied when selecting the respondents (criteria are stated below). After
collecting the data, responses were checked for any missing values, double participants, and
participants who did not fill in the whole questionnaire were excluded from further analysis.

26. 4. Results
Description of the respondents
the Netherlands
In total, 277 Dutch respondents have filled in the questionnaire. Of the total number of
respondents, only 139 respondents completed the questionnaire up till the last question,
which was selected as a marker of questionnaire completion. The respondents who did not
complete the questionnaire were excluded from further analysis.
Double participation could not be prevented in the design of the questionnaire, therefore,
the participants’ IP-addresses were registered. Only one IP-address was found three times in
the data. This IP-address was not excluded from the analyses, for all three participants gave
a different e-mail addresses.
The respondents covered all categories of gender, age, education and employment sectors.
Hereby, the goal of stratification – to include a group of participants that represents the
general population – was achieved. For gender, age and sector there were no significant
differences between the four versions of the questionnaire. For education, there was a
significant difference (p-value = 0.031) between questionnaire version 1 (Classical Breeding
& Bio-fuel) and version 3 (Classical Breeding & Food).
The majority of Dutch respondents did not have any knowledge about Genomics. Only 8 out
of the 139 participants responded that they were ‘well-known’ with Genomics. The
distribution of knowledge over the four questionnaire versions was equal.
Ukraine
In Ukraine, 408 respondents completed the questionnaire, with having for each version
between the 94 and 111 respondents. The questionnaires included both male and female in
an more or less equal amount. For age, not all groups were represented by the respondents,
especially the oldest two age groups (61-70 and 71>) were absent. Around three quarter of
the respondents were highly educated (BSc degree and MSc degree) and only 8.8% did only
finish the elementary school and/or high school. Next to this, most of respondents indicated
that they were working or studying in the tertiary sector or others, whereof the latter
captures specifically persons who do not know to which sector their job or study belongs.

27. Comparisons between the four versions of the questionnaire revealed that there were no
significant differences between the different versions regarding respondent’s gender, age,
education and sector.
Nearly two-third of the respondents indicated that they were not familiar with Genomics at
all. Another third of the respondents indicated they had heard of Genomics before. There
was only one respondent who was well-known with Genomics.
the Netherlands vs. Ukraine
Comparisons between the respondents in the Netherlands and Ukraine were executed to
see whether in both countries groups were more or less similar, or not.
The Dutch questionnaire included slightly more men than women in comparison with the
Ukrainian version of the questionnaire. However, this difference was non-significant. There
was also no significant difference found for age, although, remarkable non-significant
differences could be found. The questionnaire in Ukraine didn’t cover respondents of 61
years-old and older, while the Dutch one did. In spite, Ukraine had more equal distribution
of respondents’ age in the first four age categories in comparison to the Netherlands where
mainly young adults (18-30 years-old) were included.
The comparison of education caused some difficulties, because of different education
categories in the Ukrainian and Dutch questionnaire. Two separate analyses with both 4
groups (elementary school, high school, higher education, and MSc degree or higher) were
made. In the first analysis, MBO was included into the high school group and in the second
analysis, it was included into the higher education group. Both ways have indicated a
significant difference (p-value = 0.000) between the education level of Ukraine and the
Netherlands. In general, four-fifth of the Ukrainians have obtained their MSc degree or
higher, while the major group of the Dutch respondents have graduated from high school or
obtained higher education depending on where MBO was placed.
Finally, there were no significant differences or remarkable findings for the employment
sector and knowledge variables.

28. Food vs. Bio-fuel in the Netherlands and Ukraine
the Netherlands
The perception of Genomics by general public in the Netherlands is neutral with an
inclination to the positive side.
The perception of Genomics with regard to food production is slightly positive in the
Netherlands, what can be read from the overall mean value, which is just above 4 (see Table
0-1). More interesting results, however, can be found when we distinguish different contexts
(=manipulation techniques) which were presented to the respondent. When the Dutch
respondents were confronted with the Classical Breeding (CB) technique in the manipulation
part of the questionnaire, Genomics for food receives a slightly more positive perception
(mean value = 4.16), than when the respondents were confronted with the Genetic
Manipulation (GM) technique in the manipulation part of the questionnaire. (mean value =
4.12).
The perception of Genomics for bio-fuel production purposes reveals to be more positive in
the Netherlands, than perception of Genomics for the food production purposes in the
Netherlands(overall mean 4.40 (for bio-fuel) vs. 4.14 (for food)). Here, the interesting
phenomenon that context influences the respondent’s attitude is observed. When
distinguishing the context, we see that perception of Genomics for bio-fuel is much more
positive when confronted with the classical breeding context (mean value = 4.53), than
when confronted with the GM context (mean value = 4.26).
The analysis has also shown that there is no significant difference (one-tailed p-value = 0.273)
between the perception of Genomics for food and Genomics for bio-fuel when confronted
with the Genetic Manipulation technique in the manipulation part of the questionnaire.
However, there is bordering significant difference between mentioned two (one-tailed p-
value = 0.078) if the Classical Breeding technique is presented.
Ukraine the Netherlands
CB GM Overall CB GM Overall
Food 3.57 3.43 3.49 4.16 4.12 4.14
Bio-fuel 4.10 3.76 3.94 4.53 4.26 4.40
Table 4-1 : Means of Genomics perception with respect to country, purpose and context

29. Ukraine
The perception of Genomics by general public in Ukraine is neutral with slight inclination to
the negative side.
The value for perception of Genomics with regard to food production in Ukraine is below the
average scale value (mean value = 3.49 < 4). Thus, it may be concluded that such perception
is slightly negative. When distinguishing the context presented, we see that in case of
classical breeding manipulation in the questionnaire, respondents were less negative
towards Genomics for food, than in case of GM manipulation (see Table 0-1 for means). This
result confirm the hypothesis that Genomics is perceived as more positive (or less negative)
when confronted with the Classical Breeding technique in the manipulation part, than when
with Genetic Manipulation.
The perception of Genomics for bio-fuels in Ukraine is quite neutral, but also (like in previous
cases) slightly dependent on the manipulation technique used. When the respondents were
confronted with the GM technique, the perception appeared to be a bit negative (mean
value = 3.76). However, when the classical breeding manipulation was presented, the
perception was slightly positive (mean value = 4.10).
Talking about the differences in perception of Genomics for food and Genomics for bio-fuel
with regard to the context presented, in both cases (in case of classical breeding technique
and genetic manipulation one) differences were significant. The Genomics for biofuel is
perceived as more positive than Genomics for food, when confronted with Classical Breeding
technique (one-tailed p-value = 0.002), and also when confronted with the Genetic
Manipulation technique (one-tailed p-value = 0.043).Perception of Genomics for the
Netherlands vs. Ukraine
the Netherlands and Ukraine
The results described above show some interesting tendency. Regardless of the purpose,
Genomics is perceived as more positive (or less negative) when the respondents were
confronted with the Classical Breeding technique in the manipulation part, compared to
when the respondents were confronted with the GM technique in the manipulation part.
This context influence can be observed both in the Netherlands and Ukraine. This implies
that the psychological mechanism with regard to the manipulation, functions equal
regardless of culture, background or observed attitude towards new food technologies.
This tendency is clearly visible on the two graphs, presented below.

30. Figure 4-1: Means of Genomics perception with regard to purpose and context (for the Netherlands)
Genetic ManipulationClassical Breeding
EstimatedMarginalMeans
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
biofuel
food
Purpose
Estimated Marginal Means of Perception of Genomics (mean of 10 questions)
Figure 4-2: Means of Genomics perception with regard to purpose and context (for Ukraine)

31. Perception of Genomics
The third hypothesis was formulated as following: “The general public in Ukraine perceives
genomics as more negative compared to the general public in the Netherlands.” This
hypothesis aims to get the overall view on the differences, therefore, all four versions were
taken together in the comparison between the countries.
The mean of all questions of both countries were compared by using the independent
sample t-test. The outcome showed that the perception of Genomics was more positive
(mean difference of 0.57) in the Netherlands compared to Ukraine (p-value=0.000).
Therefore, the hypothesis stated above was accepted. Ukrainians do perceive Genomics as
more negative when compared with the Dutch. (See also Figure 4).
The depth analysis was focused on the separated view (Classical Breeding and Genetic
Manipulation with connection between Food and Bio-fuel) of difference in the perception
between Netherlands and Ukraine. The outcome showed that the perception of both CB and
GM was equally positive with mean difference value around 0.5. All the results were
significant (only GM&food version had bordering significance p-value= 0.08). There was also
equal value between the bio-fuel and food purpose. Therefore, we could conclude that
people perceive Classical breeding and Genetic Manipulation food technologies more
positive in Netherlands without favor to the purpose they are used for.
Food vs. bio-fuel
The fourth hypothesis is formulated as following: “There is more significant difference to the
positive side in perception of Genomics for bio-fuel compared to Genomics for food in
Ukrainian case, than in Dutch.”
For testing this hypothesis, a General Linear Model (GLM) was built with the mean of all
questions as dependent variable and the purpose (food vs. bio-fuel) and country (NL vs. UA)
were put as independent variables. Results showed that there were significant differences in
purpose and country, but not in the interaction effect (two-sided p-value = 0.463). This
interaction effect between purpose and country was of specific interest for accepting or
rejection the hypothesis stated above (see also Figure 4). If the interaction effect had been
significant, then the hypothesis should have been accepted. In this case, the interaction
effect was not significant; therefore, there is no proof that there is more positive difference
between perception of Genomics for bio-fuel and perception of Genomics for food in
Ukraine compared to the Netherlands.

32. biofuelfood
EstimatedMarginalMeans
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
Ukraine
Netherlands
Country
Estimated Marginal Means of Perception of Genomics (mean of 10 questions)
Figure 4-3 At the left side of the horizontal axis is the perception of food for both the Netherlands and
Ukraine. On the right side of the axis, the perception of bio-fuel for both countries can be found. The
separate lines are for the Netherlands and Ukraine.
Perception of Genomics in the Netherlands and Ukraine
Importance and perception
It is assumed that people perceive the production technology as more positive when they
add relatively low importance to the way products are produced. In this research, this
assumption was checked for the production technology Genomics. The following hypothesis
was formulated: “The general public has a more positive perception of Genomics when they
perceive Genomics as relatively important”.
Table 4-2 presents the importance of Genomics separately for country and version of the
questionnaire. Remarkable enough, the overall trend can be observed that the respondents
with a low interest for product development valued Genomics more positive than the
respondents with a high interest for product development. The only cases which were in line
with the hypothesis stating that “the general public has a more positive perception of
Genomics when they perceive Genomics as relatively important”, were found for the context
food and Genetic Manipulation and for the overall picture in the Netherlands. For the first
one, the perception of Genomics was perceived significantly more positive among the

33. respondents in the category ‘important’ in comparison with the respondents in the category
‘not important’ (p-value = 0.003), for the Netherlands the same trend was observed
although not significant. However, a significant difference contradicting the hypothesis can
be found in the overall analysis of Ukraine (p-value = 0.001), although, with a rather small
mean difference between ‘not important’ and ‘important’. The most plausible reason for
this significant difference is the relatively great number of respondents and small standard
deviation, resulting in a small standard error.
Food bio-fuel
CB GM CB GM
Overall
the Netherlands not important 4.54 2.88* 4.65 4.31 4.26
important 4.06 4.32* 4.49 4.25 4.28
Ukraine not important 3.63 3.72 4.44 3.83 4.02*
important 3.56 3.37 3.80 3.67 3.56*
Table 4-2 Importance of Genomics in the Netherlands and Ukraine. This table displays the perception
of Genomics for respondents adding a great value to the development of new products, and for those
adding a low value to the development of new food products. The * indicates when a couple of values
(not important – important) is significantly different.
Table 4-2 shows that at least for Ukraine, the hypothesis is rejected, although, this
conclusion should be drawn very carefully. There is only a small difference between the
respondents in the both categories of importance for Ukraine. Moreover, the question is
whether it is right to sum up the different versions, for there are quite large differences
between the versions regarding the importance. For the Netherlands the hypothesis should
neither be confirmed nor be rejected. The Dutch respondents do not have a significantly
more positive perception for Genomics when they perceive Genomics as relatively important.
Association of Genetic Manipulation and Genomics
In the literature part, there was made the assumption that people would associate
Genomics to Genetic Manipulation when they are asked to give their opinion about
Genomics. In order to check this assumption, the following hypothesis was formulated: “The
general public associates Genomics with Genetic Manipulation”.

34. Table 4-3 shows the mean values of the association between Genetic Manipulation and
Genomics, which were calculated by the mean of the questions on relation and similarity.
The respondents were asked to give a score on a Likert scale running from 1 to 7, whit 1
representing ‘no relation/similarity’ and 7 ‘strong relation/similarity’. The values showed in
table 4-3 indicate a positive association between Genetic Manipulation and Genomics. All
values – except of the version GM & food in the Netherlands – were significantly different
from 4, which indicates that the hypothesis that “The general public associates Genomics
with Genetic Manipulation” is accepted for all but one version.
Ukraine the Netherlands
Food Bio-fuel Food Bio-fuel
CB 5.29* 4.81* 5.06* 4.56*
GM 4.80* 4.92* 4.14 4.80*
Table 4-3 The mean values of the association between GM and Genomics for each version of the
questionnaire presented for both countries separately. Meaning of symbols: * = significantly different
from 4.
Remarkable findings can be presented with regard to the association between Genomics and
GM in the case of presenting GM in the manipulation part of the questionnaire. It would
have been likely to expect that the association between Genomics and Genetic Manipulation
would be stronger as a result of presenting GM in the manipulation part of the questionnaire
and thereby potentially ‘stimulating’ the association between genomics and GM. In the
context of bio-fuel, the association between GM and Genomics was indeed stronger when
the GM context was used compared to when the Classical Breeding context was used. This
was observed in the Netherlands as well as in Ukraine, although the p-values were far from
significant –0.365 and 0.613 respectively. However, results for the food context proved that
the manipulation part of the questionnaire could also have an opposite effect with respect
to the association between Genomics and GM. In both countries, there was a stronger
association between GM and Genomics when Genomics was presented in the context of
Classical Breeding compared to the context of Genetic Manipulation. These results were
significant giving the following two sided p-values 0.008 and 0.023 for respectively the
Netherlands and Ukraine. It is remarkable to observe that presenting Genomics either in a

35. food or bio-fuel context influences the association made between Genomics and GM or
Classical Breeding, both In the Netherlands and Ukraine.
Need for Closure
One of the hypotheses researched was whether people with high Need for Closure, which is
a measure for the need for order and predictability and could also be indicated by ‘close-
mindedness’, have a low perception of Genomics. This hypotheses was based on the idea
that people who are highly close-minded would be less willing to accept new food
technologies. The hypothesis was formulated as follows: “Respondents with a high need for
closure will have a more negative perception of Genomics, compared to respondents with a
high Need for Closure”.
This hypothesis could only be tested for the participants from the Ukraine, as for the Dutch
questionnaire no question regarding Need for Closure were included. The questions
measuring Need for Closure were equal in each of the four versions of the questionnaire.
However, also here a context-effect could be observed, since different results for need for
Closure were shown for the different versions of the questionnaire. Only the questionnaire
presenting the context of food and Classical Breeding showed a significant difference in the
perception of Genomics between those with a high and those with a low need for closure
(see table 4-4). In this version of the questionnaire, respondents with a high Need for
Closure had a significantly more negative perception of Genomics than respondents with a
low Need for Closure. So only when genomics was presented in the context of food and
Classical Breeding, the hypothesis was confirmed. The remarkable thing is that this trend –
although not always significant – could only be found when Genomics was presented in the
Classical Breeding context, and not in the context of Genetic Manipulation.
Overall, there was a small difference (p-value = 0.200) between low and high Need for
Closure with a more negative perception among those with a high Need for Closure.

36. Food bio-fuel Overall
CB GM CB GM
low need 3.73* 3.37 4.28 3.71 3.76
high need 3.28* 3.51 3.90 3.82 3.65
Table 4-4 Mean of the perception of Genomics for the respondents with a low Need for Closure and
for those with a high Need for Closure. The * indicates a significant difference between the groups
with low and high Need for Closure with regard to their perception of Genomics.

37. 5. Discussion
Limitations of the study
With this study the researchers attempted to investigate the perception of the general
public with regard to Genomics, both in the Netherlands and in Ukraine. The main
limitations of this study can be found in the representation of the general public in the
Netherlands as well as in the Ukraine. The questionnaire has been presented in a web-based
format. This implies that people who do not have access to the Internet are not taken into
account, moreover Internet users are relatively young compared to a real representation of
the general public. For both countries a large database, has been used in order to get into
contact with the respondents. Although, the researchers were told that the database should
represent the general public, it is questionable whether it did.
The population sample of the questionnaire in the Netherlands consists of nearly 300
respondents. Unfortunately only 50 percent of respondents completely filled in the
questionnaires. Although our sample of population was 139 respondents, the distribution
was in consensus with the data from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistic with regard to the
aspects which were checked in the questionnaire, being age, education and sector rates
(www.cbs.nl, 2010). Therefore it can be concluded that the sample of the study represents
the general public in the Netherlands.
For the Ukraine there is a sample of 408 completely filled in surveys. This should represent
the more reliable dataset for the analysis in the Ukraine. On the other hand in there was
quite high dissimilarity in the Education rate with comparison to the State statistics
Committee in Ukraine (www.ukrstat.gov.ua, 2010). Our sample represented over 80 percent
citizens with MSc degree, whereas the data of 2001 from the Committee showed only 40
percent of the Ukrainian population graded Msc. Therefore our sample might show the
limitation according to the education rate. The other rates (age group, sex) were distributed
in consensus.
The design of the current research is mainly based on findings from prior researches in the
field of consumer acceptance of Genetic Manipulation, since it had been proven that Genetic
Manipulation is being associated with Genomics. This assumption was fundamental to the
present research and was therefore tested. It turned out that indeed, the General public

38. associates Genomics with GM. Therefore the researchers find it defendable that the
research questions, hypotheses and design of the questionnaire were based on this
assumption.
As mentioned already, a questionnaire was developed in order to measure the general
public’s perception of genomics, their association between Genomics and GM and their
Need for Closure. According to the Cronbach’s Alpha of the ten questions about Genomics,
the ten items could be averaged to one item with high reliability. However not all questions
measuring the associations and the Need for Closure could be brought together, for this
resulted in a low reliability. For the questions measuring association, the question – that
decreased the overall reliability – has been disregarded. Separate analyses of this question
showed the same results as the results given by the overall variable, approving the
association between GM and Genomics. For the questions measuring Need for Closure it
was remarkable to find that only the five questions which were stated in a ‘reverse’ way,
were found out to be unreliable. This could have been caused by respondent’s tendency to
score differently for reverse questions (they are not consequent).
In order to measure the ‘perception’, different questions were formulated with regard to the
following According to Gaskell et al. (2004), a new technology should be offering benefits
over and above what is currently available in order to be useful and valuable. The main
problem with the acceptance of GM food was in his eyes the lack of perceived benefits. As
Genomics is associated with Genetic Manipulation, the general public might perceive no
benefits for Genomics as well (Gaskell, Allum et al. 2004). On the other site, the general
public is increasingly interested in sustainable bio-fuel production methods, which is offered
by providing bio-fuels produced with help of GM or Genomics. For bio-fuel, the public beliefs
that Genomics is offering benefits and is – as consequence – useful for the society (Verbeke
2007). The general acceptance of Genomics is related to the problems of buying food or bio-
fuel. The Dutch did have more problems with buying food than bio-fuel produced with help
of Genomics. This may (again) be a “fruit” of associating Genomics with the GM (current
research has shown strong association between two). Whereas food has direct impact on
the human, the impact of biofuel (or ordinary fossil fuel) is rather “indirect”. Therefore,
taking into account that fuels in general are, in contrast with food, quite harmful,
respondent may consider biofuel more environmental friendly. After all, biofuel is the final
product, which is made by processing the plant’s oil, so Genomics (or GM) is not direct
production technique in this case.

39. This research has investigated that the general public of the Netherlands and Ukraine
perceives Genomics as more positive when presented as a way to increase bio-fuel
production than when presented as a way to increase food production. In the Netherlands, a
non-significant overall difference could be found between the presentation context food and
bio-fuel, with a more positive view for the bio-fuel context. A more detailed look did reveal
also some significant differences in the perception of Genomics between food and bio-fuel.
These significant differences could be found – as might be expected – on the questions
about usefulness, benefits and general acceptance of Genomics.
In Ukraine, the results showed a significant difference in the perception of Genomics
between food and bio-fuel, which indicated that Genomics was perceived as more positive
when presented as a way to increase bio-fuel production compared to food production. The
most obvious difference between food and bio-fuel in the Ukraine was about the general
acceptation of Genomics, which was expressed with the statement: “I do not have any
problems with buying bio-fuels/foods that were created with the help of Genomics”. This
question scored among the lowest for food (2.79), while for the biofuels the score was one
of the highest (4.96). This implies that Ukrainians do have problems with buying food
produced with help of Genomics, while they seem to have hardly any problems with buying
Genomics produced bio-fuels. The state of mind in Ukraine towards the use of
biotechnology – and more specific the use of GM – might provide an explanation for this
phenomenon (see also explanation for the Dutch case above). Although the legislation on
labeling of GM foods was cancelled by the government, the food companies continued
putting “No GMO” labels themselves. No food products with the label “Contains GMO”
could be found on the market, although food included GM. These practices show the public
rejection of GM food and the use of biotechnology in food production. The findings in the
analyses of this report are in coherence with the current practices in Ukraine.
Next to the differences between food and bio-fuel in both countries, there were some
obvious differences between both countries. In general, the Ukrainians perceived Genomics
significantly more negative than the Dutch. This difference can be explained by the low
acceptance of GM and the anti-biotechnology lobby in Ukraine and also quite positive
acceptance of biotechnology in the Netherlands. Unlike Ukraine, the Netherlands does
allow 18 species of Genetically Modified Organisms, as long as it is useful for the society and
it does not result in harmful animal consequences (European Union, 2010). Another
explanation might be the difference between the respondents of both countries. The
respondents of the Ukraine had a significantly higher education than the respondents in the

40. Netherlands. This significant differences are partly due to dissimilar answer categories; the
Dutch had no ability to fill out that they obtained their BSc degree, while Ukrainians could.
On the other hand, if education is a good explanation of the findings, there should be found
a positive connection between education and the rejection of new technologies. Research in
the field of food additives showed that there is a connection between education and the
standpoints taken towards the subject under discussion. Higher educated persons tend to
keep contradicting perspectives in mind and analyze them, and therefore, they do less
quickly accept or reject new things (Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman 1996). Because this
finding does not support the idea that higher education results in more negative viewpoint,
education can not explain the differences between the Netherlands and Ukraine. So, the
differences in the mind-set of the Ukrainians and Dutch seem to be the most plausible
explanation. However, the difference in education could be related also to the Need for
Closure.
Practical implications of the study
New breeding plant practices such as Genomics enable to producers to benefit from it. For
example, future food products will benefit from more efficient, less costly processing
methods, better quality, enhanced freshness and longer shelf lives. Consumer demand for
fresh tasting products and convenience foods is increasing, therefore, new food processing
methods are increasingly needed as well. Genomics technology has also been applied to bio-
fuel production, which nowadays can be useful. Humans have to face the fact that the
sources of crude oil are not unlimited, and bio fuels can serve as a new source of fuels.
When introducing a new technology, such as Genomics, to public, producers should be
careful with the selection of the name for the technology. In the Results chapter it has been
shown that if consumers do not have any knowledge about genomics, they associate this
term with a very similar one, which is Genetic Manipulation as the syllabus “gen” is common
for both terms. This finding has a negative impact on the final evaluation of the Genomics.
The practical implication for the producers is that they should select suitable term when
they introduce a new technology. Another important aspect that which should be taken into
account by the producers is to provide background information about the application of the
new plant breeding practice. The way, in which the consumers are informed about the
application of the technology, can also influence their final evaluation. If consumers are not
provided with any background information, they will categorize it to already existing
technology, which can be seen both positive and negative. Hence, the potential lack of initial

41. support for new technologies among the general public creates a risky environment for the
introduction of the technology to the market.
Scientific implications of the study
To conclude it can be stated that Genomics is perceived as more positive when presented as
a way to increase bio-fuel production compared to when presented as a way to increase
food production, in both the Netherlands and Ukraine. Furthermore, Genomics is perceived
as more positive when presented in the context of Classical Breeding compared to the
context of Genetic Manipulation. These findings show that presentation contexts have a
great impact on technology perception of consumers. Both the food sector and science can
benefit from this knowledge by enabling the successful introduction of new food products
and getting better insight in consumers psychological processes and decision making.

42. 6. References
Arie Kruglanski, E. T. H. (2003). Social Psychology: A General Reader (Key Readings in Social
Psychology, Psychology Press.
Armor, D. A. and S. E. Taylor (2003). "The effects of mindset on behavior: Self-regulation in
deliberative and implemental frames of mind." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
29(1): 86-95.
Bäckström, A., A. M. Pirttilä-Backman, et al. (2003). "Dimensions of novelty: a social
representation approach to new foods." Appetite 40(3): 299-307.
Basu, K. (1993) “Consumers’ Categorization Processes: An Examination with Two Alternative
Methodological Paradigms.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (2), 97–121.
Bowling, A. (1997). Research Methods in Health. Buckingham, Open University Press
Chaiken, S. (1980). "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5): 752-
766.
Devine, P. G. (1989). "Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled
Components." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(1): 5-18.
Gal U, B. N. (2008). "A social representations perspective on information systems
implementation." Information Technology & People 21(2): 133-154.
Gaskell, G., A. Allensdottir (2006). "European and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and
Trends. Eurobarometer 64.3" Directorate-General for Research European Commission
Gaskell, G., N. Allum, et al. (2004). "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception."
Risk Analysis 24(1): 185-194.
Gentner, D. (1989). “The mechanisms of Analogical Learning” In: S. Vosniadou & a. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1993). Letters From Prison, Volume 2, Columbia University Press

43. Gregan-Paxton, J., Hoeffler, S., & Zhao, M. (2005). “When categorization is ambiguous:
factors that facilitate the use of a multiple category inference strategy.” In: Journal of
Consumer Psychology 15: 127-140.
Grushenko, K. (2010). "Agrarian Ministry: Ukraine has little genetically modified food, but
there is no way to check." from http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/65859/.
Higgins, E. T. (1990). "Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Volume 2: Foundations of
Social Behavior".
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). "The attribution of attitudes." Journal of experimental
social psychology 3: 1-24.
Kruglanski, D. M. W. a. A. W. (1994). "Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 1049-1062.
M Peter Gollwitzer, H., Heinz; Steller Birgit (1990). "Deliberative and implemental mind-sets:
Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. ." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 59(6): 1119-1127.
MARKOVA, I. and P. WILKIE (1987). "Representations, Concepts and Social Change: The
phenomenon of AIDS." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 17(4): 389-409.
Moreau, Page,C., Markman,A.B., Lehmann,D.R. (2001) “‘What Is It?’ Categorization Flexibility
and Consumers’ Responses to Really New Products.” Journal of Consumer Research, 27
(March), 489–498.
Moscovici, S. (1988). "Notes towards a description of Social Representations." European
Journal of Social Psychology 18(3): 211-250.
Moskowitz, H. R., J. B. German, et al. (2005). "Unveiling Health Attitudes and Creating Good-
For-You Foods: The Genomics Metaphor, Consumer Innovative Web-Based Technologies."
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 45(3): 165 - 191.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1998). “Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement”,
Pinter Publications.

44. Pin, R. R. and J. M. Gutteling (2009). "The development of public perception research in the
genomics field: An empirical analysis of the literature in the field." Science Communication
31(1): 57-83.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Ratneshwar, Srinivasan, Barsalou, L.W., Pechmann, C., and Moore, M. (2001) “Goal-Derived
Categories: The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations.” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 10 (3), 147–158.
Rattray, J. and M. C. Jones (2007). "Essential elements of questionnaire design and
development." Journal of Clinical Nursing 16(2): 234-243.
Rosch, E. (1975). “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
Rudolph, M. J. (1995). "The food product development process." British Food Journal 97(3):
3-11.
Stewart-Knox, B. and P. Mitchell "What separates the winners from the losers in new food
product development?" Trends in Food Science & Technology 14(1-2): 58-64.
Sujan, Mita, and Tybout, A.M. 1988) “Applications and Extensions of Categorization Research
in Consumer Behavior.” In Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 15, ed. M. Houston, pp. 50–
54, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Trautskaya, J. (2010) Ukraine needs effective lobby for genetically modified products.
AgriMarket
Tuorila, H. (2001). "Keeping up with the change: Consumer responses to new and modified
foods." Food Chain Programme Abstract: 40.
Tybout, A. M., B. Sternthal, et al. (1983). "Information Availability as a Determinant of
Multiple Request Effectiveness." Journal of Marketing Research 20(3): 280-290.
Van de Velde, L., W. Verbeke, et al. (2009). "Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and
its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium." Energy Policy 37(8): 3183-31

45. Van den Heuvel, T. (2008). "Consumers & Plant Genomics The positioning and acceptance of
a new plant breeding practice."
Verbeke, W. (2007). "Consumer attitudes toward genetic modification and sustainability:
Implications for the future of biorenewables." Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 1(3):
215-225.
Vermeir, I., P. Van Kenhove, et al. (2002). "The influence of need for closure on consumer's
choice behaviour." Journal of Economic Psychology 23(6): 703-727.
Webster, D. M. (1993). "Motivated Augmentation and Reduction of the Overattribution
Bias." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(2): 261-271.
Xu, Alison J. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2007). "The Effect of Mindâ Sets on Consumer
Decision Strategies." Journal of Consumer Research 34(4): 556-566.

46. 45
Appendix I Dutch Questionnaire
Version 1
Introductie
In dit onderzoek wordt de mate waarin mensen bewust zijn van de ontwikkeling van nieuwe
plantensoorten onderzocht. Er zijn verscheidende technieken voor de ontwikkeling van
nieuwe planten soorten voor verschillende doeleinden. U wordt gevraagd uw mening te
geven over de gepresenteerde techniek.
De vragenlijst zal starten met enkele algemene vragen. Daarna zullen verscheidene
technieken aan u worden gepresenteerd, waarover u uw mening kunt geven in de
daaropvolgende vragen. U zult ook gevraagd worden aan te geven in welke mate u
geïnteresseerd bent in dit onderwerp. Aan het eind is de mogelijkheid om uw e-mailadres in
te vullen en op die manier kans te maken op één van de prijzen. Deze prijzen zullen worden
verloot onder de deelnemers die de vragenlijst volledig hebben ingevuld.
Wees ervan bewust dat we geïnteresseerd zijn in uw mening en niet in de feiten. Probeer
dus uw mening te geven in het beantwoorden van de vragen.
Algemene informatie
Ik ben een:
0 man
0 vrouw
--
Mijn leeftijd is … jaar
--
Mijn hoogst voltooide opleiding is:
0 basisschool
0 VMBO
0 HAVO
0 VWO

47. 46
0 MBO
0 HBO
0 WO
--
Ik ben werkzaam/leerzaam in de volgende sector:
0 primaire (agrarisch)
0 secundaire (industrieel)
0 tertiaire (commerciële dienstverlening)
0 quartaire (niet-commerciële dienstverlening)
0 n.v.t
Experiment
In de volgende tekst worden verscheidene manieren om nieuwe plantensoorten te
ontwikkelen gepresenteerd. Lees deze tekst zorgvuldig en klik op ‘verder’ wanneer je klaar
bent met lezen.
--
Er is een beperkte brandstof voorraad aanwezig op onze planeet. Wetenschappers zijn
daarom bezig met het ontwikkelen van alternatieve energiebronnen. Een alternatieve
energiebron kan worden gevonden in het gebruik van biobrandstoffen. Verschillende
agrarische methoden kunnen de productie van brandstoffen verhogen. U zult nu een
introductie lezen over twee van deze agrarische methodes.
In de landbouw worden nieuwe plantensoorten ontwikkeld met behulp van verschillende
methodes. Klassieke Veredeling is één van deze methoden om nieuwe plantensoorten te
ontwikkelen. Bij klassieke veredeling wordt het stuifmeel van een plant op de bloem van een
andere plant aangebracht. Het doel hiervan is om een nieuwe plant te ontwikkelen die de
beste eigenschappen van beide heeft. Bijvoorbeeld: door het kruisen van een zonnebloem
die snel groeit en een zonnebloem die veel olie produceert kan een zonnebloem worden
ontwikkeld die snel na het zaaien veel olie produceert. Op deze manier kunnen
biobrandstoffen worden ontwikkeld die tegemoet komen aan onze energie behoeften.

48. 47
Er zijn ook andere methoden om nieuwe plantensoorten te ontwikkelen. Een voorbeeld van
zo’n andere methode is Genomics.
--
Vragen over Genomics
U hebt een beschrijving van Klassieke Veredeling gelezen. Na deze beschrijving werd nog een
manier van het maken van nieuwe plantensoorten genoemd. Deze wijze heet Genomics.
Er volgen nu een aantal vragen over de zojuist gepresenteerde methodes. De antwoorden
worden gegeven m.b.v. een 7-puntsschaal. Kies het getal dat het best past bij jouw mening.
De volgende vragen gaan over Genomics.
--
In welke mate lijkt Genomics u een nuttige manier voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten
planten.
(Heel onnuttig --- heel nuttig)
--
In welke mate lijkt Genomics u een schadelijke of juist een bevorderende manier voor het
ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten.
(Heel schadelijk --- heel bevorderlijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt het u dat het gebruik van Genomics voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe
soorten planten kan leiden tot schadelijke gevolgen?
(Heel schadelijke gevolgen --- helemaal geen schadelijk gevolgen)
--
In welke mate lijkt u Genomics waardevol voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel waardeloos --- heel waardevol)
--
In welke mate vindt u het prettig dat Genomics wordt toegepast bij het ontwikkelen van
nieuwe soorten planten.

49. 48
(heel onprettig---heel prettig)
--
In welke mate lijkt u het veilig is om Genomics te gebruiken voor het ontwikkelen van
nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel onveilig --- heel veilig)
--
In welke mate lijkt Genomics u een ‘natuurlijke’ manier is voor het ontwikkelen van de
nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel onnatuurlijk --- heel natuurlijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt Genomics u een vervuilende of natuurlijk vriendelijke manier voor het
ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel vervuilend --- heel milieuvriendelijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt Genomics u gezond voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel ongezond --- heel gezond)
--
Ik heb geen problemen met het gebruiken van brandstoffen die zijn ontwikkeld met behulp
van Genomics.
(helemaal mee oneens --- helemaal mee eens)
Vragen over Klassieke veredeling of Genetische manipulatie
De volgende vragen gaan over Klassieke Veredeling.
--
In welke mate lijkt Klassieke Veredeling u een nuttige manier voor het ontwikkelen van
nieuwe soorten planten.
(Heel onnuttig --- heel nuttig)

50. 49
--
In welke mate lijkt Klassieke Veredeling u een schadelijke of juist een bevorderende manier
voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten.
(Heel schadelijk --- heel bevorderlijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt het u dat het gebruik van Klassieke Veredeling voor het ontwikkelen van
nieuwe soorten planten kan leiden tot schadelijke gevolgen?
(Heel schadelijke gevolgen --- helemaal geen schadelijk gevolgen)
--
In welke mate lijkt u Klassieke Veredeling waardevol voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe
soorten planten?
(heel waardeloos --- heel waardevol)
--
In welke mate vindt u het prettig dat Klassieke Veredeling wordt toegepast bij het
ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten.
(heel onprettig---heel prettig)
--
In welke mate lijkt u het veilig is om Klassieke Veredeling te gebruiken voor het ontwikkelen
van nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel onveilig --- heel veilig)
--
In welke mate lijkt Klassieke Veredeling u een ‘natuurlijke’ manier is voor het ontwikkelen
van de nieuwe soorten planten?
(heel onnatuurlijk --- heel natuurlijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt Klassieke Veredeling u een vervuilende of natuurlijk vriendelijke manier
voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten planten?

51. 50
(heel vervuilend --- heel milieuvriendelijk)
--
In welke mate lijkt Klassieke Veredeling u gezond voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe soorten
planten?
(heel ongezond --- heel gezond)
--
Ik heb geen problemen met het gebruiken van brandstoffen die zijn ontwikkeld met behulp
van Klassieke Veredeling.
(helemaal mee oneens --- helemaal mee eens)
U krijgt nu enkele vragen met betrekking tot uw mening over het ontwikkelen van nieuwe
soorten planten.
--
In welke mate hecht je belang aan het ontwikkelen van nieuwe brandstoffen?
(geen belang --- erg veel belang)
--
Hoe belangrijk vind u de manier waarop nieuwe brandstoffen worden geproduceerd?
(Helemaal niet belangrijk --- heel erg belangrijk)
--
In welke mate twijfel je aan je houding met betrekking tot het onderwerp van het
ontwikkelen van nieuwe brandstoffen.
(geen twijfels – heel veel twijfels)
Er volgen nu een aantal vragen die betrekking hebben op de gelijkheid van de verschillende
productiemethoden. U krijgt zeven plaatjes te zien met daarbij de getallen van 1 tot en met
7. We willen u vragen om het plaatje te kiezen dat het beste uw mening weergeeft over de
overeenkomstigheid van de verschillende productiemethoden. Kies vervolgens het nummer
dat bij dit plaatje hoort.
--