Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36507029›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

The implicit and explicit attitudes of Chinese university students towards genetic modification.

Wanyu Zhang, Jilin Zou, Tong Yue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wanyu ZhangFaculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Jilin ZouDepartment of Psychology, School of Education, Linyi University, Linyi, Shandong, China.
Tong YueFaculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic modification (GM) technology is a technology that changes the characteristics of species through changing the genes of species. Public attitudes toward GM technology have an important impact on the technology's development. Previous surveys conducted in China used to assess public attitudes toward GM have mostly focused on the explicit level, which is recognized and acknowledged through the self-report method. However, the corresponding research on the implicit level is still lacking, which is unconscious and automated. The public attitudes toward the complete concept of GM are still unclear. In order to fill this gap, this study uses a questionnaire survey (Study 1), and interaction verification of the SC-IAT paradigm and the GNAT paradigm (Study 2) to investigate the explicit and implicit attitudes of Chinese university students towards GM. The role of education level is also examined in this study. The results show that the explicit attitudes of Chinese university students towards GM are generally positive, and the main effect of education level is significant. Finally, the mediating effect of the cognitive level between education level and explicit GM attitude is significant. However, the implicit GM attitudes of university students are generally negative, and neither the main effect of education level nor the mediating effect of cognition level is significant. University students as the future consumers and an important part of public opinion, their attitude to GM will affect the development of GM technology to a large extent. This study provides a theoretical basis for improving Chinese university students' attitudes toward GM, and also provides new research ideas for the public view of GM.

Indexed as

explicit attitudegenetic modificationgo/no-go association testimplicit attitudesingle category implicit association test

Identifiers

PMID36507029
PMCPMC9728140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.