Many opponents of genetically engineered (GE) food say that it ought to be prohibited regardless of the risks and benefits (Scott et al., 2016). If many people are truly unwilling to consider risks and benefits in evaluating GE technology, this poses serious problems for scientists and policymakers. In a large demographically-representative German sample (N = 3,025), we investigate consequence-insensitive beliefs about GE crops among GE supporters and opponents, as well as whether these beliefs can be mitigated. We find that a large majority of opponents and a substantial minority of supporters are consequence-insensitive: They say that risks and benefits are irrelevant to their views. At the same time, the responses of consequence-insensitive participants to subsequent belief probes show substantial flexibility. Participants often gave responses inconsistent with the unconditional prohibition or permission of GE crops. These results suggest that professed consequence insensitivity should be taken as an expression of a strong moral belief rather than as literal endorsement of policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

减轻转基因作物的后果不敏感性。

许多转基因 (GE) 食品的反对者表示，无论风险和收益如何，都应该禁止转基因食品（Scott 等，2016）。如果许多人确实不愿意在评估GE技术时考虑风险和收益，这会给科学家和政策制定者带来严重的问题。在一个具有人口代表性的德国样本中（N = 3,025），我们调查了转基因支持者和反对者对转基因作物后果不敏感的信念，以及这些信念是否可以减轻。我们发现，绝大多数反对者和极少数支持者对后果不敏感：他们说风险和收益与他们的观点无关。与此同时，对结果不敏感的参与者对随后的信念探索的反应表现出很大的灵活性。参与者经常给出与无条件禁止或允许转基因作物不一致的回答。这些结果表明，公开宣称的后果不敏感应被视为强烈道德信仰的表达，而不是对政策的字面认可。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。