Psychological factors that determine people's willingness-to-share genetic data for research

被引:20
作者
Bearth, Angela [1 ]
Siegrist, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Inst Environm Decis, Consumer Behav, Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
risk perception; privacy; data sharing; genetic literacy; trust; INNOVATIVE FOOD TECHNOLOGIES; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; LAY JUDGMENTS; SOCIAL TRUST; ATTITUDES; PRIVACY; RISK; EXPERT; KNOWLEDGE; PERCEPTIONS;
D O I
10.1111/cge.13686
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Of all the information that we share, health and genetic data might be among the most valuable for researchers. As data are handled as particularly sensitive information, a number of pressing issues regarding people's preferences and privacy concerns are raised. The goal of the present study was to contribute to an understanding of people's reported willingness-to-share genetic data for science (WTS). For this, predictive psychological factors (eg, risk and benefit perceptions, trust, knowledge) were investigated in an online survey (N = 416). Overall, participants seemed willing to provide their genetic data for research. Participants who perceived more benefits associated with data sharing were particularly willing to share their data for research (beta = .29), while risk perceptions were less influential (beta = -.14). As participants with higher knowledge of the potential uses of genetic data for research perceived more benefits (beta = .20), WTS can likely be improved by providing people with information regarding the usefulness of genetic data for research. In addition to knowledge and perceptions, trust in data recipients increased people's willingness-to-share directly (beta = .24). Especially in the sensitive area of genetic data, future research should strive to understand people's shifting perceptions and preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:483 / 491
页数:9
相关论文
共 54 条
[21]  
Earle TC, 2007, TRUST RISK MANAGEMEN
[22]  
Greszki R., 2014, ONLINE PANEL RES DAT
[23]   Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review [J].
Gupta, Nidhi ;
Fischer, Arnout R. H. ;
Frewer, Lynn J. .
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2012, 21 (07) :782-795
[24]   Public Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing [J].
Haga, Susanne B. ;
Barry, William T. ;
Mills, Rachel ;
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S. ;
Svetkey, Laura ;
Sullivan, Jennifer ;
Willard, Huntington F. .
GENETIC TESTING AND MOLECULAR BIOMARKERS, 2013, 17 (04) :327-335
[25]   Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks [J].
Hansen, J ;
Holm, L ;
Frewer, L ;
Robinson, P ;
Sandoe, P .
APPETITE, 2003, 41 (02) :111-121
[26]  
IBM Corp, 2017, IBM SPSS STAT WINDOW
[27]   Informed consent for human genetic and genomic studies: a systematic review [J].
Khan, A. ;
Capps, B. J. ;
Sum, M. Y. ;
Kuswanto, C. N. ;
Sim, K. .
CLINICAL GENETICS, 2014, 86 (03) :199-206
[28]   Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon [J].
Kokolakis, Spyros .
COMPUTERS & SECURITY, 2017, 64 :122-134
[29]   INTUITIVE TOXICOLOGY - EXPERT AND LAY JUDGMENTS OF CHEMICAL RISKS [J].
KRAUS, N ;
MALMFORS, T ;
SLOVIC, P .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1992, 12 (02) :215-232
[30]   Protecting Posted Genes: Social Networking and the Limits of GINA [J].
Lee, Sandra Soo-Jin ;
Borgelt, Emily .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2014, 14 (11) :32-44