What Influences Consumer Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods?

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) foods have attracted a great deal of controversy. While some consumers and organizations regard GM foods as safe, many other consumers and organizations remain concerned about their potential health risks. The results of three studies suggest that consumers respond differently to persuasive messages regarding GM foods on the basis of their preexisting attitudes. Weak anti-GM consumers tend to comply with a variety of pro-GM messages. In contrast, strong anti-GM consumers exhibit message-opposing behavior. Moreover, they respond just as negatively to a safety message (claiming that GM foods are safe) as to a risk message (claiming that GM foods are unsafe). The mechanism underlying these effects is consumers' perceived health risk. A benefit message claiming that GM foods are beneficial (e.g., more nutritious than their conventional counterparts) is a better alternative for strong anti-GM consumers. Finally, the results suggest that persuasive messages do not significantly change pro-GM consumers' evaluations of these foods.

Motivating Sustainable Change in Tourism Behavior: The First- and Third-Person Effects of Hard and Soft Messages

“…Moreover, drawing on vested interests being related to the consistency between attitude and behavior, we suggest that consumer reactions to advertising messages should differ, corresponding to differing values and attitudes [26]. We therefore argue, in line with the findings by Pham and Mandel [29], that consumer responses to persuasive sustainability messages depend on their preexisting attitudes towards sustainability and environmental issues. This is also in line with the expectations of how consumers' actions are consistent with their value-relevant involvement [30], and we therefore expect consumers with a stronger attitude towards environmental issues to be less concerned about the tone of the message, as the content of the message parallels their personal views.…”

“…All measures used were drawn from previous research. Five measures for attitudes towards environmental issues were adapted from Petty and Krosnick [32] and Pham and Mandel [29]. Example items are: "How much do you personally care about issues related to the environment?…”

Expanding the Lens of Food Well-Being: An Examination of Contemporary Marketing, Policy, and Practice with an Eye on the Future

“…While this work carries important implications for individual well-being, the articles included here also expand our understanding about consumers’ holistic relationship with food. Each article focuses on well-being—and, more specifically, on one or more of the key drivers of food well-being: food socialization (Mugel, Gurviez, and Decrop 2019; Parker, Umashankar, and Schleicher 2019), food literacy (André, Chandon, and Haws 2019; Zheng, Bolton, and Alba 2019), food marketing (Cooremans and Geuens 2019; Leonard, Campbell, and Manning 2019), food availability (Bublitz et al 2019), and food policy (Berry et al 2019; Pham and Mandel 2019).…”

The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China

“…Most surveys showed that the risk perceptions of the public toward GMF are high across the world [ 11 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. In the context of GMF, perceived risks may be a key factor that determines ACC as perceived benefits [ 16 , 74 , 75 ]. Most studies and reviews have concluded that perceived benefits positively influence the acceptance of GMF.…”