IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i10p5264-d555178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Evidence on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food through Advertisement Framing on Health and Environmental Benefits, Objective Knowledge, and Risk Reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Hassan Raza

    (Department of Communication Studies, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 66000, Pakistan)

  • Umer Zaman

    (Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon 34606, Korea)

  • Paulo Ferreira

    (VALORIZA—Research Center for Endogenous Resource Valorization, 7300-555 Portalegre, Portugal
    Department of Economic Sciences and Organizations, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, 7300-555 Portalegre, Portugal
    CEFAGE-UE, IIFA, University of Évora, 7000-809 Évora, Portugal)

  • Pablo Farías

    (Departamento de Administración, Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8330015, Chile)

Abstract

Owing to the emerging challenges on global food security and the decade of controversies over genetically modified food (hereafter GMF), the present study aims to explore the effects of advertisement framing on health and environmental benefits, sources of perceived risk reduction, and domain-specific knowledge on the acceptance of GMF. The study conducted a quasi-experimental factorial 2 (advertisement message framing: health vs. environmental benefits) × 2 (expert endorsement: present vs. absent) between-subject design involving 300 adult participants from Pakistan. Using a multi-group structural equation model, the four conditions were assigned to each participant group ( n = 75) to test the hypothesized relationships. The quasi-experiment results suggested that the advertisement messages (ad-framed) incorporated with the health and environmental benefits, as delineated by experts, can be a viable communication strategy in developing effortless cognitive cues towards GMF acceptance. The pioneer findings validate the significant efficacy of advertisement messages (ad-framed with expert opinions) in reducing perceived risk through augmented objective knowledge that activates the mechanism of favorable development of attitude and acceptance of GMF. The study findings offer strategic directions to policymakers, marketers, and food technologists in raising greater awareness and acceptance towards GMF products.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Hassan Raza & Umer Zaman & Paulo Ferreira & Pablo Farías, 2021. "An Experimental Evidence on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food through Advertisement Framing on Health and Environmental Benefits, Objective Knowledge, and Risk Reduction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5264-:d:555178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Huanguang Qiu & Jikun Huang & Carl Pray & Scott Rozelle, 2012. "Consumers’ trust in government and their attitudes towards genetically modified food: empirical evidence from China," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 67-87, July.
    3. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    4. Magdalena Bekk & Matthias Spörrle & Franziska Völckner & Erika Spieß & Ralph Woschée, 2017. "What is not beautiful should match: how attractiveness similarity affects consumer responses to advertising," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 509-522, December.
    5. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, March.
    6. Mairead Kiely & Kevin D. Cashman, 2018. "Summary Outcomes of the ODIN Project on Food Fortification for Vitamin D Deficiency Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    8. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    9. Syed Hassan Raza & Umer Zaman & Moneeba Iftikhar & Owais Shafique, 2021. "An Experimental Evidence on Eco-Friendly Advertisement Appeals and Intention to Use Bio-Nanomaterial Plastics: Institutional Collectivism and Performance Orientation as Moderators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-16, January.
    10. McCormick, Karla, 2016. "Celebrity endorsements: Influence of a product-endorser match on Millennials attitudes and purchase intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 39-45.
    11. Trommsdorff, Max & Kang, Jinsuk & Reise, Christian & Schindele, Stephan & Bopp, Georg & Ehmann, Andrea & Weselek, Axel & Högy, Petra & Obergfell, Tabea, 2021. "Combining food and energy production: Design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xueqin Wang & Yiik Diew Wong & Kum Fai Yuen, 2021. "Does COVID-19 Promote Self-Service Usage among Modern Shoppers? An Exploration of Pandemic-Driven Behavioural Changes in Self-Collection Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Myoung-Gi Chon & Linjia Xu & Jiaying Liu & Jeong-Nam Kim & Jarim Kim, 2022. "From Mind to Mouth: Understanding Active Publics in China and Their Communicative Behaviors on GM Foods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(11).
    2. Joshua M. Pearce, 2022. "Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: Promise and Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Adrian Tantau & Greta Marilena Puscasu & Silvia Elena Cristache & Cristina Alpopi & Laurentiu Fratila & Daniel Moise & Georgeta Narcisa Ciobotar, 2022. "A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Yu, H. & Reiner, D. & Chen, H. & Mi, Z., 2018. "A comparison of public preferences for different low-carbon energy technologies: Support for CCS, nuclear and wind energy in the United Kingdom," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1826, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Sung-Yoon Huh & JongRoul Woo & Chul-Yong Lee, 2019. "What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Axsen, Jonn, 2014. "Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: Value theory and Canada׳s Northern Gateway Pipeline," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 255-265.
    8. Uzair Jamil & Joshua M. Pearce, 2022. "Energy Policy for Agrivoltaics in Alberta Canada," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, December.
    9. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne, 2018. "Opinion mining approach to study media-image of energy production. Implications to public acceptance and market deployment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 210-217.
    10. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    11. Jie Ren & Jar-Der Luo & Ke Rong, 2020. "How Do Venture Capitals Build Up Syndication Ecosystems for Sustainable Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    14. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    15. Taran Loper & Victoria L. Crittenden, 2017. "Energy Security: Shaping The Consumer Decision Making Process In Emerging Economies," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 8(1).
    16. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    17. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    18. Kaufmann, Nicholas & Carolus, Thomas & Starzmann, Ralf, 2019. "Turbines for modular tidal current energy converters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 451-460.
    19. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    20. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5264-:d:555178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.