IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i9p899-d77460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of Source Credibility on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in China

Author

Listed:
  • Mingyang Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Chao Chen

    (College of Economics & Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
    Center of Agriculture’s Genetically Modified Organisms’ Safety Management and Policy Research Organization of Nanjing Agricultural University (AGGMO), Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Wuyang Hu

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA)

  • Lijun Chen

    (College of Economics & Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Jintao Zhan

    (College of Economics & Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

Abstract

This paper examines the reasoning mechanism behind the consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods (GMFs) in China, and investigates influence of source credibility on consumer acceptance of GMFs. Based on the original Persuasion Model—which was developed by Carl Hovland, an American psychologist and pioneer in the study of communication and its effect on attitudes and beliefs—we conducted a survey using multistage sampling from 1167 urban residents, which were proportionally selected from six cities in three economic regions (south, central, and north) in the Jiangsu province through face to face interviews. Mixed-process regression that could correct endogeneity and ordered probit model were used to test the impact of source credibility on consumers’ acceptance of GMFs. Our major finding was that consumer acceptance of GMFs is affected by such factors as information source credibility, general attitudes, gender, and education levels. The reliability of biotechnology research institutes, government offices devoted to management of GM organisms (GMOs), and GMO technological experts have expedited urban consumer acceptance of GM soybean oil. However, public acceptance can also decrease as faith in the environmental organization. We also found that ignorance of the endogeneity of above mentioned source significantly undervalued its effect on consumers’ acceptance. Moreover, the remaining three sources (non-GMO experts, food companies, and anonymous information found on the Internet) had almost no effect on consumer acceptance. Surprisingly, the more educated people in our survey were more skeptical towards GMFs. Our results contribute to the behavioral literature on consumer attitudes toward GMFs by developing a reasoning mechanism determining consumer acceptance of GMFs. Particularly, this paper quantitatively studied the influence of different source credibility on consumer acceptance of GMFs by using mixed-process regression to correct endogeneity in information sources, while taking into consideration of information asymmetry and specific preference in the use of information sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingyang Zhang & Chao Chen & Wuyang Hu & Lijun Chen & Jintao Zhan, 2016. "Influence of Source Credibility on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:9:p:899-:d:77460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/9/899/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/9/899/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yingheng Zhou & Erpeng Wang, 2011. "Urban consumers' attitudes towards the safety of milk powder after the melamine scandal in 2008 and the factors influencing the attitudes," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 3(1), pages 101-111, February.
    2. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
    3. Annelies Verdurme & Jacques Viaene, 2003. "Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 91-113.
    4. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    5. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2007. "Structural Equation Modelling of Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food (GM) in the Mediterranean Europe: Spain, Greece and Italy," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9415, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    7. Zhang, Xiaoyong & Huang, Jikun & Qiu, Huanguang & Huang, Zhurong, 2010. "A consumer segmentation study with regards to genetically modified food in urban China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 456-462, October.
    8. David Roodman, 2011. "Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 159-206, June.
    9. Yingheng Zhou & Erpeng Wang, 2011. "an consumers' attitudes towards the safety of milk powder after the melamine scandal in 2008 and the factors influencing the attitudes," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 101-111, January.
    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. Vanessa Bach & Markus Berger & Natalia Finogenova & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2017. "Assessing the Availability of Terrestrial Biotic Materials in Product Systems (BIRD)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Shan-Shan Liao & Ching-Yuan Lin & Ying-Ji Chuang & Xing-Zheng Xie, 2020. "The Role of Social Capital for Short-Video Platform Users’ Travel Intentions: SEM and Fsqca Findings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Hanyang Luo & Sijia Cheng & Wanhua Zhou & Sumin Yu & Xudong Lin, 2021. "A Study on the Impact of Linguistic Persuasive Styles on the Sales Volume of Live Streaming Products in Social E-Commerce Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.

    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. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Liu, Pengcheng, 2009. "Consumers’ WTA for GM rice cookie: an experiment study in China," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51771, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. 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.
    4. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    5. Lang, John T., 2013. "Elements of public trust in the American food system: Experts, organizations, and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 145-154.
    6. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    7. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    8. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Huidan Xue & Chenguang Li & Liming Wang, 2021. "Spatial Price Dynamics and Asymmetric Price Transmission in Skim Milk Powder International Trade: Evidence from Export Prices for New Zealand and Ireland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    11. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    12. Erkan Ari & Veysel Yilmaz & Murat Olgun, 2021. "The Effect of Trust Benefit and Risk Perception of GM Foods on Behavior Intention: A Study on University Students," Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 64(64), pages 297-312, December.
    13. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    14. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Teimuraz Gogokhia & George Berulava, 2021. "Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 221-245, June.
    16. Tuccio, Michele & Wahba, Jackline & Hamdouch, Bachir, 2016. "International Migration: Driver of Political and Social Change?," IZA Discussion Papers 9794, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Hajime Seya & Junyi Zhang & Makoto Chikaraishi & Ying Jiang, 2020. "Decisions on truck parking place and time on expressways: an analysis using digital tachograph data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 555-583, April.
    18. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    19. Michael Grimm & Carole Treibich, 2013. "Why Do Some Bikers Wear a Helmet and Others Don't? Evidence from Delhi, India," AMSE Working Papers 1348, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised 10 Oct 2013.
    20. Donatella Furia & Alessandro Crociata & Massimiliano Agovino, 2018. "Voluntary work and cultural capital: an exploratory analysis for Italian regional data," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(3), pages 789-808, December.

    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:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:9:p:899-:d:77460. 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.