IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v19y2003i1p91-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication

Author

Listed:
  • Annelies Verdurme

    (Ghent University, Gent, Belgium. E-mail: Annelies.Verdurme@rug.ac.be)

  • Jacques Viaene

    (Ghent University, Gent, Belgium. E-mail: Jacques.Viaene@rug.ac.be)

Abstract

Results from a consumer survey comprising 400 face-to-face interviews with Flemish consumers (Belgium), which was conducted in the summer of 2000, reveal four consumer segments based on beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified (GM) food, namely: the Halfhearted, the Green Opponents, the Balancers, and the Enthusiasts. While 23.5% of the respondents have positive attitudes (the Enthusiasts) towards GM food, 15.5% are reluctant (the Green Opponents). The other 61.0% of the respondents have rather neutral (the Balancers) to slightly negative (the Halfhearted) attitudes towards GM food. Each of these identified segments can be further profiled in terms of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, knowledge, general attitudes including trust, information needs, consulted and trusted information sources and channels, and purchase intentions. These insights will provide the necessary input for the development of an effective segmented communication strategy. [EconLit citations: Q130, Q160, Q180.] © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 19: 91-113, 2003.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:19:y:2003:i:1:p:91-113
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.10045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.10045
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.10045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bredahl, Lone, 2000. "Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods - Results of a cross-national survey," MAPP Working Papers 69, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre.
    2. L.J. Frewer & D. Hedderley & C. Howard & R. Shepherd, 1997. "‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 67-79, March.
    3. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    4. Frewer, Lynn & Scholderer, Joachim & Downs, Clive & Bredahl, Lone, 2000. "Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Effects of different information strategies," MAPP Working Papers 71, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre.
    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. 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.
    2. Piotr Rzymski & Aleksandra Królczyk, 2016. "Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 689-697, June.
    3. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Takashi Ishida & Atsushi Maruyama & Shinichi Kurihara, 2022. "Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, January.
    6. Elena Laborda & Felipe Del-Busto & Carmen Bartolomé & Víctor Fernández, 2023. "Analysing the Social Acceptance of Bio-Based Products Made from Recycled Absorbent Hygiene Products in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-38, February.
    7. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    8. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    9. 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.
    10. Sevtap ÜNAL & F. Görgün DEVECİ & Tuğba YILDIZ, 2019. "The main aim of this study is determining which consumption motives and personal and social factors affect organic food buying decisions. Ajzen’s Planned Behavior Theory (TPB) is used to explain consu," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 48(1), pages 1-35, May.
    11. Tuncay Turan TARABOĞLU & Tuğba Nur TOPALOĞLU & Serdar YAMAN, 2019. "The Effects of Macroeconomic Indicators on Leveraged Forex Volume: Evidence from Turkey," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 48(2), pages 160-175, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Mutenje, M.J. & Ortmann, G.F. & Ferrer, S.R.D., 2011. "Management of non-timber forestry products extraction: Local institutions, ecological knowledge and market structure in South-Eastern Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 454-461, January.

    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. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    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. Bech-Larsen , Tino & Grunert, Klaus. G. & Poulsen, Jacob, 2001. "The acceptance of functional foods in Denmark, Finland and the United States: A study of consumers' conjoint evaluations of the qualities of functional foods and perceptions of general health factors ," MAPP Working Papers 73, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre.
    5. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Dentoni, Domenico & Peterson, H. Christopher, 2011. "Multi-Stakeholder Sustainability Alliances in Agri-Food Chains: A Framework for Multi-Disciplinary Research," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Douglas J. Sylvester & Kenneth W. Abbott & Gary E. Marchant, 2009. "Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 165-185, June.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    9. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Xie, Jing & Hyeyoung, Kim & House, Lisa, 2014. "Valuing Information on GM Foods in the presence of Country-of-Origin Labels," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    13. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    14. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2010. "Differences in Consumer Abstraction Levels as a Function of Risk Perception," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 34-59, February.
    15. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    17. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    18. Oddveig Storstad & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2003. "Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: Common attitudes among farmers and consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 20(2), pages 151-163, June.
    19. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    20. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:agribz:v:19:y:2003:i:1:p:91-113. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.