IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v37y2008i5p2095-2106.html

Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food

Author

Listed:
  • Vilella-Vila, Marta
  • Costa-Font, Joan

Abstract

Little is known about the role and mechanisms through which the press media reporting influences attitudes and risk perceptions. Whilst some approaches stress the prevalent idea that risks are partly the creation or amplification of the media, other scholars find that the media plays a rather neutral role as a conveyor only, which calls for further empirical exploration, especially in areas where consumers have limited knowledge. This paper examines both quantitative and qualitative empirical evidence to scrutinize whether the press media coverage and reporting had some effect on the change in attitudes towards and risk perceptions of new genetically modified (GM) foods between 1999 and 2004 in Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). Results suggest that differences in media reporting along with attitudes towards journalism correlate with attitudes and risk perception to GM food whilst trust does not appear to exert any significant effect. This result reinforces the hypothesis of a media bias in newly created technology risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Vilella-Vila, Marta & Costa-Font, Joan, 2008. "Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2095-2106, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:37:y:2008:i:5:p:2095-2106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4S92TMG-5/2/a2a25da9d050fb31a81f77bf36c47b77
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verbeke, Wim & Ward, Ronald W., 2001. "A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 359-374, September.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    3. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "Media Bias," NBER Working Papers 9295, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. S.S. Vickner, 2004. "Media Coverage of Biotech Foods and Influence on Consumer Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1238-1246.
    5. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    6. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, February.
    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. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Jennifer Beverly & Peter Bothwell, 2011. "Wildfire evacuations in Canada 1980–2007," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 59(1), pages 571-596, October.
    3. James Painter & J. Scott Brennen & Silje Kristiansen, 2020. "The coverage of cultured meat in the US and UK traditional media, 2013–2019: drivers, sources, and competing narratives," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2379-2396, October.
    4. Touza, Julia & Pérez-Alonso, Alicia & Chas-Amil, María L. & Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina, 2014. "Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 330-341.
    5. Shapiro, Jesse M., 2016. "Special interests and the media: Theory and an application to climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 91-108.
    6. Khachatryan, Hayk & Wei, Xuan & Rihn, Alicia, . "Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6).
    7. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.

    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. Aye Chan Myae & Ellen Goddard, 2020. "Household behavior with respect to meat consumption in the presence of BSE and CWD," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 315-341, September.
    2. Elina Lampi, 2011. "What do friends and the media tell us? How different information channels affect women's risk perceptions of age-related female infertility," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 365-380, March.
    3. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    4. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Yadavalli, Anita & Jones, Keithly, 2014. "Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 219-227.
    6. 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.
    7. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Katherine L. Dickinson & Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas Flores, 2013. "Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 800-817, May.
    9. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    10. Ventura, Vera & Frisio, Dario G. & Ferrazzi, Giovanni, 2015. "How Scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211921, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Ik Jae Chung, 2011. "Social Amplification of Risk in the Internet Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1883-1896, December.
    12. David Fielding & Anja Shortland, 2009. "Does television terrify tourists? Effects of US television news on demand for tourism in Israel," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 245-263, June.
    13. Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Lin Li & Qinying He & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Avian Influenza—Factors Affecting Consumers’ Purchase Intentions toward Poultry Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-13, October.
    14. Guanghua Han & Yihong Liu, 2018. "Does Information Pattern Affect Risk Perception of Food Safety? A National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, September.
    15. Li, Tongzhe & Bernard, John C. & Johnston, Zachary A. & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2017. "Consumer preferences before and after a food safety scare: An experimental analysis of the 2010 egg recall," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 25-34.
    16. Hill, Jessica I. & Bharad, Abhishek Bhagwat & Harrison, R. Wes & Kinsey, Jean D. & Degeneffe, Dennis J., 2011. "An Analysis of Food Safety Events on Consumers’ Confidence and Consumers Attitude towards Preparedness of U.S. Food System," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 123174, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    18. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    19. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:soceco:v:37:y:2008:i:5:p:2095-2106. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.