IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i23p4613-d289152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China

Author

Listed:
  • Li Li

    (School of Journalism, Yunnan University, Kunming 650000, China
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • John Robert Bautista

    (School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78701, USA
    Center for Health Communication, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Guided by the theory of reasoned action and media system dependency theory, this study examined attitude towards genetically modified foods (GMF) among university students in Kunming, China, as well as personal and media factors related to such attitude. Data were collected from an online survey with 467 university students across eight universities in Kunming. Results showed that attitude towards GMF were more negative than positive. Moreover, food neophobia and media attention were negatively associated with attitude towards GMF. In contrast, perceived benefit was positively associated with attitude towards GMF. Although the interaction between media dependency and media attention was significant, simple slope analysis confirmed that the interaction slopes were nonsignificant, suggesting that media attention did not moderate the association between media dependency and attitude towards GMF in this study. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4613-:d:289152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4613/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4613/
    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. Lockie, Stewart & Lawrence, Geoffrey & Lyons, Kristen & Grice, Janet, 2005. "Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 399-418, August.
    3. Zhihao Zheng & Yang Gao & Yijing Zhang & Shida Henneberry, 2017. "Changing attitudes toward genetically modified foods in urban China," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(3), pages 397-414, September.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    5. Jin, Hyun Joung & Han, Dae Hee, 2014. "Interaction between message framing and consumers’ prior subjective knowledge regarding food safety issues," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 95-102.
    6. Pete Ladwig & Kajsa E. Dalrymple & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Elizabeth A. Corley, 2012. "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 761-774, July.
    7. Xi Lu & Xiaofei Xie & Ji Xiong, 2015. "Social trust and risk perception of genetically modified food in urban areas of China: the role of salient value similarity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 199-214, February.
    8. Călin Gurău & Ashok Ranchhod, 2016. "The futures of genetically-modified foods: Global threat or panacea?," Post-Print hal-02012309, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    5. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    6. Hyun Joung Jin & Dae Hee Han, 2019. "College Students’ Experience of a Food Safety Class and Their Responses to the MSG Issue," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Youzhu Li & Xianghui Gao & Mingying Du & Rui He & Shanshan Yang & Jason Xiong, 2020. "What Causes Different Sentiment Classification on Social Network Services? Evidence from Weibo with Genetically Modified Food in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    10. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    11. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    13. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    14. Heena Thanki & Sweety Shah & Harishchandra Singh Rathod & Ankit D. Oza & Dumitru Doru Burduhos-Nergis, 2022. "I Am Ready to Invest in Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) Options Only If the Returns Are Not Compromised: Individual Investors’ Intentions toward SRI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Benjamin C. Wilde & Eva Lieberherr & Andrew E. Okem & Johan Six, 2019. "Nitrified Human Urine as a Sustainable and Socially Acceptable Fertilizer: An Analysis of Consumer Acceptance in Msunduzi, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, April.
    17. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    18. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.

    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:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4613-:d:289152. 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.