IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i19p8923-d1766777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Knowledge or Common Sense? Identifying Systematic Misconceptions of Animal Agriculture and Food Familiarity in Higher Education Individuals

Author

Listed:
  • Katie Corbitt

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Karen Hiltbrand

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Madison Coursen-Sullivan

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Gabriella Johnson

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Soren Rodning

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • William B. Smith

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

  • Don Mulvaney

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)

Abstract

Knowledge gaps in the context of agriculture contribute to mistrust and negative worldviews of the animal agriculture sector. The purpose of this quasi-experimental survey study was to quantify the perceived connection of participants to food production, assess their understanding, knowledge, and perceptions of animal agriculture (AA) and food production (FP), and determine predictors that may have contributed to their knowledge and perceptions of animal food production. The convenience sample for this study was a southeastern land grant institution, n = 265. An Animal Agricultural Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire and a Food Familiarity Index Questionnaire were included in the electronic survey. The study reported that nearly 50% of the participants showed negative perceptions of animal agriculture ( p < 0.05) regardless of the food familiarity scores. Natural and self-identified demographic characteristics impacted the knowledge and perceptions of AA including gender, ethnicity, dietary preference, perceived connection to FP, and affiliation with the College of Agriculture ( p < 0.05). By identifying topics and ideas that are of great concern and little understanding, future perceptions and purchase intentions can be improved. Additional research should replicate the findings with broader question pools and other demographic groups to identify areas that need improvement in agriculture communication efforts designed to dispel misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Katie Corbitt & Karen Hiltbrand & Madison Coursen-Sullivan & Gabriella Johnson & Soren Rodning & William B. Smith & Don Mulvaney, 2025. "Common Knowledge or Common Sense? Identifying Systematic Misconceptions of Animal Agriculture and Food Familiarity in Higher Education Individuals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8923-:d:1766777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8923/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8923/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaudia Modlinska & Dominika Adamczyk & Dominika Maison & Wojciech Pisula, 2020. "Gender Differences in Attitudes to Vegans/Vegetarians and Their Food Preferences, and Their Implications for Promoting Sustainable Dietary Patterns–A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.
    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. Tatiana Fomenko & Marina Bilotserkovets & Tetiana Klochkova & Olena Statsenko & Alina Sbruieva & Olena Kozlova & Dmytro Kozlov, 2020. "Overcoming Barriers in Intercultural Communication: A Case Study on Agricultural Idioms in English, Ukrainian and Chinese," Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Richtmann Publishing Ltd, vol. 9, November.
    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. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Gian-Andrea Egeler & Priska Baur, 2022. "Menu Choice and Meat-Eating Habits: Results of a Field Experiment in Two University Canteens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Chi-Horng Liao, 2022. "Applying the DEMATEL Method to Evaluate Social Media Criteria in Promoting Sustainable Health Behavior—A Case Study of Vegetarian Diet Promotion by a Non-Profit Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Chloe Crawshaw & Jared Piazza, 2023. "Livestock Farmers’ Attitudes towards Alternative Proteins," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
    7. repec:plo:pone00:0225372 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Nela Mrchkovska & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, 2024. "Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism through a conjoint survey experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 1-19, March.
    9. David Kilian & Ulrich Hamm, 2021. "Perceptions of Vegan Food among Organic Food Consumers Following Different Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Emin Guresci & Bedir Tekinerdogan & Önder Babur & Qingzhi Liu, 2024. "Feasibility of Low-Code Development Platforms in Precision Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, October.
    11. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    12. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    13. Mauro Lombardo, 2025. "Assessing Gender and Age Differences in the Adoption of Sustainable Diets: Insights from an Intervention of the Mediterranean Diet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    15. Johannes Simons & Carl Vierboom & Jeanette Klink-Lehmann & Ingo Härlen & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "Vegetarianism/Veganism: A Way to Feel Good," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Anna Platta & Anna Mikulec & Monika Radzymińska & Karolina Mikulec & Stanisław Kowalski, 2025. "The Impact of Consumer Characteristics, Product Attributes, and Food Type on Polish University Students’ Willingness to Pay More for Sustainable Insect-Based Foods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-16, October.
    17. repec:ehu:cuader:59433 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Osorio, Pilar & Tobarra, María-Ángeles & Tomás, Manuel, 2024. "Are there gender differences in household carbon footprints? Evidence from Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8923-:d:1766777. 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.