Two-sided messages in GM food news: the role of argument order and deference toward scientific authority

Despite their many benefits, genetically modified (GM) foods are often met with public skepticism. As a result, messages about GMfoods can address both the potential risks and advantages of consuming them. In an online experiment, we tested if emotions, critical cognitions, and attitudes vary based on the ordering of information about the risks and benefits of GM food. Participants saw a GM food article sharing first risks-then-benefits, benefits-then-risks, or an off-topic control article. The results revealed that presenting risks before benefits led to greater anger compared to a control message. Additionally, deference toward scientific authority influenced positive emotions: individuals with lower levels of deference reported fewer positive emotions than those with higher levels . However, information ordering did not significantly impact overall attitudes or positive emotions. Open-ended responses, which focused on readers’ thoughts while reading the article, highlighted four themes that show nuanced reactions to GM food: (1) a lack of trust in scientists/organizations and questioning the purpose of modification; (2) concerns about unintended consequences, labelling issues, and potential risks to personal health; (3) benefits like global food insecurity, health/crop production benefits, and human modification of food throughout history; and (4) calls for increased research, more stringent regulation, and thorough testing. Overall, deference toward scientific authority is an important individual difference to consider in messages about controversial food innovations. Moreover, more research is needed to understand how trust in scientific authorities interacts with pre-existing attitudes toward GM food and how message strategies can be tailored accordingly.