IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/211921.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Ventura, Vera
  • Frisio, Dario G.
  • Ferrazzi, Giovanni

Abstract

Several studies evidence the role of media in influencing public perception towards genetically modified organisms, while visual communication has been scarcely investigated. This paper aims at evaluating the exposure of Italian population to scary GMO-related images. A set of 517 images collected through Google are classified considering fearful attributes and an index that accounts for the scary impact (SI) of these images is built. Then through an ordered logistic regression we estimate the relationship between the SIIndex and a set of variables that describes the context in which images appear. Results reveal that the first (and most viewed) Google result images contain the most frightful contents. In addition, agri-food sector in Italy is strongly oriented in offering a negative representation of genetically modified organisms. Exposure to scary images could be a factor that affects the negative perception of GMOs in Italy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:211921
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211921/files/Ventura-How%20scary_%20An%20analysis%20of%20visual%20communication%20concerning%20genetically%20modified%20organisms-821.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211921?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. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. Heiman, Amir & Just, David R. & Zilberman, David, 2000. "The Role Of Socioeconomic Factors And Lifestyle Variables In Attitude And The Demand For Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 18(3), pages 1-12.
    3. 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.
    4. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    5. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    6. Jill J. McCluskey & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2004. "Political Economy of the Media and Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1230-1237.
    7. Marks, Leonie A. & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Allison, Kevin & Zakharova, Ludmila, 2003. "Media Coverage Of Agrobiotechnology: Did The Butterfly Have An Effect?," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20.
    8. 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.
    9. McQuarrie, Edward F & Mick, David Glen, 2003. "Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures under Directed Processing versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 579-587, March.
    10. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    11. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    12. Kynda R. Curtis & Jill J. McCluskey & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2008. "Differences in global risk perceptions of biotechnology and the political economy of the media," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 77-89.
    13. Jae-Hwan Han & R. Wes Harrison, 2007. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 700-719.
    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. Johan F.M. Swinnen & Thijs Vandemoortele, 2009. "Trade, Development, and the Political Economy of Public Standards," LICOS Discussion Papers 23609, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    2. 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.
    3. Jae-Hwan Han & R. Wes Harrison, 2007. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 700-719.
    4. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    5. Johan F.M. Swinnen & Thijs Vandemoortele, 2008. "The Political Economy of Nutrition and Health Standards in Food Markets," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 460-468.
    6. Vigani, Mauro & Olper, Alessandro, 2013. "GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 32-43.
    7. Ventura, Vera & Frisio, Dario G., 2015. "How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206247, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    8. 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.
    9. Morgan, Kimberly L. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Adams, Charles M., 2011. "Empirical analysis of media versus environmental impacts on park attendance," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 852-859.
    10. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2006. "WTP and WTA for Non-GM and GM Food: UK Consumers," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21057, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. 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.
    15. Jerrod Penn & Hannah Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Public Knowledge of Monarchs and Support for Butterfly Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Harrison, R. Wes & Han, Jae-Hwan, 2005. "The Effects of Urban Consumer Perceptions on Attitudes for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, July.
    18. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. à frica Martínez-Poveda & Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá & Francisco José del Campo Gomis & Laura Martínez Carrasco Martínez & Asunción Agulló Torres, 2019. "Consumer Perception of Gm Foods. Profiles of Potential Consumers and Non-Consumers in Spain," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 942-952, August.
    20. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; International Development; Livestock Production/Industries; Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae15:211921. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.