IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277010.html

Information Framing Effects in Biotechnology Communication A Comparison between Logical-scientific and Narrative Information

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Y.
  • Hobbs, J.

Abstract

Abstract This study explores information framing effects by comparing the effectiveness of using logical-scientific vs. narrative information to communicate about food biotechnology to consumers. An online survey was conducted in the summer of 2016 with 804 Canadian adults. Data were collected on attitudes towards food biotechnology and food choice behaviours. In particular, a choice experiment was included in the online survey to elicit preferences for diverse novel food attributes and technologies. Each respondent was randomly assigned to an information condition. A logical-scientific information condition about biotechnology was developed and written in a scientific style using the passive voice with generalized and impersonal language. In contrast, a narrative-style information condition about the technology was written in a more lively and vivid personal style. Results indicate that information about food biotechnology shown in different formats (logical-scientific vs. narrative) or being accessed by respondents in different manners (forced exposure or voluntary choice) can have differing impacts on perceptions and preferences. Compared with logical-scientific information, narratives and/or voluntary information access could help to reduce the opposition to biotechnology. Keywords: Biotechnology Communication, Choice Experiment, Information Framing Effect, Narratives Acknowledgement : The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Social Sciences Research Laboratories (SSRL) at the University of Saskatchewan in collecting the data. Funding support from AFBI (Alliance for Food and Bioproducts Innovation) Scholars Program, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture is also acknowledged.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Y. & Hobbs, J., 2018. "Information Framing Effects in Biotechnology Communication A Comparison between Logical-scientific and Narrative Information," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277010, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277010
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277010/files/561.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277010?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. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    5. 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.
    6. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    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. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    4. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2015. "The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 539-562, December.
    6. Gracia, Azucena & de Magistris, Tiziana & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Willingness to pay for a local food label for lamb meat in Spain," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114607, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. 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.
    8. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Better Dead Than GM-Fed? Information and the Effects of Consumers' Resistance to GM-Foods in High-Income Countries," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10345, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Jin, Jing & Wailes, Eric & Dixon, Bruce & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Zheng, Zhihao, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Rice in China," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170503, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    12. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Matthias Heinz & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Media Bias in Economic News: A Factor 20," LICOS Discussion Papers 33013, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    14. Richards, Timothy J. & Allender, William J. & Fang, Di, 2011. "Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: An Experimental Analysis," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114814, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Tonsor, Glynn T., 2010. "Consumer Food Safety Perceptions: Do they Differ across Products, Species, and Specific Risks?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61044, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, "undated". "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety Interventions: The Role of Message Framing and Involvement," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235884, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. H. Holly Wang & Jing Yang & Na Hao, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice from Remediated Soil: Potential from the Public in Sustainable Soil Pollution Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-22, July.
    18. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Stranieri, Stefanella & Banterle, Alessandro, . "Consumer Interest in Meat Labelled Attributes: Who Cares?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18.
    21. Ying (Jessica) Cao & David R. Just & Calum Turvey & Brian Wansink, 2015. "Existing Food Habits and Recent Choices Lead to Disregard of Food Safety Announcements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 491-511, December.
    22. Andreas Drichoutis & Rodolfo Nayga & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Beom Park, 2011. "A Consistent Econometric Test for Bid Interdependence in Repeated Second-Price Auctions with Posted Prices," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 39(4), pages 329-341, December.

    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:ags:iaae18:277010. 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.