IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i23p4838-d293066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View

Author

Listed:
  • Rongting Zhou

    (Department of Science and Technology Communication and Policy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Dong Wang

    (Department of Science and Technology Communication and Policy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei

    (Bond Business School, Bond University, Robina, QLD 4226, Australia)

  • Muhammad Azfar Anwar

    (Department of Science and Technology Communication and Policy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Ali Hammad

    (Department of Science and Technology Communication and Policy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Fahad Asmi

    (Department of Science and Technology Communication and Policy, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Qing Ye

    (Department of Economic Management, College of information engineering, FuYang Normal University, FuYang 236041, China)

  • Muhammad Asim Nawaz

    (Lyallpur Business School, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan)

Abstract

The study examines the critical factors affecting Chinese social media (SM) users’ intentions and behavior to seek and share information on genetically modified organisms/ genetically modified food (GMO/GMF). The proposed framework was conceptualized through benefit-risk analysis and subsequently mapped SM users’ perceived benefits and risks to seeks and share information using Kurt Lewin’s valence view. Quantitative data was collected using survey questionnaires administered from 583 SM users. The results of the path analysis demonstrated two key findings related to SM users’ perceived benefits and risks to seek and share information on GMO/GMF. Among risks, the psychological risk is the strongest predictor of perceived risk to use SM for GMO/GMF, which consequently determines the intentions and behaviors to share information about GMO/GMF on SM in People’s Republic of China. Among benefits, the results showed that perceived usefulness, creditability of GMO/GMF information, and information support are positively related to perceived benefits to use SM for GMO/GMF, which subsequently, predicts the intentions and behaviors to seek information about GMO/GMF on SM. This study suggests scholars and practitioners explore and utilize the efficient communication strategy to fulfill the potential of the SM to increase GMO/GMF acceptance in Chinese society.

Suggested Citation

  • Rongting Zhou & Dong Wang & Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei & Muhammad Azfar Anwar & Ali Hammad & Fahad Asmi & Qing Ye & Muhammad Asim Nawaz, 2019. "GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4838-:d:293066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4838/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4838/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henson, Spencer, 1995. "Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies: The case of food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 111-127, April.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    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. Piotr Rzymski & Aleksandra Królczyk, 2016. "Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 689-697, June.
    6. John Benamati & T.M. Rajkumar, 2008. "An Outsourcing Acceptance Model: An Application of TAM to Application Development Outsourcing Decisions," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 21(2), pages 80-102, April.
    7. Yang, Xin & Pan, Bing & Evans, James A. & Lv, Benfu, 2015. "Forecasting Chinese tourist volume with search engine data," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 386-397.
    8. Les Levidow & Susan Carr & David Wield, 2000. "Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 189-208, July.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    10. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    11. Peter, J Paul & Tarpey, Lawrence X, Sr, 1975. "A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(1), pages 29-37, June.
    12. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-17, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anwar, Muhammad Azfar & Dhir, Amandeep & Jabeen, Fauzia & Zhang, Qingyu & Siddiquei, Ahmad Nabeel, 2023. "Unconventional green transport innovations in the post-COVID-19 era. A trade-off between green actions and personal health protection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(PA).

    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. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. David R. Just & Julie M. Goddard, 2023. "Behavioral framing and consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Factors influencing consumer demand for active packaging," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 3-27, January.
    3. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2008. "Is it Who You Ask or How You Ask? Findings of a Meta-Analysis on Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    5. Ehmke, Mariah D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Tyner, Wallace E., 2006. "The Relative Importance of Preferences for Country-of-Origin in China, France, Niger and the United States," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25408, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    10. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    11. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    12. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    13. Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.
    14. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan, 2004. "Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 467-483, October.
    15. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Elisa Pirlea & Mihai Anghel-Badescu, 2022. "Difficulties and Opportunities in Online Promoting and Selling Agri-Food Products," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 676-684, September.
    17. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Li, Yibai & Wang, Xuequn & Lin, Xiaolin & Hajli, Mohammad, 2018. "Seeking and sharing health information on social media: A net valence model and cross-cultural comparison," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 28-40.
    19. Baker, Gregory A. & Mazzocco, Michael A., 2005. "Who Should Certify the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-20.
    20. Jochen Hartl & Roland Herrmann, 2009. "Do they always say no? German consumers and second‐generation GM foods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 551-560, September.

    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:4838-:d:293066. 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.