IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i13p7642-d845197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Control, No Consumption: Association of Low Perceived Control and Intention to Accept Genetically Modified Food

Author

Listed:
  • Shen-Long Yang

    (School of Humanities and Social Science, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China)

  • Feng Yu

    (Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

  • Kai Li

    (Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

  • Ting-Ting Rao

    (School of Humanities and Social Science, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China)

  • Da-Peng Lian

    (College of Humanities and Management, Hebei Agricultural University, Huanghua 061100, China)

Abstract

Based on compensatory control theory, the aim of this study was to examine the effects of perceived control on people’s acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods by using both correlational and experimental methods. Compensatory control theory proposes that the lower an individual’s perceived control, the higher their need for structure, order, and certainty. Therefore, based on beliefs about GM foods that make some people less certain that those foods are as safe as traditional foods, we hypothesized that individuals with lower levels of perceived control are more inclined to reject GM foods. The analysis of questionnaire responses in Study 1 revealed that individuals’ sense of control negatively predicted their risk perception of GM foods, while the need for structure played a mediating role. In Study 2, using a between-subject design, we manipulated participants’ perceived control (higher vs. lower) and subsequently measured their risk perception and purchasing preferences for GM foods. The results in Study 2 show that under lower control conditions, individuals recognize higher risks related to GM foods, which, in turn, decreases their willingness to purchase GM foods. These results not only suggest that perceived control is a potential influential personal factor of the acceptance of GM foods but also extend the scope of the application of compensatory control theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Shen-Long Yang & Feng Yu & Kai Li & Ting-Ting Rao & Da-Peng Lian, 2022. "No Control, No Consumption: Association of Low Perceived Control and Intention to Accept Genetically Modified Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:7642-:d:845197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7642/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/7642/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    3. Mohamed Farid & Jianfei Cao & Yeongjoo Lim & Teruyo Arato & Kota Kodama, 2020. "Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Bing Chen & Lijun Luo & Xin Wu & Yujie Chen & Yufang Zhao, 2021. "Are the Lower Class Really Unhappy? Social Class and Subjective Well-Being in Chinese Adolescents: Moderating Role of Sense of Control and Mediating Role of Self-Esteem," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 825-843, February.
    5. Ma, Anyi & Kay, Aaron C., 2017. "Compensatory control and ambiguity intolerance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 46-61.
    6. David Wuepper & Philipp Wree & Goezde Ardali, 2019. "Does information change German consumers’ attitudes about genetically modified food?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 53-78.
    7. Junfeng Liu & Shen-Long Yang & Feng Yu, 2022. "Who Tends to Appreciate Atonal Music? Higher Perceived Personal Control Leads to an Increased Inclination to Prefer Atonal Music," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-10, March.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    9. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    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. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    4. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Bertrand, Jérémie & Burietz, Aurore, 2023. "(Loan) price and (loan officer) prejudice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 26-42.
    6. Chuhan Chen & Syarmila Hany Haron, 2023. "The Influence of Multistakeholder Value Cognition and Risk Attitudes on Sustainable Interior Landscape Design Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Ting-Ting Rao & Shen-Long Yang & Xiaowen Zhu, 2022. "How Does Social Class Affect Need for Structure during the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Moderated Mediating Model Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    10. Heena Thanki & Sweety Shah & Harishchandra Singh Rathod & Ankit D. Oza & Dumitru Doru Burduhos-Nergis, 2022. "I Am Ready to Invest in Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) Options Only If the Returns Are Not Compromised: Individual Investors’ Intentions toward SRI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    12. Garrett M. Broad, 2023. "Improving the agri-food biotechnology conversation: bridging science communication with science and technology studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 929-938, September.
    13. Chunci Chen & Guizhen He & Mingzhao Yu, 2023. "Sustainable Watershed Protection from the Public Perspective, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Kliem, Lea & Sagebiel, Julian, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for commons-based and open-source produce: A discrete choice experiment with directional information manipulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    16. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    17. Alrawad, Mahmaod & Lutfi, Abdalwali & Alyatama, Sundus & Al Khattab, Adel & Alsoboa, Sliman S. & Almaiah, Mohammed Amin & Ramadan, Mujtaba Hashim & Arafa, Hussin Mostafa & Ahmed, Nazar Ali & Alsyouf, , 2023. "Assessing customers perception of online shopping risks: A structural equation modeling–based multigroup analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Jing Hou & Linhai Wu & Bo Hou, 2020. "Risk Attitude, Contract Arrangements and Enforcement in Food Safety Governance: A China’s Agri-Food Supply Chain Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Andor, Mark A. & Osberghaus, Daniel & Simora, Michael, 2020. "Natural Disasters and Governmental Aid: Is there a Charity Hazard?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Francisco J. Areal & Laura Riesgo, 2021. "EU Inspections of GM Content in Food and Feed: Are They Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, 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:19:y:2022:i:13:p:7642-:d:845197. 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.