IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/uhhwps/78.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding moral narratives as drivers of polarization about genetically engineered crops

Author

Listed:
  • Waldhof, Gabi
  • Fritsche, Ulrich

Abstract

Motivated by an increasing interest in narratives in economics, we investigated the relevance of moral concerns in narratives for policy preferences. Specifically, taking the German debate about genetic engineering of foods (GE) as an example, we conducted a representative online survey in Germany to identify common narratives, their moral content, and related subjective images about GE. In line with previous research, we found that two-thirds of respondents choose to reject GE. Moreover, based on Moral Foundations Theory, we found that GE opponents much more frequently addressed the moral foundations Care and Sanctity in their stated narratives about GE. GE supporters most frequently addressed the moral foundation Loyalty in their stated narratives about GE. Also, subjective images about GE were much more negative among opponents than among supporters. However, the subjective images of opponents and supporters were in striking accordance about GE being a deviation from what is considered normal. Both sides overwhelmingly described images related to the enhancement of plants, as something strange, supersized, or artificial. In a linear regression model, we showed that the moral content of narratives about GE is indeed significantly related to the attitude towards this technology. In total, the findings suggest that the moral content of narratives is highly relevant for policy preferences, and should thus be considered in science communication and policymaking.

Suggested Citation

  • Waldhof, Gabi & Fritsche, Ulrich, 2023. "Understanding moral narratives as drivers of polarization about genetically engineered crops," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 78, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:uhhwps:78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/278732/1/1860443362.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shiller, Robert J., 2020. "Popular economic narratives advancing the longest U.S. expansion 2009–2019," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 791-798.
    2. George A. Akerlof, 2009. "How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1175-1175.
    3. Zeileis, Achim & Grothendieck, Gabor, 2005. "zoo: S3 Infrastructure for Regular and Irregular Time Series," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 14(i06).
    4. 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.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    6. J Anthony Cookson & Joseph E Engelberg & William Mullins & Hui Chen, 0. "Does Partisanship Shape Investor Beliefs? Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(4), pages 863-893.
    7. Robert J. Shiller, 2020. "Popular Economic Narratives Advancing the Longest U.S. Economic Expansion 2009-2019," NBER Working Papers 26857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:466-480 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Robert J. Shiller, 2020. "Popular Economic Narratives Advancing the Longest U.S. Economic Expansion 2009-2019," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2223, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    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. Kumar, Anand & Priya, Bhawna & Srivastava, Samir K., 2021. "Response to the COVID-19: Understanding implications of government lockdown policies," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 76-94.
    2. Kai Barron & Tilman Fries, 2023. "Narrative Persuasion," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 469, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Daniel Borup & Jorge Wolfgang Hansen & Benjamin Dybro Liengaard & Erik Christian Montes Schütte, 2023. "Quantifying investor narratives and their role during COVID‐19," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 512-532, June.
    4. Daniel Perico Ortiz, 2023. "Economic policy statements, social media, and stock market uncertainty: An analysis of Donald Trump’s tweets," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 47(2), pages 333-367, June.
    5. Vyacheslav V. Volchik & Maksim A. Koryttsev & Elena V. Maslyukova, 2020. "Alternatives to managerialism in higher education and science," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 11(6), pages 44-56, December.
    6. Kingstone Nyakurukwa & Yudhvir Seetharam, 2025. "Investor sentiment networks: mapping connectedness in DJIA stocks," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Michael Roos & Matthias Reccius, 2024. "Narratives in economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 303-341, April.
    8. Klodt, Henning & Lehment, Harmen (ed.), 2009. "The Crisis and Beyond," Kiel E-Books, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), number 60981.
    9. Guirola, Luis, 2025. "Economic expectations under the shadow of party polarization: Evidence from 135 government changes," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    10. Dow Alexander & Dow Sheila C., 2011. "Animal Spirits Revisited," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-25, December.
    11. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    14. Celse, Jeremy & Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2023. "Relative risk taking and social curiosity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 243-264.
    15. Andreia Tolciu, 2010. "The Economics of Social Interactions: An Interdisciplinary Ground for Social Scientists?," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 223-242, January.
    16. Venkatasubramanian, Venkat & Luo, Yu & Sethuraman, Jay, 2015. "How much inequality in income is fair? A microeconomic game theoretic perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 435(C), pages 120-138.
    17. Ulrich van Suntum, "undated". "Economic Confidence, Negative Interest Rates, and Liquidity: Towards Keynesianism 2.0," Working Papers 200108, Institute of Spatial and Housing Economics, Munster Universitary.
    18. Marc Hayford & Anastasios Malliaris, 2010. "Asset Prices and the Financial Crisis of 2007--09: An Overview of Theories and Policies," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 279-286, January.
    19. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    20. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:zbw:uhhwps:78. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwhamde.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.