Factors Influencing U.S. Consumers' Preference for Positively Versus Negatively Framed GM Food Symbols

References

• Alterman, E. (2008). What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York, NY: Basic.
   Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012, October 25). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on the labeling of genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Artuso, A. (2003). Risk perceptions, endogenous demand, and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Food Policy, 28, 131–145.
   Google Scholar
• Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.
   Google Scholar
• Boxer, B. (2012, November 2). Vote “yes” on Prop. 37 so consumers have the information they need. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21916981/barbara-boxer-vote-yes-prop-37-so-consumers
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, P. F. (2006). Safety and public acceptance of transgenic products. Crop Science, 46(1), 113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, H.-Y., & Chern, W. S. (2002). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Dettman, R. L., & Dimitri, C. (2010). Who's buying organic vegetables? Demographic characteristics of U.S. consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16(1), 79–91.
   Google Scholar
• Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis, 17(6), 759–770.
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C., & Raine, L. (2015, July 1). Public opinion about food. In Americans, politics and science issues (pp. 127–140). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C., Rainie, L., & Page, D. (2015). Public and scientists' views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society
   Google Scholar
• Gasparro, A., & Bunge, J. (2016, March 20). GMO labeling law roils food companies. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/gmo-labeling-law-roils-food-companies-1458510332
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, K., Bernard, J. C., Toensmeyer, U. C., & Bacon, R. (2005, July 24). An experimental investigation of willingness to pay for non-GM and organic food products. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, RI.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. N. (2013). Taking down the walls of agriculture: Effect of transparent communication and personal relevance on attitudes and trust within the elaboration likelihood model. Retrieved from http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/53/18/00001/GOODWIN_J.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., & Lang, J. T. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
   Google Scholar
• Halloran, J. (2016, May 18). 5 reasons why QR codes are not the answer for GMO labeling. Retrieved from http://consumersunion.org/2016/05/5-reasons-why-qr-codes-arent-the-answer-for-gmo = labeling/
   Google Scholar
• Hennesy, M. (2014, March). How much do consumers use and understand nutrition labels? Retrieved from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/How-much-do-consumers-use-and-understand-nutrition-labels
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503–525). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Hossain, F., & Oyango, B. (2004). Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 255–267.
   Google Scholar
• Hurst, B. (2016, March 28). Warning libels: Giving GMO foods a bad—and costly—rap. Retrieved from http://www.weeklystandard.com/warning-libels/article/2001633
   Google Scholar
• Kalaitzandonakes, N., Marks, L. A., & Vickner, S. S. (2004). Media coverage on biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1238–1246.
   Google Scholar
• Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. In Thomas C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 703–708). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Kasperson, J., Kasperson, R., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risks: Assessing 15 sources of research and theory. In N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 13–46). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Labels for GMO foods are a bad idea. (2013, September 1). Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/
   Google Scholar
• Lau, R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119–138.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85–86.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicka, M., Czapinski, J., & Peeters, G. (1992). Positive-negative asymmetry or “When the heart needs a reason.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(5), 425–434.
   Google Scholar
• Lusk, J. (2015, January 13). Food demand survey. Retrieved from http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2015/1/15/food-demand-survey-foods-january-2015
   Google Scholar
• Lusk, J. L., & Rozan, A. (2008). Public policy and endogenous beliefs: The case of genetically modified food. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33, 270–289.
   Google Scholar
• Marchant, G. E., Cardineau, G. A., & Redick, T. P. (2010). Thwarting consumer choice: The case against mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods. Washington, DC: The AEI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Zakharova, L. (2003). Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an effect? Journal of Agribusiness, 21(1), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, B. R. (2016). The effects of mandatory labels for GMOs. Retrieved from http://www.piecenter.com/2016/09/28/brandon-mcfadden-genetically-modified-food-labeling/
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30, 3091–3096.
   Google Scholar
• Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500–10.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, C. A. (2008). The agricultural angle: Effect of framing agricultural biotechnology messages on attitudes and intent to publish within the elaboration likelihood model (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, L. M., & Cassady, D. L. (2015). The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use: A review of the literature. Appetite, 92, 207–216.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto. (2013, March). Labeling food and ingredients developed from GM seed. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Moorman, C. (1990). The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of nutrition information. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 362–374.
   Google Scholar
• Morran, C. (2016, September 29). Vermont's GMO labeling law is now in effect. Retrieved from https://consumerist.com/2016/07/01/vermonts-gmo-labeling-law-is-now-in-effect-here-are-the-labels-senate-is-trying-to-get-rid-of/
   Google Scholar
• National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Pub. L. No. 114-216, § 291, 130 Stat. 834 (2016.)
   Google Scholar
• Otway, H. J., & Thomas, K. (1982). Reflections on risk perception and policy. Risk Analysis, 2(2), 69–82.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Pino, D. (2012). Why I'm voting “yes” on Prop 37: Label genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darya-pino/prop-37-genetically-modified-food_b_2040371.html
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, L., & Asoro, R. (2012). Visual representations of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms in the online media. Visual Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 232–245.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2013, May 12). Don't mandate labeling for gene-altered foods. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-12/don-t-mandate-labeling-for-gene-altered-foods.html
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1980). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.
   Google Scholar
• Traill, W. B., Jaeger, S. R., Yee, W. M. S., Valli, C., House, L. O., Lusk, J. L., & Morrow, J. L. (2004). Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. Ag Bioforum, 7, 176–186.
   Google Scholar
• Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
   Google Scholar
• Veemen, M., Adamowicz, W., & Hu, W. (2005). Risk perceptions, social interactions, and the influence of information on social attitudes to agricultural biotechnology (Project Report No. 05-02, AARI Project Report No. 2001JO35). Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/24052
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67, 159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered profit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453–467.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, P. (1981). Cognitive responses to mass media advocacy. In R. E. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 263–282). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar