Effects of Confirmation Bias on Consumer Attitudes Toward GM

Effects of Confirmation Bias on Consumer Attitudes Toward GMLiterature Review Evaluating the Effects of Confirmation Bias on Consumers Attitudes Toward genetically Modified FoodsGenetically modified foods (GMFs) have been a part of American life for more than twenty years, with the USDA approving the first commercial product in 1994 (Bruening Lyons, 2000). Since then, genetically modified (GM) crops have boomed, with an estimated 70% of processed foods on grocery store shelves containing GM ingredients (Chrispeels, 2014). The United States Department of Agriculture has recognized umpteen benefits of GM crops, including greater yields, increased nutritional value, and better seed quality (Fernandez-Cornejo et al, 2014). Given the current global food climate, with hunger and starvation still macrocosm prevalent in many countries, this is an important benefit.Since the introduction of GM crops into the food chain, a lot of questions have been asked regarding their uninjuredty and ofttimes research has been done in this regard. A 2014 meta-analysis of the previous ten years of data indicates that GMOs do not pose any direct threat to human health (Nicolia et al, 2014). Indeed, most scientists (Funk et al., 2015) and the gentlemans gentleman Health Organization (2015) believe that GM foods are safe to eat. Despite this data, only just over a third of Americans believe GMOs are safe for human consumption (Funk et al, 2015) and many will spend more for foods that they know are non-GMO (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014). This indicates that GM foods continue to be a contentious issue, and it is one that is a great deal played out on social media (Stevens et al., 2016).Food safeguard is an inherently emotional issue (Anderson 2000), and contentious issues, particularly emotional ones, are ofttimes hyped up in the media (Stieglitz Dang-Xuan, 2013). When consumers go to the media seeking nurture on the emotionally charged issue of GM food, they will find that muc h of tuition that is easily come-at-able to them is negative and centered more on popular opinion that scientific facts (Mahgoub, 2016 McCluskey, Swinnen, Vandermoortele, 2015). The medias negative portrayal of GM food has been linked to consumers negative perception of the products (Marques, Critchley, Walshe, 2014 Vilella-Villa Costa-Font, 2008). twain public opinion and scientific data play a part in how governments and regulatory bodies develop their policies, highlighting the importance of understanding the evidence and what shapes consumer attitudes toward GMOs (Druckman Bolsen, 2011 foliate Shapiro, 1983). man opinion is formed from the attitudes of individuals (Katz, 1960). Hostility to GMOs can lead to limiting development of research about them (e.g. Ceccoli Hixon, 2012) and restrict or ban the make use of of the engine room (e.g. Siegrist, 2000). The success of GMO foods on the market depends on public opinion (Moschini et al, 2005).Facebook is the most popula r social media platform in the United States. Nearly 80% of online Americans use Facebook, and of those, 76% use it every day, and 55% visit it several times a day (Funk Rainie, 2015). Many American adults (62%) get their news from Facebook and nearly a fifth (18%) do it often (Gottfried Shearer, 2016). Facebook offers near-instantaneous access to news and information in substance abusers news head for the hillss, offering a greater ease of selectivity over more traditional media sources (Westerwick et al, 2013). However, the selectivity is dark towards users pre breathing beliefs and attitudes, and serves to limit the amount of information available to them through the use of their algorithm that provides messaging consistent with previous likes of the user, as well as wind vane searches, thus increasing the heart of selective exposure (Bakshy et al., 2015 Pariser, 2011), and an effect to which most people whitethorn be unaware of (Powers, 2017). This leads to tailoring a news feed that is increasingly fragmented and polarized to the existing attitudes of the individual user (Westerwick et al, 2013).Facebook also elicits quick responses from users by way of how information is presented and does not require the user to put much cognitive effort into assessing its veracity. Users will often accept the first message they encounter without insideng any further investigation (Flanagin Metzger, 2007 Chen et al, 2015), engaging in what petty and Cacioppo (1986) termed peripheral processing. This is common in user assessment on online media (Fogg et al, 2003) and when making food-related decisions (Frewer et al., 1997). In this type of processing, people rely on simple cues (Andrews et al., 2011 Walters et al, 2012) and cognitive heuristics, such as stay bias, to evaluate information and form an attitude about it. This is particularly true when people want to decide about an issue that they do not know much about and are uncertain about the risks, benefits, and consequences (Tversky and Kanehan, 1975). With peripheral processing, no higher-order thinking, or central processing, goes into their formation of opinion. While engaged in peripheral processing, people will discredit the attitude incongruent information off-hand or will alter their perception of it so that it fits into their pre-existing schemas (Petty Cacioppo, 1986 Festinger, 1957). mess generally prefer messages that fit with their pre-existing beliefs, and regardless of how much importance they attach to an issue, they are not likely to spend much time feel for credible information (Westerwick et al, 2013).The problem with engaging in peripheral processing when encountering messages on a platform like Facebook is that the credibility of the information they are accessing is often not verified (e.g., Moody, 2011) and people rarely verify the credibility of this information (Metzger, 2007). The information may be based on inferior data, is often drive by personal opinion (Ennals et. al, 2010), has no real standards for quality control or regulatory controls, and can be easily altered (Metzger et al, 2013).As mentioned earlier, confirmation bias is a cognitive heuristic that may be utilized when people are engaged in peripheral processing. The confirmation bias is a tendency for people to pay more attention to and attri besidese greater importance to information that is congruent with what they believe while overlooking or discrediting information that does not fit their preexisting beliefs (Klayman and Ha, 1987). Confirmation bias with regards to media exposure is well documented, with the first instance noted over seventy years ago (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944), however, the effect of confirmation bias on user attitudes is not consistent across different types of messaging. Political messaging and confirmation bias are well documented, but this is not the case for health messaging. Westerwick et al. (2013) found that people are generally more likely t o look for credible information sources when it comes to their health. Alternatively, confirmation bias may be more pronounced if media coverage about an issue is negative, as could also be the case with GM foods (Lusk et al, 2014 Slovic, 1987). Given the impact of food safety on ones health, the question arises as to the role that confirmation bias has in consumers attitude formation toward GMOs, and this has not yet been adequately addressed by existing research. Research in this area would contribute to the knowledge of how to best design messaging to positively persuade public opinion regarding GMOs.Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of this chew over is to examine the impact of attitudinally congruent and attitudinally non-congruent messaging concerning GMOs on how consumers self-evaluate GM foods under the Elaboration Likelihood framework. To accomplish this purpose the following objectives were constructedCollect data on the pre-existing knowledge and beliefs of the audience about GMOs.Compare the perceptions of attitudinally congruent and attitudinally non-congruent GMO messaging.Compare the beliefs and attitudes of consumers pre and post-message exposure.ReferencesAndrews, J. C., Burton, S., Kees, J. (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. ledger of Public Policy Marketing, 30(2), 175- 190.Anderson, W. A. (2000). The future birth between the media, the food industry and the consumer. British Medical Bulletin, 56(1), 254-268.Baker, G. A., Burnham, T. A. (2001). Consumer response to genetically modified foods Market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and alternative Economics, 26(2), 387. Retrieved from http//proxy.mul.missouri.edu/login?url=http//search.proquest.com/docview/214697691?accountid=14576Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. do i10.1126/ experience.aaa1160Bruening, G., Lyons, J. (2000). The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. California Agriculture, 54(4), 6-7.Ceccoli, S., Hixon, W. (2012). Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. transnational Political Science Review, 33(3), 301-319.Chen, K. J., Kim, J., Lin, J. S. (2015). The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook posts on consumer attitude formation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 208-218.Chrispeels, M. J. (2014). Yes indeed, most Americans do eat GMOs every day Journal of combinatorial Plant Biology, 56(1), 4-6. doi 10.1111/jipb.12147Druckman, J. N., Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent eechnologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659-688. doi10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2011.01562.xEnnals, R., Byler, D., Agosta, J. M., Rosario, B. (2010, April). What is disputed on the web? In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility (pp. 67-74). AC M.Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Wechsler, S., Livingston, M., Mitchell, L. (2014). Genetically engineered crops in the United StatesFestinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California Stanford University Press.Fischer, P., Jonas, E., Frey, D., Schulz-Hardt, S., 2005. Selective exposure to information the impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 469-492.Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1-15). ACM.Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R. (1997). The elaboration likelihoodmodel and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis, 17(6), 759-769.doi10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01281.xFunk, C., Rainie, L., Page, D. (2015). Public and scientists views on science and society. Pew Research Center 2015. Ret rieved from http//www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public- and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/Goodwin, J. N. (2013). Taking down the walls of agriculture Effect of transparentcommunication and personal relevance on attitudes and trust within the ElaborationLikelihood Model (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp//ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/53/18/00001/GOODWIN_J.pdfGottfried, J., Shearer, E. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http//www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social- media-platforms-2016/Jang., S. (2014). Seeking congruency or incongruency online? Examining selective exposure to four controversial science issues. Science Communication, 36(2), 143-167.Health Focus International. (2015). Global shopper views on GMOs. Retrieved from http//www.healthfocus.com/hf/global-shopper-views-on-gmos/Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public opinion quarterly, 24(2), 163-204. Klayman, J., Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. psychological review, 94(2), 211.Lazarsfeld, P. F., Gaudet, H., Berelson, B. (1944). The peoples choice how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., Bieberstein, A. (2014). Consumer bridal of new food technologies Causes and roots of controversies. Annual Review of resource Economics 6, 381-405.Mahgoub, S. E. (2016). Genetically Modified Foods Basics, Applications, and Controversy. CRC Press.Marques, M. D., Critchley, C. R., Walshe, J. (2014). Attitudes to genetically modified foodover time How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. PublicUnderstanding of Science, 24(5), 601-618. doi10.1177/0963662514542372McCluskey, J. J., Swinnen, J., Vandemoortele, T. (2015). You get what you want A note on the economics of bad news. Information Economics and Policy, 30, 1-5.Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091.Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220.Meyers, C. A. (2008). The agricultural wobble Effect of framing agricultural biotechnologymessages on attitudes and intent to publish within the Elaboration Likelihood Model(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http//gradworks.umi.com/33/34/3334488.htmlMoody, K. E. (2011). Credibility or convenience? Political information choices in amedia-saturated environment. Media International Australia, 140, 35-64.Moschini, G., Bulut, H., Cembalo, L. (2005). On the segregation of genetically modified, conventional and organic products in European agriculture a multimarket equilibrium analysis. Journal of Agricultura l Economics, 56(3), 347-372.Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., Rosellini, D. (n.d). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88. doi 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. The American Political Science Review, (1). 175.Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.Powers, E. (2017). My News Feed is Filtered? cognisance of news personalization among college students. Digital Journalism, 1-21. doi10.1080/21670811.2017.1286943Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk analysis, 20(2), 195-204.Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk. Science , 236, 280-285Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016. Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from http//www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update- 2016/Stieglitz, S., Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media- sentiment of microblogs and share-out behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217-248.Stevens, T. M., Aarts, N., Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A. (2016). Social media as a new playing field for the governance of agro-food sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18, 99-106.Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1975). vox populi under uncertainty Heuristics and biases. In Utility, probability, and human decision making (pp. 141-162). Springer Netherlands.Vilella-Vila, M., Costa-Font, J. (2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions andattitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics,37(5), 2095-2106. doi10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006Wal ters, A., Long, M. (2012). The effect of food label cues on perceptions of quality and purchase intentions among high-involvement consumers with varying levels of nutrition knowledge. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 44(4), 350-354.Westerwick, A., Kleinman, S. B., Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2013). Turn a subterfuge Eye If You Care Impacts of Attitude Consistency, Importance, and Credibility on Seeking of Political Information and Implications for Attitudes. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 432-453. doi10.1111/jcom.12028World Health Organization. (2015). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods.Retrieved from http//www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/