Microsoft Word - 181-Describing+Tennessee+Consumers%E2%80%99+Use+of+GMO+Information+Channels+and+Sources-2.docx Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development Volume 3, Issue 2, 2022 agdevresearch.org 1. Julia Gibson, Communication & Strategic Media Coordinator, Livestock Marketing Association, University of Tennessee, 6911 W 161st Ter. Apt. 5316, Stilwell, KS 66085, juliagibson730@yahoo.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4890-452X 2. Dr. Jamie Greig, Assistant Professor , University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996, jgreig@vols.utk.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-6374 3. Dr. Shelli D. Rampold, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996, srampold@utk.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-7157 4. Hannah Nelson, Research Technician II, University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996, hanrnels@vols.utk.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0963-1450 5. Dr. Christopher Stripling, Professor & Department Head, University of Tennessee, 320 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996, cstripling@utk.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492 1 Can You Cite That? Describing Tennessee Consumers’ Use of GMO Information Channels and Sources J. Gibson1, J. Greig2, S. Rampold3, H. Nelson4, C. Stripling5 Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand where and how Tennessee consumers receive information about genetically modified (GM) products by examining the use of informational channels and sources among consumers with negative-leaning, neutral, and positive-leaning perceptions of GM products. Twenty percent of respondents were categorized as having negative- leaning perceptions, roughly two-thirds held neutral perceptions, and only 10% of respondents had positive-leaning perceptions. The use of information channels was similar across all perception groups, with websites, word-of-mouth communication, television, and social media as the primary channels used. However, respondents with negative GM perceptions primarily used food bloggers, family, and friends as informational sources, while those with positive-leaning perceptions used food scientists, USDA professionals, and agricultural producers. The findings of this study offer implications for a variety of audiences and communication goals, whether such goals be to market to an existing consumer base or develop an educational campaign to address misconceptions among consumer groups. Keywords GMO perceptions, grouping, public opinion, survey, communication Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 2 Introduction and Problem Statement Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become widely used in agriculture in recent years, largely due to the rapidly increasing human population and related challenges, such as decreasing land area and water resources (Long & Ort, 2010; Oliver, 2014). Many consumers, often younger (Hefferon & Anderson, 2016), middle class (Kahn, 2021), and women (Funk, 2020), are against the use of GMOs for a myriad of reasons, such as concern about the effects on human health and consequences of altering an organism’s genome (Kahn, 2021; Oliver, 2014; Yang & Chen, 2016), the impact on natural biodiversity and the environment (Fischer & Hess, 2021; Trivedi et al., 2016), a lack of perceived benefits for consumers (Fresco, 2001; Kahn, 2021), and social and ethical issues associated with GMO technology (Fischer & Hess, 2021). In the early to mid-1990s, there were more scientific articles published about GMOs than news articles, but in 1999, yearly published GMO news articles far exceeded academic articles (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Global online GMO content in the media has been found to be 90% – 95% negative (Abbott et al., 2001; Abbott & Lucht, 2001). Online news titles and Google search pages have been found to have more negative than positive terms related to GMOs, while federal websites use positive and negative terms equally (Jiang et al., 2018). The framing of science and health-related topics, as well as access to this information, can influence public opinions about agriculture (Jiang et al., 2018). Therefore, it is necessary to understand the sources, the individuals or institutions that originate a message, and channels, the means by which a message gets to receivers, that individuals utilize for GMO information (O’Keefe et al., 1998; Stone et al., 1999; Tucker & Napier, 2002). Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Information Sources Sources can include government and academic institutions, businesses and non-government organizations, and individuals, such as friends, family, neighbors, opinion leaders, and so forth (Söderlund & Lundin, 2017). Many consumers turn to online sources for their GMO information, which tend to discuss very different GMO topics. For example, Jiang and colleagues (2018) found that only 10% of the most central GMO-related words were shared by federal websites, highly trafficked websites, and online news sources, and 42% to 78% of words were unique to each source. Online news titles were most often argumentative and featured more negative than positive terms for GMOs, while federal websites focused on regulatory processes (Jiang et al., 2018). There is a lack of trust in media sources, as 56% of Americans say news media are doing a very or somewhat bad job covering issues about GMO foods; this figure rises to 73% when compared to those with higher self-reported science knowledge (Funk & Kennedy, 2016). Interestingly, the sources that individuals turn to for information are often not the same sources they cite as credible (Sharma et al., 2008; Wilkins et al., 2018). For example, individuals often find scientists and agricultural officers to be the most credible (Funk & Kennedy, 2016; Sharma et al., 2008). Local leaders, like opinion leaders and progressive farmers, are often cited Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 3 as the second most credible source (Kumar Sharm et al., 2008). Word-of-mouth communication between friends, family, and neighbors were also frequently used and perceived as highly credible (Sharma et al., 2008). Yet, studies still show the internet is one of the most preferred methods for obtaining GMO information (Aleksejeva, 2014; Cui & Shoemaker, 2018). Information Channels Channels can traditionally be grouped into personal networks (e.g., family, friends, opinion leaders, printed media, and electronic media) (Csótó, 2011), though the internet has largely influenced recent dissemination of GMO-related information because it is quick and accessible. A recent study found participants’ stated preferred interpersonal method of gaining science knowledge was word-of-mouth communication and personal experiences, but participants actually used media outlets, especially digital ones, most often to gain science information (Brondi et al., 2021). However, printed and electronic media portrayal of the GMO debate has fundamentally shaped individual beliefs so that GMOs are inherently bad. For instance, Fischer and Hess (2021) found Swedish newspaper coverage of GMOs was intense and mostly negative in the mid-1990s but became less negative over time; by the end of the study period, most articles were neutral. Studies show low GMO knowledge tends to disproportionately relate to reliance on mass media as a source of GMO information (Aleksejeva, 2014; Turker et al., 2013; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015), which may, in part, be due to more mass media articles about GMOs than academic ones (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Purpose The two objectives that guided this study were to describe respondents with negative, neutral, and positive perceptions of GMO products based on their use of: 1. Information channels 2. Information sources We utilize this framework as opposed to other suitable theories in the field, such as the PRISM or RISP frameworks for several reasons. First, the information sources and channels framework has roots in the interdisciplinary Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers, 1995), which posits that adoption of new innovations is influenced by information and opinions shared among potential users (MacVaugh & Schiavone, 2010). Second, the PRISM framework considers the use of information as an output rather than a process (Aqil et al., 2009), while information sources and channels acknowledge that information about scientific innovations can be ephemeral and biased. Third, the RISP model focuses on risk communication and use of this model would imply that GMO innovations are inherently risky. However, future research could expand the following methods by using other frameworks to strengthen our understanding of how individuals receive and process GMO information. Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 4 Methods Population and Sample The population of interest was Tennessee residents aged 18 or older. An online link to a questionnaire was distributed to a total of 1,115 Tennessee residents who opted-in using a third-party company, Qualtrics. Qualtrics recruits participants through actively managed market research panels and social media platforms, and they employ digital fingerprinting technology and IP address checks, as well as work with panel partners who also employ such methods (European Society for Opinion and Market Research, 2019). Opt-in participant recruitment is a form of convenience, or river, sampling and is not random. Participants must be willing to be contacted when responses are needed (Baker et al., 2013). The online link to the questionnaire was distributed by Qualtrics to Tennessee residents, and responses were collected gradually from Qualtrics’ recruitment pools until there were 500 responses that met the study criterion. Useable responses were obtained from 501 residents for a participation rate of 44.93%. Due to the sampling techniques of opt-in sampling, participation rates are reported rather than true response rates (Baker et al., 2013), which may be a limitation of this study. Non-probability panels are also considered non-representative of the target population and are subject to the potential for exclusion, selection, and non-participation biases (Baker et al., 2013). To better examine the extent to which the sample was reflective of the larger population, demographic characteristics of respondents were compared to Tennessee demographic data. Comparisons revealed the percentage of females compared to males was not representative of the Tennessee population, which is a limitation of the current study. More respondents in this study identified as female (n = 378; 75.4%) than male (n = 378; 22.2%), and few identified as nonbinary (n = 9; 1.8%) or other (n = 3; 0.6%). Compared to other race categories, more respondents identified as White (n = 408; 81.4%), followed by Black (n = 67; 13.4%). Compared to other education categories, the largest number of respondents reported having completed high school (n = 150; 29.9%) or some college (n = 142; 28.3%). Lastly, most (n = 423; 84.4%) made less than $80,000 annually. Limitations of non-probability online sampling procedures include the potential for exclusion, selection, and non-participation biases (Baker et al., 2013). In this study, the percentage of females compared to males is not representative of the Tennessee population. Instrumentation Respondents’ perceptions of GMO products were assessed using nine items reflective of commonly reported perceptions of GMO products held by consumers (e.g., GMOs are bad for your health and GMOs help increase food production). Responses were collected using a five- point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; and 5 = strongly agree. A construct mean was computed to represent respondents’ overall perceptions of GMO products, and negatively worded items were reverse coded. Respondents were then categorized based on their GMO perceptions score: negative- leaning perceptions = 1.00–2.33; neutral perceptions = 2.34–3.67; and positive-leaning perceptions = 3.68–5.00. These same parameters have been previously used for grouping Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 5 purposes in other areas of agricultural education and communications research (Haynes & Stripling, 2014). Respondents’ use of information sources was assessed using twelve items. Respondents were asked to indicate how much information about GMO products they had obtained from each source, and responses were collected on a 5-point ordinal scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; and 5 = a great deal. Lastly, respondents’ use of information channels was assessed using the previously described format but with seven information channel items (e.g., social media, television). The questionnaire was reviewed for content and face validity by a panel of experts consisting of three faculty members with experience in science communication and marketing. The questionnaire was evaluated for readability, clarity, and style (Colton & Covert, 2007). A field test was conducted with fifty respondents to ensure survey item validation, check for low quality responses, and assess initial scale estimates. Pilot and post hoc reliability estimates for GMO perceptions were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha (pilot α = 0.87; posthoc α = 0.89), which are acceptable levels according to Field (2013). Data Analysis Data were analyzed using the SPSS 27 statistical software package. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used reported for all objectives. Median scores were also reported with frequency distributions as the measure of central tendency (Boone & Boone, 2012). Findings Objective One For all objectives, respondents were grouped into one of three categories based on their GMO perceptions. Ninety-eight respondents (19.56%) were in the negative-leaning perceptions group, 343 (68.46%) were in the neutral perceptions group, and sixty (11.98%) were in the positive-leaning perceptions group. A description of how respondents were grouped is provided in the instrumentation section. Objective one was to describe respondents with negative, neutral, and positive perceptions of GMO products based on their GMO information channels. Respondents with negative-leaning perceptions of GMO products (N = 98) received varying degrees of information via a variety of channels (see Table 1). Compared to the other channels listed, more respondents in the negative perceptions group received at least some information about GMO products from websites (n = 82; 83.7%), word-of-mouth communication (n = 80; 81.6%), social media (n = 72; 73.5%), and television (n = 70; 71.4%). Negative-leaning respondents who received information about GMO products from health books (n = 55; 5.6%) reported receiving a lot (n = 10; 10.2%) or a great deal (n = 12; 12.2%) of information via that channel. Lastly, more than half of the negative-leaning respondents reported receiving no information at all from radio (n = 68; 60.2%) and newspaper (n = 68; 69.4%) channels. Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 6 Table 1 Information Channel Use Among Respondents with Negative-Leaning Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 98) Channel None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn Websites 16 16.3 24 24.5 32 32.7 17 17.3 9 9.2 3.00 Word-of-mouth 18 18.4 30 30.6 31 31.6 12 12.2 7 7.1 3.00 Social media 26 26.5 22 22.4 28 28.6 15 15.3 7 7.1 3.00 Health books 43 43.9 16 16.3 17 17.3 10 10.2 12 12.2 2.00 Television 28 28.6 35 35.7 26 26.5 6 6.1 3 3.1 2.00 Radio 59 60.2 19 19.4 15 15.3 2 2.0 3 3.1 1.00 Newspaper 68 69.4 20 20.4 8 8.2 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.00 Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal. Respondents with neutral perceptions of GMO products (N = 343) did not report receiving a lot or great deal of information from any single information channel (Table 2). Of the channels that were utilized, the largest number of respondents (n = 222; 64.7%) reported receiving at least a little information about GMO products from television. In addition, more than half of the respondents in this group received at least a little information from websites (n = 204; 59.5%), social media (n = 179; 52.2%), and word-of-mouth (n = 196; 57.1%). Regarding the lesser utilized channels, more than half of the neutral respondents did not obtain any GMO product information from health books (n = 207; 60.3%), newspapers (n = 208; 60.6%), or radio channels (n = 236; 68.8%). Table 2 Information Channel Use Among Respondents with Neutral Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 343). Channel None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn Television 121 35.3 98 28.6 84 24.5 34 9.9 6 1.7 2.00 Websites 139 40.5 93 27.1 65 19.0 28 8.2 18 5.2 2.00 Social media 164 47.8 89 25.9 47 13.7 29 8.5 14 4.1 2.00 Word of mouth 147 42.9 103 30.0 68 19.8 17 5.0 8 2.3 2.00 Health books 207 60.3 53 15.5 54 15.7 20 5.8 9 2.6 1.00 Newspaper 208 60.6 79 23.0 42 12.2 9 2.6 5 1.5 1.00 Radio 236 68.8 53 15.5 33 9.6 12 3.5 9 2.6 1.00 Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal. Lastly, respondents with positive-leaning perceptions of GMO products (N = 60) also did not receive a great deal of information about GMO products through any single information channel (Table 3). Compared to the other channels listed, more respondents in this group Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 7 received at least a little information from websites (n = 50; 83.3%), television (n = 49; 81.7%), and word-of-mouth (n = 45; 75.0%). In addition, slightly more than half of the respondents in the positive-leaning group reported receiving at least a little information from social media (n = 39; 65.0%) and health books (n = 50; 30.0%). Positive-leaning respondents reporting receiving no information from newspapers (n = 37; 61.7%) and radio channels (n = 41; 68.3%). Table 3 Information Channel Use Among Respondents with Positive-Leaning Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 60) Channel None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn Websites 10 16.7 16 26.7 15 25.0 15 25.0 4 6.7 3.00 Television 11 18.3 25 41.7 16 26.7 5 8.3 3 5.0 2.00 Social media 21 35.0 16 26.7 10 16.7 9 15.0 4 6.7 2.00 Word of mouth 15 25.0 23 38.3 14 23.3 7 11.7 1 1.7 2.00 Health books 30 50.0 10 16.7 14 23.3 5 8.3 1 1.7 1.50 Newspaper 37 61.7 17 28.3 3 5.0 3 5.0 0 0.0 1.00 Radio 41 68.3 11 18.3 5 8.3 3 5.0 0 0.0 1.00 Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal. Objective Two Objective two sought to describe the GMO information sources respondents with negative, neutral, and positive perceptions used. Overall, respondents with negative-leaning perceptions of GMO products did not receive a lot or a great deal of information from any single source (Table 4). Of the sources listed, more respondents in this group obtained at least some information about GMO products from food bloggers (n = 64; 65.3%), family (n = 64; 65.3%), and friends (n = 61; 62.2%). In addition, roughly half of the negative-leaning respondents reported receiving at least a little information from USDA professionals (n = 53; 54.1%) and other consumers (n = 43; 43.9%). Many respondents in this group reported receiving no information at all about GMO products from college classes (n = 67; 68.4%), universities (n = 69; 70.4%), or Tennessee Extension services (n = 72; 73.5%). Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 8 Table 4 Information Source Use Among Respondents with Negative-Leaning Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 98) Source None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn Food bloggersa 34 34.7 32 32.7 19 19.4 8 8.2 4 4.1 2.00 Family 37 37.8 25 25.5 28 28.6 6 6.1 2 2.0 2.00 Food scientists 47 48.0 18 18.4 17 17.3 10 10.2 6 6.1 2.00 Friendsb 34 34.7 29 29.6 28 28.6 3 3.1 2 2.0 2.00 USDA professionalsa 45 45.9 23 23.5 16 16.3 7 7.1 6 6.1 2.00 Other consumers 41 41.8 28 28.6 22 22.4 4 4.1 3 3.1 2.00 Agricultural producers 55 56.1 16 16.3 18 18.4 4 4.1 5 5.1 1.00 Work/coworker 56 57.1 20 20.4 14 14.3 6 6.1 2 2.0 1.00 Former high school class 63 64.3 16 16.3 15 15.3 3 3.1 1 1.0 1.00 College classd 67 68.4 13 13.3 8 8.2 4 4.1 3 3.1 1.00 Universitiesb 69 70.4 15 15.3 6 6.1 3 3.1 3 3.1 1.00 Tennessee Extension servicesb 72 73.5 15 15.3 4 4.1 4 4.1 1 1.0 1.00 Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal a Responses missing from 1 participant. b Responses missing from 2 participants. c Responses missing from 3 participants. Respondents in the neutral GMO perceptions group did not receive much information from any of the sources listed, with all sources having a median value of 1.00 for response distribution (Table 5). When compared to the other sources, more respondents in this group reported receiving at least a little information from USDA professionals (n = 161; 46.9%), family members (n = 154; 44.9%), friends (n = 153; 44.6%), and agricultural producers (n = 152; 44.3%). Many respondents in this group (n = 239; 69.7%) reported receiving no information at all about GMO products from Tennessee Extension services. Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 9 Table 5 Information Source Use by Respondents with Neutral Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 343) Source None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn USDA professionalsa 182 53.1 77 22.4 48 14.0 26 7.6 7 2.0 1.00 Familyb 189 55.1 64 18.7 65 19.0 17 5.0 6 1.7 1.00 Agricultural producersb 191 55.7 76 22.2 45 13.1 20 5.8 9 2.6 1.00 Friendsb 190 55.4 72 21.0 60 17.5 15 4.4 4 1.2 1.00 Food scientistsc 207 60.3 56 16.3 48 14.0 18 5.2 10 2.9 1.00 High school classc 202 58.9 65 19.0 46 13.4 20 5.8 6 1.7 1.00 Food bloggersc 201 58.6 70 20.4 48 14.0 12 3.5 8 2.3 1.00 Work/coworkera 207 60.3 71 20.7 43 12.5 14 4.1 5 1.5 1.00 Other consumersd 206 60.1 72 21.0 41 12.0 13 3.8 6 1.7 1.00 Universitiese 233 67.9 39 11.4 43 12.5 15 4.4 6 1.7 1.00 Tennessee Extension servicesf 239 69.7 39 11.4 40 11.7 12 3.5 7 2.0 1.00 College classc 245 71.4 36 10.5 34 9.9 16 4.7 8 2.3 1.00 Note. Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal a Responses missing from 3 participants. b Responses missing from 2 participants. c Responses missing from 4 participants. d Responses missing from 5 participants. e Responses missing from 7 participants. f Responses missing from 6 participants. Respondents with positive-leaning perceptions of GMO products received at least a little information from the various information sources (Table 6). Compared to the other sources, more respondents in the positive-leaning perceptions group received at least a little information from food scientists (n = 42; 70.0%), USDA professionals (n = 40; 66.7%), and agricultural producers (n = 36; 60.0%). In addition, more than half of the positive-leaning respondents reported receiving at least a little information from family (n = 32; 53.3%) and friends (n = 32; 53.3%). Few respondents in this group (n = 19; 31.7%) received any amount of information about GMO products from Tennessee Extension services. Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 10 Table 6 Information Source Use by Respondents with Positive-Leaning Perceptions of GMO Products (N = 60) Source None at all A little Some A lot A great deal Median n % n % n % n % n % Mdn USDA professionals 20 33.3 14 23.3 17 28.3 8 13.3 1 1.7 2.00 Food scientist a 18 30.0 17 28.3 19 31.7 4 6.7 1 1.7 2.00 Agricultural producers 24 40.0 17 28.3 12 20.0 4 6.7 3 5.0 2.00 College class 33 55.0 8 13.3 6 10.0 11 18.3 2 3.3 1.00 Family 28 46.7 12 20.0 14 23.3 5 8.3 1 1.7 2.00 Universitiesa 33 55.0 11 18.3 6 10.0 6 10.0 3 5.0 1.00 Former high school class 35 58.3 8 13.3 9 15.0 5 8.3 3 5.0 1.00 Food bloggersa 32 53.3 12 20.0 7 11.7 8 13.3 0 0 1.00 Friends 28 46.7 18 30.0 12 20.0 1 1.7 1 1.7 2.00 Other consumersa 31 51.7 14 23.3 12 20.0 1 1.7 1 1.7 1.00 Work/coworker a 33 55.0 13 21.7 12 20.0 0 0 1 1.7 1.00 Tennessee Extension servicesa 41 68.3 8 13.3 6 10.0 3 5.0 1 1.7 1.00 Note. Response scale: 1 = none at all; 2 = a little; 3 = some; 4 = a lot; 5 = a great deal. a Responses missing from 1 participant. Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations Conclusions The findings of this study provide insight regarding how respondents with varying perceptions of GMO food products receive their information about such products. Segmenting consumers based on their GMO perceptions (i.e., negative-leaning, neutral, and positive-leaning) can guide recommendations for a variety of audiences and communication goals, whether such goals be to market GMO products to existing consumer bases or develop an educational campaign to address GMO misconceptions. Further, while this is a state-based study and the ability to generalize is limited, these findings contribute to the larger body of literature pertaining to consumers’ GMO information-seeking behaviors. Twenty percent of respondents were categorized as having negative-leaning perceptions of GMO products, roughly two-thirds held neutral perceptions, and only 10% of respondents had positive-leaning perceptions of GMO products. Websites, word-of-mouth communication, television, and social media were the primary information channels used by all perception groups. Respondents with neutral perceptions, however, did not utilize any information channel to much extent. Regarding information sources, respondents in the negative group received information primarily from food bloggers, family, friends, and other consumers. Respondents in the neutral group received information from USDA professionals, family Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 11 members, friends, and agricultural producers. Lastly, a slight shift toward more scientific-based sources, such as food scientists, USDA professionals, and agricultural producers, was observed among respondents with positive-leaning perceptions of GM products. Overall, these findings reveal that individuals are actively seeking only “some” GMO information and most often, are not seeking any information at all, regardless of perception leanings. More importantly, participants’ preferred methods of receiving GMO information are not factchecked and peer reviewed, leaving room for misinformation. Misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic has been found to increase information avoidance and heuristic processing, as well as decrease the measures individuals took to prevent and treat COVID-19 (Kim et al., 2020). Misinformation about GMO soybeans was associated with feelings of anxiety and a lack of trust in scientists and the government (Jiang & Fang, 2019), which in turn leads to individuals using these sources less for information. The challenge then is for agricultural communicators to find ways to reach people about GMOs without them having to seek out the information themselves through unreliable sources. Discussion and Recommendations The relatively high use of informal information channels like websites, family, friends, and word-of-mouth communication across all perception groups is consistent with prior findings (Cui & Shoemaker, 2018; Tucker & Napier, 2002; Wolske et al., 2020). The findings from the current study and prior research suggest that segmenting consumers based on their GMO perceptions may be unnecessary to examine information channels. However, it may be advantageous to segment consumer audiences by socioeconomic variables or measures of trust in science when analyzing information channel use (Funk et al., 2020). Though for informational sources, segmenting respondents into perceptions groups has provided beneficial insight for practitioners and researchers. Across perception groups, relatively little information about GMO products was obtained from Tennessee Extension services, which suggests room for Extension’s involvement in this area, perhaps through working with agricultural communicators to develop educational campaigns for consumers, workshops for producers, or marketing materials for producers to use to promote understanding of GMO science to consumers with negative or neutral perceptions. This raises the question of how well positioned extension specialists or agents are in terms of collaborating with agricultural communicators. Additionally, we need to examine the roles and effectiveness of agents, specialists, and agricultural communicators in facilitating dialogue about GMO products between producers and consumers. Producers in Tennessee should also continue to converse with their supportive consumer base, which may, in turn, facilitate positive discussions among consumers via personal networking (Chen et al., 2021; Csótó, 2011; Wolske et al., 2020). Regarding future research, qualitative inquiry is needed to examine how the language and tones of USDA messages are perceived by consumers and shape their perceptions. Similar research is needed to explore the role of food bloggers or similar influencers on consumers’ perceptions of GMO products. Research should also seek to identify the potential for evidence- Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 12 based food blogs from university researchers or other scientists. To help accomplish this, consumers’ perceived trust in science and scientists should be further examined (Runge et al., 2018; Xu & Lu, 2019), and methods of increasing consumers’ trust in evidence-based blogs from universities or scientists should be established. Lastly, considering roughly two-thirds of respondents in this study fell within the neutral perceptions category, research should continue to explore the phenomena of neutral public opinions on controversial topics such as GMOs. This area of research is of the upmost importance to efforts to better develop and disseminate evidence-based information to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions. References Abbott, E. A., Lucht, T., Jensen, J. P., & Jordan-Conde, Z. (2001, January 09–10). Handling of GM crop issues by the mass media. 2001 Illinois Crop Protection Technology Conference, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States. Abbott, E. A., & Lucht, T. (2001, August 5–8). Riding the hoopla: An analysis of mass media coverage of GMOs in Britain and the United States. Science Communication Interest Group, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington D.C., United States. Aleksejeva, I. (2014). Latvian consumers’ knowledge about genetically modified organisms. Organizacijų Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai, 2014(72), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.7220/mosr.2335.8750.2014.71.1 Aqil, A., Lippeveld, T., & Hozumi, D. (2009). PRISM framework: A paradigm shift for designing, strengthening and evaluating routine health information systems. Health Policy and Planning 24(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czp010 Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., Gile, K. J., & Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt008 Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). https://archives.joe.org/joe/2012april/pdf/JOE_v50_2tt2.pdf Brondi, S., Pellegrini, G., Guráň, P., Fero, M., & Rubin, A. (2021). Dimensions of trust in different forms of science communication: The role of information sources and channels used to acquire science knowledge. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030208 Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 13 Chen, C., Li, J., Shuai, J., Nelson, H., Walzem, A., & Cheng, J. (2021). Linking social-psychological factors with policy expectation: Using local voices to understand solar PV poverty alleviation in Wuhan, China. Energy Policy, 151(2021), Article 112160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112160 Csótó, M. (2011). Information flow in agriculture – through new channels for improved effectiveness. Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 1(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.17700/jai.2010.1.2.17 Cui, K., & Shoemaker, S. P. (2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. National Portfolio Journal Science of Food, 2(10). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4 European Society for Opinion and Market Research. (2019). 28 questions to help research buyers of online samples. https://amerispeak.norc.org/Documents/FeatureDocuments/NORC_AmeriSpeak_ESOM AR_28.pdf Fischer, K., & Hess, S. (2021). The Swedish media debate on GMO between 1994 and 2018: What attention was given to farmers’ perspectives? Environmental Communication, 16(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1960406 Fresco, L.O. (2001, September 16–18). Genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture: Where are we? Where are we going?. Crop and Forest Biotechnology for the Future Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Falkenburg, Sweden. http://louiseofresco.com/pdf/FAO/2001_FAO- GMO_Where_are_we_Where_are_we_going_Sweden.pdf Funk, C. (2020, March 18). About half of US adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/18/about-half-of-u-s-adults-are-wary- of-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods-but-many-also-see-advantages/ Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016, December 1). The new food fights: U.S. public divides over food science. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp- content/uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_FINAL.pdf Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020, September 29). Scientists are among the most trusted groups in society, though many value practical experience over expertise. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/scientists- are-among-the-most-trusted-groups-in-society-though-many-value-practical- experience-over-expertise/ Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 14 Haynes, J. C., & Stripling, C. T. (2014). Mathematics efficacy and professional development needs of Wyoming agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(5), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.05048 Hefferon, M., & Anderson, M. (2016, December 7). Younger generations stand out in their beliefs about organic, GM foods. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/07/younger-generations-stand-out- in-their-beliefs-about-organic-gm-foods/ Jiang, K., Anderton, B. N., Ronald, P. C., & Barnett, G. A. (2018). Semantic network analysis reveals opposing online representations of the search term “GMO”. Global Challenges, 2(1), Article 1700082. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700082 Jiang, S., & Fang, W. (2019). Misinformation and disinformation in science: Examining the social diffusion of rumours about GMOs. Cultures of Science, 2(4), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/209660831900200407 Kahn, J. (2021). Learning to love G.M.O.s. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/magazine/gmos.html Kim, H.K., Ahn, J., Atkinson, L., & Kahlor, L.A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 misinformation on information seeking, avoidance, and processing: A multicountry comparative study. Science Communication, 42(5), 586–615. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547020959670 Sharma, A.K., Jha, S. K., Kumar, V., Sachan, R. C., & Kumar, A. (2008). Critical analysis of information sources and channels preferred by rapeseed-mustard farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 8(2 & 3), 42–45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265431241_Critical_Analysis_of_Informatio n_Sources_and_Channels_Preferred_by_Rapeseed-Mustard_Farmers Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2010). More than taking the heat: Crops and global change. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 13(3), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.008 MacVaugh, J., & Schiavone, F. (2010). Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literature review and integrative model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040258 O’Keefe, G. J., Boyd, H. H., & Brown, M. R. (1998). Who learns preventive health care information from where: Cross-channel and repertoire comparisons. Health Communication, 10(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1001_2 Oliver, M. J. (2014). Why we need GMO crops in agriculture. Missouri Medicine, 111(6), 492– 507. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173531/ Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 15 Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press. Runge, K. K., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2018). Protective progressives to distrustful traditionalists: A post hoc segmentation method for science communication. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1023–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1513854 Söderlund, C., & Lundin, J. (2017). What is an information source?: Information design based on information source selection behavior. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 4(3), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3071078.3071081 Stone, G., Singletary, M., & Richmond, V. P. (1999). Clarifying communication theories: A hands- on approach. Wiley-Blackwell. Trivedi, M., Singh, R., Shukla, M., & Tiwari, R. K. (2016). GMO and food security. In Omkar (Ed.), Ecofriendly Pest Management for Food Security (1st ed., pp. 703–726). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803265-7.00023-3 Tucker, M., & Napier, T. L. (2002). Preferred sources and channels of soil and water conservation information among farmers in three midwestern US watersheds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 92(2–3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00293-6 Turker, T., Koçak, N., Aydin, I., Istanbulluoğlu, H., Yildiran, N., Turk, Y. Z., & Kilic, S. (2013). Determination of knowledge, attitude, behavior about genetically modified organisms in nursing school students. Gulhane Medical Journal, 55(4), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.5455/gulhane.33326 Wilkins, E. J., Miller, H. M., Tilak, E., & Schuster, R. M. (2018). Communicating information on nature-related topics: Preferred information channels and trust in sources. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0209013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209013 Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T., & Schultz, P. W. (2020). Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nature Energy, 5, 202-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0541-9 Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015). Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition, 6(6), 842-851. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.008870 Xu, Z., & Lu, Y. (2019). Imagining GMOs: The Chinese public’s scientific perception in the digital age. Cultures of Science, 2(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/209660831900200402 Gibson et al. Advancements in Agricultural Development https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181 16 Yang, Y. T., & Chen, B. (2016). Governing GMOs in the USA: Science, law and public health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 96(6), 1851–1855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7523 © 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).