Microsoft Word - 269-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 1, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Shelli D. Rampold, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996, 

srampold@utk.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-7157 
2. Jamie Greig, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996, jgreig@utk.edu,  

 https://orcid/org/0000-0002-7588-6374 
3. Julia Gibson, Communication Specialist, Osborn Barr Paramore, 900 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63102, 

juliagibson730@yahoo.com,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4890-452X  
4. Hannah Nelson, Research Technician, Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, University 

of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996, hanrnels@vols.utk.edu,  https://orcid/org/0000-0003-
0963-1450  

48 

 

GMO or GM No? Segmenting a Consumer Audience to 
Examine Their Perceptions of Genetically Modified Products 

 
S. D. Rampold1, J. Greig2, J. Gibson3, H. Nelson4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: September 22, 2022 
Accepted: January 12, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
audience segmentation; education; 
income; genetic modification; 
shopper responsibility   

Abstract 
This study aimed to examine Tennessee consumers’ perceptions of 
genetically modified (GM) products and how those perceptions and 
preferences differ based on consumers’ characteristics. Survey 
respondents held overall neutral but slightly negative perceptions of GM 
products. While they agreed GM products could help increase food 
production, they also perceived GM products to cause illnesses such as 
cancer, autism, allergies, and gluten intolerance. Respondents also 
expressed beliefs that GM products are not good for the environment. 
Participants in the middle-income bracket had more positive perceptions 
of GM products than those in the lower and higher brackets. Respondents 
who always did the majority of the grocery shopping also had significantly 
more negative perceptions of GM products than respondents who were 
responsible for the majority of the grocery shopping about half the time. 
There should be targeted and simplified messaging for industry 
practitioners to reduce the information load. Specifically, research 
suggests GM messaging that emphasizes subjective norms, utilizes 
infographics, is congruent with consumer values, and highlights GM 
benefits rather than risks. Our results also indicate that information 
campaigns targeting different audience segments, namely income 
brackets, and grocery shopping responsibility, are viable solutions to 
increase consumer GM product perceptions. 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   49 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020), genetically modified (GM) 
organisms include animals, plants, and all microorganisms that are altered genetically using 
technology for transferring specific DNA from one organism to another, generally involving 
modifications to DNA. There are currently ten verified GM crops grown and sold in the United 
States (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2022). However, GM products have been the 
subject of much debate across the United States and other regions, especially regarding the 
safety of GM products for human consumption (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 
and Medicine [NASEM], 2016). Specifically, some are concerned that GM products can lead to 
allergies, autism, and gastrointestinal disorders (NASEM, 2016). Others have praised GM 
products for their economic and productivity contributions to farmers and community 
members (FDA, 2022).  
 
There is substantial research regarding the pros and cons of GM products (e.g., NASEM, 2016; 
Ruth et al., 2018; Vecchione et al., 2014; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). However, methods to 
determine consumers’ level of GM product understanding and how that understanding affects 
purchasing habits and perceptions of GM products are not yet concrete. Despite these 
challenges, researchers have maintained there is a need to examine U.S. consumers’ 
perceptions of and attitudes toward GM technology in the food and agriculture sector (Gibson 
et al, 2022; Ruth et al., 2018). Such information can help direct future research and 
communication strategies on GM agricultural science (Ruth et al., 2018). Research to examine 
and better understand the variances in different consumer groups’ perceptions of GM products 
is needed to help ensure the presence of a consumer market base capable of supporting GM 
technology. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Audience segmentation and social marketing are often deployed to help utilize resources more 
effectively and ensure an initiative has a maximum impact (Andreasen, 2006). In agricultural 
communication research, such methods have been used to identify strategies to address issues 
or tailor messaging to specific subgroups (Gibson et al., 2022; Warner et al., 2017). Audiences 
can be segmented by various factors, such as gender, income, education, geographic region, 
race, and ethnicity. Rather than consider the “general consumer audience,” researchers can 
apply concepts of segmentation to describe consumer groups and more effectively target 
communication messages. In this study, we used characteristics of income, education, shopper 
responsibility, knowledge level, and political affiliation to describe differences in consumers’ 
perceptions of GM products. The following sections provide a synthesis of prior literature 
relevant to the grouping variables of interest selected for this study. 
 
Knowledge and Education 
In prior GM research, consumers’ perceptions of GM products have been linked to content-
specific factual knowledge of GM products (Vecchione et al., 2014), self-perceived knowledge 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   50 
 

or familiarity (Rose et al., 2019), and a general understanding of science and the scientific 
process (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Vecchione et al. (2014) found that adults in New Jersey 
with more knowledge of GM products were more likely to have a positive attitude about GM 
products and vice versa. However, Wunderlich and Gatto (2015) found that more than half of 
U.S. consumers knew very little about GM products. 
 
While educational attainment may not speak to individuals’ factual content knowledge of GM 
products (Rose et al., 2019), it may represent their general ability to comprehend scientific 
information to make informed decisions. Further, segmenting audiences and developing 
targeted messages based on GM knowledge levels can be difficult due to a lack of ability to 
identify how to best get GM product information to consumers. However, education and 
income can speak to broader, well-researched constructs like socioeconomic status or the use 
of different information sources that influence GM perceptions (Funk & Kennedy, 2016; 
Stanton et al., 2021; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). 
 
Income 
Income and educational attainment are examined due to consistent correlations between the 
two (Bjorklund & Jantti, 2020; Zwick & Green, 2007). Observed relationships between income 
and GM attitudes or perceptions have varied across prior research, though extant research 
focuses on non-US consumer perceptions (Cui & Shoemaker, 2018; Hwang & Nam, 2021). For 
example, Cui and Shoemaker (2018) found that higher-income Chinese consumers were 
significantly more likely to oppose GM products than those in lower-income groups. Hwang and 
Nam (2021) had similar results in a Korean sample. The present research attempts to fill in the 
U.S.-based research gap.  
 
Political Affiliation 
Politics have long influenced the advancement and dissemination of GM products, both in the 
United States and other countries, through regulatory approaches and audience-driven news 
media coverage of GM technology (Lucht, 2015; Pjesivac et al., 2020). In a meta-analysis of GM 
media coverage, Pjesivac et al. (2020) maintained that news messages in conservative areas 
were often framed around GM's and other biotechnology's economic potential. In contrast, 
news messages in more liberal regions highlighted potential environmental concerns and health 
risks of GM technology. Due to the political landscape surrounding GM products, a consumer’s 
party affiliation may provide insight into their understanding and perceptions of GM products 
(Lucht, 2015; McFadden, 2016). 
 
Shopper Responsibility 
Shopping responsibility can be an indicator of familiarity regarding exposure to GM products. 
Wunderlich and Gatto (2015) found those who were more familiar with GM products were 
more resistant to bioengineering methods. However, Grunert et al. (2004) observed an increase 
in positive attitudes toward GM products after participants were exposed to a positive sensory 
experience with such products. 
 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   51 
 

Purpose 
 

This study aimed to examine Tennessee (TN) consumers’ perceptions of GM products as well as 
investigate how these perceptions and preferences differ based on consumers’ characteristics. 
Further, this research was conducted to inform the best approaches to marketing products to 
target audiences. Four objectives guided this study: 
1. Describe the demographic characteristics of respondents 
2. Describe TN consumers’ perceptions of GM products  
3. Describe TN consumers’ self-perceived knowledge of GM products  
4. Determine if statistical differences exist in TN consumers’ perceptions of GM products 

based on self-perceived knowledge of GM products, education level, income, political 
affiliation, and shopper responsibility   

 
Methods 

 
A third-party company, Qualtrics, was contracted to recruit respondents and obtain a non-
probability opt-in sample of TN residents. Qualtrics and panel partners employ digital 
fingerprinting technology and IP address checks to avoid duplication and ensure validity when 
obtaining non-probability opt-in samples in market research (European Society for Opinion and 
Market Research, 2019). The population of interest was TN residents aged 18 or older. The 
online link to the questionnaire was distributed to a total of 1,115 TN residents. Respondents 
who did not complete all items of the instrument, did not select the appropriate answers to 
attention filters (e.g., select “strongly agree” for this answer), or did not fall within the 
parameters of being a TN resident of 18 years of age or older were excluded from analyses. 
Useable responses were obtained from 501 residents for a 44.93% participation rate. 
 
The questionnaire included 13 items and was divided into three sections to capture 
participants’: (a) perceptions of GM products; (b) self-perceived knowledge of GM products; 
and (c) demographic characteristics, including education level, income bracket, political 
affiliation, and shopper role/responsibility. A researcher-developed questionnaire was reviewed 
by a panel of three faculty members with experience in survey design and science 
communication and marketing for readability, layout and style, clarity of wording, and accuracy 
of scientific content (Colton & Covert, 2007). Revisions were made to the original questionnaire 
to remove double-barreled questions, improve readability, and ensure construct items had 
clear positive or negative perception implications. The panel deemed the final instrument 
acceptable. In addition, a pilot test was conducted with 50 respondents to ensure survey item 
validation, check for low-quality responses, assess initial scale estimates for the instrument’s 
constructs (α = .81), and identify any other errors associated with survey flow and readability. 
Internal consistency reliability estimates for the instrument’s construct (i.e., GM perceptions) 
were calculated for the pilot and primary data using Cronbach’s alpha (Field, 2013). The pilot 
reliability estimates for the GM perceptions construct was .81 and was deemed acceptable. 
 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   52 
 

Respondents’ perceptions of GM products were assessed using eight items reflective of 
commonly reported positive and negative perceptions of GM products held by consumers (e.g., 
“GM organisms are bad for your health” and “GM organisms help increase food production”). 
Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale, and a construct mean was computed. 
The internal consistency reliability estimate for this scale was α = .88. To assess self-perceived 
GM knowledge, respondents were asked how they would describe their knowledge of GM 
products using a 5-point ordinal scale. Lastly, demographic items included the categorical 
variables: income, educational attainment level, political affiliation, and shopper role. Shopper 
role was assessed using a single item in which respondents indicated how often they do the 
majority of the grocery shopping on a 5-point ordinal scale. 
 
Data for objectives one, two, and three were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For research 
objective four, one-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) were employed. A statistical 
significance level of .05 was established a priori for all statistical tests. Tukey’s HSD post hoc 
tests were used when variances were equal, with Games-Howell used for unequal variances 
(Field, 2013). Before employing one-way ANOVA, Levene’s test was utilized to ensure the 
assumption of equality of error variances was not violated. Robust tests of equality of means 
included Welch’s statistic for tests that failed the assumption of homogeneity of variance. 
 
Exclusion, selection, and non-participation biases are limitations of non-probability opt-in 
sampling methods (Baker et al., 2013). Due to such limitations, caution should be used when 
attempting to generalize the findings of this study. Instead, these findings should be considered 
based on the study’s sample to contribute to the larger literature on GM food. A lack of quota 
sampling was also a limitation of this study, as the population sample included considerably 
more female respondents than male respondents, which is not reflective of the TN population. 
The remaining demographic characteristics were reflective of the state population. Due to the 
approach of audience segmentation, these findings can still provide valuable insight regarding 
GM perceptions among specific demographic groups. Due to attempts to draw a sample 
reflective of the demographic characteristics of the state population, unequal group sizes 
caused limitations in this study, particularly regarding the violation of ANOVA assumptions. 
Future research of this nature intended to segment consumer audiences should perhaps be 
designed with quotas set for grouping variables over state population characteristics. 
 

Findings 
 
Objective One 
Objective one was to describe the demographic characteristics of respondents in this study. 
This objective provides context for the audience segmentation procedures used in the data 
analysis. Respondents in this study were primarily female (f = 378; 75.4%), white (f = 408; 
81.4%), and between the ages of 20 to 29 (f = 101; 20.2%) and 30 to 39 (f = 130; 25.9%; Table 
1). The largest number of respondents reported having completed high school (f = 150; 29.9%) 
or some college (f = 142; 28.3%) as their highest level of education, and most (f = 423; 84.4%) 
made less than $80,000 annually. Additionally, more than half of respondents (f = 279; 55.7%) 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   53 
 

reported doing most of the grocery shopping in their household. Most respondents self-
identified as Republican (f = 166; 33.1%), Democrat (f = 147; 29.3%), or politically moderate (f = 
216; 43.1%). Table one provides a complete breakdown of the demographic characteristics of 
respondents.  
 
Table 1 
 
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 
Variable f % 

Gender   
Male 111 22.2 
Female 378 75.4 

Age    
18 to 19 10 2.0 
20 to 29 101 20.2 
30 to 39 130 25.9 
40 to 49 85 17.0 
50 to 59 76 15.2 
60 to 69 69 13.8 
70 to 79 29 5.8 
80+ 1 0.2 

Ethnicity   
Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 12 2.4 
Not Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) 489 97.6 
Race   
White 408 81.4 
Black 67 13.4 
Asian 7 1.4 
American Indian 2 0.4 
Multi-racial 16 3.2 
Other 1 0.2 

Education   
Less than 12th grade (did not graduate high school) 22 4.4 
High school graduate (includes GED) 150 29.9 
Some college, no degree 142 28.3 
2-year college degree (Associate, technical, etc.) 65 13.0 
4-year college degree (Bachelor’s, etc.) 82 16.4 
Graduate or professional degree (Master’s, Ph.D., MBA, 
etc.) 

40 8.0 

 

 

 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   54 
 

Income   
$24,999 or less 144 28.7 
$25,000 to $49,999 175 34.9 
$50,000 to $74,999 104 20.8 
$75,000 to $149,999 60 12.0 
$150,000 to $249,999 15 3.0 
$250,000 or more 3 0.6 

Political affiliation    
Republican 166 33.1 
Democrat 147 29.3 
Independent 110 22.0 
Non-affiliated 69 13.8 

Political beliefs   
Very liberal 37 7.4 
Liberal 78 15.6 
Moderate 216 43.1 
Conservative 113 22.6 
Very conservative 57 11.4 

Residence   
A farm in a rural area  32 6.4 
Rural area, not a farm 160 31.9 
Urban or suburban area outside of city limits 159 31.7 
Subdivision in a town or city 109 21.8 
Downtown area in a city or town 41 8.2 

How often do you do the majority of the grocery shopping 
in your household? 

  

Never 5 1.0 
Sometimes 42 8.4 
About half of the time 70 14.0 
Most of the time 105 21.0 
All the time 279 55.7 

 
Objective Two 
Objective two was to describe respondents’ perceptions of GM products. The mean score for 
respondents’ overall perceptions of GM products was 2.89, with scores ranging from 1.00 to 
4.88 (SD = .75; Table 2). Analysis of individual GM perception items revealed respondents 
agreed that GM products help increase food production (M = 3.58; SD = .97). However, 
respondents also somewhat agreed GM products can cause illnesses such as cancer, autism, 
allergies, and gluten intolerance (M = 3.33; SD = 1.07) as well as disagreed that GM products are 
good for the environment (M = 2.81; SD = 1.04; Table 2).  
 
 
 
 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   55 
 

Table 2 
 
Respondents’ Level of Agreement with Characteristics of GM Products 
Item M SD 
Genetically modified organisms help increase food production. 3.58 .97 
Genetically modified organisms can cause illnesses such as cancer, 

autism, allergies, and gluten intolerance.a 
3.33 1.07 

Genetically modified organisms are bad for your health.a 3.32 1.05 
Genetically modified organisms are harmful to pollinators.a 3.31 .91 
Genetically modified organisms provide safe, sustainable alternatives 

for consumption. 
3.01 1.07 

Genetically modified organisms are beneficial.  2.96 1.06 
Genetically modified organism are good for the environment.  2.81 1.04 
Genetically modified organisms are more nutritious than other 

products.  
2.63 1.01 

Construct M = 2.89; SD = .75 
Note. Response scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor 
disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 = strongly agree 
a Denotes items reverse coded for inclusion in construct mean calculation 

 
Objective Three 
Objective three was to describe respondents’ self-reported knowledge of GM products. 
Regarding GM knowledge, more respondents (f = 204; 40.7%) self-identified as slightly 
knowledgeable compared to other knowledge categories (Table 3). Few respondents (f = 12; 
2.4%) self-identified as extremely knowledgeable about GM organisms.  
 
Table 3 
 
Frequency Distribution of Respondents’ Degree of Knowledge of GM and Organic Products 
Item and Responses f % 
Knowledge of GM organisms   

Not knowledgeable at all  137 27.3 
Slightly knowledgeable  204 40.7 
Moderately knowledgeable  121 24.2 
Very knowledgeable  27 5.4 
Extremely knowledgeable  12 2.4 

 
Objective Four 
Objective four sought to examine statistically significant variances in respondents’ perceptions 
of GM products based on self-perceived knowledge of GM products, education level, income, 
and political affiliation. No significant variance in GM perceptions were observed between self-
perceived GM knowledge groups [F(4,496) = .866., p = .45], education level groups [F(5, 495) = 
1.49, p = .19], or political affiliation groups [F(4, 496) = 2.22, p = .07].  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   56 
 

 
However, significant differences in GM perceptions were observed between income groups, 
F(5, 495) = 2.51, p = .029 (Table 4). Tukey’s HSD post hoc revealed respondents in the income 
group of $25,000 to $49,999 had significantly less positive perceptions of GM products than 
respondents in the $50,000 to $74,999 group and $75,000 to $149,999 group (Table 5). 
Additionally, the GM perceptions of respondents with an income of $250,000 or higher were 
significantly less positive than those in the $50,000 to $74,999 group and the $75,000 to 
$149,999 group. 
 
Significant differences in GM perceptions were also observed based on respondents’ degree of 
grocery shopping responsibility. Levene’s test was significant for shopper role (p = .003); 
therefore, Welch’s robust F-statistic was reported, F (4, 496) = 3.21, p = .027 (Table 4). Games-
Howell’s multiple comparisons revealed that respondents who did the majority of the shopping 
half of the time (GM perceptions M = 3.12; SD = .68) had significantly higher GM perceptions 
than those who always did the majority of the shopping for their household (M = 2.80; SD = .81; 
p = .01; Table 5).  
 
Table 4 
 
ANOVA Summary Table of GM Perceptions by Income Bracket and Shopper Responsibility 
 

SS df MS F p 
Eta 
(η2) 

Income Bracket       
Between Groups 7.02 5 1.40 2.51 .029 .025 
Within Groups 276.72 495 .559    
Total 283.74 500     

Frequency of Doing Majority 
of Grocery Shopping 

 
 

    

Between Groups 6.69 4 1.67 3.21* .027 .024 
Within Groups 277.04 496 .559    
Total 283.73 500     

* Denotes Welch’s F reported 
 
  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   57 
 

Table 5 
Descriptive Results of GM Perceptions by Income Bracket s and Shopper Responsibility Groups 
   95% Confidence Interval 

Variable 
GM Perception 

M SD Lower bound Upper bound 
Income bracket     

$24,999 or less 2.88 .71 2.77 3.01 
$25,000 to $49,999 2.77 .75 2.66 2.88 
$50,000 to $74,999 3.00 .80 2.84 3.15 
$75,000 to $149,999 3.03 .73 2.83 3.15 
$150,000 to $249,999 2.83 .80 2.39 3.27 
$250,000 or more 2.04 .87 -.16 4.25 

Frequency of doing majority 
shopping role 

    

Never 2.93 .87 1.82 4.03 
Sometimes 3.04 .63 2.84 3.23 
About half the time 3.11 .68 2.95 3.28 
Most of the time 2.85 .66 2.72 2.90 
Always 2.88 .75 2.81 2.94 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
The findings from this research provide insight into developing educational and marketing 
communication materials that enhance consumers’ knowledge and understanding of GM 
products. This is particularly useful for communicating GM product information, as there has 
been an abundance of misinformation and concerns among consumer groups. First, 
respondents held overall neutral but slightly negative leaning perceptions of GM products. 
While they agreed GM products help increase food production, they also believed that GM 
products could harm the environment and cause illnesses such as cancer, autism, allergies, and 
gluten intolerance. These results show that while some information about the actual 
characteristics of GM products is reaching the public, the public is also being exposed to and 
retaining beliefs in misconceptions. Public intake of truth mixed with non-truth in GM-related 
information may be due to “information overload,” where the public is exposed to so much 
information they cannot process fact from non-factual information (Li, 2017). As such, industry 
practitioners should target and simplify messages to reduce the information load. Specifically, 
research suggests using GM messaging that (a) emphasizes subjective norms (Silk et al., 2005), 
(b) utilizes infographics (Lee et al., 2021), (c) is congruent with consumer values (Fischer et al., 
2021), and (d) highlights GM benefits rather than risks (Pham & Mandel, 2019).  
 
Second, very few respondents self-identified as very or extremely knowledgeable about GM 
products; most respondents self-reported “slight” to “moderate” knowledge of GM products. 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   58 
 

We found no significant variance in GM perceptions between self-perceived knowledge groups. 
Some prior research has shown that self-reported knowledge does not directly correlate to 
attitudes toward GM products (Rose et al., 2019) or willingness to use GM products (Lu, 2016). 
This may also explain why the present study did not find significant differences in GM 
perceptions across education levels. More importantly, U.S. consumers report relying on the 
internet for GM information (Funk & Kennedy, 2016), often using sources that are not fact-
checked and peer-reviewed, which leaves room for misinformation and can negatively impact 
consumers’ future science information gathering and product purchasing behavior. Therefore, 
where individuals receive their GM product information, and the content of those messages, 
may impact consumer opinions on science topics and purchasing behaviors more than self-
perceived knowledge does. Future research should explore this topic further.  
 
Lastly, audience segmentation can be a viable approach to enhancing consumers’ GM product 
perceptions (Burke et al., 2020; Guenther et al., 2018; Silk et al., 2005). The results of the 
present study provide examples of audience characteristics, namely income and grocery 
shopping responsibility, that could be targeted by information campaigns. Respondents in the 
lowest and highest income groups ($25,000 to $49,999 and $250,000 or more) reported the 
most negative perceptions of GM products compared to other income categories. Additionally, 
respondents who indicated doing most or all grocery shopping had more negative perceptions 
than those who sometimes or never helped with shopping. Consumer shopping roles are a 
beneficial consumer category to target, as this information is readily available via online and in-
store consumer account data. Therefore, communication campaigns designed to improve GM 
product perceptions that target income and shopping groups with negative GM product 
perceptions may be a helpful audience segmentation strategy. Analyses of perception 
formation should be the focus of future studies to inform why perceptions vary between 
income and shopping frequency groups. However, further studies will be needed to understand 
how the public receives, processes, interprets, and retains information about GM products to 
inform future communications efforts more precisely. 
 

References 
 
Andreasen, A. R. (2006). Social marketing in the 21st century. Sage Publications, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329192   

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       

Bjorklund, A., & Jantti, M. (2020). Intergenerational mobility, intergenerational effects, sibling 
correlations, and equality of opportunity: A comparison of four approaches. Research in 
Social Stratification and Mobility, 70, 100455. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2019.100455   



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   59 
 

Burke, K., Boman, C. D.,  D’Angelo, J., & Ellis, J. D. (2020). Using audience segmentation to 
determine millennial perceptions toward GM foods. Journal of Applied Communications, 
104(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2342   

Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research 
and evaluation. Jossey-Bass.  

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). ESOMAR 28 questions to help 
research buyers of online samples. 
https://amerispeak.norc.org/content/dam/amerispeak/about-
amerispeak/pdf/NORC_AmeriSpeak_ESOMAR_28.pdf  

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications, Inc. 

Fischer, L. M., Opat, K., Jennings, K., & Meyers, C. (2021). Visualizing values: A content analysis 
to conceptualize value congruent video messages used in agricultural communications. 
Journal of Applied Communications, 105(2). http://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2368  

Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). 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   

Gibson, J., Greig, J., Rampold, S. D., Nelson, H., & Stripling, C. (2022). Can you cite that? 
Describing Tennessee consumers use of GMO information channels and sources. Journal 
of Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(2), 1–6. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.181  

Grunert, K. G., Bech-Larsen, B., Lähteenmäki, L., Ueland, Ø., & Åström, A. (2004). Attitudes 
toward the use of GMOs in food production and their impact on buying intention: The 
role of positive sensory experience. Agribusiness, 20(1), 95–107. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.10086  

Guenther, L., Weingart, P., & Meyer, C. (2018). “Science is everywhere, but no one knows it”: 
Assessing the cultural distance to science of rural South African publics. Environmental 
Communication, 12(8), 1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1455724   

Hwang, H., & Nam, S. J. (2021). The influence of consumers’ knowledge on their responses to 
genetically modified foods. GM Crops & Food, 12(1), 146-157.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1840911   



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   60 
 

Lee, S., Lee, N., & Dockter, C.E. (2021). Effects of message presentation type on GM food risk 
perception, similarity judgment, and attitude. Health Communication, 36(13), 1666–
1676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1787926   

Li, C. Y. (2017). Why do online consumers experience information overload? An extension of 
communication theory. Journal of Information Science, 43(6), 835–851. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516670096    

Lu, X. (2016). The impact of audience disposition on pro-GMO advertisement effective: An 
application of the elaboration likelihood model (Publication No. osu1461341567) 
[Master’s thesis, Ohio State University]. Ohio Library and Information Network. 
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1461341567  

Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses, 7(8), 
4254–4281. https://doi.org/10.3390/v7082819     

McFadden, B. R. (2016). Examining the gap between science and public opinion about 
genetically modified food and global warming. PLOS ONE, 11(11). 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166140    

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered 
crops: Experiences and prospects. National Academies Press. 
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-
experiences-and-prospects  

Pham, N., & Mandel, N. (2019). What influences consumer evaluation of genetically modified 
foods?. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(2), 263–279. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915618818168   

Pjesivac, I., Hayslett, M. A., & Binford, M. T. (2020). To eat or not to eat: Framing of GMOs in 
American media and its effects on attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication, 
42(6), 747–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020947743  

Rose, K. M., Howell, E. L., Su, L. Y., Xenos, M. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2019). 
Distinguishing scientific knowledge: The impact of different measures of knowledge on 
genetically modified food attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 449–467. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518824837   

Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., Irani, T., & Ellis, J. D. (2018). Are American’s attitudes 
toward GM science really negative? An academic examination of attitudes and 
willingness to expose attitudes. Science Communication, 41(1), 113–131. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018819935     

 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.269   61 
 

Silk, K.J., Weiner, J., & Parrott, R.L. (2005). Gene cuisine or frankenfood? The theory of reasoned 
action as an audience segmentation strategy for messages about genetically modified 
foods. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 10(8), 751–767. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500326740      

Stanton, K., Rezai, G., & Baglione, S. (2021). The effect of persuasive/possessing information 
regarding GMOs on consumer attitudes. Future Foods, 4, 100076. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100076  

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Agricultural Biotechnology. U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/agricultural-
biotechnology?utm_source=google    

Vecchione, M., Feldman, C., & Wunderlich, S. (2014). Consumer knowledge and attitudes about 
genetically modified food products and labelling policy. International Journal of Food 
Sciences and Nutrition, 66(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2014.986072    

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   

Zwick, R., & Green, J. G. (2007). New perspectives on the correlation of SAT scores, high school 
grades, and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 23–45. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00025.x  

 
 
© 2023 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/).