
































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/). 
 


