





































Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 3, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Taylor Ruth, Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 143 Filley Hall P.O. Box 830937, Lincoln, NE 68583, 

taylor.ruth@unl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-9154  

2. Blake Colclasure, Assistant Professor, Doane University, 1014 Boswell Ave., Crete, NE 68333, blake.colclasure@doane.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-286X 

3. Nathan Conner, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 143 Filley Hall P.O. Box 830937, Lincoln, NE 68583, 

nconner2@unl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-4110  

4. Tessa Durham Brooks, Associate Professor, Doane University, 1014 Boswell Ave., Crete, NE 68333, 

tessa.durhambrooks@doane.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8699-6253  

5. Andrea Holmes, Professor, Doane University, 1014 Boswell Ave., Crete, NE 68333, andrea.holmes@doane.edu, 

   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-1952  
 

1 

 

Hemp on the Horizon: Understanding the Influences on 
Industrial Hemp Purchases 

T. Ruth1, B. Colclasure2, N. Conner3, T. D. Brooks4, A. Holmes5 

 

 

  

Abstract 

The industrial hemp market is expected to grow in upcoming years due to increased use in food, 
paper, and personal care products, opening new opportunities for farmers across the United States. 
An increase in hemp products provides an opportunity to better understand consumer preferences 
and to educate consumers on hemp. The purpose of this research was to understand what 
influences consumers’ purchases of hemp products. This study was guided by the spiral of silence 
theory, which proposed that people will conform their attitudes and behaviors to match the 
perceived majority’s opinion. Students in college-level introductory science courses were surveyed 
and their attitude toward industrial hemp, perceptions of others’ attitude toward industrial hemp, 
and knowledge on hemp were measured. Data were analyzed using means, frequencies, and logistic 
regression. Most respondents reported not having purchased a hemp product in the past six months. 
The only predictors of hemp purchases were gender and attitude. When accounting for spiral of 
silence variables and personal characteristics, females were more likely than males to purchase 
hemp products. Extension educators should partner with hemp growers and processors to discuss 
how people are commonly using hemp products and to communicate to producers how consumers 
are using the products. 
 
 

Keywords 

agricultural production, consumer choices, spiral of silence  
 

mailto:taylor.ruth@unl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-9154
mailto:blake.colclasure@doane.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-286X
mailto:nconner2@unl.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-4110
mailto:tessa.durhambrooks@doane.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8699-6253
mailto:andrea.holmes@doane.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-1952


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 

 
The 2018 United States Farm Bill removed industrial hemp from its list of federally controlled 
substances (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], n.d.), and opened opportunities for 
farmers and consumers across the country. The industrial hemp industry made $1.1 billion in 
2018 and is anticipated to double by 2022 (Woods, 2019). Globally, industrial hemp markets are 
projected to continue to grow as hemp use in skincare, food, paper, beverage, and even 
automotive products continues to increase (Global Market Insight, 2022), thus opening new 
opportunities for farmers across the country. 
 
Nebraska is one of the many states allowing growers to apply for licenses to grow hemp 
(Nebraska Department of Agriculture, 2019). While hemp is grown to have no more than 0.3% 
of the psychoactive compound, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), it is often grown to have high 
levels of cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive compound (Grinspoon, 2019). Despite hemp 
products containing minimal levels of THC (Chandra et al., 2019), some lawmakers were against 
the legalization of hemp. For example, a Nebraska state senator said, “the hemp bill's a Trojan 
horse bill for marijuana. If you don't want your children or grandchildren getting easy access to 
drugs…don't vote for this bill” (Young, 2019, para. 6). Nebraska lawmakers’ vocal opposition 
and association of hemp and marijuana may have led to a social stigma associated with hemp 
production and use. This stigma and a general lack of knowledge related to hemp may impede 
sales of hemp products in Nebraska, and growers may find it difficult to successfully market 
their product despite the current global demand (Global Cannabinoids, 2019). Past research has 
determined Extension agents possess positive attitudes toward communicating contentious 
topics (Leal et al., 2020), but for agents to best help the industry and growers succeed, they will 
need to know the social influences on consumers’ decisions to purchase industrial hemp 
products. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 

 
This study was guided by the spiral of silence theory, which proposed that people will conform 
their attitudes and behaviors to match the perceived majority’s opinion (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). 
A person’s fear of isolation from the group can cause them to change their opinion or remain 
silent when their opinion is incongruent from the group’s opinion (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). Their 
likeliness to share their opinion to the group is reliant on the a) strength of their attitude, b) 
perceived majority opinion toward the topic, and c) perceptions of future trends in attitude 
toward the topic (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). When people have weak attitudes toward a topic and 
believe the public to hold opposite attitudes, they will typically remain silent. However, if they 
perceive the future trends in attitude to align closely with their own, they will be more likely to 
speak out on the issue (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).  
 
The spiral of silence theory was applied to the concept of industrial hemp due to the polarized 
opinions around the commodity (Cherney & Small, 2016). Unfortunately, relevant, peer-
reviewed literature related to public opinion and use of industrial hemp has been limited, likely 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   3 
 

due to its only recent declassification as a controlled substance (USDA, n.d.). Hiller Connell (2010) 
conducted a study to understand the barriers to purchasing eco-conscious apparel made from 
hemp fibers and concluded that lack of knowledge and negative attitude were the major internal 
barriers to purchasing apparel made from hemp. Other studies have determined that only 14% 
of Americans have tried CBD oil and mostly use it for pain, anxiety, or insomnia (Brenan, 2019). 
Researchers in Poland also concluded that consumers had limited knowledge toward hemp, yet 
they possessed positive attitudes toward the medicinal properties of hemp (Borkowska & 
Bialkowska, 2019). The positive perceptions of hemp appeared to be the result of association 
with marijuana (Borkowska & Bialkowska, 2019). 
 
While public opinion research related to industrial hemp has been limited, there has been plenty 
of research related to the support or opposition to legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana in the US 
that may provide insight for this study. Galston and Dionne (2013) concluded attitude toward 
marijuana legalization was mostly ambivalent, and while support for legalization is growing, 
opposition to legalization has been intense. Researchers also found support for marijuana 
legalization from liberals but concluded conservatives were not as vocal in neither their support 
nor opposition (Cruz et al., 2016; Galston & Dionne, 2013). Additionally, gender and age have 
been found to influence support for marijuana legalization, with men and younger people being 
the most supportive of the issue (Galston & Dionne, 2013).  
 
There is a clear gap in the literature for understanding how people decide to purchase industrial 
hemp. Concepts from the spiral of silence may provide a baseline understanding for how societal 
and peer pressures (Cruz et al., 2016; Noelle- Neumann, 1974) could inform industrial hemp 
purchases. For the purpose of this research, public support of industrial hemp has been 
operationalized as the purchase and use of industrial hemp products. In addition to the spiral of 
silence variables (attitude toward industrial hemp production, perceptions of others’ attitudes, 
and future trends in attitudes toward industrial hemp), knowledge (Brenan, 2019; Hiller Connell, 
2010), political ideology (Cruz et al., 2016; Galston & Dionne, 2013), gender (Galston & Dionne, 
2013), and rural hometown were included in the conceptual model. Whether or not the 
respondents lived in a rural hometown was included in the model because these respondents 
were from areas that could possibly grow industrial hemp in the near future. Personal 
characteristics, spiral of silence variables, and industrial hemp knowledge were expected to have 
an influence on industrial hemp purchases. 
 

Purpose 
 
Developing a better understanding of consumers’ preferences and perception of industrial hemp 
products will provide practical information that can be used to help educate people on industrial 
hemp production and products. The purpose of this research was to understand what influences 
consumers’ industrial hemp products purchases. The following objectives guided this study: 
1. Identify respondents’ hemp purchasing behaviors in the past six months. 
2. Identify respondents’ knowledge of industrial hemp. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   4 
 

3. Identify respondents’ attitude, perceptions of others’ attitudes, and perceived future trends 
of attitudes toward industrial hemp. 

4. Analyze how personal characteristics, knowledge, attitude, perceptions of others’ attitudes, 
and perceived future trends of attitudes toward industrial hemp predict industrial hemp 
purchases. 

 

Methods 

 
Quantitative methods were used to fulfill the purpose of this study. This research was part of a 
larger industrial hemp project to educate Doane University students about hemp production. The 
population consisted of students in introductory science courses (n = 139), and 111 students (n 
= 111, 79.9%) completed the 25-question paper survey prior to the educational presentations. 
Approximately half of the respondents were female (56.3%, n = 63), and most students identified 
as white (85.8%, n = 95), and a minority as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (5.4%, n = 6). Political 
beliefs consisted of very liberal (3.6%, n = 4), liberal (9.8%, n = 11), moderate (48.3%, n = 54), 
conservative (27.7%, n = 31), very conservative (7.1 %, n = 8), and unknown (3.6%, n = 4). The 
respondents consisted of freshmen (77.7%, n = 87), sophomores (13.4%, n = 15), juniors (7.1%, n 
= 8), and seniors (1.8%, n= 2). Additionally, some of the respondents indicated they were from a 
rural hometown (42.0%, n =47) and the rest of the respondents indicated they were from an 
urban/suburban area (58.0%, n = 65). 
 
Hemp use was measured with a check-all-that apply question. Respondents were asked to select 
all industrial hemp products they had purchased in the past six months. For objective four, this 
variable was transformed into a dichotomous variable where the respondent had either 
purchased at least one industrial hemp product or had not purchased an industrial hemp product 
in the six months before the study. 
 
Attitude toward industrial hemp and perceptions of others’ attitude toward industrial hemp were 
measured on the same 8-item, 5-point, bipolar semantic differential scales that were adapted 
from prior research (Ruth et al., 2019), and included statements like “good/bad” and 
“beneficial/not beneficial.” Statements were coded so that positive adjectives were a five and 
negative adjectives were a one. The statement stem for attitude toward industrial hemp was, “I 
believe growing industrial hemp in the US is…”  and the statement stem for the perceptions of 
others’ attitudes variable was, “I believe the majority of Americans think growing industrial hemp 

is…” Both indexes were averaged, and attitude toward industrial hemp (Cronbach’s  = .94) and 

perceptions of others’ attitudes toward industrial hemp (Cronbach’s  = .97) were found to be 
reliable (Field, 2013). Perceptions of future trends in attitudes were measured with a 7-item, 5-
point Likert-type scale adapted from Ruth et al. (2019), with labels ranging from 1 = strongly 
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The average of the items was calculated to create the construct 

(Cronbach’s  = .80).  
 
Knowledge of industrial hemp was measured with 20 true/false statements, which have been 
reported in a prior study by item (Colclasure et al., 2021). Respondents were also given the option 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   5 
 

to select “I do not know.” These statements were adapted from US government documents 
about industrial hemp (Congressional Research Service, 2019; USDA, n.d.). The knowledge 
construct was found to be reliable with a KR20 of .84 (Kuder & Richardson, 1937). Prior to 
distribution, the survey was reviewed by a panel of experts to address the validity (Ary et al., 
2010) and was piloted with 20 students in a soil science class. Panel members included a 
professor of chemistry and co-founder of a hemp processing company, an associate professor of 
biology with a focus in crop genetics, an assistant professor of environmental science with a focus 
in agriculture, and an assistant professor of agricultural communications. 
 
All data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Objectives one through three were answered using 
means, frequencies, and standard deviations. A logistic regression was used for objective four. 
The dichotomous variable for industrial hemp use was treated as the dependent variable; use of 
industrial hemp was coded as a 1 and no use was coded as a 0. Attitude, perceptions of others’ 
attitudes, perceptions of future trends in attitudes, knowledge, and political ideology were all 
treated as continuous predictor variables. The continuous variables in the model were normally 
distributed and had a skewness and kurtosis between +/- 2 after the removal of two outliers. 
Categorical variables were dummy coded so the category with the largest frequency was treated 
as the control (Gender – Men, Hometown – Urban/Suburban; Field, 2013). 
 

Findings 
 
Hemp Purchasing Behaviors 
Respondents were asked to select how many hemp products they had purchased in the past six 
months, and the range was between 0 and 5, with a mean of .53 (SD = .93). The majority of 
respondents in the study reported not having purchased an industrial hemp product in the past 
six months (64.9%, n = 72), while 35.1% (n = 39) had purchased at least one industrial hemp 
product in the past six months. The most frequently purchased hemp product was makeup or 
cosmetics (18.0%, n = 20), followed by CDB oil (14.4%, n = 16), consumables (6.3%, n = 7), and 
pet products (5.4%, n = 6) (see Table 1). Less than 5% of the sample had used the remaining 
hemp products. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   6 
 

Table 1  
 
Hemp Products Purchased in The Past Six Months 

Product n % 

Makeup or Cosmetic Products (Skin Cream) 20 18.0 

Cannabidiol (CBD) Oil 16 14.4 

Consumables (e.g. Gummies) 7 6.3 

Pet Products Made from Hemp 6 5.4 

Hemp Fiber 4 3.6 

Hemp Protein (e.g. Powder Supplements) 4 3.6 

Hemp Seed Oil 1 0.9 

Hemp Milk or Juice 0 0.0 

Hempcrete 0 0.0 

 
Hemp Knowledge 
Respondents answered a total of 20 true or false knowledge questions, and the range for correct 
answers was zero to 18. On average, students answered 8.15 questions correctly (M = 8.15, SD = 
4.28). Individual item responses can be found in Table 2. The majority of respondents knew hemp 
crops could be harvested for oils and fiber (84.7%, n = 94), that cannabinoids found in hemp could 
have medical benefits (77.5%, n = 86), and that hemp contained CBD (64.0%, n = 71). However, 
respondents were unable to correctly answer questions about federal regulation of hemp, how 
hemp is grown/processed, and whether or not hemp contained THC. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   7 
 

Table 2 
 
Knowledge Related to Hemp 

 
 Correct 

Incorrect/ 
Don’t Know 

 Answer % n % n 
Hemp crops can be harvested for oils and fiber.  T 84.7 94 15.3 17 
Cannabinoids found in hemp can have medical 

benefits.  
T 77.5 86 22.5 25 

Hemp contains cannabinoids, such as CBD.  T 64.0 71 36.0 30 
The plant parts used in hemp production include 

fiber, grain, ... 
T 55.9 62 44.1 49 

Hemp is a federally illegal crop in the United 
States.  

F 53.2 59 46.8 52 

The level of THC in hemp is similar to the level of 
THC in marijuana.  

F 53.2 59 46.8 52 

Similar to marijuana, hemp can be smoked to get 
a “high” or “buzz”.  

F 51.4 57 48.6 54 

There are no genetic differences between hemp 
and marijuana.  

F 50.5 56 49.5 55 

Hemp and marijuana are both classified as 
Cannabis.  

T 49.5 55 50.5 56 

Hemp contains 0.3% or less THC. T 40.5 45 59.5 66 
CBD from hemp is federally legal. T 40.5 45 59.5 66 

Hemp is a legal crop in Nebraska. T 37.8 42 62.2 69 

Hemp is significantly different from marijuana at 
a genome-wide level.  

T 32.4 36 67.6 75 

The products from hemp and marijuana crops 
are used similarly.  

F 28.8 32 71.2 79 

Prior to the late 1950s, hemp in the United States 
was considered an agricultural commodity... 

F 
 

27.9 31 72.1 80 

Cannabis processing is the same for both hemp 
and marijuana.  

F 21.6 24 78.4 87 

Current federal law classifies hemp as a 
scheduled I controlled substance...  

F 18.9 21 81.1 90 

Hemp is characterized by plants that  are high in 
delta-9 THC, the dominant psychotropic 
compound...  

F 
 

16.2 18 83.8 93 

Hemp must be grown in carefully controlled, 
warm, and humid cond... 

F 
 

8.1 9 91.9 102 

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
currently has regulatory oversight over 
hemp... 

F 2.7 3 97.3 108 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   8 
 

Hemp Perceptions 
On average, respondents in the study reported slightly positive attitudes toward growing 
industrial hemp in the US (M = 3.52, SD = .80) but perceived others to have neutral attitudes 
toward the production of hemp (M = 2.79, SD = .92). Item responses can be found in Table 3. 
Respondents agreed they perceived hemp to be “beneficial” (M = 3.95; SD = 0.91), “positive” (M 
= 3.81; SD = 0.99), and “acceptable” (M = 3.79; SD = 0.99) but reported more neutral responses 
to believing hemp was “essential” (M = 3.15; SD = 1.00) and “crucial” (M = 2.96; SD = 0.78)  
Respondents’ perceptions of U.S. attitudes was neutral across all adjective pairs.  
 
Table 3 
 
Attitude Toward Hemp and Perceptions of U.S. Attitudes Toward Hemp 

 
Attitudes toward Growing 

Hemp 

Perceptions of U.S. 
Attitudes toward Growing 

Hemp 

 M SD M SD 

Beneficial/Not Beneficial 3.95 0.91 2.97 1.10 
Positive/Negative 3.81 0.99 2.85 1.05 
Acceptable/Unacceptable 3.79 1.00 2.83 1.08 
Good/ Bad 3.79 1.07 2.78 1.12 
Important/Unimportant 3.44 1.02 2.81 1.02 
Necessary/Unnecessary 3.22 1.01 2.61 1.05 
Essential/Not Essential 3.15 1.00 2.72 1.12 
Crucial/Trivial 2.96 0.78 2.72 0.93 

Note. Items coded so that negative adjectives were a 1 and positive adjectives were a 5. 
 
When asked how they believed others would feel about the growth of industrial hemp in the US 
in the future, respondents agreed attitudes would be favorable (M = 3.67, SD = .52). Respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed that people would become more accepting of hemp in the future 
(83.8%, n = 93) and that people will be more supportive of hemp in the future (73.0%, n = 81; 
Table 4). However, only 45.0% (n = 50) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed people will not 
worry about hemp in the future. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   9 
 

Table 4 
 
Perceptions of Future Trends in Attitudes Toward Hemp 

 
 Strongly 

Disagree/Disagree 
Neither Agree 
nor Disagree 

Agree/ 
Strongly Agree 

In the future… n f % f % f % 

People will be less 
accepting of hemp.a 

111 4 3.6 14 12.6 93 83.8 

People will be supportive 
of hemp. 

111 3 2.7 27 24.3 81 73.0 

People will be more 
fearful of hemp.a 

110 7 6.4 29 26.4 74 67.2 

People will recognize the 
value of hemp. 

111 5 4.5 36 32.5 70 63.1 

People will be 
appreciative of hemp. 

111 2 1.8 42 37.8 67 60.4 

People will be less 
tolerant of hemp.a 

111 11 9.9 42 41.4 58 52.2 

People will not worry 
about hemp. 

111 25 22.5 36 32.4 50 45.0 

aIndicates statement was reverse coded for analysis 
 
Predicting Hemp Purchases 
A logistic regression was run for the final objective to predict the purchase of industrial hemp. 

The model was statistically significant (2 (7) = 25.13, p < .01) and could account for approximately 
30% of the variance in the likelihood to purchase industrial hemp products (pseudo-R2 = 0.30). 
The only predictors of industrial hemp purchases were gender and attitude (see Table 5). When 
accounting for spiral of silence variables and personal characteristics, females were more likely 
than males to purchase industrial hemp products. Additionally, as attitude toward growing hemp 
increased by one point, the log odds of the likelihood to purchase industrial hemp products 
increased by 2.69. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   10 
 

Table 5 
 
Likelihood of Purchasing Industrial Hemp Products 
 

Predictor          B Odds p 

Constant -2.00 0.14 .42 
Gender -1.36 0.26 .01* 
Attitude 0.99 2.69 .02* 
Knowledge 0.11 2.04 .12 
Rural Town 0.71 2.04 .16 

Politics -0.46 0.63 .42 
Others’ Attitude -0.22 0.81 .47 
Future Trends -0.22 0.80 .71 

* p < .05. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
Despite the low knowledge of industrial hemp, the respondents did hold slightly positive 
attitudes toward it, which aligned with research on industrial hemp in Poland (Borkowska & 
Bialkowska, 2019). Respondents also perceived others to have neutral attitudes of industrial 
hemp. This neutral perception may mean Nebraska’s historical stance on marijuana legalizations 
and vocal senators on the topic of industrial hemp (Young, 2019) were not perceived to represent 
the majority opinion of the state. Another explanation is the students in the sample are simply 
not engaged in all the political conversations in Nebraska. Younger people, like those in the 
sample, have been found to be the most supportive of marijuana legalization (Galston & Dionne, 
2013), and the respondents in the study may hold similar views. 
 
The logistic regression model included the variables from the spiral of silence, industrial hemp 
knowledge, and respondent characteristics. The model was statistically significant and accounted 
for a moderate amount of variance in predicting industrial hemp purchases (Cohen, 1988). Males 
were less likely than females to purchase industrial hemp. Galston and Dionne (2013) had 
concluded men were more supportive of marijuana legalization than women. However, the 
different contexts of marijuana and industrial hemp would likely account for this difference in 
findings. Additionally, the influence of gender in the model may reflect the products purchased 
in this study, which commonly included makeup and skincare products.  
 
The only other predictor in the model for industrial hemp purchases was attitude, and 
respondents with more positive attitudes were more likely to purchase the products. 
Interestingly though, the other variables from the spiral of silence were not predictors of 
industrial hemp purchases. This finding may reflect the respondents’ agreement that the public 
would possess positive attitudes toward industrial hemp in the future. When people believe their 
attitude aligns with the future trends, they are more likely to express that opinion and be less 
concerned with their fear of isolation (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). Although the model did not 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   11 
 

exactly reflect the spiral of silence, the respondents’ own attitudes might be the most predictive 
of the behavior because they perceive others to feel similar to themselves and do not feel societal 
pressure related to the topic of industrial hemp products (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). 
 
Despite confusion between marijuana and industrial hemp (Cherney & Small, 2016) and a general 
lack of knowledge in the sample, knowledge was not a predictor of industrial hemp use. Hiller 
Connell (2010) concluded lack of knowledge and negative attitudes were barriers to purchasing 
clothing made from industrial hemp. Because the attitudes in the sample were mostly positive, 
the lack of knowledge may not have mattered as much when predicting industrial hemp 
purchases.  
 
While the findings from this study are not generalizable past the student population, this 
research can serve as a starting point to understanding the influences on consumers’ purchasing 
behaviors for industrial hemp products. The findings from this study should be considered by 
Extension specialists and agricultural communicators to help support this re-emerging industry. 
Extension educators should partner with local, industrial hemp growers and processors in their 
area to discuss how people are commonly using hemp products. Communicating to producers 
how consumers are using the products could lead to strategic decisions to help increase sales 
and production of certain products. Findings from this study should be used to assist hemp 
producers in marketing and selling their product. Thus expanding the industrial hemp industry 
and improving agricultural practices.  
 
Additionally, this research should be replicated with respondents across Nebraska as well as the 
US to allow the findings to be generalizable to the public. Including questions about attitudes 
toward marijuana along with attitudes toward industrial hemp would be useful to understanding 
if the public holds similar or different attitudes toward the two products.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We thank science faculty at Doane University for their time and for allowing us to survey their 
students. 
 

References 
 
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). 

Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 
 
Borkowska, B., & Bialkowska, P. (2019). Evaluation of consumer awareness of hemp and its 

applications in different industries. Scientific Journal of Gdynia Maritime University, 
110(9), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.26408/110.01   

 
Brenan, M. (2019, August 7). 14% of Americans say they use CBD products. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/263147/americans-say-cbd-products.aspx   

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189
https://doi.org/10.26408/110.01
https://news.gallup.com/poll/263147/americans-say-cbd-products.aspx


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   12 
 

 
Chandra, S., Radwan, M. M., Majumdar, C. G., Church, J. C., Freeman, T. P., & El Sohly, M. A. 

(2019). New trends in cannabis potency in USA and Europe during the last decade 
(2008–2017). European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 269(8), 997–
997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-01020-1    

 
Cherney, J., & Small, E. (2016). Industrial hemp in North America: Production, politics and 

potential. Agronomy, 6(4), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6040058   
 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press. 
 
Colclasure, B. C., Ruth, T. K., Durham Brooks, T., & Holmes, A. (2021). Hemp, hemp, hooray: The 

impact of a hemp educational campaign on college students’ attitudes and knowledge 
of industrial hemp. Journal of Agricultural Education, 62(1), 246-259. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01246  

 
Congressional Research Service. (2019). Defining hemp: A fact sheet (R44742). 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=Defining%20hemp:%20A%20
fact%20sheet%20(R44742)&orderBy=Relevance  

 
Cruz, J. M., Queirolo, R., & Boidi, M. F. (2016). Determinants of public support for marijuana 

legalization in Uruguay, the United States, and El Salvador. Journal of Drug Issues, 46(4), 
308–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042616649005   

 
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS (4th ed.). Sage.  
 
Galston, W. A., & Dionne, E. J. (2013). The new politics of marijuana legalization: Why opinion is 

changing. Governance Studies at Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Dionne-Galston_NewPoliticsofMJLeg_Final.pdf   

 
Global Cannabinoids. (2019, September 10). Continued research reveals consumer demand for 

hemp-derived CBD skincare products at an all time high. 
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/continued-research-reveals-consumer-
demand-for-hemp-derived-cbd-skincare-products-at-an-all-time-high-300914785.html    

 
Global Market Insight. (2022, January 4). Industrial hemp market size and share | Statistics - 

2027. Global Market Insights Inc. https://www.gminsights.com/industry-
analysis/industrial-hemp-
market?utm_source=PrNewswire.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid_Pr
Newswire  

 
Grinspoon, P. (2019, August 27). Cannabidiol (CBD)? What we know and what we don't. 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cannabidiol-cbd-what-we-know-and-what-we-
dont-2018082414476   

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-01020-1
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6040058
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.01246
https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=Defining%20hemp:%20A%20fact%20sheet%20(R44742)&orderBy=Relevance
https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=Defining%20hemp:%20A%20fact%20sheet%20(R44742)&orderBy=Relevance
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042616649005
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Dionne-Galston_NewPoliticsofMJLeg_Final.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Dionne-Galston_NewPoliticsofMJLeg_Final.pdf
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/continued-research-reveals-consumer-demand-for-hemp-derived-cbd-skincare-products-at-an-all-time-high-300914785.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/continued-research-reveals-consumer-demand-for-hemp-derived-cbd-skincare-products-at-an-all-time-high-300914785.html
https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/industrial-hemp-market?utm_source=PrNewswire.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid_PrNewswire
https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/industrial-hemp-market?utm_source=PrNewswire.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid_PrNewswire
https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/industrial-hemp-market?utm_source=PrNewswire.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid_PrNewswire
https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/industrial-hemp-market?utm_source=PrNewswire.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid_PrNewswire
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cannabidiol-cbd-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-2018082414476
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cannabidiol-cbd-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-2018082414476


Ruth et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189   13 
 

 
Hiller Connell, K. Y. (2010). Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel 

acquisition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), 279–286. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00865.x   

 
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. 

Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391   
 
Leal, A., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., & Gay, K. D. (2020). Discussing Extension agents’ role in 

moderating contentious issue conversations. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 
8(2), 1–14. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/1048   

 
Nebraska Department of Agriculture (2019). Hemp program annual summary 2019. 

https://nda.nebraska.gov/hemp/2019%20NDA%20Hemp%20Program%20Annual%20Su
mmary.pdf  

 
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of 

Communication, 24(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x   
 
Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., Irani, T. A., & Ellis, J. D. (2019). 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    

 
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Hemp and farm programs. 

https://www.farmers.gov/manage/hemp   
 
Woods, B. (2019, May 25). Newly legalized hemp industry set to create a jobs boom in the US. 

CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/newly-legalized-hemp-industry-set-to-
create-a-jobs-boom-in-the-us.html   

 
Young, J. (2019, May 22). Hemp bill moves forward with amendment despite argument that it's 

'Trojan horse bill for marijuana'. Lincoln Journal 
Star. https://journalstar.com/legislature/hemp-bill-moves-forward-with-amendment-
despite-argument-that-its-trojan-horse-bill-for-marijuana/article_0b4462b6-9fc2-5745-
b36f-a0db6b35dbbd.html   

 
© 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/). 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/v3i3.189
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00865.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/1048
https://nda.nebraska.gov/hemp/2019%20NDA%20Hemp%20Program%20Annual%20Summary.pdf
https://nda.nebraska.gov/hemp/2019%20NDA%20Hemp%20Program%20Annual%20Summary.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018819935
https://www.farmers.gov/manage/hemp
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/newly-legalized-hemp-industry-set-to-create-a-jobs-boom-in-the-us.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/newly-legalized-hemp-industry-set-to-create-a-jobs-boom-in-the-us.html
https://journalstar.com/legislature/hemp-bill-moves-forward-with-amendment-despite-argument-that-its-trojan-horse-bill-for-marijuana/article_0b4462b6-9fc2-5745-b36f-a0db6b35dbbd.html
https://journalstar.com/legislature/hemp-bill-moves-forward-with-amendment-despite-argument-that-its-trojan-horse-bill-for-marijuana/article_0b4462b6-9fc2-5745-b36f-a0db6b35dbbd.html
https://journalstar.com/legislature/hemp-bill-moves-forward-with-amendment-despite-argument-that-its-trojan-horse-bill-for-marijuana/article_0b4462b6-9fc2-5745-b36f-a0db6b35dbbd.html

