21pgs, Gene-editing provides an opportunity to address the significant challenges of population growth and climate change that impact food production. Given the important role of gene-editing in our food system, exploring opportunities to persuade public acceptance of the technology is needed. The purpose of this study was to investigate persuasive effects of metaphorical concepts regarding gene-editing in agriculture. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was used as the conceptual framework. Metaphors stand to influence public acceptance because metaphors encourage issue-relevant thinking and enhance persuasion. A quantitative, randomized, between-subjects, experimental research design was delivered via an online survey to a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. The manipulation was four mock news articles differentiated by metaphorical concept for gene-editing in agriculture (creation versus text editor versus tool versus control). Even when controlling for confounding variables, the results indicated no significant differences between the treatments on issue-relevant thinking or willingness to share the article on social media. Future research should explore the impact of metaphorical concepts on attitude and other behavioral outcomes associated with elaboration.
Arp, Allison A. (author) and Iowa State University
Format:
Thesis
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
Ann Arbor: ProQuest
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 18 Document Number: D10473
Notes:
98 pages., ISBN: 9780438072190, Via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., This study explored how preexisting values influence attitudes about GMOs and if aligning messages about GMOs with these values would lead to a greater chance of central processing, and subsequently, greater alignment with message-congruent attitudes. Utilizing the Elaboration Likelihood Model as a theoretical foundation, an online experiment was used to measure several values of participants, including altruistic, biospheric and egoistic value orientations as well as agricultural identity. Attitude accessibility and pre- and post-opinions were also measured in order to determine how much of an effect the presented stimuli had on the participants. All participants were presented with a stimulus that either aligned or didn’t align with their self-ranked GMO value-argument. It was found that attitude accessibility, agricultural identity and in some cases a biospehric value orientation were the most important predictors for a number of constructs related to GMO attitudes. In addition, agricultural identity did not correlate with any other value orientation, yet was the strongest predictor of many related attitudes. Future research should continue to explore the complexity of values within agricultural communication contexts and expand the understanding of how agricultural identity influences such outcomes.
