Understanding Active Communicators on the Food Safety Issue: Conspiratorial Thinking,Organizational Trust,and Communicative Actions of Publics in China

Abstract

As misinformation is common in the digital media environment, it has become more important to understand risk communication in the context of communicative behaviors of publics that affect public opinion and policymaking. Focusing on food safety issues such as genetically modified food and food additives in China, this study aims to understand the communicative action of publics and the role of organizational trust in the conspiratorial thinking of publics and their perceptions of food safety issues. Using a national sample of 1,089 citizens living in China, this study examines situational theory of problem solving (STOPS) to understand when and how publics become active in communicative actions to take, select, and transmit information regarding food safety issues. In addition, this study tests the role of organizational trust in the food industry between conspiratorial thinking of publics and their situational perceptions, which are antecedent variables to increase communicative action of publics in problem solving. The results demonstrate that STOPS can be applied to the food safety issue to predict communicative actions of publics, and organizational trust plays a vital role in reducing individuals’ concerns about the food safety issue.

Keywords

risk communication situational theory of problem solving genetically modified food addictive food conspiratorial thinking organizational trust situational perceptions communicative action of publics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bearth

Cousin

M.-E.

Siegrist

(2014). The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.008

Bearth

Saleh

Siegrist

(2019). Lay-people’s knowledge about toxicology and its principles in eight European countries. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 131, 1–9.

Chen

Zhong

Xie

Luo

Guo

(2015). The public’s risk perception on food additives and the influence factors. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 15(3), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.16429/j.1009-7848.2015.03.020

Chen

Y. R. R.

Hung-Baesecke

C. J. F.

Kim

J. N.

(2017). Identifying active hot-issue communicators and subgroup identifiers: Examining the situational theory of problem solving. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 124–147.

Chon

M. G.

Fondren

(2019). Seeing a crisis through colored glasses: How partisan media leads to attribution of crisis responsibility and government trust. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(4), e1950.

Chon

M. G.

Park

(2019). Predicting public support for government actions in a public health crisis: Testing fear, organization-public relationship, and behavioral intention in the framework of the situational theory of problem solving. Health Communication, 36(4), 476–486.

Chon

M. G.

Park

(2020). Social media activism in the digital age: Testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 72–97.

Cui

Shoemaker

S. P.

(2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. NPJ Science of Food, 2(1), 10.

Emerton

Choi

(2008). Food additives and why they are used. In Saltmarsh

(Ed.), Essential guide to food additives (pp. 1–21). RSCPublishing.

10.

Funk

Kennedy

Hefferon

(2018). Public perspectives on food risks: Americans are closely divided over health risk from food additives and genetically modified foods. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/19/americans-are-narrowly-divided-over-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/

11.

Grunig

J. E.

(1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. Public Relations Research: An International Perspective, 3, 48.

12.

Grunig

J. E.

Hunt

(1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

13.

Harambam

Aupers

(2015). Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(4), 466–480.

14.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

15.

Huang

Cai

Wang

(2012). Human research capacity in Chinese agbiotech. Nature Biotechnology, 30(10), 1007–1007. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2386

16.

Huang

Qiu

Bai

Pray

(2006). Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy genetically modified foods in Urban China. Appetite, 46(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.11.005

17.

Huang

(2020). Understanding public perceptions of genetically modified organisms in China: The role that heuristics play during digital media exposure. Chinese Journal of Communication, 13(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1673453

18.

Kang

Park

Y. E.

(2017). Exploring trust and distrust as conceptually and empirically distinct constructs: Association with symmetrical communication and public engagement across four pairings of trust and distrust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 29(2–3), 114–135.

19.

Kim

J. N.

de Zúñiga

H. G.

(2020). Pseudo-information, media, publics, and the failing marketplace of ideas: Theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220950606

20.

Kim

J.-N.

Grunig

J. E.

(2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149.

21.

Kim

J. N.

Krishna

(2014). Publics and lay informatics: A review of the situational theory of problem solving. Communication Yearbook, 38(1), 71–105.

22.

Kim

J. N.

Kim

S. H.

Kim

J. R.

(2012). What makes people hot? Applying the situational theory of problem solving to hot-issue publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 144–164.

23.

Kim

J.-N.

Rhee

(2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243–268.

24.

Kim

J.-N.

Shen

Morgan

(2011). Information behaviors and problem chain recognition effect: Applying situational theory of problem solving in organ donation issues. Health Communication, 26(2), 171–184.

25.

Kim

J.-N.

Tam

Chon

M.-G.

(2020). A conceptual genealogy of the situational theory of problem solving: Reconceptualizing communication for strategic behavioral communication management. In Valentini

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 471–486). De Gruyter Mouton.

26.

Lam

H.-M.

Remais

Fung

M.-C.

Sun

S. S.-M.

(2013). Food supply and food safety issues in China. The Lancet, 381(9882), 2044–2053. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60776-X

27.

Liu

(2016). Food scandals, media exposure, and citizens’ safety concerns: A multilevel analysis across Chinese cities. Food Policy, 63, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.07.005

28.

Liu

Pieniak

Verbeke

(2014). Food-related hazards in China: Consumers’ perceptions of risk and trust in information sources. Food Control, 46, 291–298.

29.

Lovari

Martino

Kim

J.-N.

(2012). Citizens’ relationships with a municipality and their communicative behaviors in negative civic issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(1), 17–33.

30.

Lynas

(2018). The crazy conspiracy theory believed by 190 million Chinese. Cornell Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/crazy-conspiracy-theory-believed-190-million-chinese/

31.

Mazzei

Kim

J.-N.

Dell’Oro

(2012). Strategic value of employee relationships and communicative actions: Overcoming corporate crisis with quality internal communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(1), 31–44.

32.

Miao

Chen

Xie

(2020). Decreasing consumers’ risk perception of food additives by knowledge enhancement in China. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103781.

33.

Moscovici

(1987). The conspiracy mentality. In Graumann

C. F.

Moscovici

(Eds.), Changing conceptions of conspiracy (pp. 151–169). Springer.

34.

Kim

J.-N.

(2009). Classifying publics: Communication behaviors and problem-solving characteristics in controversial issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(4), 1–25.

35.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

36.

Qiang

Wen

Jing

Yue

(2011). Application of content analysis in food safety reports on the Internet in China. Food Control, 22(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.07.005

37.

Tsang

Burnett

Hills

Welford

(2009). Trust, public participation and environmental governance in Hong Kong. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(2), 99–114.

38.

Wang

Wan Wart

(2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265–278.

39.

Wike

Stokes

(2016). Chinese public sees more powerful role in world, names U.S. as top threat. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/10/05/chinese-public-sees-more-powerful-role-in-world-names-u-s-as-top-threat/

40.

(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

41.

Yang

Liu

Fang

Hong

(2014). Unresolved World War II animosity dampens empathy toward 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 171–191.

42.

Yun

S.-H.

Vibber

(2012). The strategic values and communicative actions of Chinese students for sociological Korean public diplomacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(1), 77–92.

43.

Zhao

Deng

(2019). The Chinese public’s awareness and attitudes toward genetically modified foods with different labeling. NPJ Science of Food, 3(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-019-0049-5