This study adopted a quantitative content analysis to examine how source attributes of opinion leaders and their message framing influenced user engagement in the public discourse of genetically modified organism (GMO) on Chinese social media. The findings showed that different source attributes and message frames used by opinion leaders varied in their respective influences on three dimensions of user engagement—reposts, comments, and likes. The attribute of account verification only predicted surface-level engagement (i.e., liking), whereas account type significantly influenced in-depth engagement (i.e., reposting and commenting). The fact, opportunity, pro-GMO, and international frames positively predicted user engagement.
BodendorfF.KaiserC. (2009, November). Detecting opinion leaders and trends in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Social Web Search and Mining (pp. 65-68). New York, NY: ACM.
4.
BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40-41.
5.
BrueningG.LyonsJ. M. (2000). The case of the Flavr Savr tomato. California Agriculture, 54(4), 6-7.
6.
BurtR. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 37-54.
7.
CarverR. B.RødlandE. A.BreivikJ. (2012). Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers. Science Communication, 35, 449-475.
8.
ChaM.HaddadiH.BenevenutoF.GummadiP. K. (2010, May). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC.
9.
ChoM.SchweickartT.HaaseA. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40, 565-567.
10.
ChoiS. (2015). The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 696-711.
11.
CuiK.ShoemakerS. P. (2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food, 2(10). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-018-0018-4
12.
DaunertS.DeoS.MorinX.RodaA. (2008). The genetically modified foods debate: Demystifying the controversy through analytical chemistry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 392, 327-331.
13.
DianaF.BahryS.MasromM. (2016, August). Website credibility and user engagement: A theoretical integration. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), Melaka, Malaysia.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
16.
FengY. (2016). Are you connected? Evaluating information cascades in online discussion about the #RaceTogether campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 43-53.
GaleF.LinW.LohmarB.TuanF. (2002). Is biotechnology in China’s future? In GaleF. (Ed.). China’s food and agriculture: Issues for the 21st century (pp. 34-37). Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service.
GordonJ. (1997). John Stuart Mill and the marketplace of ideas. Social Theory and Practice, 23, 235-249.
21.
HilbeckA.BinimelisR.DefargeN.SteinbrecherR.SzékácsA.WicksonF.. . . WynneB. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(4), 1-6.
22.
HoP.VermeerE. B.ZhaoJ. H. (2006). Biotechnology and food safety in China: Consumers’ acceptance or resistance. Development and Change, 37, 227-254.
23.
HuangB. (2016, June). The public debate on GMO issue in the network space: A study based on big data analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Chinese Communication Society, Chiayi, Taiwan.
24.
HuangR.SunX. (2014). Weibo network, information diffusion and implications for collective action in China. Information, Communication and Society, 17(1), 86-104.
25.
JinJ. (2017). Misunderstandings about GMO in public discourse. Science News Research, 2, 42-45.
26.
JinJ.JiangSChenA.ShenY. (2017). Effects of science communication on new media platforms: An examination of WeChat official accounts. Journal of China University of Geosciences, 17, 107-119.
27.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York, NY: Free Press.
28.
KeatleyK. L. (2000). Controversy over genetically modified organisms: The governing laws and regulations. Quality Assurance: Good Practice, Regulation, and Law, 8(1), 33-36.
29.
KimC.YangS.-U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43, 441-449.
KwakH.LeeC.ParkH.MoonS. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC (pp. 591-600). New York, NY: ACM.
LüL.ChenH. (2016). Chinese public’s risk perceptions of genetically modified food: From 1990 to 2015. Science, Technology and Society, 21, 110-128.
35.
MaeseeleP. A.SchuurmanD. (2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in northern Belgium. Science Communication, 29, 435-471.
36.
MargolisH. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on environment issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MartineauB. (2001). Food fight: The short, unhappy life of the Flavr Savr tomato. Sciences, 41(2), 24-29.
38.
McCay-PeetL.Quan-HaaseA. (2016). A model of social media engagement: User profiles, gratifications, and experiences. In O’BrienH.LalmasM. (Eds.), Why engagement matters: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and innovations on user engagement with digital media (pp. 199-217). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
39.
McInerneyC.BirdN.NucciM. (2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public. Science Communication, 26, 44-74.
40.
MorrisE. J. (2017). Governance of benefits and risks of GMOs in developing countries. In AdenleA. A.MorrisE. J.MurphyD. J. (Eds.), Genetically modified organisms in developing countries: Risk analysis and governance (pp. 39-52). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MorrisM. R.CountsS.RosewayA.HoffA.SchwarzJ. (2012). Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 441-450). New York, NY: ACM.
42.
NapoliP. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
43.
NelsonG. C. (2011). Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: Economics and politics. Urbana: University of Illinois.
44.
NisbetE. C. (2005). The engagement model of opinion leadership: Testing validity within a European context. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 3-30.
45.
NucciM. L.KubeyR. (2007). “We begin tonight with fruits and vegetables”: Genetically modified food on the evening news 1980-2003. Science Communication, 29, 147-176.
46.
OhJ.BellurS.SundarS. S. (2015). Clicking, assessing, immersing, and sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Communication Research, 45, 737-763.
47.
PapacharissiZ.de Fatima OliveiraM. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62, 266-282.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281.
50.
PriestS. H. (1994). Structuring public debate on biotechnology. Science Communication, 16, 166-179.
51.
QiuJ. (2014). Controversy of GM crops in China. National Science Review, 1, 466-470.
52.
QuY.ChenY.HouY.HuangK.KangD. (2011). Safety investigation of genetic modified organisms in China I.: Public awareness of safety and risk associated with genetic modified organisms. Journal of China Agricultural University, 6, 1-10.
53.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
54.
ShoemakerP. J.ReeseD. S. (2011). Mediating the message. New York, NY: Routledge.
SullivanJ. (2012). A tale of two microblogs in China. Media, Culture and Society, 34, 773-783.
57.
SunT.YounS.WuG.KuntarapornM. (2006). Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1104-1127.
58.
TagliabueG. (2016). The necessary “GMO” denialism and scientific consensus. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), 1-11.
59.
Ten EyckT. A. (1999). Shaping a food safety debate: Control effects of newspaper reporters and sources in the food irradiation controversy. Science Communication, 20, 426-447.
60.
Ten EyckT. A.WillimentM. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication, 25, 129-152.
WongA. Y.-T.ChanA. W.-K. (2016). Genetically modified foods in China and the United States: A primer of regulation and intellectual property protection. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5, 124-140.
67.
XuW. W.SangY.BlasiolaS.ParkH. W. (2014). Predicting opinion leaders in Twitter activism networks: The case of the Wisconsin recall reelection. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1278-1293.
68.
YangG. (2014). Internet activism and the part-state in China. Daedalus, 143, 110-123.
69.
YangL.TianY.LiJ.MaJ.ZhangJ. (2017). Identifying opinion leaders in social networks with topic limitation. Cluster Computing, 20, 2403-2413.
70.
YangJ.XuK.RodriguezL. (2014). The rejection of science frames in the news coverage of the golden rice experiment in Hunan, China. Health, Risk & Society, 16, 339-354.
71.
YuN.XuQ. (2016). Public discourse on genetically modified foods in mobile sphere: Framing risks, opportunities, and responsibilities on mobile social media in China. In WeiR. (Ed.), Mobile media, political participation, and civic activism in Asia: Private chat to public sphere (pp. 81-102). Singapore: Springer.
