Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We experimentally test whether expert organizations on social media can correct misperceptions of the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food for human consumption, as well as what role social media cues, in the form of “likes,” play in that process. We find expert organizations highlighting scientific consensus on GM food safety reduces consensus misperceptions among the public, leading to lower GM misperceptions and boosting related consumption behaviors in line with the gateway belief model. Expert organizations’ credibility may increase as a result of correction, but popularity cues do not seem to affect misperceptions or credibility.

Keywords

genetically modified food misinformation social media credibility heuristics gateway belief model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Avram

Micallef

Patil

Menczer

(2020, July 28). Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-033

Berinsky

Huber

Lenz

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Bhandari

(2018). Social media cues and news site name: What do they mean for online news perception. Newspaper Research Journal, 39(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918775699

Bode

Vraga

(2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166

Bode

Vraga

(2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131-1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855

Brossard

Nisbet

(2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003

Chinn

Lane

D. S.

Hart

P. S.

(2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807-823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518791094

Chou

Klein

(2018). Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. Journal of the American Medical Association, 320(23), 2417-2418. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16865

10.

Clifford

Jerit

(2014). Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.5

11.

Cook

A. J.

Kerr

G. N.

Moore

(2002). Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 557-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4

12.

Cui

Shoemaker

(2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. NPJ Science of Food, 2, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

13.

Dixon

(2016). Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 888-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12260

14.

Ecker

O’Reilly

Reid

Chang

(2020). The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12383

15.

Fernbach

Light

Scott

Inbar

Rozin

(2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3

16.

Garrett

Weeks

(2013). The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1047-1058). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441895

17.

Gesser-Edelsburg

Walter

Shir-Raz

(2017). The “new public” and the “good ol’ press”: Evaluating online news sources during the 2013 polio outbreak in Israel. Health Communication, 32(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1110224

18.

Graves

(2016). Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. Columbia University Press.

19.

Greene

Murphy

(2020, July 24). Can fake news really change behaviour? Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qfnm3

20.

Hallman

Cuite

Morin

(2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods [Working Paper]. https://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_PDF/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. http://processmacro.org/index.html

22.

Johnson

Park

Gross

(2018). Use of alternative medicine for cancer and its impact on survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(1), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx145

23.

Kata

(2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709-1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022

24.

Kennedy

Hefferon

Funk

(2018). Americans are narrowly divided over health effects of 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/

25.

Kerr

Wilson

(2018a). Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200295

26.

Kerr

Wilson

(2018b). Perceptions of scientific consensus do not predict later beliefs about the reality of climate change: A test of the gateway belief model using cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.012

27.

Kobayashi

(2018). The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs. Science Communication, 40(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017748948

28.

Landrum

Hallman

Jamieson

(2019). Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201

29.

Levay

Freese

Druckman

(2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433

30.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

Seifert

Schwarz

Cook

(2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018

31.

Lewandowsky

Gignac

G. E.

Vaughan

(2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720

32.

Linnhoff

Volovich

Martin

Smith

(2017). An examination of millennials’ attitudes toward genetically modified organism (GMO) foods: Is it franken-food or super-food? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 13(4), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2017.088403

33.

Marwick

boyd

(2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

34.

Marwick

Lewis

(2017, May 15). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/library/media-manipulation-and-disinfo-online/

35.

McCroskey

J. C.

Teven

J. J.

(1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

36.

McGrew

Breakstone

Ortega

Smith

Wineburg

(2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

37.

McInerney

Bird

Nucci

(2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication, 26(1), 44-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004267024

38.

Messing

Westwood

(2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406

39.

Metzger

Flanagin

Medders

(2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x

40.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding becoming less clear, says new report on GE crops. https://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395

41.

Nucci

M. L.

Kubey

(2007). “We begin tonight with fruits and vegetables” genetically modified food on the Evening News 1980-2003. Science Communication, 29(2), 147-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308173

42.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

43.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2015). Displacing misinformation about events: An experimental test of causal corrections. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2014.22

44.

Nyhan

Reifler

Richey

Freed

(2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835-e842. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365

45.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Major gaps between the public, scientists on key issues. https://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

46.

Pew Research Center. (2016). Public opinion about genetically modified foods and trust in scientists connected with these foods. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/

47.

Pew Research Center. (2018a). Public perceptions on food risks. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/11/19/public-perspectives-on-food-risks/

48.

Pew Research Center. (2018b). News use across social media platforms 2018. https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/

49.

Plumer

(2014). How GMO crops conquered the United States. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/12/5995087/genetically-modified-crops-rise-charts

50.

Porter

Wood

(2019). False alarm: The truth about political mistruths in the Trump Era. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108688338

51.

Puts

Tourangeau

Howell

Fitch

Springall

Alibhai

(2014). Factors influencing adherence to cancer treatment in older adults with cancer: A systematic review. Annals of Oncology, 25(3), 564-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt433

52.

Redlawsk

Civettini

Emmerson

(2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x

53.

Rolfe-Redding

Maibach

E. W.

Feldman

Leiserowitz

(2011). Republicans and climate change: An audience analysis of predictors for belief and policy preferences. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2026002

54.

Ruth

T. K.

Rumble

J. N.

(2019). Consumers’ evaluations of genetically modified food messages. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2193

55.

Ruth

T. K.

Rumble

J. N.

Lamm

A. J.

Ellis

J. D.

(2018). A model for understanding decision-making related to agriculture and natural resource science and technology. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04224

56.

Scheufele

Krause

(2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 116(16), 7662-7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115

57.

Shen

Kasra

Pan

Bassett

Malloch

O’Brien

(2019). Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society, 21(2), 438-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799526

58.

Sommariva

Vamos

Mantzarlis

Đào

Martinez Tyson

(2018). Spreading the (fake) news: Exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. American Journal of Health Education, 49(4), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2018.1473178

59.

Sundar

Knobloch-Westerwick

Hastall

(2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(3), 366-378. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20511

60.

Taber

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

61.

Tan

Lee

Chae

(2015). Exposure to health (mis) information: Lagged effects on young adults’ health behaviors and potential pathways. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 674-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12163

62.

Thorson

(2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187

63.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Frequently occurring surnames from Census 2000. https://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/freqnames2k.html

64.

van der Meer

T. G. L. A.

Jin

. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: The effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication, 35(5), 560-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295

65.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Feinberg

Maibach

. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PloS One, 10(2), Article e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

66.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Maibach

. (2019). The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009

67.

Vraga

Bode

(2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776

68.

Vraga

Bode

(2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337-1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883

69.

Vraga

Bode

(2020). Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: Using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, 37(1), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716500

70.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

Tully

(2020). Creating news literacy messages to enhance expert corrections of misinformation on Twitter. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219898094

71.

Walter

Brooks

J. J.

Saucier

C. J.

Suresh

(2020). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553

72.

Walter

Murphy

S. T.

(2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

73.

Westerman

Spence

P. R.

Van Der Heide

(2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12041

74.

Winter

Metzger

Flanagin

(2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241

75.

Wood

Porter

(2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y

76.

Wunderlich

Gatto

(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

77.

Young

Tully

Dalrymple

(2018). #Engagement: Use of Twitter chats to construct nominal participatory spaces during health crises. Information, Communication & Society, 21(4), 499-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301518

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.80 MB

Correcting Misperceptions About Genetically Modified Food on Social Media: Examining the Impact of Experts,Social Media Heuristics,and the Gateway Belief Model

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material