When Visual-Verbal Overlap Matters: Examining Its Boundary Conditions in Communicating Innovations

Abstract

Using abstract-concrete cognition, dual coding theory, and exemplification theory, we conducted two online experiments assessing public perceptions of ongoing research aimed at developing reduced-gluten wheat and reduced-allergen peanuts using crossbreeding and genome-editing techniques. Visual-verbal overlap messages generated emotions and moral acceptability of the techniques, which then enhanced support for both products, and even intentions to buy and consume in some instances. However, verbal-only messages also generated similar outcomes for reduced-allergen peanuts, whereas for reduced-gluten wheat, the overlap alone was effective. Visual-verbal messages without overlap had no effect in both studies. Findings offer boundary conditions for visual-verbal overlap effects.

Keywords

dual coding theory visual-verbal overlap abstract-concrete cognition crossbreeding and genome-editing techniques exemplification theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2024). Urgent need to scale scientific expertise in the courts with Chevron doctrine overturned. News: American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/news/urgent-need-scale-scientific-expertise-courts-chevron-doctrine-overturned

Acuti

Pizzetti

Dolnicar

(2022). When sustainability backfires: A review on the unintended negative side-effects of product and service sustainability on consumer behavior. Psychology of Marketing, 39(10), 1933–1945. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21709

Adler

J. H.

(2016). There is no consumer right to know. Regulation, 39, 26–33.

Ahn

Shin

D.-H.

(2015). Differential effect of excitement versus contentment, and excitement versus relaxation: Examining the influence of positive affects on adoption of new technology with a Korean sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.072

Aust

C. F.

Zillmann

(1996). Effects of victim exemplification in television news on viewer perception of social issues. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909607300403

Baik

E. S.

Koshy

Hardy

B. W.

(2022). Communicating CRISPR: Challenges and opportunities in engaging the public. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 188(1), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.11.004

Banerjee

S. C.

Greene

Yanovitzky

(2011). Sensation seeking and dosage effect: An exploration of the role of surprise in anti-cocaine messages. Journal of Substance Use, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659890903490773

Bartkowski

Theesfeld

Pirschner

Timaeus

(2018). Snipping around for food: Economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum, 96, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.017

Bearth

Otten

C. D.

Cohen

A. S.

(2024). Consumers’ perceptions and acceptance of genome editing in agriculture: Insights from the United States of America and Switzerland. Food Research International, 178, 113982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.113982

10.

Bigsby

Bigman

C. A.

Gonzalez

A. M.

(2019). Exemplification theory: A review and meta-analysis of exemplar messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1681903

11.

Borghi

A. M.

Binkofski

Castelfranchi

Cimatti

Scorolli

Tummolini

(2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089

12.

Brossard

Nisbet

M. C.

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

13.

Busse

Kach

A. P.

Wagner

S. M.

(2017). Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 574–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116641191

14.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Binder

A. R.

Shaw

B. R.

(2012). Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics and the Life Science, 31(1–2), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.2990/31_1-2_36

15.

Cohen

A. B.

Shariff

A. F.

Hill

P. C.

(2008). The accessibility of religious beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1408–1417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.001

16.

Croall

I. D.

Trott

Rej

Aziz

O’Brien

D. J.

George

H. A.

Hossain

M. Y.

Marks

L. J. S.

Richardson

J. I.

Rigby

Hadjivassiliou

Hoggard

Sanders

D. S.

(2019). A population survey of dietary attitudes towards gluten. Nutrients, 11(6), 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061276

17.

Cummings

Peters

D. J.

(2022). Who trusts in gene-edited foods? Analysis of a representative survey study predicting willingness to eat- and purposeful avoidance of gene-edited foods in the United States. Frontiers in Food Science and Technology, 2, 858277. https://doi.org/10.3389/frfst.2022.858277

18.

David

(1998). News concreteness and visual-verbal association: Do news pictures narrow the recall gap between concrete and abstract news? Human Communication Research, 25(2), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00442.x

19.

De Brigard

Mandelbaum

Ripley

. (2009). Responsibility and the brain sciences. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-008-9143-5

20.

Diez-Sampedro

Olenick

Maltseva

Flowers

(2019). A gluten-free diet, not an appropriate choice without a medical diagnosis. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 29(1), 2438934. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2438934

21.

Dixon

G. N.

(2016). Negative affect as a mechanism of exemplification effects: An experiment on two-sided risk argument recall and risk perception. Communication Research, 43, 761–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215579222

22.

Elliott

Resnik

D. B.

(2014). Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(7), 647–650. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408107

23.

Elliott

K. C.

Resnik

D. B.

(2019). Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808

24.

Funk

Johnson

Hefferon

(2019, August 5). 5 key findings about public trust in scientists in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/

25.

Ganzach

Ellis

Pazy

Ricci-Siag

(2008). On the perception and operationalization of risk perception. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(4), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000887

26.

Hastall

M. R.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2013). Severity, efficacy, and evidence type as determinants of health message exposure. Health Communication, 28, 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.690175

27.

Häußermann

J. J.

Schroth

(2020). Aligning innovation and ethics: An approach to responsible innovation based on preference learning. Philosophy of Management, 19, 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00120-1

28.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2011). Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511417936

29.

Holbert

R. L.

Baik

E. S.

Tallapragada

Hardy

B. W.

Tolan

LaMarre

H. L.

(2022). Pandemic as boundary condition in service to communication theory building. ANNALS of the International Communication Association, 46(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2108878

30.

Huang

Peng

(2022). When text is not enough: The processing of text and illustration for emerging medical technologies. Communication Studies, 73(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2022.2074490

31.

Jamieson

K. H.

McNutt

Kiermer

Sever

(2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 116(39), 19231–19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116

32.

Joly

P.-B.

Kaufmann

(2008). Lost in translation? The need for “upstream engagement” with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture, 17(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430802280727

33.

Jones

(2024). Supreme Court upends public health and safety protections. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/us-supreme-court-overturns-chevron-doctrine

34.

Kato-Nitta

Tachikawa

Inagaki

Maeda

(2023). Public perceptions of risks and benefits of gene-edited food crops: An international comparative study between the US, Japan, and Germany. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 48(6), 1360–1392. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221123830

35.

Laros

F. J. M.

Steenkamp

J-. B. E. M

. (2004). Importance of fear in the case of genetically modified food. Psychology & Marketing, 21(11), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20039

36.

Lee

(2022). Visualizing science: The impact of infographics on free recall, elaboration, and attitude change for genetically modified foods news. Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211034651

37.

Lin

Y.-T.

MacInnis

D. J.

Eisingerich

A. B.

(2020). Strong anxiety boosts new product adoption when hope is also strong. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920934495

38.

Loureiro

Markovitch

Riley

C. S.

Cleaves

H. J.

Mogoșanu

I. H.

Paulino-Lima

I. G.

Marlow

J. J.

Som

S. M.

(2020). Perspective: Science policy through public engagement. Science and Public Policy, 47(6), 890–891. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa039

39.

Mandelbaum

Ripley

(2012). Explaining the abstract/concrete paradoxes in moral psychology: The NBAR hypothesis. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0106-3

40.

McFadden

B. R.

Rumble

J. N.

Stofer

K. A.

Folta

K. M.

(2024). U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 12, 1340398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1340398

41.

Mutz

D. M.

Pemantle

Pham

(2019). The perils of balance testing in experimental design: Messy analyses of clean data. The American Statistician, 73(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143

42.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2022, May). Based on science: Do foods made with GMOs pose special health risks? https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/foods-made-with-gmos-do-not-pose-special-health-risks

43.

National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. (2016). National bioengineered food disclosure standard of 2016. Pub. L. No. 114-216 (130 Stat.), 834-839.

44.

Nichols

Knobe

(2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous, 41(4), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00666.x

45.

O’Neil

(2016, February 22). Top 10 reasons to oppose the Senate DARK act. Environmental Working Group https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/top-10-reasons-oppose-senate-dark-act

46.

Paivio

Csapo

(1973). Picture superiority effect in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176–206.

47.

Paivio

Yuille

J. C.

Madigan

S. A.

(1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327

48.

Penn Medicine News. (2024, May). Gene editing restores some sight in pair of children treated for blindness [News release]. https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2024/may/gene-editing-improves-sight-in-children-treated-for-blindness

49.

Shew

A. M.

Nalley

L. L.

Snell

H. A.

Nayga

R. M.

Dixon

B. L.

(2018). CRISPR versus GMOs: Public acceptance and valuation. Global Food Security, 19, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005

50.

Siegrist

Hartmann

(2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food, 1(6), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

51.

Slovic

Finucane

M. L.

Peters

MacGregor

D. G.

(2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.

52.

Sprink

Eriksson

Schiemann

Hartung

(2016). Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: Process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Reports, 35, 1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2

53.

Stofer

Turner

Rumble

J. N.

McFadden

Folta

Jeevan

Ouncap

Hecht

Cummins

Thiel

(2023). U.S. adult viewers of information treatments express overall positive views but some concerns about gene editing technology. Journal of Science Communication, 22(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22040202

54.

Tallapragada

Hallman

W. K.

(2018). Implementing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Will consumers use QR codes to check for genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food products? AgBioForum, 21(1), 44–60. https://hdl.handle.net/10355/86566

55.

Tallapragada

Hardy

B. W.

Lybrand

Hallman

W. K.

(2021). Impact of abstract versus concrete conceptualization of genetic modification (GM) technology on public perceptions. Risk Analysis, 41(6), 976–991. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13591

56.

Tamborini

(2012). A model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In Tamborini

(Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 43–74). Taylor & Francis Group.

57.

Taufik

Rood

Dagevos

Bouwman

E. P.

Reinders

M. J.

(2023). Effects of abstract and concrete communication on moral signalling and purchase intention of upcycled food products. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 8, 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100110

58.

Trovato

C. M.

Montouri

Olivia

Cucchiara

(2020). Assessment of public perceptions and concerns of celiac disease: A Twitter-based sentiment analysis study. Digestive and Liver Disease, 52(4), 464–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2020.02.004

59.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2025, January). Food choices & health: Consumer information and labeling—Food labeling. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-choices-health/consumer-information-and-labeling/food-labeling

60.

Veen

te Molder

Gremmen

van Woerkum

(2012). Competing agendas in upstream engagement meetings between celiac disease experts and patients. Science Communication, 34(4), 460–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011427975

61.

Whetten

D. A.

(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371

62.

Wilsdon

Willis

(2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos.

63.

Zillmann

(2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In Brant

Zillmann

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 19–41). Lawrence Erlbaum.

64.

Zillmann

(2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, S221–S237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x

65.

Zillmann

Gibson

Sargent

S. L.

(1999). Effects of photographs in news-magazine reports on issue perception. Media Psychology, 1, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0103_2

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

1.73 MB