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.
AcutiD.PizzettiM.DolnicarD. (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
3.
AdlerJ. H. (2016). There is no consumer right to know. Regulation, 39, 26–33.
4.
AhnD.ShinD.-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
5.
AustC. F.ZillmannD. (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
6.
BaikE. S.KoshyA.HardyB. 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
7.
BanerjeeS. C.GreeneK.YanovitzkyI. (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
8.
BartkowskiB.TheesfeldI.PirschnerF.TimaeusJ. (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
9.
BearthA.OttenC. D.CohenA. 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.
BigsbyE.BigmanC. A.GonzalezA. 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.
BorghiA. M.BinkofskiF.CastelfranchiC.CimattiF.ScorolliC.TummoliniL. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089
12.
BrossardD.NisbetM. 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.
BusseC.KachA. P.WagnerS. 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.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.BinderA. R.ShawB. 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.
CohenA. B.ShariffA. F.HillP. 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.
CroallI. D.TrottN.RejA.AzizI.O’BrienD. J.GeorgeH. A.HossainM. Y.MarksL. J. S.RichardsonJ. I.RigbyR.HadjivassiliouM.HoggardN.SandersD. S. (2019). A population survey of dietary attitudes towards gluten. Nutrients, 11(6), 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061276
17.
CummingsC.PetersD. 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.
DavidP. (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 BrigardF.MandelbaumE.RipleyD. (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-SampedroA.OlenickM.MaltsevaT.FlowersM. (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.
DixonG. 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.
ElliottK.ResnikD. B. (2014). Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(7), 647–650. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408107
23.
ElliottK. C.ResnikD. B. (2019). Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808
GanzachY.EllisS.PazyA.Ricci-SiagT. (2008). On the perception and operationalization of risk perception. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(4), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000887
26.
HastallM. R.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (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.
HäußermannJ. J.SchrothF. (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.
HoS. S.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. 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.
HolbertR. L.BaikE. S.TallapragadaM.HardyB. W.TolanC.LaMarreH. 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.
HuangQ.PengW. (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.
JamiesonK. H.McNuttM.KiermerV.SeverR. (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.
JolyP.-B.KaufmannA. (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
Kato-NittaN.TachikawaM.InagakiY.MaedaT. (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.
LarosF. J. M.SteenkampJ-. 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.
LeeN.LeeS. (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.
LinY.-T.MacInnisD. J.EisingerichA. 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.
LoureiroR.MarkovitchO.RileyC. S.CleavesH. J.MogoșanuI. H.Paulino-LimaI. G.MarlowJ. J.SomS. M. (2020). Perspective: Science policy through public engagement. Science and Public Policy, 47(6), 890–891. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa039
39.
MandelbaumE.RipleyD. (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.
McFaddenB. R.RumbleJ. N.StoferK. A.FoltaK. 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.
MutzD. M.PemantleR.PhamP. (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
National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. (2016). National bioengineered food disclosure standard of 2016. Pub. L. No. 114-216 (130 Stat.), 834-839.
PaivioA.CsapoK. (1973). Picture superiority effect in free recall: Imagery or dual coding?Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176–206.
47.
PaivioA.YuilleJ. C.MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327
ShewA. M.NalleyL. L.SnellH. A.NaygaR. M.DixonB. 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
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.
52.
SprinkT.ErikssonD.SchiemannJ.HartungF. (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.
StoferK.TurnerS.RumbleJ. N.McFaddenB.FoltaK.JeevanA.OuncapT.HechtK.CumminsC.ThielR. (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.
TallapragadaM.HallmanW. 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.
TallapragadaM.HardyB. W.LybrandE.HallmanW. 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.
TamboriniR. (2012). A model of intuitive morality and exemplars. In TamboriniR. (Ed.), Media and the moral mind (pp. 43–74). Taylor & Francis Group.
57.
TaufikD.RoodR.DagevosH.BouwmanE. P.ReindersM. 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.
TrovatoC. M.MontouriM.OliviaS.CucchiaraS. (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
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos.
63.
ZillmannD. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In BrantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 19–41). Lawrence Erlbaum.
ZillmannD.GibsonR.SargentS. 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.
