Evidence from four studies suggests that the moral opposition toward genetically modified (GM) foods impedes the perception of their benefits, and critically, marketers can circumvent this moral opposition by employing subtle cues to position these products as being “man-made.” Specifically, if consumers view the GM food as man-made, and if they understand why it was created, moral opposition to the product diminishes, and the GM food's perceived benefits increase, which subsequently increases purchase intentions for the product. This effect is replicated in the field (in both controlled and naturalistic settings), in a laboratory experiment, and with an online consumer panel. The results suggest that marketers can help consumers better consider all information when assessing the merits of GM foods by using packaging and promotion strategies to cue consumers to view the GM food for what it is (i.e., a man-made object created with intent). The findings have implications for the recent GM food labeling debate.
AmesBruce N., ProfetMargie, and GoldLois S. (1990), “Dietary Pesticides (99.99% All Natural),”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(19), 7777–81.
2.
BakerJulie, GrewalDhruv, and ParasuramanA. (1994), “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 328–39.
3.
BaronJonathan, and SprancaMark (1997), “Protected Values,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16.
4.
BloomPaul (1996), “Intention, History, and Artifact Concepts,”Cognition, 60(1), 1–29.
5.
BloomPaul (1998), “Theories of Artifact Categorization,”Cognition, 66(1), 87–93.
6.
BredahlLone (2001), “Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions with Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey,”Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23–61.
7.
CarpenterJanet E. (2010), “Peer-Reviewed Surveys Indicate Positive Impact of Commercialized GM Crops,”Nature Biotechnology, 28(4), 319–21.
ChandonPierre, Wesley HutchinsonJ., BradlowEric T., and YoungScott H. (2009), “Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase,”Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 1–17.
11.
ChattopadhyayAmitava, and BasuKunal (1990), “Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(4), 466–76.
DennettDaniel Clement (1987), The Intentional Stance.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
DreezensEllen, MartijnCarolien, TenbültPetra, KokGerjo, and de VriesNanne K. (2005), “Food and Values: An Examination of Values Underlying Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified- and Organically Grown Food Products,”Appetite, 44(1), 115–22.
FrechWarren A., and BarksdaleHiram C. (1974), “Food Labeling Regulations: Efforts Toward Full Disclosure,”Journal of Marketing, 38(3), 14–19.
18.
FrewerLynn J., HowardC, and ShepherdR. (1996), “The Influence of Realistic Product Exposure on Attitudes Towards Genetic Engineering of Food,”Food Quality and Preference, 7(1), 61–67.
19.
FrewerLynn J., van der LansIvo A., FischerArnout R.H., ReindersMachiel J., MenozziDavide, ZhangXiaoyong (2013), “Public Perceptions of Agri-Food Applications of Genetic Modification: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,”Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(2), 142–52.
20.
GovindasamyRamu, and ItaliaJohn (1999), “Predicting Willingness-to-Pay a Premium for Organically Grown Fresh Produce,”Journal of Food Distribution Research, 30(2), 44–53.
21.
GneezyAyelet (2017), “Field Experimentation in Marketing Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 140–43.
JumaCalestous (2011), “Preventing Hunger: Biotechnology Is Key,”Nature, 479(7374), 471–72.
28.
KeilFrank C. (1989), Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
KelemenDeborah, RottmanJoshua, and SestonRebecca (2013), “Professional Physical Scientists Display Tenacious Teleological Tendencies: Purpose-Based Reasoning as a Cognitive Default,”Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 142(4), 1074–83.
30.
KellertStephen R., and WilsonEdward O. eds. (1993), The Biophilia Hypothesis.Washington, DC: Island Press.
31.
LahamSimon M., AlterAdam L., and GoodwinGeoffrey P. (2009), “Easy on the Mind, Easy on the Wrongdoer: Discrepantly Fluent Violations Are Deemed Less Morally Wrong,”Cognition, 112(3), 462–66.
32.
LeyserOttoline (2014), “Moving Beyond the GM Debate,”PLoS Biology, 12(6), e1001887.
33.
LockieStewart, LyonsKristen, LawrenceGeoffrey, and GriceJanet (2004), “Choosing Organics: A Path Analysis of Factors Underlying the Selection of Organic Food Among Australian Consumers,”Appetite, 43(2), 135–46.
MaYu, AilawadiKusum L., and GrewalDhruv (2013), “Soda Versus Cereal and Sugar Versus Fat: Drivers of Healthful Food Intake and the Impact of Diabetes Diagnosis,”Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 101–20.
36.
MargolisEric, and LaurenceStephen eds. (2007), Creations of the Mind Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
MatanAdee, and CareySusan (2001), “Developmental Changes Within the Core of Artifact Concepts,”Cognition, 78(1), 1–26.
NicoliaAlessandro, ManzoAlberto, VeronesiFabio, and RoselliniDaniele (2014), “An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research,”Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77–88.
40.
NoseworthyTheodore J., MurrayKyle B., and Di MuroFabrizio (2018), “When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Using Conjunctive Enablers to Enhance Evaluations for Extremely Incongruent New Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1379–96.
41.
NoseworthyTheodore J., and TrudelRemi (2011), “Looks Interesting but What Does It Do? Evaluation of Incongruent Product Form Depends on Positioning,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1008–19.
42.
NoseworthyTheodore J., WangJuan, and IslamTowhidul (2012), “How Context Shapes Category Inferences and Attribute Preference for New Ambiguous Products,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 529–44.
OnyangoBenjamin M., HallmanWilliam K., and BellowsAnne C. (2007), “Purchasing Organic Food in US Food Systems: A Study of Attitudes and Practice,”British Food Journal, 109(5), 399–411.
45.
PainterKristen L. (2017), “Americans Are Eating More Organic Food Than Ever, Survey Finds,”Star Tribune (May 24), http://www.startribune.com/424061513/.
46.
QaimMatin, and KouserShahzad (2013), “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security,”PLoS One, 8(6), e64879.
47.
RaghunathanRajagopal, NaylorRebecca Walker, and HoyerWayne D. (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,”Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170–84.
48.
RipsLance J. (1989), “Similarity, Typicality, and Categorization,” in Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, VosniadouS., and OrtonyA., eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 21–59.
49.
RobertsMary Lou, and WortzelLawrence H. (1979), “New Life-Style Determinants of Women's Food Shopping Behavior,”Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 28–39.
RozinPaul (2005), “The Meaning of ‘Natural’: Process More Important Than Content,”Psychological Science, 16(8), 652–58.
52.
RozinPaul (2006), “Naturalness Judgments by Lay Americans: Process Dominates Content in Judgments of Food or Water Acceptability and Naturalness,”Judgment and Decision Making, 1(2), 91–97.
53.
RozinPaul, FischlerClaude, and Shields-ArgelèsChristy (2012), “European and American Perspectives on the Meaning of Natural,”Appetite, 59(2), 448–55.
54.
RozinPaul, SprancaMark, KriegerZeev, NeuhausRuth, SurilloDarlene, SwerdlinAmy (2004), “Preference for Natural: Instrumental and Ideational/Moral Motivations, and the Contrast Between Foods and Medicines,”Appetite, 43(2), 147–54.
ScholdererJoachim, and FrewerLynn J. (2003), “The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy,”Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(2), 125–57.
ScottSidney E., InbarYoel, and RozinPaul (2016), “Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315–24.
59.
SheehanMark (2009), “Making Sense of the Immorality of Unnaturalness,”Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(2), 177–88.
60.
SjöbergLennart (2000), “Perceived Risk and Tampering with Nature,”Journal of Risk Research, 3(4), 353–67.
61.
SjöbergLennart (2008), “Genetically Modified Food in the Eyes of the Public and Experts,”Risk Management, 10(3), 168–93.
62.
SprancaMark (1992), The Effect of Naturalness on Desirability and Preference in the Domain of Foods.Berkeley: University of California.
63.
TakalaTuija (2004), “The (Im)Morality of (Un)Naturalness,”Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1), 15–19.
64.
TalukdarDebabrata, and LindseyCharles (2013), “To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumers’ Demand Response Patterns for Healthy Versus Unhealthy Food,”Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 124–38.
65.
TenbültPetra, de VriesNanne K., DreezensEllen, and MartijnCarolien (2005), “Perceived Naturalness and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food,”Appetite, 45(1), 47–50.
66.
TetlockPhilip E., KristelOrie V., BethS., GreenMelanie C., and LernerJennifer S. (2000), “The Psychology of the Unthinkable: Taboo Trade-Offs, Forbidden Base Rates, and Heretical Counterfactuals,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–70.
67.
TetlockPhilip E. (2002), “Social Functionalist Frameworks for Judgment and Choice: Intuitive Politicians, Theologians, and Prosecutors,”Psychological Review, 109(3), 451–71.
68.
ThompsonCraig J., and TroesterMaura (2002), “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 550–71.
69.
TraceyMinnie B. (1949), “The Present Status of Frozen Food Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 13(4), 470–80.
70.
VossKevin E., SpangenbergEric R., and GrohmannBianca (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,”Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–20.
71.
WansinkBrian, and ChandonPierre (2006), “Can ‘Low-Fat’ Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?”Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–17.
72.
ZlatevskaNatalina, DubelaarChris, and HoldenStephen S. (2014), “Sizing Up the Effect of Portion Size on Consumption: A Meta-Analytic Review,”Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 140–54.
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.
