1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 8, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 8, 2016

Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies

Abstract

The media often play the role of translating new science to consumers. We discuss the recent literature that has examined the supply and demand factors that affect media coverage of new food technologies and the impact on public perceptions and consumer behavior toward food that utilizes these technologies. We start with a discussion of the ways in which the media influence public perceptions and consumer behavior related to foods made with new technologies. We then discuss the incentives of news media and the potential sources of biases in their reporting. We review empirical studies that have examined media reporting of new agricultural and food technologies, especially biotechnology, in terms of both their agenda setting and framing effects and the social amplification of risk. We synthesize the findings of studies that have examined the influence of media coverage on public attitudes and consumer behavior. We conclude and discuss avenues for future research.

Keyword(s): agenda setting, biotechnology, framing, GM foods, media, media bias, new food technologies, political economy
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012630
2016-10-05
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/8/1/annurev-resource-100913-012630.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012630&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott E, Eichmeier A. 1998. The hoopla effect: toward a theory of regular patterns of mass media coverage of innovations. Presented at Annu. Meet. Assoc. Educ. J. Mass Commun. 81st, Aug. 5–8 Baltimore, MD: [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbott E, Lucht T. 2000. How triggering events affect mass media coverage and source use concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Britain and the United States Presented at Agric. Commun. Educ. Congr., July 25 Washington, DC:
  3. Alterman E. 2008. What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News New York: Basic
  4. Anand B, Di Tella R, Galetovic A. 2007. Information or opinion? Media bias as product differentiation. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 163:635–82 [Google Scholar]
  5. Annunziata A, Vecchio R. 2011. Factors affecting Italian consumer attitudes toward functional foods. AgBioForum 14:120–32 [Google Scholar]
  6. Augoustinos M, Crabb S, Shepherd R. 2010. Genetically modified food in the news: media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Underst. Sci. 19:198–114 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagdikian BH. 1992. The Media Monopoly Boston. Beacon, 4th ed..
  8. Baron DP. 2005. Competing for the public through the news media. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 142:339–76 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baron DP. 2006. Persistent media bias. J. Public Econ. 90:1–36 [Google Scholar]
  10. Barros PP, Kind HJ, Nilssen T, Sørgard L. 2004. Media competition on the Internet. Top. Econ. Anal. Policy 41:32 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bates BR, Romina S, Ahmed R, Hopson D. 2006. The effect of source credibility on consumers' perceptions of the quality of health information on the Internet. Inform. Health Soc. Care 31:145–52 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauer MW. 2005a. Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 17:163–89 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bauer MW. 2005b. Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 17:15–22 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bauer MW, Gaskell G. 2002. Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  15. Benotsch EG, Kalichman S, Weinhardt LS. 2004. HIV-AIDS patients' evaluation of health information on the Internet: the digital divide and vulnerability to fraudulent claims. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 72:61004–11 [Google Scholar]
  16. Besley JC, Shanahan J. 2005. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 26:4347–67 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boholm A. 1998. Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J. Risk Res. 1:2135–63 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonfadelli H, Dahinden U, Leonarz M. 2002. Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Underst. Sci. 11:2113–30 [Google Scholar]
  19. Botelho D, Kurtz H. 2008. The introduction of genetically modified food in the United States and the United Kingdom: a news analysis. Soc. Sci. J. 45:113–27 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bovitz J, Druckman N, Lupia A. 2002. When can a news organization lead public opinion? Ideology versus market forces in decisions to make news. Public Choice 113:127–55 [Google Scholar]
  21. Budd RW, Thorp RK, Donohew L. 1967. Content Analysis of Communications New York: Macmillan
  22. Canoy M, Nahuis R. 2005. Public service broadcasting and the quality of news on commercial channels: Substitutes or complements? Work. Pap., CPB Neth. Bur. Econ. Policy Anal./Utrecht Sch. Econ., Utrecht, Neth.
  23. Carver RB, Rødland EA, Breivik J. 2013. Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers. Sci. Commun. 35:4449–75 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chiang CF, Knight B. 2011. Media bias and influence: evidence from newspaper endorsements. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78:3795–820 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cohen B. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  26. Cook G, Robbins PT, Pieri E. 2006. Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Underst. Sci. 15:15–29 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cox DN, Evans G, Lease HJ. 2008. Australian consumers' preferences for conventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: A conjoint study. Food Qual. Prefer. 19:306–14 [Google Scholar]
  28. Curtis KR, McCluskey JJ, Swinnen JFM. 2008. Differences in global risk perceptions of biotechnology and the political economy of the media. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 8:1–277–89 [Google Scholar]
  29. DellaVigna S, Gentzkow M. 2010. Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2:643–69 [Google Scholar]
  30. Downs A. 1972. Up and down with ecology—the ‘issue-attention cycle.’. Public Interest 28:38–50 [Google Scholar]
  31. Durant J, Bauer MW, Gaskell G. 1998. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book London: Sci. Mus.
  32. Durante R, Knight B. 2012. Partisan control, media bias, and viewer responses: evidence from Berlusconi's Italy. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 10:3451–81 [Google Scholar]
  33. Dyck A, Zingales L. 2002. The corporate governance role of the media. The Right to Tell: The Role of Mass Media in Economic Development R Islam 107–40 Washington, DC: World Bank [Google Scholar]
  34. Ellis BJ, Figueredo AJ, Brumbach BH, Schlomer GL. 2009. Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Hum. Nat. 20:2204–68 [Google Scholar]
  35. Entine J. 1999. The ethical edge: How “Jack” turned crisis into opportunity. Bus. Dig. Nov./Dec. http://www.jonentine.com/ethical_corporation/jack_crisis.htm
  36. Entman RM. 1991. Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. J. Commun. 41:46–27 [Google Scholar]
  37. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. 2002. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324:7337573–77 [Google Scholar]
  38. Flipse SM, Osseweijer P. 2013. Media attention to GM food cases: an innovation perspective. Public Underst. Sci. 22:2185–202 [Google Scholar]
  39. Flynn J, Peters E, Mertz CK, Slovic P. 1998. Risk media and stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Anal 18:6715–27 [Google Scholar]
  40. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd E. 1999. Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance and persuasiveness. Public Underst. Sci. 8:35–50 [Google Scholar]
  41. Frewer LJ, Miles S, Marsh R. 2002. The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Anal. 22:4701–11 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gabszewicz JJ, Laussel D, Sonnac N. 2001. Press advertising and the ascent of the pensée unique?. Eur. Econ. Rev. 45:645–51 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gabszewicz JJ, Laussel D, Sonnac N. 2004. Programming and advertising competition in the broadcasting industry. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 134:657–69 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gal-Or E, Dukes A. 2003. Minimum differentiation in commercial media markets. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 123:291–325 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gaskell G, Bauer MW. 2001. Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy London: Sci. Mus.
  46. Gentzkow M, Kamenica E. 2011. Competition in persuasion NBER Work. Pap. 17436
  47. Gentzkow M, Shapiro J. 2006. Media bias and reputation. J. Polit. Econ. 114:2280–316 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gentzkow M, Shapiro J. 2008a. Competition and truth in the market for news. J. Econ. Perspect. 22:2133–54 [Google Scholar]
  49. Gentzkow M, Shapiro J. 2008b. Preschool television viewing and adolescent test scores. Historical evidence from the Coleman study. Q. J. Econ. 123:1279–323 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gentzkow M, Shapiro J. 2010. What drives media slant? Evidence from US daily newspapers. Econometrica 78:135–71 [Google Scholar]
  51. George LM, Waldfogel J. 2006. The New York Times and the market for local newspapers. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:435–47 [Google Scholar]
  52. Groseclose T, Milyo J. 2005. A measure of media bias. Q. J. Econ. 120:41191–237 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hagedorn C, Allender-Hagedorn S. 1997. Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Public Underst. Sci. 6:3233–45 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hawkins V. 2002. The other side of the CNN factor: the media and conflict. J. Stud. 3:2225–40 [Google Scholar]
  55. Heiman A, Zilberman D. 2011. The effects of framing on consumers' choice of GM foods. AgBioForum 13:39 [Google Scholar]
  56. Henneberry SR, Piewthongngam K, Qiang H. 1999. Consumer food safety concerns and fresh produce consumption. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 24:198–113 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hibino A, Nagata M. 2006. Biotechnology in the Japanese media: comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering in Japan and Europe. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 9:112–23 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hoban TJ, Kendall PA. 1993. Consumer attitudes about food biotechnology Proj. Rep., NC Coop. Extens. Serv. Raleigh, NC:
  59. Hornig S. 1990. Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis. J. Mass Commun. Q. 67:4767–76 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hornig S. 1993. Reading risk: Public response to print media accounts of technological risk. Public Underst. Sci. 2:295–109 [Google Scholar]
  61. Huffman W, McCluskey JJ. 2014. Labeling of genetically modified foods. The Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development PWB Philips, S Smyth, D Castle 467–87 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  62. Jesuino JC, Nunes JA, Diego C, Alcantara P, Costa S, Matias M. 2001. Representation of biotechnology in Portugal. See Gaskell & Bauer 2001,. 258–66
  63. Kalaitzandonakes N, Marks LA, Vickner SS. 2004. Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:51238–46 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J. et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8:2177–87 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kiesel K, McCluskey JJ, Villas Boas SB. 2011. Nutritional labeling and consumer choices. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 3:141–58 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kohring M, Matthes J. 2002. The faces of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 11:143–54 [Google Scholar]
  67. Koné D, Mullet E. 1994. Societal risk perception and media coverage. Risk Anal. 14:21–24 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kumkale GT, Albarracín D, Seignourel PJ. 2010. The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40:61325–56 [Google Scholar]
  69. Kuzyk P, McCluskey JJ. 2006. The political economy of the media: coverage of the US–Canadian lumber trade dispute. World Econ. 29:5637–54 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lewison G. 2007. The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004. Scientometrics 72:3439–58 [Google Scholar]
  71. Listerman T. 2010. Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: international comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Underst. Sci. 19:15–15 [Google Scholar]
  72. Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC. 2001. Assessing consumers preferences for organic, eco-labeled and regular apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 26:2404–16 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lusk JL. 2015. Food demand survey. Jason Lusk Blog Jan. 15. http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2015/1/15/food-demand-survey-foods-january-2015
  74. Lusk JL, Jamal M, Kurlander L, Roucan M, Taulman L. 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30:28–44 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A. 2014. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6:381–405 [Google Scholar]
  76. Maeseele PA, Schuurman D. 2008. Biotechnology and the popular press in northern Belgium: a case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Sci. Commun. 29:4435–71 [Google Scholar]
  77. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Wilkins L, Zakharova L. 2007. Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Underst. Sci. 16:2183–203 [Google Scholar]
  78. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Zakharova L. 2002. On the media roller-coaster: Will GM foods finish the ride?. Choices 2002:Spring34–38 [Google Scholar]
  79. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Zakharova L. 2003. Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an effect?. J. Agribus. 21:11–20 [Google Scholar]
  80. Marques MD, Critchley CR, Walshe J. 2015. Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: how trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Pub. Underst. Sci. 24:5601–18 [Google Scholar]
  81. Mazur A. 1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. J. Commun. 31:2106–15 [Google Scholar]
  82. McCluskey JJ, Swinnen J. 2011. The media and food-risk perceptions. EMBO Rep. 12:7624–29 [Google Scholar]
  83. McCluskey JJ, Swinnen J, Vandemoortele T. 2015. You get what you want: a note on the economics of bad news. Inf. Econ. Policy 30:1–5 [Google Scholar]
  84. McCluskey JJ, Swinnen JFM. 2004. Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of biotechnology. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:1230–37 [Google Scholar]
  85. McCombs M, Ghanem SI. 2001. The convergence of agenda setting and framing. Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World SD Reese, OH Gandy Jr., AE Grant 67–81 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  86. McCombs ME, Shaw DL. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36:2176–87 [Google Scholar]
  87. McInerney C, Bird N, Nucci M. 2004. The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food. Sci. Commun. 26:144–74 [Google Scholar]
  88. McKenzie D, Ozler B. 2014. Quantifying some of the impacts of economics blogs. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 62:3567–97 [Google Scholar]
  89. Mullainathan S, Shleifer A. 2005. The market for news. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:1031–53 [Google Scholar]
  90. Müller M, Freitag B, Köder F. 2010. Plant biotechnology in German media: a linguistic analysis of the public image of genetically modified organisms. Biotechnol. J. 5:6541–44 [Google Scholar]
  91. Navarro MJ, Panopio JA, Malayang DB, Amano N Jr. 2011. Print media reportage of agricultural biotechnology in the Philippines: a decade's (2000–2009) analysis of news coverage and framing. J. Sci. Commun. 10:3A01 [Google Scholar]
  92. Nisbet MC, Huge M. 2006. Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate. Int. J. Press Polit. 11:23–40 [Google Scholar]
  93. Pan Z, Kosicki GM. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Polit. Commun. 10:155–75 [Google Scholar]
  94. Pew (Pew Res. Cent. People Press) 2004. How journalists see journalists in 2004 Washington, DC: Pew. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/214.pdf
  95. Piggott NE, Marsh TL. 2004. Does food safety information impact US meat demand?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:1154–74 [Google Scholar]
  96. Pollan M. 2012. Vote for the dinner party. New York Times Mag. Oct. 10. http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinner-party/
  97. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. 2004. Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Anal 24:61475–86 [Google Scholar]
  98. Posner RA. 2005. Bad news. New York Times July 31. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html
  99. Prat A, Strömberg D. 2011. The political economy of mass media Discuss. Pap. DP8246 Lond. Sch. Econ, London
  100. Renn O. 2005. Risk perception and communication: lessons for the food and food packaging industry. Food Addit. Contam. 22:101061–71 [Google Scholar]
  101. Robinson P. 2001. Theorizing the influence of media on world politics models of media influence on foreign policy. Eur. J. Commun. 16:4523–44 [Google Scholar]
  102. Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E. 2001. Polls and trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opin. Q. 65:2267–81 [Google Scholar]
  103. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. 2001. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Anal. 21:1199–206 [Google Scholar]
  104. Siró I, Kápolna E, Kápolna B, Lugasi A. 2008. Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance—a review. Appetite 51:3456–67 [Google Scholar]
  105. Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–85 [Google Scholar]
  106. Smith B, Wooten J. 2014. Estimating demand for information attributes using Twitter data Unpublished manuscript, Coll. Bus. Admin., Univ. Nebraska, Omaha, NE: [Google Scholar]
  107. Strömberg D. 2001. Mass media and public policy. Eur. Econ. Rev. 45:652–63 [Google Scholar]
  108. Strömberg D. 2004. Mass media competition, political competition, and public policy. Rev. Econ. Stud. 71:265–84 [Google Scholar]
  109. Surowiecki J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds New York: Doubleday
  110. Swinnen J, Olper A, Vandemoortele T. 2012. Impact of the WTO on agricultural and food policies. World Econ. 35:91089–101 [Google Scholar]
  111. Swinnen JFM, Vandemoortele T. 2010. Policy gridlock or future change? The political economy dynamics of EU biotechnology regulation. AgBioForum 13:4291–96 [Google Scholar]
  112. Ten Eyck TA, Williment M. 2003. The national media and things genetic coverage in the New York Times (1971–2001) and the Washington Post (1977–2001). Sci. Commun. 25:2129–52 [Google Scholar]
  113. Tuchman G. 1976. The news' manufacture of sociological data. Am. Soc. Rev. 41:61065–67 [Google Scholar]
  114. Tuchman G. 1978. Making News New York: Free
  115. Urala N, Lahteenmaki L. 2007. Consumer's changing attitudes toward functional foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 18:1–12 [Google Scholar]
  116. Van Ravenswaay EO, Hoehn JP. 1991. The impact of health risk information on food demand: a case study of alar and apples. Economics of Food Safety J Caswell 155–74 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  117. Veltri GA, Suerdem AK. 2013. Worldviews and discursive construction of GMO-related risk perceptions in Turkey. Public Underst. Sci. 22:2137–54 [Google Scholar]
  118. Verbeke W, Ward RW. 2001. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agric. Econ. 25:359–74 [Google Scholar]
  119. Verbeke W, Ward RW, Viaene J. 2000. Probit analysis of fresh meat consumption in Belgium: exploring BSE and television communication impact. Agribusiness 16:215–34 [Google Scholar]
  120. Vicsek L. 2013. Gene-fouled or gene-improved? Media framing of GM crops and food in Hungary. New Genet. Soc. 32:154–77 [Google Scholar]
  121. Vilella-Vila M, Costa-Font J. 2008. Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. J. Socio Econ. 37:52095–106 [Google Scholar]
  122. Vogel D. 2003. The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 33:4557–80 [Google Scholar]
  123. Wheeler DL, Church DM, Lash AE, Leipe DD, Madden TL. et al. 2002. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:113–16 [Google Scholar]
  124. Wildavsky A. 1995. But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  125. Zilberman D, Kaplan S, Kim E, Waterfield G. 2014. Lessons from the California GM labeling proposition on the state of crop biotechnology. Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development PWB Philips, S Smyth, D Castle 538–49 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012630
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error