Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food

Abstract

As more and more genetically modified foods (GMFs) must be labeled, adding more information to increase the willingness to buy genetically modified food has become the focus of scholars and enterprises. Most current studies have confirmed that the consumer attitudes and purchase intention toward GMFs are not good. This study aims to match consumers’ different information-processing mechanisms by adding marketing information clues and regulating their purchase intentions by contradictory attitudes towards GMFs. According to the interest demands of GMFs, the marketing clue information was divided into functional information and environmental information. Through two studies, we find that consumers are more inclined to environmental information than heuristic. Functional information is more attractive to males, and the young generation prefers ecological information. Consumers with high ambivalence towards genetically modified foods are more inclined to choose environmental attribute information.

Modeling adoption of genetically modified foods: Application of Rough Set Theory and Flow Network Graph

“…These results support preceding literature that suggests CSR is associated with consumer reaction toward GMFs (Pino et al, 2016;Boccia and Covino, 2021;Rabbanee et al, 2021). Prior research on consumer behavior toward GMFs mainly focused on the effects of one or a few rare factors separately Jiang and Zhang, 2021;McKenzie et al, 2021;Rabbanee et al, 2021;Levi, 2022;Sleboda and Lagerkvist, 2022), while in this study, important influential factors were studied together and the analysis of their effects simultaneously to determine priorities. Consequently, we point to consumers' concerns, occupational status, and consumer autonomy as other important aspects of consumer decision-making toward GMFs.…”

Causality Validation of Three Marketing Mix Components and Interest in Smartphone Purchase Decisions

“…Consumers must selectively collect first information that can give clues about the product to be purchased (Benn et al, 2015), whether it will provide benefits as promised or vice versa. They carry an alternative evaluation out when they already have various information about products and brands referring to their information research (Jiang & Zhang, 2021).…”

Methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet: a scoping review

“…16,32,[36][37][38][39][40][42][43][44][45][46]48,51,52,55,56,58,61,65,67,68,72,73 Similarly, the definitions provided by other studies focused on aspects like the lack of consistency within the individual; the state of holding mixed feelings; or the contradictions experienced in individual attitudes, beliefs or preferences towards an attitude object. 32,49,63,64,66,70 Across studies included in this review, several authors provided definitions for different types of ambivalence, differentiating between potential and felt ambivalence and between intra-component (cognitive or affective) and intercomponent (cognitive-affective) ambivalence. 35,54,57,73 Potential ambivalence, also referred to as objective ambivalence, structural ambivalence or indirect ambivalence, represents a psychological state of coexistence between positive and negative evaluations of an object.…”

“…We identified studies that employed previously existing methods to assess ambivalence that can be used in contexts related or unrelated to food and diet (e.g., any health behaviours or attitude object) (n = 33) 16,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][41][42][43][44][45][46]48,49,[54][55][56][57][58]61,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][71][72][73] or specific to assessing ambivalence towards food and diet (n = 8). 14,42,47,[50][51][52][53]59 Similarly, there were studies that proposed new methods to assess ambivalence that were either specific for food-and diet-related objects (n = 3) 60,63,70 or usable in other contexts (e.g., other health behaviours) (n = 3). 40,62,74 Even if some authors did not mention the type of...…”

“…45,57,73 We considered that methods assessed potential ambivalence when they combined independent scales of positive and negative evaluations (n = 26) 14,16,32,[35][36][37][38][44][45][46][47][48][54][55][56][57][59][60][61][62][63][65][66][67]69,73 and that they assessed felt ambivalence when they employed questionnaires that tapped the subjective experiences of feeling conflicted or having mixed thoughts and/or feelings (n = 22). 16,[32][33][34][35]39,40,43,[49][50][51][52][53]57,58,63,64,[68][69][70]…”