Taniya Jayani Koswatta, Gary Wingenbach, Holli R. Leggette and Theresa Pesl Murphrey
Public perception of health benefits derived from organic foods is often misaligned with scientific evidence. This study aims to examine the factors affecting public perception of…
Abstract
Purpose
Public perception of health benefits derived from organic foods is often misaligned with scientific evidence. This study aims to examine the factors affecting public perception of scientific information about organic foods.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conducted multinominal and multiple linear regression analyses to examine associations between public perception of scientific information about organic foods and 19 factors using data from a descriptive survey (N = 763).
Findings
Perceived benefits of organic foods, trust in scientists, communicator credibility, preexisting beliefs and events related to science (e.g. COVID-19) were significant predictors of public perception of scientific information about organic foods.
Theoretical implications
Cognitive dissonance and recreancy theoretical frameworks help describe relationships between beliefs, science, trust and risk. These theories intersect when purchasing credence goods (i.e. organic foods) whose qualities cannot be observed during or after purchase. Hence, public trust of scientific information about perceived health benefits of organic foods may conflict with strongly held beliefs that contradict scientific findings.
Practical implications
Scientists can more effectively share research findings after trust is established through the listening, asking and sharing values process. Therefore, by following the path of listening, asking and sharing the endogenous/exogenous factors in this study, scientists and the public can have meaningful conversations about perceived health benefits and nutritional values of organically and conventionally grown foods.
Originality/value
Current research on perception factors about organic foods often examined consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions but rarely considered perceptions of scientific information about organic foods. This study examined relationships between public perception of scientific information about organic foods and endogenous/exogenous factors.
Details
Keywords
Taniya Jayani Koswatta, Gary Wingenbach and Holli R. Leggette
When scientific information is unclear about the health benefits of foods, people choose to react in different ways. Using a posttest-only control group design, the authors tested…
Abstract
Purpose
When scientific information is unclear about the health benefits of foods, people choose to react in different ways. Using a posttest-only control group design, the authors tested how balanced and nonfactual information available on YouTube influences public perception of organic foods.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors randomly assigned participants (N = 640) from a southern US land grant university to watch one video: balanced news, nonfactual news, or control. All participants indicated changes in perception about organic foods immediately after the video. The authors analyzed the data using one-way and two-way ANOVA.
Findings
The nonfactual news video had the most influence on public perception of organic foods. Results confirmed that the effect of nonfactual information was more for individuals with preexisting beliefs consistent with the message communicated and individuals exposed to average to high levels of health and diet news.
Practical implications
The authors recommend regulatory changes in marketing strategies related to organic foods in the US that encourage balanced information about organic foods rather than promoting credence attributes of organic foods using persuasive information.
Originality/value
The authors findings suggest that, when scientific information about the health benefits of foods is unclear, communication activities should aim to increase healthy skepticism considering the audience's preexisting beliefs and frequency of health and diet news exposure.