The Effects of Framing Print Media Messages About Genetic Modification of Food on Readers’ Perceptions Laura Dininni, MS Candidate, Agricultural and Extension Education, Penn State University Introduction Genetic modification of food is a highly controversial issue. Though individuals know very little about the technology, that does not prevent them from holding differing opinions about biotechnology (Hallman, Adelaja, Schilling & Lang, 2002). For most Americans today, genetic modification of food through agricultural biotechnology is an unfamiliar and abstract concept, lacking any real context. Because of this, when media provide the context in which to interpret the meaning of agricultural biotechnology, or frame the technology, that meaning is more readily accepted than if the public already had a context in which to place the technology. Significantly, most people in the United States rely on mass media as their primary sources of information on issues of public concern, including agricultural biotechnology (Hallman & Metcalf, 1995; Hoban, 1998). In fact, over 90% of American consumers receive information about food and biotechnology primarily through the popular press and television (Hoban & Kendall, 1993). Through an experimental manipulation of two salient print media themes, this study explores readers’ reactions to stories about agricultural biotechnology’s role in world hunger, and role in trade and economics, two of the three most frequently covered themes discussed in the U.S. national newsprint media in 2002, identified through content analysis. Methods Design: 2 (Arena: Ethics/Economics) x 2 (Outcome: Gain/Loss) x 2 (pre/post test/post only); Solomon 4 group Sample (IRB Approval # 20148): A convenience sample of 240 (30 per cell) will be selected to equally represent males and females from a population of university staff, students and individuals in the surrounding areas. Conditions: All conditions will be presented in newsprint format, control for news source (New York Times), sources cited and affected population and will present a brief description of possible environmental risks of the technology in order to frame use of agricultural biotechnology as a risky proposition. Dependent Variables: Attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology will be measured through an index comprised of two components. Value assessment will be measured on a four item, five point semantic differential scale. Attitude will be measured on a 14 item, five point likert-type scale. Items for each concept will be summed and averaged, then added together to yield one value for attitude. Knowledge, as a moderating variable, will be measured with a 14 item true/false index, summed and averaged to obtain a percentage to represent knowledge. Indices will be checked for internal consistency with Chronbach’s alpha. Demographic variables, age, income, and gender will be measured in order to statistically control for any moderating effects on framing. Surveys with missing items will be dropped from analysis. Data will be analyzed using factorial ANOVA. Expected Results Low Knowledge High Knowledge Discussion If actual results are consistent with expected results we will show that for an unfamiliar subject like genetic modification of food the public’s understanding of the issue is influenced by what and how the media report on the topic. An individuals prior knowledge of the issue will also be shown to have a minimizing effect on the media’s influence on perceptions. Directions for Future Research This study did not measure the preexisting risk seeking comfort zone of subjects. Levin, Gaeth, Schreiber & Lauriola (2002) found that the ‘Big Five’ personality traits and scores on the ‘Faith in Intuition’ scale affect the relationship between framing and risk decision making. It is likely that those who are more disposed to risk-seeking behaviors are generally more accepting of agricultural biotechnology. Price and Tewksbury (1997) found that although framing did not affect the volume of thoughts produced, it did affect the topical focus of those thoughts. Future studies could employ an out loud reporting method, analyzed qualitatively, to explore whether effects found in this research are consistent with qualitative analyses. Hypotheses to be Tested H1: Arena: Framing agricultural biotechnology as a solution to world hunger (ethics) will have a greater effect on positive perceptions of the technology than framing it as giving economic advantage to farmers (economics). H2: Domain: Articles framed in the loss domain will be more positively related to choosing risk to avoid loss than will articles framed in the gain domain. H3: Knowledge of agricultural biotechnology will lessen the effects of framing. Significance to the Field Information regarding the effects of framing on readers’ perceptions may be used as a basis to make some real-world inferences regarding how ethical and economic arguments and individuals’ knowledge may influence their perceptions when agricultural communicators engage the public on topics relevant to biotech. Theoretical Framework Media Effects: Framing and Prospect Theory An issue is framed when certain aspects of a perceived reality are presented and made more meaningful to the audience (Entman, 1993). A frame defines a situation, the issues, and the terms of a debate (Tankard, 2001) without the audience realizing it is taking place. People will select one equivalent outcome over another depending on whether the outcome is framed in terms of a risk of loss or chance of benefit or gain. Respondents seek to avoid risk when choices are framed in terms of gains. Risk seeking results when a choice is framed in terms of losses (Tversky & Kahneman; 1981; Kahneman & Tversky 1984; Highhouse & Yuce, 1996). Even though outcomes were identical in a posed moral dilemma that involved the death of human beings, the wording save (gain) or kill (loss) had an effect on resolution of the dilemma (Petrinovich & O’Neill, 1996). When outcomes involve human lives, rather than money, subjects make riskier choices regardless of whether the outcome is framed in terms of gain or loss (Fagley & Miller, 1997). There is a significant difference in level of risk perceived according to the type of risk that is made salient (Chryssochoou & Dean, n.d.). Significance to Society Agricultural biotechnology’s connection with issues of world hunger, environmental degradation, biocide use, and global economics are examples of the broad and critical nature of what is at stake in the public’s assessment of the value of this new technology. Understanding cognitive responses to agricultural biotechnology framing may help to explain the relationship between framing, cognition and public opinion. Figure 1. The Main Effects for Ethical and Economic Framing of Agricultural Biotechnology Figure 2. The Moderating Effects of Knowledge on Ethical and Economic Framing of Agricultural Biotechnology