1. The Effects of Framing Print Media Messages About Genetic Modification of Food on Readers’ Perceptions Ms. Laura Dininni MS Candidate, Agricultural and Extension Education Joan S. Thomson Professor of Agricultural Communications Penn State University

2. Public Opinion and GM food  Genetic modification of food is a highly controversial issue.  Like any technology, people associate risks with using agricultural biotechnology.  genetic contamination, species extinction, and biocide resistance  Though individuals know very little about the technology, that does not prevent them from holding differing opinions about biotechnology (Hallman, Adelaja, Schilling & Lang, 2002).  “Somewhere between its assessment and perception, risk must naturally be communicated” (Marks, Kalaitzandonakes, Allison, & Zalharova, 2002, p. 219).

3. Risk, Communication and Media  In the U.S., the media serve as a primary source of risk information for the public (Slovic, 2000).  Most in the U.S. rely on mass media as their primary sources of information on issues of public concern, including genetic modification of food (Hallman & Metcalf, 1995; Hoban, 1998).  Over 90% of American consumers receive information about food and biotechnology primarily through the popular press and television (Hoban & Kendall, 1993).

4. Purpose and Background  To investigate how print media messages about genetic modification of food affect readers’ perceptions  Messages based on actual themes found in content analysis of U.S. print media coverage in 2002

5. Theoretical Framework: Framing  “Because most mediated public policy issues and controversies are inherently multifaceted and subject to multiple interpretations, the potential for framing abounds” (Nelson, 1999).  Similar to second level agenda-setting, framing theory asserts that how an issue is framed, through the use of sources and assessment of their arguments (Whaley, 2002), influences how individuals think about an issue, particularly issues with which they are not familiar.

6. Framing Theory News frames are… “…interpretive packages of political issues that stymie debate and opposite narratives” (Gamson, 1996) Framing “… select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text... ” (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 Effects Framing defines the context in which the discussion occurs, determining what is to be discussed, or not. “… can significantly affect the perception of a problem and the evaluation of alternative options ” (Davis, 1995)

7. Risk Communication and Framing Framing risks and benefits of biotechnology  Judgments about the perceived risks versus benefits of a technology might be quite different depending on how risk is framed.  Through framing, a technology’s potential risk to the environment might be highlighted, while potential economic benefits are ignored, or vice versa (Marks et al., 2002).

8. Triggering events have been shown to change the way an issue is framed by the media (Abbott,2000).

9. Risk Communication and Framing Reframing Risk acceptance vs. non-acceptance  In 2002, two of the three most frequent themes found in national media coverage of agricultural biotechnology were and ‘world hunger’ and ‘trade’.  Risk is discussed primarily in terms of public opinion, not risks of the technology. African Refusal of GM Food Aid

10. Headlines 2002  7/31 Post Starved for Food, Zimbabwe Rejects U.S. Biotech Corn  8/18 NYT AP: Zambia Bars Altered Corn From U.S.  8/23 WSJ African Famine, Made in Europe  8/23 WSJ The Economy: EU Rejects U.S. Plea to Endorse Safety of Corn for Hunger Relief  8/30 NYT Between Famine and Politics, Zambians Starve

11. Headlines 2002  9/2 Post Phony Fears Fan a Famine  9/4 WSJ In Debate Over Modified Foods, Famine Weighs In  9/7 NYT Editorial: Folly in the Face of Famine  9/17 WSJ Editorial: Why Africans are Starving  9/17 Post AP, Famine Threatens 14 Million in Southern Africa

12. Methodology  Design: Modified Solomon 4 group 2 (Arena: Ethics/Economics) x 2 (Outcome: Gain/Loss) x 2 (pre/post test/post only)  Sample (IRB Approval # 20148): Convenience sample of 240 (30 per cell) equally representing males and females from a population of university staff, students and individuals in the surrounding areas.

13. Procedure  Random assignment to one of four argument conditions  Cover story to mask the true nature of the study  Half the participants will complete a survey of preexisting attitudes, knowledge, and demographics  Exposure to the ‘newspaper article’ conditions  All participants will complete a post-test survey of attitudes and beliefs  Debrief

14. Manipulation of the Message Frame  According to Vaughan & Seifert (1992), frames can differ in various ways including: Arena: Emphasizing scientific or economic vs. ethical or equity considerations. Outcome: Highlighting choice outcomes in terms of gain or loss. Affected population: Emphasizing different ‘at-risk’ populations, or beneficiaries.

15. Arena of the Argument H1: Ethics or Economics  There is a significant difference in level of risk perceived according to the type of risk that is made salient (Chryssochoou & Dean, n.d.).  When outcomes involved human lives, rather than money, subjects made riskier choices regardless of whether the outcome was framed in terms of gain or loss (Fagley & Miller, 1997).

16.  Need…“An especially powerful variable (one that can turn a controversy on its head)” (Palfreman, 2001)  U.S public overestimates global hunger…. 50-75% of worlds population are starving (Adamson, 1991)  H1: Arena: Framing acceptance of agricultural biotechnology ethically, as a solution to world hunger will have a greater effect on positive perceptions than framing acceptance economically, as facilitating trade. Risk Assessment and Framing H1: Ethics or Economics

17. Affected Population of the Argument  This dimension of the argument frame is related to cultivation theory, priming and schema activation.  Shen (2004) found that when a message frame is consistent with an individual’s existing schema the individual is more likely to be affected than if the message frame is inconsistent.  Scoones (2002) states, “a ‘feeding a hungry world’ narrative has firmly re-entered policy discourse”.

18. Outcome of the Argument H2: Gain or Loss  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 gain (Highhouse & Yuce, 1996; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).  Petrinovich and O’Neill (1996) found that though outcomes were identical in a posed moral dilemma involving the death of human beings, the wording save (gain) or kill (loss) had an effect on resolution of the dilemma.  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.

19. Moderating Variables  H3: Knowledge of genetic modification of food will moderate the effects of framing.  H4: Involvement with genetic modification of food will moderate the effects of framing. Studies of agenda setting and framing have found that framing effects may be moderated by knowledge of and involvement with an issue.

20. Argument Conditions and Independent Variables  All conditions will Be presented in newsprint format Control for news source (New York Times) Control for sources cited Present a brief description of possible environmental risks of the technology (as do most actual articles about agricultural biotechnology) in order to frame use of agricultural biotechnology as a risky proposition.

21. Stimulus Materials C1: Ethical lossC3: Economic loss

22. Stimulus Materials C2: Ethical gainC4: Economic gain

23. Dependent Variables  Primary DV: Attitudes toward genetic modification of food  Moderating Variables: Involvement Knowledge Demographic variables, age, income, and gender will be measured in order to statistically control for any moderating effects on framing.

24. Reliability and validity of the measures Many of the measures used for the dependent variables have been adapted from earlier studies.  Involvement measures that have proved highly reliable in earlier studies (Chronbach ’ s alpha: Alpha.83 in Moorthy, Ratchford, and Talukdar,1997)  Knowledge measurement from a national random sample survey (Hallman et al., 2002, 2003, 2004)

25. Results of Pilot Study

26. Gender  20 participants: M=14, F=6

27. Ethnicity and Education  Ethnicity 19 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic  Education 3 High School Graduates 5 Some College 10 College Graduates 2 Completed Graduate School

28. Family Income

29. Acceptance of GM Foods  5 point likert:  Circle the words that best represent your belief about the acceptability or unacceptability of genetic modification of food. Ethical3.4 Economic4.0  Not significant

30. Acceptance of GM Foods  Do you think genetic modification of food will make the quality of life for people such as yourself better or worse? Much worse 1 2 3 4 5 Much better Mean F p Ethical 3.3 5.1.03 Economic 4.0  Do you think genetic modification of food will make the quality of life for others better or worse? Mean F p Ethical 3.5 3.7.07 Economic 4.4

31. Acceptance of GM Foods  Using the following descriptors circle the number, on a scale from 1 to 5, that represents how important genetic modification of food is… Nonessential12345Essential Not beneficial12345Beneficial Not needed12345Needed essentialbeneficialneeded Means Ethical 2.6 2.9 2.6 Economic 3.0 3.5 3.0 Ethical 3.4 3.5 3.5 Economic 3.8 4.1 3.6 To you To others

32. Discussion  Thus far, the main effects of my hypotheses were not supported  Petrinovich and O’Neill (1996) found that though outcomes were identical in a posed moral dilemma involving the death of human beings, the wording save (gain) or kill (loss) had an effect on resolution of the dilemma.  When outcomes involved human lives, rather than money, subjects made riskier choices regardless of whether the outcome was framed in terms of gain or loss (Fagley & Miller, 1997).

33. Discussion  It is likely that economic framing would activate a personally relevant schema in a recent college graduate.  Because of the consistency of the direction of the means and the disproportionate representation of males in my sample I feel that there is strong potential for gender as a moderating variable.

34. Implications  News frames subtly affect reader’s decision making regarding public policy matters (Price and Tewksbury,1997).  Because of this study’s use of arguments found in U.S. national newsprint media, results regarding the effect of agricultural biotechnology framing on reader’s perceptions may be used as a basis to make some real-world inferences regarding how these arguments may be influencing the public’s acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.

35. Limitations of the Study  This study does not measure the preexisting risk seeking comfort zone of subjects. It is likely that those who are more disposed to risk- seeking behaviors are generally more accepting of agricultural biotechnology. This may also be moderated by gender.  Levin, Gaeth, Schreiber & Lauriola (2002) found that the ‘Big Five’ personality traits and scores on the ‘Faith in Intuition’ scale affected the relationship between framing and risk decision making. This study will not measure personality traits or Faith in Intuition scores. These individual differences may explain some variability in framing effects.

36. Directions for Future Study  Negatively framed conditions  Local paper  More diverse sample, purposive sample  Out loud reporting  Qualitative analysis

37. Thank you…. Questions?