ArticlePloS one2021
Perceived subjective versus objective knowledge: Consumer valuation of genetically modified certification on food producing plants.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- scientific, social, ecological rationality and public attitudes toward genetically modified food in China: based on the survey of urban residents in three cities of China.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Importance-Performance Map Analysis of the Drivers for the Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food with a Theory of Planned Behavior Groundwork.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- From Claims to Choices: How Health Information Shapes Consumer Decisions in the Functional Food Market.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- Public Willingness to Pay for Green Lifestyle in China: A Contingent Valuation Method Based on Integrated Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The moderating role of perceived health risks on the acceptance of genetically modified food.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- It Keeps the Good Boy Healthy from Nose to Tail: Understanding Pet Food Attribute Preferences of US Consumers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has identified subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of consumers' acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the medical and food industries. In contrast to a large body of literature on the effects of attitudes or knowledge on food preferences, the extent to which consumers' knowledge affects their valuation of non-GMO food producing plants (i.e., plants grown for food or ornamental purposes) is less understood. This manuscript investigates the relationship between consumers' knowledge of relevant non-GMO certification programs and their acceptance and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for non-GMO plants. The first study used an Internet respondent panel and choice experiment, while the second study utilized an in-person experimental auction. In line with previously reported low public acceptance of genetically modified food products, respondents were receptive of and willing to pay premiums for non-GMO food producing plants. This study found that subjective and objective knowledge impacted the premiums for non-GMO labels, with the high subjective and low objective knowledge group generating the highest WTP. Low subjective and low objective knowledge resulted in the lowest WTP. Findings suggest a disconnect between subjective and objective knowledge of non-GMO certification programs, which in turn influences consumer valuation of those products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.