Essentialism, Moral Opposition, and the Aversion to Genetically Modified Foods

This dissertation examines the psychological underpinning of the consumer aversion to genetically modified foods. Although a substantial body of scientific evidence supports the notion that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe to consume, many consumers continue to reject these products on principle. Drawing on research that distinguishes how people reason about natural and manmade objects, I find that consumers are more accepting of GMOs when marketing cues suggest they are manmade. Evidence from these studies suggests that the moral opposition towards genetically modified foods impedes the perception of their benefits. Critically, this moral opposition is reduced when the product is positioned as being manmade. Specifically, if consumers view the GMO as manmade and if they understand why it was created, moral opposition towards the product diminishes, and the GMOs perceived benefits increase, which subsequently increases purchase intentions for the product. As a whole, this work offers novel theoretical insights into consumers negative response to GM foods. Although prior research suggests that consumers dislike GMOs because these products are unnatural, the present work demonstrates that preference for a GMO is actually contingent upon the belief that the object ought to be natural. When cues suggest that the product is manmade to begin with, consumers are more accepting of genetically modified foods. This research also represents the first evidence that moral opposition impedes the perception of a GM foods benefits. Finally, this work lends managerial implications in light of the recent GMO food labelling debate.