| Literature DB >> 31810171 |
Rongting Zhou1, Dong Wang1, Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei2, Muhammad Azfar Anwar1, Ali Hammad1, Fahad Asmi1, Qing Ye3, Muhammad Asim Nawaz4.
Abstract
The study examines the critical factors affecting Chinese social media (SM) users' intentions and behavior to seek and share information on genetically modified organisms/ genetically modified food (GMO/GMF). The proposed framework was conceptualized through benefit-risk analysis and subsequently mapped SM users' perceived benefits and risks to seeks and share information using Kurt Lewin's valence view. Quantitative data was collected using survey questionnaires administered from 583 SM users. The results of the path analysis demonstrated two key findings related to SM users' perceived benefits and risks to seek and share information on GMO/GMF. Among risks, the psychological risk is the strongest predictor of perceived risk to use SM for GMO/GMF, which consequently determines the intentions and behaviors to share information about GMO/GMF on SM in People's Republic of China. Among benefits, the results showed that perceived usefulness, creditability of GMO/GMF information, and information support are positively related to perceived benefits to use SM for GMO/GMF, which subsequently, predicts the intentions and behaviors to seek information about GMO/GMF on SM. This study suggests scholars and practitioners explore and utilize the efficient communication strategy to fulfill the potential of the SM to increase GMO/GMF acceptance in Chinese society.Entities:
Keywords: China; genetically-modified food; perceived benefits; perceived risk; psychological valence; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31810171 PMCID: PMC6926536 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16234838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Baidu Search Index (BSI) in case of GMO (x-axis represents timeline as dates are mentioned, Y-axis represents the BSI of each of the event regarding the positive and negative intensity.
Figure 2Baidu Media Index (BMI) in the case of GMO (x-axis represents timeline as dates are mentioned, Y-axis represents the BMI of each of the events regarding positive and negative intensity.
Demographic profile of the respondents.
| Profile Parameters | % | Freq. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 45.94 | 232 |
| Female | 54.06 | 273 | |
| Age group (in years) | Under 18 | 11.29 | 57 |
| 18–25 | 32.87 | 166 | |
| 25–35 | 43.37 | 219 | |
| Above 35 | 12.47 | 63 | |
| Education | Primary/Middle/ Senior High School | 37.82 | 191 |
| College/University | 41.19 | 208 | |
| Graduate Students | 20.99 | 106 | |
| Daily time over SM (in hours per day) | Less than 1 | 15.25 | 77 |
| 1–2 | 30.50 | 154 | |
| 2–3 | 36.04 | 182 | |
| More than 3 hours | 18.21 | 92 | |
Convergent Validity examination of each of the constructs.
| Construct | Items | Factor Loadings | Mean | Standard Deviation | CA | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Usefulness (PU) | PU1 | 0.955 | 5.254 | 1.021 | 0.925 | 0.860 | 0.948 |
| PU2 | 0.935 | ||||||
| PU3 | 0.892 | ||||||
| Credibility of Information (CR) | CI1 | 0.966 | 4.645 | 1.420 | 0.974 | 0.924 | 0.979 |
| CI2 | 0.964 | ||||||
| CI3 | 0.962 | ||||||
| CI4 | 0.953 | ||||||
| Information Support (IS) | IS1 | 0.979 | 5.158 | 1.467 | 0.978 | 0.953 | 0.984 |
| IS2 | 0.975 | ||||||
| IS3 | 0.974 | ||||||
| Psychological Risk (PsR) | PsyR1 | 0.972 | 4.993 | 1.227 | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.954 |
| PsyR2 | 0.937 | ||||||
| Time Risk (TiR) | TiR1 | 0.945 | 3.964 | 1.495 | 0.927 | 0.869 | 0.952 |
| TiR2 | 0.939 | ||||||
| TiR3 | 0.913 | ||||||
| Social Risk (SoR) | SoR1 | 0.951 | 4.050 | 1.877 | 0.941 | 0.891 | 0.961 |
| SoR2 | 0.945 | ||||||
| SoR3 | 0.935 | ||||||
| Perceived Benefits (PBe) | PB1 | 0.990 | 5.042 | 1.357 | 0.962 | 0.958 | 0.977 |
| PB2 | 0.964 | ||||||
| Perceived Risk (PRi) | PRi1 | 0.954 | 4.988 | 1.475 | 0.945 | 0.851 | 0.919 |
| PRi2 | 0.890 | ||||||
| Intentions to Seek (ISe) | ISe1 | 0.977 | 5.288 | 1.354 | 0.968 | 0.930 | 0.975 |
| ISe2 | 0.958 | ||||||
| ISe3 | 0.958 | ||||||
| Intentions to Share (ISh) | ISh1 | 0.953 | 4.318 | 1.594 | 0.939 | 0.887 | .959 |
| ISh2 | 0.941 | ||||||
| ISh3 | 0.931 | ||||||
| Behavior to Seek (Use) | BehI1 | 0.967 | 5.368 | 1.374 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Behavior to Share (USh) | BehS1 | 0.974 | 4.974 | 1.327 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Descriptive, correlation grid, and AVEs square root value of each of the constructs.
| Construct | PU | CR | IS | PsR | TiR | SoR | PBe | PRi | ISe | ISh | Use | USh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PU |
| |||||||||||
| CR | 0.214** |
| ||||||||||
| IS | 0.459** | 0.293** |
| |||||||||
| PsR | 0.427** | 0.287** | 0.407** |
| ||||||||
| TiR | 0.082ns | −0.014ns | −0.020 | −0.083 |
| |||||||
| SoR | 0.110* | 0.016 | 0.018 | −0.055 | 0.472** |
| ||||||
| PBe | 0.449** | 0.460** | 0.560** | 0.499** | −0.077 | −0.099* |
| |||||
| PRi | 0.320** | 0.394** | 0.308** | 0.397** | −0.060 | −0.054 | 0.508** |
| ||||
| ISe | 0.289** | 0.305** | 0.235** | 0.437** | −0.106* | −0.037 | 0.479** | 0.343** |
| |||
| ISh | 0.133** | 0.471** | 0.419** | 0.340** | −0.096* | −0.028 | 0.464** | 0.348** | 0.307** |
| ||
| USE | 0.452** | 0.308** | 0.440** | 0.487** | −0.062 | −0.079 | 0.581** | 0.384** | 0.423** | 0.304** |
| |
| USh | 0.418** | 0.407** | 0.419** | 0.456** | 0.014 | 0.020 | 0.591** | 0.310** | 0.335** | 0.335** | 0.493** |
|
Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns = not significant, Bold and underline values in diagonal are ‘Square Root of AVEs. PU = Perceived Usefulness, CR = Credibility of Information, IS = Information Support, PsR = Psychological Risk, TiR = Time Risk, SoR = Social Risk, PBe =Perceived Benefits, PRi = Perceived Risk, Ise = Intentions to Seek, ISh = Intentions to Share, USE = Behavior to Seek, USh = Behavior to Share.
Hypotheses testing and path analysis.
| Hypothesis | Description | Significance | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1(a) | PU+ →PBe+ | 0.219*** | Supported |
| H1(b) | CR+ →PBe+ | 0.118** | Supported |
| H1(c) | IS+ →PBe+ | 0.328*** | Supported |
| H2(a) | PsR+ →PRi+ | 0.572*** | Supported |
| H2(b) | TiR+ →PRi+ | −0.001ns | Not Supported (Statistical) |
| H2(c) | SoR+ →PRi+ | −0.062ns | Not Supported (Statistical) |
| H3(a) | PBe+ →ISe+ | 0.157*** | Supported |
| H3(b) | PBe+ →ISh+ | 0.137*** | Supported |
| H4(a) | PRi+ →ISe- | 0.419*** | Not Supported (Relational) |
| H4(b) | PRi+ →ISh- | 0.480*** | Not Supported (Relational) |
| H5(a) | ISe+ →USe+ | 0.636*** | Supported |
| H5(b) | ISe+ →USh+ | 0.396*** | Supported |
| H6(a) | ISh+ →USe+ | 0.632*** | Supported |
| H6(b) | ISh+ →USh+ | 0.827*** | Supported |
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; ns = not significant.
SEM detailed observations.
| Model Fitness Indices | Preferred Degree | Observed Values |
|---|---|---|
| CMIN | 5.0 [ | 3.423 |
| Chi-Square | Sample size dependent [ | 1293.755 |
| Df | Not specific | 378 |
| GFI | 0.90 [ | 0.861 (0.86) |
| AGFI | 0.80 [ | 0.828 (0.83) |
| IFI | 0.95 [ | 0.946 (0.95) |
| TLI | 0.95 [ | 0.938 (0.94) |
| CFI | 0.95 [ | 0.946(0.95) |
| RSMEA | Less than 0.08 [ | 0.069 |
Figure 3Graphical explanation of path analysis of the proposed model.