# Building Technological Legitimacy: The Impact of Communication Strategies on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in China

## TL;DR

This study explores how different communication strategies affect public acceptance of genetically modified foods in China.

## Contribution

It introduces a legitimacy-based framework to understand public perception of GM foods through regulative, normative, and cognitive legitimacy.

## Key findings

- Emphasizing safety regulations reduced willingness to pay for GM soybean oil.
- Highlighting national food security increased willingness to pay for domestic GM oil.
- Information about advanced GM technology had no significant impact on willingness to pay.

## Abstract

Public acceptance remains a critical barrier to the adoption of genetically modified (GM) foods. This study investigates whether communication strategies that establish different forms of technological legitimacy, specifically regulative, normative, and cognitive legitimacy, can effectively overcome this barrier. Using the contingent valuation method (CVM) with a nationally representative sample of 1194 individuals, this study examined the effect of communication strategies on Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for GM soybean oil. The results revealed a striking asymmetry. Information emphasizing the safety regulations of GM foods, which aims to build regulative legitimacy, significantly reduced WTP, likely by activating consumer anxieties. Conversely, narratives highlighting technology’s role in ensuring national food security, which builds normative legitimacy, effectively increased WTP for domestic GM oil. Information about the advanced level of GM technology, intended to establish cognitive legitimacy, had no significant impact. The effects were heterogeneous. Females and less knowledgeable consumers were most sensitive to safety messages. Our findings demonstrate that building legitimacy through normative appeals to collective welfare is more effective than relying on regulatory assurances. This study provides a legitimacy-based framework for understanding public perception and offers policymakers crucial insights for communicating about controversial agricultural technologies.