Analysis using structural equation modeling reveals digital narratives impact trust and risk perception in sustainable agriculture.
With the rapid development of sustainable agricultural foods, public acceptance and trust in emerging food technologies have become critical determinants of their widespread adoption. This study investigates how digital narrative shapes consumers’ risk perception and trust, focusing on the mediating role of food technology neophobia (FTN). Using data collected from the online questionnaire survey, this study applies structural equation modeling and mediation analysis to test the proposed relationships. The results show that positive digital narrative significantly reduces consumers’ FTN, which in turn lowers perceived risk and enhances trust, whereas negative digital narrative indirectly heightens risk perception and weakens trust by reinforcing FTN. These findings confirm the key mediating function of FTN in linking digital information exposure to consumers’ cognitive and affective evaluations of food technologies. From a practical perspective, this study provides actionable implications for both policymakers and marketers. Governments should develop specialized and emotionally adaptive digital communication systems, integrating scientific and regulatory resources to deliver transparent and emotionally balanced narratives that mitigate public fear and uncertainty. For enterprises, digital narrative should serve as a strategic tool to build consumer trust by presenting clear, credible, and emotionally engaging representations of technological processes and sustainability values. By revealing the emotional-cognitive pathways through which digital communication influences consumer attitudes, this research extends the theoretical framework of food technology acceptance and offers empirical guidance for promoting sustainable agricultural innovations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: