Multi Stakeholders’ Attitudes toward Bt rice in Southwest, Iran: Application of TPB and Multi Attribute Models

Regular Article


Organisms that have been genetically engineered and modified (GM) are referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Bt crops are plants that have been genetically modified to produce certain proteins from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which makes these plants resistant to certain lepidopteran and coleopteran species. Genetically Modified (GM) rice was produced in 2006 by Iranian researchers from Tarom Mowla’ii and has since been called ‘Bt rice’. As rice is an important source of food for over 3 billion inhabitants on Earth, this study aims to use a correlational survey in order to shed light on the predicting factors relating to the extent of stakeholders’ behavioral intentions towards Bt rice. It is assumed and the results confirm that “attitudes toward GM crops” can be used as a bridge in the Attitude Model and the Behavioral Intention Model in order to establish an integrated model. To this end, a case study was made of the Southwest part of Iran in order to verify this research model. This study also revealed that as a part of the integrated research framework in the Behavior Intention Model both constructs of attitude and the subjective norm of the respondents serve as the predicting factors of stakeholders’ intentions of working with Bt rice. In addition, the Attitude Model, as the other part of the integrated research framework, showed that the stakeholders’ attitudes toward Bt rice can only be determined by the perceived benefits (e.g. positive outcomes) of Bt rice.


TPB model Multi attribute model Multi-stakeholders Bt rice Path analysis 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Miranda Kitterlin from the Chaplin School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at Florida International University for her comments. Also the authors wish to thank Ms. Bethany Gardner from the Department of Linguistics, the State University of New York at Binghamton, for her kind help in improving the English of this text.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was funded by Ramin Agricultural and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Absalan, Sh., Gilany, A. (2005). Change of Khuzestan rice irrigation management is an inevitable necessity. Technical workshop on Mechanized Surface Irrigation. (In Persian).Google Scholar
  2. Aerni, P. (2002). Stakeholder attitudes toward the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: a comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1123–1137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agricultural Ministry (2012). Agricultural statistical letter of crops, Crop years, 2011–2012. Tehran: Agricultural Ministry, Deputy of planning and economic (In Persian).Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. 2002. Constructing a Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 1 September 2011 (
  5. Ajzen, I. (2015). Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 70(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
  6. Amin, L., Nor, A. R. M., Jahi, J. M., Osman, M., & Mahadi, N. M. (2005). Factors for a socially acceptable gene technology. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 6, 137–146.Google Scholar
  7. Amin, L., Azad, M. A. K., Gausmian, M. H., & Zulkifli, F. (2014). Determinants of Public Attitudes to Genetically Modified Salmon. PLOS ONE, 9(1), e86174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Angulo, A. M., & Gil, J. M. (2007a). Spanish Consumers’ Attitudes and Acceptability towards GM Food Products. Agricultural Economics Review, 8(1), 50–63.Google Scholar
  9. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40(4), 471–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Azadi, H., & Ho, P. (2010). Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances, 28(1), 160–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bakshi, S., & Dewan, D. (2013). Status of Transgenic Cereal Crops: A Review. ClonTransgen, 3(119), 2.Google Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, Six theories of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1–60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bouman, B. A. M., Barker, R., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T. P., Atlin, G. N., Bennett, J., & Wassman, R. (2007). Rice: feeding the billions.Google Scholar
  14. Bredahl, L. (2001a). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods—Results of a cross-national survey. Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bredahl, L., Grunert, K., & Frewer, L. (1988). Consumers attitude and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products – a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Working paper No 52.Google Scholar
  16. Bredahl, L., Grunert, G., & Frewer, L. J. (1998). Consumer attitudes and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products. A review of literature and a presentation of models for future research. Consumer Policy, 21(3), 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, M. F. (2008). An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods. British food journal, 110(6), 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, M. F., & Li, H. L. (2007). The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chern, W. S. (2006). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Sustainability in Agriculture. In 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12–18, 2006, Queensland, Australia (No. 25463). International Association of Agricultural Economists.Google Scholar
  20. Chong, M. (2005). Perception of the risks and benefits of Bt eggplant by Indian farmers. Journal of Risk Research, 8(7–8), 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chopra, P.; Kamma, A. (2005). Genetically Modified Crops in India. Available on:
  22. Cohen, M. B., Chen, M., Bentur, J. S., Heong, K. L., & Ye, G. (2008). Bt rice in Asia: potential benefits, impact, and sustainability. In Integration of insect-resistant genetically modified crops within IPM programs (pp. 223–248). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Costa-Font, M., & Gil, J. M. (2009). Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(6), 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food policy, 33(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Curtis, K. R., McCluskey, J. J., & Wahl, T. I. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 70–75.Google Scholar
  26. Dashti, K. (2012). "Agriculture Blooms". Iran Daily, Domestic Economy, Aug 30.Google Scholar
  27. Datta, A. (2013). Genetic engineering for improving quality and productivity of crops. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Delafrooz, N., Paim, L. H., & Khatibi, A. (2011). A Research Modeling to Understand Online Shopping Intention. Australian Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 5(5).Google Scholar
  29. Du Plessis, L., & Petzer, D. J. (2011). The attitudes of donors towards non-profit organizations (NPOs) in Gauteng, South Africa: A generational perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 12144.Google Scholar
  30. FAO (1996) Declaration on world food security. World Food Summit, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  31. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1181–1193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Fritz, S., Husmann, D., Wingenbach, G., Rutherford, T., Egger, V., & Wadhwa, P. (2003). Awareness and acceptance of biotechnology issues among youth, undergraduates, and adults. AgBioForum, 6(4), 178–184.Google Scholar
  34. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., Fjæstad, B., Öhman, S., & Olofsson, A. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002-Eurobarometer 58.0: A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project "Life Sciences in European Society". ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Ghasemi, S., Karami, E., & Azadi, H. (2013). Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Agricultural Professionals Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Foods: A Case Study in Southwest Iran. Science and engineering ethics, 19(3), 1201–1227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Giger, E., Prem, R., & Leen, M. (2009). Increase of agricultural production based on genetically modified food to meet population growth demands. School of Doctoral Studies (European Union. Journal, 1, 98–124.Google Scholar
  37. Green Peace International. (2006). Future of Rice, Examining long term, sustainable solutions for Rice production.Google Scholar
  38. Hamstra, A. M. (1991). Biotechnology in foodstuffs: Towards a model of consumer acceptance: SWOKA The Hague,, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. Hamstra, A. M. (1995). Consumer acceptance model for food biotechnology: Final report: SWOKA, Instituut voor strategisch consumentenonderzoek.Google Scholar
  40. Han, J. H. (2006). The effects of perceptions on consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods. Chonnam National University: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  41. Hellmich, R. L., & Hellmich, K. A. (2012). Use and impact of Bt maize. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 4.Google Scholar
  42. Hosseini, J. Ehsani, V. Lashgarara, F. (2012). Exploiting the Application of Genetically Modified Crops by Farmers in Iran. American Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-223X, Issue July (2011), 138–144Google Scholar
  43. Hoyer, W.D., & Macinnis, D.J. (2009). Consumer Behavior. 5th ed. USA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  44. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ibrahim, R. A., & Shawer, D. M. (2014). Transgenic Bt-Plants and the Future of Crop Protection (An Overview). International Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (IJAFR), 3(1), 14–40.Google Scholar
  46. Index Mundi (2013) Internet’s most complete country profiles. Available in:
  47. IRRA, International Rice Research Institute. (2013). Available in:
  48. Ismail, K., Soehod, K., Vivishna, S., Khurram, W., Jafri, S. K. A., & bin Riamily, M. K. (2012a). Genetically modified food and consumer purchase intentions: a study in Johor Bahru. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(5), 197–207.Google Scholar
  49. Ismail, K., Vivishna, S., Khurram, W., & Jafri, S. K. A. (2012b). Evaluating consumer purchase intentions for genetically modified food in Malaysia: A comparative study of Muslim and non-Muslim consumers. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(5), 466–474.Google Scholar
  50. James, C. (2005). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  51. Kaiser, F. G., & Scheuthle, H. (2003). Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1033--1048.Google Scholar
  52. Kaneko, N., & Chern, W. S. (2003). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods: A telephone survey. Consumer Interests Annual, 49, 1–13.Google Scholar
  53. Kaya, I. H., Poyrazoglu, E. S., Artik, N., & Konar, N. (2013). Academicans’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward GM-Organisms and–Foods. International Journal of Biological, Ecological and Environmental Sciences (IJBEES), 2(2), 20–24.Google Scholar
  54. Kim, R. B. (2012a). Consumer Attitude of Risk and Benefits toward Genetically Modified (GM) Foods in South Korea: Implications for Food Policy. Engineering Economics, 23(2), 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kim, Y. G. (2014). Ecological Concerns about Genetically Modified (GM) Food Consumption using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kobbeltvedt, T., & Wolff, K. (2009). The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 567–586.Google Scholar
  57. Kraft, P., Rise, J., Sutton, S., & Røysamb, E. (2005). Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 44(3), 479e496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 1970(30), 607–610.Google Scholar
  59. Małyska, A., Maciąg, K., & Twardowski, T. (2014). Perception of GMOs by scientists and practitioners–the critical role of information flow about transgenic organisms. New biotechnology, 31(2), 196–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  61. Mullan, B., & Wong, C. (2010). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to design a food hygiene intervention. Food Control, 21(11), 1524–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. National Cartographic Center (NCC) (2015) Available in:
  63. Nistor, L. (2013). Attitudes towards GM food in Romania. A moral question?.RevistaRomana de Bioetica, 10(2).Google Scholar
  64. Nonis, I., & Missalla, M. (2004). U.S. Patent No. 6,726,125. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeGoogle Scholar
  65. Patch, C. S., Tapsell, L. C., & Williams, P. G. (2005). Attitudes and intentions toward purchasing novel foods enriched with omega-3 fatty acids. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 37(5), 235–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Zani, B. (2012). The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: Test of an integrated psychosocial model. Food Quality and Preference, 25(2), 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Qiu, H., & Huang, J. (2006). Consumers’ Trust in government and their attitudes towards genetically modified food: empirical evidence from China. In 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12–18, 2006, Queensland, Australia (No. 25,741). International Association of Agricultural Economists.Google Scholar
  68. Riaz, M. N., & Chaudry, M. M. (2004). The value of Halal food production-Mian N. Riaz and Muhammad M. Chaudry define what Halal and kosher foods are, describe why they are not the same thing, and what is required of processors and. Inform-International News on Fats Oils and Related Materials, 15(11), 698–701.Google Scholar
  69. Sandoe, P. (2001). What is the lesson to be learnt from the controversy about gene technology, Report of the first integrated discussion platform. Ispra: In Meeting of the thematic network Entrance Food.Google Scholar
  70. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Senarath, S. N., & Karunagoda, R. P. (2012). Consumer Attitude towards Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods in Sri Lanka. Tropical Agricultural Research, 23(3), 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shaffer, P. A., Vogel, D. L., & Wei, M. (2006a). The mediating roles of anticipated risks, anticipated benefits, and attitudes on the decision to seek professional help: An attachment perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shi, Y., Ehlers, S., & Warner, D. O. (2014). The Theory of Planned Behavior as Applied to Preoperative Smoking Abstinence. PloS one, 9(7), e103064.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of genetechnology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Soregaroli, C., Boccaletti, S., & Moro, D. (2003). Consumer’s attitude towards labeled and unlabeled GM food products in Italy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 6(2), 112–127.Google Scholar
  76. Sukman, N. A., Suradi, N. R. M., & Amin, L. (2009). Model Development of Students Attitude towards Genetically Modified Food. Sains Malaysiana, 38(2), 241–247.Google Scholar
  77. Trail, W. B., Jaeger, S. R., Yee, W. M. S., Valli, C., House, L. O., Lusk, J. L., Moor, M., & Morrow., J. L. (2004). Categories of GM risk benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioForum, 7(4), 176–186.Google Scholar
  78. USDA (2012) United States Department of Agriculture. Rice trade. Available in:
  79. Vänninen, I., Siipi, H., Keskitalo, M., & Erkkilä, M. (2009). Ethical compatibility of GM crops with intrinsic and extrinsic values of farmers: A review. Open Ethics Journal, 3, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Verdurme, A., & Viaene, F. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food. Qualitative Market Research, 6(2), 95–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang, E. H., Yu, Z., Hu, J., Jia, X. D., &Xu, H. B. (2013). A two-generation reproduction study with transgenic Bt rice TT51 in Wistar rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology. doi:  10.1016/j.fct.2013.11.045.
  82. Weirich, P. (2007). Labeling genetically modified food: The philosophical and legal debate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yawson, R. M., Quaye, W., Entsi Williams, I., & Yawson, I. (2008). A Stakeholder Approach to Investigating Public Perception and Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology in Ghana. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 4(1–2), 55–70.Google Scholar
  85. Yazdanpanah, M., Forouzani, M. (2015). Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food, Journal of Cleaner Production, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.071.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Extension and EducationRamin Agricultural and Natural Resources University of KhuzestanAhvazIran
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental SciencesHasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium
  3. 3.Economics and Rural DevelopmentGembloux Agro-Bio Tech (ULg)GemblouxBelgium
  4. 4.Department of GeographyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations