Common Knowledge or Common Sense? Identifying Systematic Misconceptions of Animal Agriculture and Food Familiarity in Higher Education Individuals
Knowledge gaps in the context of agriculture contribute to mistrust and negative worldviews of the animal agriculture sector. The purpose of this quasi-experimental survey study was to quantify the perceived connection of participants to food production, assess their understanding, knowledge, and perceptions of animal agriculture (AA) and food production (FP), and determine predictors that may have contributed to their knowledge and perceptions of animal food production. The convenience sample for this study was a southeastern land grant institution, n = 265. An Animal Agricultural Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire and a Food Familiarity Index Questionnaire were included in the electronic survey. The study reported that nearly 50% of the participants showed negative perceptions of animal agriculture (p < 0.05) regardless of the food familiarity scores. Natural and self-identified demographic characteristics impacted the knowledge and perceptions of AA including gender, ethnicity, dietary preference, perceived connection to FP, and affiliation with the College of Agriculture (p < 0.05). By identifying topics and ideas that are of great concern and little understanding, future perceptions and purchase intentions can be improved. Additional research should replicate the findings with broader question pools and other demographic groups to identify areas that need improvement in agriculture communication efforts designed to dispel misinformation.
Authors
- Soren P P Rodning (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2128-9512)
- Katie Corbitt
- Gabriella F. Johnson
- Don Mulvaney
- William Brandon Smith (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0321-5627)
- Karen Hiltbrand
- Madison Coursen-Sullivan
Institutions
- Auburn University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Sustainability
- Published
- 2025-10-08
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198923
- Primary Topic
- Diverse Educational Innovations Studies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00