IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v12y2017i5p466-480_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Royzman, Edward
  • Cusimano, Corey
  • Leeman, Robert F.

Abstract

In line with earlier research, a multi-phase study found a significant positive association between a widely used measure of trait disgust and people’s tendency to favor absolutist (non-consequentialist) restrictions on genetically modified food (GMF). However, a more nuanced high-granularity approach showed that it was individual sensitivity to fear (specifically, a tendency to feel creeped out by strange and subtly deviant events) rather than a tendency to be disgusted (orally inhibited) by these events that was a unique predictor of absolutist opposition to GMF and other types of new technology. This finding is consistent with prior theorizing and research demonstrating fear to be “the major determiner of public perception and acceptance of risk for a wide range of hazards” related to new technology (e.g., nuclear power) (Slovic & Peters, 2006, p. 322). The present study calls attention to the importance of conducting future assessments of disgust (and other affective constructs) in a manner that, among other things, recognizes the substantial disconnect between theoretical and lay meanings of the term and illustrates how a policy-guiding result may arise from a sheer miscommunication between a researcher and a subject.

Suggested Citation

  • Royzman, Edward & Cusimano, Corey & Leeman, Robert F., 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:466-480_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006495/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:466-480_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.