IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v42y2019i1d10.1007_s10603-018-9398-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity and Consumer Perceptions of Risk in Various Areas of Biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • J. K. Sax

    (California Western School of Law)

  • N. Doran

    (University of California San Diego Health Sciences)

Abstract

Certain advances in biotechnology generate controversy, with consumer resistance derived from publicly expressed concerns about safety, despite scientific evidence of safety. The reasons for this discrepancy are not fully understood. This study aimed to understand how participants respond to biotechnology when some ambiguity about risk or uncertainty is presented. A sample of 318 adults completed a survey assessing aversion to ambiguous information in controversial areas such as food, vaccines, fluoridated water, and stem cell research. Participants responded to ambiguity assessments and 14 scenarios in these categories that contained a description of a benefit and either missing or conflicting information about an unknown risk or uncertainty. Participants who reported greater aversion to ambiguity tended to respond in a way that signals the assignment of high risk, and low benefit, when presented with some unknown or uncertain risk. The results of the present study can be used to develop methods to close the divide.

Suggested Citation

  • J. K. Sax & N. Doran, 2019. "Ambiguity and Consumer Perceptions of Risk in Various Areas of Biotechnology," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 47-58, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10603-018-9398-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-018-9398-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-018-9398-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-018-9398-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    2. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    3. Kai Purnhagen, 2014. "The Behavioural Law and Economics of the Precautionary Principle in the EU and Its Impact on Internal Market Regulation," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 453-464, September.
    4. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    5. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    2. Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2013. "Intertemporal stability of ambiguity preferences," Working Papers 0548, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, December.
    4. Claudio A. Bonilla & Pablo A. Gutiérrez Cubillos, 2021. "The effects of ambiguity on entrepreneurship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, February.
    5. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    6. Gérard Mondello, 2020. "Building Belief Systems and Medical Ethics: The Covid-19 Controversies," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Constantinos Antoniou & Emilios C. Galariotis & Daniel Read, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion, Company Size and the Pricing of Earnings Forecasts," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(3), pages 633-651, June.
    9. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    10. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    11. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    12. Maillet, Bertrand & Tokpavi, Sessi & Vaucher, Benoit, 2015. "Global minimum variance portfolio optimisation under some model risk: A robust regression-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 289-299.
    13. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Lemoine, Derek M. & Traeger, Christian P., 2010. "Tipping Points and Ambiguity in the Economics of Climate Change," CUDARE Working Papers 98127, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    16. Justin Svec, 2010. "Optimal Fiscal Policy with Robust Control," Working Papers 1004, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    17. Ghossoub, Mario, 2011. "Monotone equimeasurable rearrangements with non-additive probabilities," MPRA Paper 37629, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Mar 2012.
    18. Dannenberg, Astrid & Löschel, Andreas & Paolacci, Gabriele & Reif, Christiane & Tavoni, Alessandro, 2011. "Coordination under threshold uncertainty in a public goods game," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-065, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    20. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.

    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:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10603-018-9398-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.