Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 47–58 | Cite as

Ambiguity and Consumer Perceptions of Risk in Various Areas of Biotechnology

  • J. K. SaxEmail author
  • N. Doran
Original Paper


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.


Consumer Decision-making Ambiguity Biotechnology Survey 

Supplementary material

10603_2018_9398_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012). Statement by the AAAS board of directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. Retrieved from
  2. American Cancer Society. (2014). Recombinant bovine growth hormone. Retrieved from
  3. Blaisdell, L. L., Gutheil, C., Hootsmans, N. A., & Han, P. K. (2016). Unknown risks: Parental hesitation about vaccination. Medical Decision Making, 36(4), 479–489.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J.G. (2015, June 30). [Letter from Jerry Brown, Governor, State of California, to Members of California State Senate]. Retrieved from
  5. Camerer, C. W., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavatorta, E., & Schroder, D. (2016). Measuring ambiguity preferences: A new ambiguity preference module. Available at SSRN. Retrieved from
  7. Center for Disease Control. (2015). Fluoridation basics. Retrieved from
  8. Conko, G., Kershen, D. L., Miller, H., & Parrott, W. A. (2016). A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nature Biotechnology, 34(5), 493–503.Google Scholar
  9. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology (1986). Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. 51 FR 23302.Google Scholar
  11. Fluoride Action Network. (2016). Water Fluoridation. Retrieved from
  12. Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The new food fights: U.S. public divides over food science. Retrieved from
  13. Han, P. K., Reeve, B. B., Moser, R. P., & Klein, W. M. (2009). Aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: Measurement, prevalence, and relationship to sociodemographic factors. Journal of Health Communication, 14(6), 556–572.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, G. (2015, August 24). The widening world of hand-picked truths. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
  15. Kahan, D. M. (2010). Culture, cognition, and consent: Who perceives what, and why, in “acquaintance rape” cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158, 729–813.Google Scholar
  16. Kahan, D., & Braman, D. (2016). Cultural cognition of public policy. Yale Journal of Law and Public Policy, 24, 147–170.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York City, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Los Angeles Times Editorial. (2015, June 30). California settles the vaccination question. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
  19. Lynas, M. (2017). Expert find climate skeptic and anti-GMO studies are scientifically flawed. Retrieved from
  20. Main, D. (2015). Facts about fluoridation. Retrieved form
  21. Moser, W. (2014). Why do affluent, well educated people refuse vaccines? Chicago Magazine.Google Scholar
  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops experiences and prospects. Retrieved from
  23. Poortvliet, P. M., Duineveld, M., & Purnhagen, K. (2016). Performativity in action: How risk communication interacts in risk regulation. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(1), 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Purnhagen, K. (2014). The behavioural law and economics of the precautionary principle in the EU and its impact on internal market regulation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubin, E. L., & Sax, J. K. (2018). Administrative guidance and genetically modified food. Arizona Law Review., 60(3), 539–599.Google Scholar
  26. Saletan, W. (2015). Unhealthy fixation: The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer. Retrieved from
  27. Sanchez, M. A., & Parrott, W. A. (2017). Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 15(10), 1227–1234.Google Scholar
  28. Sax, J. K. (2014). The separation of politics and science. Stanford Journal of Law, Science & Policy, 7, 1–23.Google Scholar
  29. Sax, J. K. (2017a). Biotechnology and consumer decision-making. Seton Hall Law Review, 47(2), 433–486.Google Scholar
  30. Sax, J. K. (2017b). Contours of GMO regulation and labeling. Southern Methodist University Science and Technology Law Review, 19, 413–418.Google Scholar
  31. Sax, J. K., & Doran, N. (2016). Food labeling and consumer associations with health, safety, and environment. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 44(4), 630–638.Google Scholar
  32. Slovic, P. (2004). What’s fear got to do with it? It’s affect we need to worry about. Montana Law Review, 69, 971–990.Google Scholar
  33. Slovic, P. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strauss, S. H., & Sax, J. K. (2016). Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops. Nature Biotechnology, 34(5), 474–477.Google Scholar
  35. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). The availability heuristic, intuitive cost-benefit analysis, and climate change. Available at SSRN. Retrieved from
  36. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). On mandatory labeling, with special reference to genetically modified foods. University of Pennsyvania Law Review, 156, 1043–1095.Google Scholar
  38. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp.3-20). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s review of the safety of recombinant bovine somatotropin. Retrieved from
  40. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 214. Retrieved from
  41. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998). Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California San Diego Health SciencesLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.California Western School of LawSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations