Agricultural biotechnology offers tremendous benefits to farmers and to society as it provides tools for mitigation of a number of environmental externalities related to water quality and food safety (USDA, 2000; Munkvold, 1999). However, perceptions of the safety of recombinant DNA technology (a.k.a. genetically engineered foods) on the part of consumers can shape the policy environment in ways that may inhibit expanded use of biotech traits in agriculture.
In graduate school I was interested in consumer preferences toward biotechnology. Particularly interesting was the observation that some consumers had strongly held science based views related to climate change, but might at the same time have views related to the safety of genetically modified foods that were at the time inconsistent with the larger scientific community. What could explain this?
In my work I hypothesized that consumers adopt a worldview v (regarding climate change, food preferences, religious beliefs, public policy, etc.) that gives them the greatest level of utility.
U(v) > U(v') (1)
One way to to explain this would be to model utility as a function of social harassment 'c'.
U(v,c) > U(v',c) (2)
for c > k
U(v,c) < U(v',c) (3)
for c < k
In this formulation social harassment provides disutility, and would enter the utility function as a negative term (I later found out you could alternatively model this similarly introducing a 'bliss' point in a utility model such that consumers might obtain utility from holding a certain viewpoint up to some level of saturation beyond which disutility sets in).
If social harassment is great enough to exceed some threshold 'k', consumers with preferences like those above may choose to ignore scientific evidence that lowers utility by conflicting with their vision or the vision of their peers. The level of 'k' may vary depending on the consumers sensitivity to social pressure.
Those that are sensitive to social pressure and whose preferences are impacted strongly by the veracity of a particular vision may be resistant to conflicting evidence.
If they were to accept the alternative (perhaps scientifically supported) viewpoint v*, and peers find these views distasteful, social harassment would lower utility. This could give the appearance of holding conflicting views related to scientific issues. An example would be accepting scientific consensus in some areas like evolution (where social harassment may be lower) but rejecting it in other areas like the safety or benefits of genetically engineered (GE) foods (where social harassment may be higher in many circles).
What do I mean by 'social harassment' and how might this relate to preferences toward genetically engineered foods? We might view them as a form of peer pressure, political correctness, or social norming. Consumers may choose a certain worldview (or express it through consumption patterns signaling their social viewpoints) based on their desire to be accepted by others. As a result they may discard any conflicting information or evidence and maximize utility by holding onto their world view 'v.'
U(v,c) > U(v',c) (2)
for c > k
I attempted to explore this theory empirically leveraging a data set containing demographics and survey responses related to political and religious views, food consumption preferences (organic/natural etc.), attitudes toward animal welfare, views on other scientific advances like stem cell research, scientific literacy, and attitudes toward genetically engineered foods.
I found that respondents with a positive view of embryonic stem cell research and those that were more concerned about the impacts of climate change were less likely to accept the safety of genetically modified foods. This is in spite of evidence of the safety of biotechnology or its potential for mitigating the impacts of climate change. My theory of social harassment would be consistent with those empirical findings. (much more advanced work has been done in the last 15 years - see links and references below)
While I was aware at the time of previous work empirically estimating consumer attitudes toward genetically engineered foods (see references below) I was not aware of other related work in behavioral and public choice economics.
In retrospect, this not so different from the concept of 'rational irrationality' discussed in Bryan Caplan's 'The Myth of the Rational Voter':
"...people have preferences over beliefs. Letting emotions or ideology corrupt our thinking is an easy way to satisfy such preferences...Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world."
This means that:
"Beliefs that are irrational from the standpoint of truth-seeking are rational from the standpoint of utility maximization."
And in application:
"Support for counterproductive policies and mistaken beliefs about how the world works normally come as a package. Rational irrationality emphasizes this link."
From Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow:
"emotional attitude drives beliefs about benefits and risks and dominates conclusions over arguments."
Borland and Pulsinelli's Social Harassment Costs and Abatement
My idea of social harassment was inspired by Borland and Pulsinelli's work, although their formulation was in the context of household production (inspired by Gary Becker, 1965) with social harassment built into a budget constraint and utility maximization framework. Their discussion of social harassment costs as 'guilt trips' for driving gas guzzlers in the face of shortages and price controls was the motivating example for my thinking.
A key idea from their theory is the concept of purchasing social abatement. Society will permit individuals to purchase goods or services that it finds distasteful if they also purchase abatement for that good.
While their paper predates contemporary notions of carbon offsets, the idea of hollywood stars or politicians buying carbon offsets to avoid social harassment from peers because of their jet setting lifestyles could be one application of social abatement. It follows from their logic that there is a market for goods that can be purchased for the purpose of social abatement.
Perhaps some goods are 'bundled' with social abatement. For instance, a consumer that believes that beef consumption contributes excessively to climate change might be willing to buy beef if it has socially abating attributes like being grass fed, organic, or hormone free. Never mind that the carbon footprint of U.S. beef represents less that .5% of global greenhouse emissions and 3% of total U.S. GHG emissions, or the fact that these products may not actually lower beef's carbon footprint (and could possibly increase it - see also Rotz et al 2018). Another example, parents might be OK with a sugary cereal or drink if it is at least made with non-GMO ingredients (where the social points gained from being 'non-GMO' outweighs or abates social points lost from being a bad parent giving their kids sugary foods)
Social harassment can be explicit, in terms of negative comments from friends or colleagues, or they can simply be internal perceptions. But either way the purchase of socially abating goods or goods with socially abating characteristics could be explained this way. And food marketers are capitalizing on that in various ways in the form of free-from food labeling among other things.
Both my formulation and Borland and Pulsinelli's concept of social harassment costs would fit these trends in food preferences. My perspective differs in that social harassment impacts the views we adopt and the role of information in changing or shaping those views. These views either translate directly to consumption choices or indirectly as a means of signaling our views on food systems etc. In this formulation, consumer views are invariant to new information if it conflicts with their adopted view, because if others found out they had strayed in thought or conviction, they would incur social harassment disutility. So we might adopt a worldview that is unsupported by the wealth of scientific evidence. Purchases that signal socially desirable preferences help guarantee the higher level of utility and lower levels of social harassment. For those with the most strongly held views, they may evangelize others to adopt them (imposing additional social harassment on others). This signals that not only do I conform to the socially acceptable worldview, but I'm practicing my religion at the highest level.
Additional Implications
Social harassment may also be interacting with social media by making us aware of socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. This plays a role in influencing our worldviews as well as providing a platform for signaling our world views. This might explain the proliferation of increased attention paid to food in the last decade.
While consumers might increase utility and reduce social harassment by avoiding information that conflicts with their world views, they might also seek information that supports utility maximizing views regardless of weight of evidence.
In their paper "Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" Ryan, Schaul, Butner and Swarthout provide an in depth background on the attention economy, disinformation, the role of the media and marketing as well as socioeconomic impacts. They articulate how how rent seekers and special interests are able to use disinformation in a way to create and economize on misleading but coherent stories with externalities impacting business, public policy, technology adoption, and health. These costs, when quantified can be substantial and should not be ignored:
"Less visible costs are diminished confidence in science, and the loss of important innovations and foregone innovation capacities"
Merchants of misinformation and disinformation can exploit consumers (and voters) with preferences sensitive to social harassment.
Conclusion
The idea that facts alone often fail to change consumers minds is not novel. And the concept I leveraged related to social harassment and social harassment costs might not be so different from ideas related to social norming or social proof. However, I think it is a useful exercise to think through the implications of different formulations of these concepts because they can help us better understand the role of science and evidence in consumer perceptions and decision making. Better understanding may improve science communication. This could have implications for climate change, food sustainability, as well as vaccines and other impacts on public health.
Related Reading:
Additional References:
Abdulkadri, Abdullahi O, Simmone Pinnock, and Paula Tennant. " Public Perception of Genetic Engineering and the Choice to Purchase Genetically Modified Food." Paper presented at the American Agricultural EconomicsAssociation Annual Meeting. 2004
Adulaja, Adesoji, et al. "Nutritional Benefits and Consumer Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified Foods." Journal of Food Distribution Research . Volume 34, Number 1. 2003 p. 24-29.
Baker, Gregory A. "Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics" Vol 26, No. 2. 2001. p.387-403.
Becker, G.S. (1965). ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, ECONOMIC JOURNAL, vol. 75(299), pp. 493–517
*Borland,Melvin V. and Robert W. Pulsinelli. Household Commodity Production and Social Harassment Costs.Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 291-301
Camille D. Ryan, Andrew J. Schaul, Ryan Butner, John T. Swarthout, Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), European Management Journal, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2020, Pages 7-18, ISSN 0263-2373
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Bryan Caplan. Princeton University Press. 2007
Chiappori, P.‐A. and Lewbel, A. (2015), Gary Becker's A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Econ J, 125: 410-442. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12157
Russell Golman, David Hagmann, George Loewenstein. Information Avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature, 2017; 55 (1): 96 DOI: 10.1257/jel.20151245
Hine, Susan and Maria Loureiro. "Understanding Consumers' Perceptions Toward Biotechnology and Labeling."Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting . 2002.
Jones, Gerald M., Anya McGuirk and Warren Preston. "Introducing Foods Using Biotechnology: The Case of Bovine Somatotropin." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol 24, No. 1 1992. p 209-223
Lacey Wilson, Jayson L. Lusk,Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels,Food Policy, 2020,101938, ISSN 0306-9192,
Jayson L. Lusk, Brandon R. McFadden, Norbert Wilson, Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?,Food Policy,Volume 78,2018,Pages 81-90,ISSN 0306-9192
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Jayson Lusk, Alexandre Magnier, The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food,Food Policy,Volume 78,2018,Pages 38-50,ISSN 0306-9192
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Jayson Lusk, Alexandre Magnier, The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food,Food Policy,Volume 78,2018,Pages 38-50,ISSN 0306-9192
B. R. McFadden, J. L. Lusk. What consumers dont know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 2016; DOI: 10.1096/fj.201600598
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395.
C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005
The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science. Differing views on benefits and risks of organic foods, GMOs as Americans report higher priority for healthy eating DECEMBER 1, 2016 https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/
