Abstract
Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make certain types of plastics and is found in numerous consumer products. Because scientific studies have raised concerns about Bisphenol A’s potential impact on human health, it has been removed from some (but not all) products. What many consumers do not know, however, is that Bisphenol A is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are virtually unknown. This type of situation is known as a potential ‘regrettable substitution’, because the substitute material might actually be worse than the material that it replaces. Regrettable substitutions are a common concern among policymakers, and they are a real-world manifestation of the tension that can exist between the desire to avoid risk (known possible consequences that might or might not occur) and ambiguity (second-order uncertainty), which is itself aversive. In this article, we examine how people make such trade-offs using the example of Bisphenol A. Using data from Study 1, we show that people have inconsistent preferences towards these alternatives and that choice is largely determined by irrelevant contextual factors such as the order in which the alternatives are evaluated. Using data from Study 2, we further demonstrate that when people are informed of the presence of substitute chemicals, labelling the alternative product as ‘free’ of Bisphenol A causes them to be significantly more likely to choose the alternative despite its ambiguity. We discuss the relevance of these findings for extant psychological theories as well as their implications for risk, policy and health communication.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 649-666 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Health, Risk and Society |
| Volume | 16 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 15 2014 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Bisphenol A
- consumer decisions
- order effects
- risk
- risk perception
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cite this
The psychology of ‘regrettable substitutions’ : examining consumer judgements of Bisphenol A and its alternatives. / Scherer, Laura D.; Maynard, Andrew; Dolinoy, Dana C.; Fagerlin, Angela; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
In: Health, Risk and Society, Vol. 16, 15.11.2014, p. 649-666.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The psychology of ‘regrettable substitutions’
T2 - examining consumer judgements of Bisphenol A and its alternatives
AU - Scherer, Laura D.
AU - Maynard, Andrew
AU - Dolinoy, Dana C.
AU - Fagerlin, Angela
AU - Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
PY - 2014/11/15
Y1 - 2014/11/15
N2 - Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make certain types of plastics and is found in numerous consumer products. Because scientific studies have raised concerns about Bisphenol A’s potential impact on human health, it has been removed from some (but not all) products. What many consumers do not know, however, is that Bisphenol A is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are virtually unknown. This type of situation is known as a potential ‘regrettable substitution’, because the substitute material might actually be worse than the material that it replaces. Regrettable substitutions are a common concern among policymakers, and they are a real-world manifestation of the tension that can exist between the desire to avoid risk (known possible consequences that might or might not occur) and ambiguity (second-order uncertainty), which is itself aversive. In this article, we examine how people make such trade-offs using the example of Bisphenol A. Using data from Study 1, we show that people have inconsistent preferences towards these alternatives and that choice is largely determined by irrelevant contextual factors such as the order in which the alternatives are evaluated. Using data from Study 2, we further demonstrate that when people are informed of the presence of substitute chemicals, labelling the alternative product as ‘free’ of Bisphenol A causes them to be significantly more likely to choose the alternative despite its ambiguity. We discuss the relevance of these findings for extant psychological theories as well as their implications for risk, policy and health communication.
AB - Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make certain types of plastics and is found in numerous consumer products. Because scientific studies have raised concerns about Bisphenol A’s potential impact on human health, it has been removed from some (but not all) products. What many consumers do not know, however, is that Bisphenol A is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are virtually unknown. This type of situation is known as a potential ‘regrettable substitution’, because the substitute material might actually be worse than the material that it replaces. Regrettable substitutions are a common concern among policymakers, and they are a real-world manifestation of the tension that can exist between the desire to avoid risk (known possible consequences that might or might not occur) and ambiguity (second-order uncertainty), which is itself aversive. In this article, we examine how people make such trade-offs using the example of Bisphenol A. Using data from Study 1, we show that people have inconsistent preferences towards these alternatives and that choice is largely determined by irrelevant contextual factors such as the order in which the alternatives are evaluated. Using data from Study 2, we further demonstrate that when people are informed of the presence of substitute chemicals, labelling the alternative product as ‘free’ of Bisphenol A causes them to be significantly more likely to choose the alternative despite its ambiguity. We discuss the relevance of these findings for extant psychological theories as well as their implications for risk, policy and health communication.
KW - Bisphenol A
KW - consumer decisions
KW - order effects
KW - risk
KW - risk perception
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911951239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911951239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13698575.2014.969687
DO - 10.1080/13698575.2014.969687
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84911951239
VL - 16
SP - 649
EP - 666
JO - Health, Risk and Society
JF - Health, Risk and Society
SN - 1369-8575
ER -