Causas y consecuencias de la conflictividad escolar

In the prior section on neoclassical theory, it appeared that its assumptions regarding consumer behaviour might be violated by consumers’ reactions to GMF. Thus, it may be possible to gain further insight into these reactions through the literature on bounded rationality. For example, several decision heuristics that fit under the rubric of bounded rationality are intentionally discontinuous. The theory expects consumers to use screening rules to exclude choice alternatives or to base their decisions on a single criterion. Examining consumer decisions with regard to GMF in the light of such behavioural interpretation may provide a theoretical basis for seemingly lexicographic preferences. In addition, focusing on the way in which consumer decisions are made – the specific decision heuristics – may allow for aggregation into market-level demand even in cases where many consumers do not display behaviour consistent with neoclassical indifference curves. That is, it may be possible to

aggregate observations about their choices without establishing the exact value that they place on GMF.

The reactions of some consumers to GMF do conform to a boundedly rational model of decision-making. Gaskell, et al. (2004) found evidence of a lexicographic process that first evaluated the benefits of GMF and then, given sufficient benefits, evaluated the risks. Bredahl (1999) found that many consumers have non-compensatory objections to genetic

modification, so that other attributes of GMF are not examined. These and other examples described earlier suggest that consumers may not be examining all the available information and integrating it into a single dimension that measures the relative values of GMF and non- GM. Instead, they may be deciding on GMF by using simple heuristics, as theorised by bounded rationality research.

One important question is whether it is necessary to consider lexicographic decision making explicitly, or whether the focus can be shifted to a compensatory framework. Rekola (2003) showed that it may be possible to represent some lexicographic preferences as compensatory. If a one-to-one mapping between preferences and attributes is maintained, so that each attribute satisfies the desire for that attribute, then non-compensatory preferences need to be considered explicitly (Rekola, 2003). However, Lancaster’s (1966) insight was that each need on the part of consumers could be satisfied in different ways by different combinations of commodities providing different combinations of attributes. This creates a many-to-many mapping in which needs or desires for goods can be satisfied in different ways (Rekola, 2003). Rather than focussing on the specific discontinuity, the analysis can focus on the need that can be satisfied in a number of ways. Thus, choice over commodity space could still be considered compensatory even where choice over attribute space is not. Unfortunately, this many-to-many mapping does not apply in the case of GMF. If a consumer desires non-GMF,

then the only attribute that can satisfy this preference is a non-GM attribute. With GMF, the explicit consideration of lexicographic preferences cannot be set aside by shifting focus away from the attribute space into goods space or some other space.

Another feature of bounded rationality is its emphasis on decision environments or contexts. Food choices are complex decisions often made quickly in supermarkets and hypermarkets, which are information-rich environments. Food labels contain quite a bit of information that can be used in assessing which products to purchase (Golan et al., 2000; Nayga Jr., 2001- 2002). This information is available for most of the products in a modern supermarket, which may contain more than 30,000 products (Boatwright & Nunes, 2001). For breakfast cereals alone, Australian supermarkets have more than 80 brand-size combinations (Louviere, 2001). Looking beyond the food labels, consumers can obtain information about corporate

behaviour, production methods, and nutrition to aid their decisions. In addition, some products naturally have nearly infinite natural variation: products such as fresh produce and meats can be examined item-by-item to compare colour gradations, flaws, smells, etc.

(Harker, Gunson, Brookfield, & White, 2002; Harker, Gunson, & Jaeger, 2003; West, Larue, Gendron, & Scott, 2002). Bounded rationality theory maintains that consumers use simple cognitive short-cuts to cope with this abundant information.

Choosing what to eat is central to survival. The difficulty and complexity of the decision is captured in the ‘omnivore paradox’ (Fischler, 1993). This paradox arises because omnivores require diversity in their diets in order to obtain all the necessary nutrients. However, every additional food source exposes the omnivore to additional potential poisons and pathogens. Every new food is a possible source of health or sickness. ‘What should I eat?’ is a critical question, one an omnivore needs to answer correctly.

An integrative model of answering the question would have the eater analysing the nutritional profile of the food as well as the expected probabilities of future states of health resulting from eating the food. Furthermore, the eater must have made earlier decisions regarding the probabilities of actions leading to obtaining the food, including a cost-benefit analysis weighing the expected expenditure of resources on obtaining the food against the expected value of the food once obtained.

A boundedly rational model suggests that the eater uses heuristic strategies to decide what to eat. Human culture, for example, has developed a solution to the omnivore paradox, as Fischler (1993) explains. Foods are prescribed and proscribed by culture, so that a food culture – a cuisine – limits the choice set for members of that cuisine. By following a cuisine, eaters can be reasonably assured of surviving, if only because followers of unsuitable cuisines would be less able to transmit them. A cuisine reduces the amount of decision-making effort while at the same time providing members with a high probability of survival. It is therefore rational from a survival perspective to have membership in a cuisine, and this rationality is a function of the limitations or bounds the cuisine places on the food choice set (Laland, 2001). Furthermore, GMF is characterised by a profound lack of knowledge on the part of

consumers, who know they do not know (Marris et al., 2001). The long-term impact of GM on consumers or the environment is unknown, simply because GM products have not been in existence for a long term. Where integrative, compensatory models suggest that decision- makers need more knowledge in order to make informed decisions, boundedly rational models suggest that they can make effective decisions because of their ignorance (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). The satisficing decision with regard to GMF might thus be: the current food supply is ‘good enough’, so no change is warranted. This allows consumers to stick to eating patterns that have worked in the past (Fischler, 1993), make sufficient and satisfactory choices

in complex environments (Simon, 1955, 1956), and reduce anxiety by maintaining to predictable diets (Earl, 1983).

Bounded rationality may be an appropriate theory of decision making with regard to GMF, because it accounts for observed non-compensatory stated preferences and choices, it conforms to the sociology of food consumption, and it considers the environment in which food choices are made. If it is true that decision-making about GMF does follow a non- compensatory heuristic, then the choices that choice experiment respondents make might not be modelled well by linear models (E. J. Johnson, Meyer, & Ghose, 1989). An alternative to a compensatory, linear model might provide additional insight into the choices that respondents make.