Cognitive Biases and Environmental Decision Making
-
Upload
whitney-wolf -
Category
Documents
-
view
37 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Cognitive Biases and Environmental Decision Making
Cognitive Biases and Environmental Decision Making
Overarching Proposal Question
How do cognitive biases influence decisions related to water allocation?
Proposal Foci
Short term choice preferences: economic vs. ecological impacts
Long tem choice preferences
Group D-M Structure influence individual biases
Human Cognition and Motivation
• Limited attention and processing capacity
• Limited emotional capacity
• Multiple goals and multiple modes of making decisions
trial & error based system
These limitation can be mediated by controllable factors…
Decision making (structure & process)
Information Provision(type & forms)
Scientific community is extremely concerned about environmental issues, how about the public?
Worry is a Function of Our Perception of Risk
Dual Processing Systems ANALYTIC (Risk = Probability of Outcome X
Consequence)‘newer’ systemAFFECTIVE
(Risk as Feelings)
Perceived Risk correlated with dread risk and unknown risk
Objective Risk ≠ Subjective Risk
Vampire Protection Kit, 1897
Low real hazard, high concern for protection
Bruegel the Elder’s “Landscape with the fall of Icarus” (1555)
How Close is the Threat? Spatial & Temporal Dimensions
Related econspeak…
Hyperbolic Discounting(inconsistent valuation over time)
Loss aversion /Status quo biases
(current baseline taken as optimal refernce point)
Finite Pool of Worry
Ranking of Priorities for US Policymakers (2008 National Survey – “Very High” Category)
1.Economy2.Deficit3.Iraq & Afghanistan Wars4.Health Care5.Terrorism6.Social Security7.Education8.Tax Cuts9.Illegal Migration10.Global Warming (21%)11.Abortion Leiserowitz et al.
2008
Single Action Bias
Weber 1997
Connecting Impacts & Competing Worries
Source: South Florida Water Management District
Lay
Leiserowitz and Broad 2008
If we’re not worried, why all the debate?
Framing & Ideology (not facts) Dominate
Tim Calver photo
Support for Policies (surcharges for gas, clean energy, air travel)
Carbon TAX vs. Carbon Offset
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Democrat Independent Republican
Mea
n S
up
por
t fo
r R
egu
lati
on
Offset
Tax
Carbon TAX vs. Carbon Offset
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Democrat Independent Republican
Mea
n S
up
por
t fo
r R
egu
lati
on
Offset
Tax
Conflicting Mental Models
Mental Models Differ Dramatically
Hansen et al. 2004
Climate Expert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer
Communicating Probabilistic Information
Broad et al. 2007
Source: Leiserowitz, January 2003 (n = 549)
(7%) (10%)(83%)
“How much do you trust the following groups to tell you the truth about global warming?”
Risk Communication and Trust in Information Provider
WSC Groups
Behavioral Experiments, Surveys,Focus groups, Ethnography
Impacts Info needed by behavioral group:
-ecological impacts-environmental impacts-visualization tools & scenarios-uncertainty characterizations
Informational Needs
Preference CharacterizationUnder different conditions – type of info/D-M structure
InterestingS-B Stuff
What do you need and when?
Stuff that interests us
group versus individual decision dynamics?
how people make decisions that play out over long timeframes?
How to convey probabilistic information?
How do people tradeoff outcomes that have different hedonic properties?
CC
GW
Courtesy of Paul Slovic
Unknown Risk
Well-known Risk
Uncontrollable(high dread)
Controllable(low dread)
water
• Temporal Tradeoffs
• Social Tradeoffs
• Risk and Uncertainty & Risk Perception
Challenges
Humans are not good at Risk Assessment
Temporal and Spatial Challenge: Connect to salient emotions – e.g., ocean warming
human health
Complex connections and competing issues:Connect impacts – e.g., acidification coral reefs
tourism economy
Framing & Ideology Multiple frames and information sources appropriate
for different groups
“Checklist for Communication”
• Balancing Affective vs Analytic • Temporal and Spatial Distance• Mental models• Finite pool of worry• Single action bias• Interpretive Communities (‘know thy
audience’)• Intermediary orgs & group processes
– Role models– Imitation
• Decision Architecture– Opt in/out, anchor pts.– Social distance
Limited attention and processing capacity
• Need to attend selectively – Guided by expectations (values, beliefs) and goals
• Illinois farmers in early 1990s (Weber, 1997)• Using uncertainty about a future hazard as an
excuse to ignore it
• Use of simple emotion- and association-based processes over effortful analytic processes– Learning by getting hurt rather than by instruction
• Need to encode and evaluate locally– Thurber story: “Compared to what?”
Problems with Actions Guided (solely) by Worry
• Single action bias– Tendency to engage in a single risk reduction or
risk management behavior when action is triggered by concern (rather than analysis)• Argentine farmers concerned about climate
change engage in either production, pricing, or policy path to protection, but not all three (Weber, 1999)
• Finite pool of worry– Increases in concern about one risk are
accompanied by decreases in another (Weber , 2006)
Lay Person Ranking of Hazards