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