Measuring the Effectiveness of Cognitive Biases on Climate-Oriented Decision Making: A Novel Consideration for Policy Ideation and Enforcement

Chenfeng Hao, Kimberly Rose Clark
{"title":"Measuring the Effectiveness of Cognitive Biases on Climate-Oriented Decision Making: A Novel Consideration for Policy Ideation and Enforcement","authors":"Chenfeng Hao, Kimberly Rose Clark","doi":"10.4236/psych.2023.1410089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public policies are an imperative population intervention to guide human decision-making towards the intended goal in order to achieve both the public good and improvements in society. However, recent years have witnessed increased noncompliance to public policies and their general failures to influence target population’s decision-making in dire areas of issues. One primary example is climate policy. While traditional methods of policy framing are currently met with nonoptimal population responses, incorporating common cognitive biasing strategies may provide a solution. Thus, this research study aims to investigate the impact of cognitive bias on responses towards climate policy. The study compared the responses of two independent groups to a survey that differed in the statement tone: one survey was neutral, while the other incorporated various forms of cognitive bias related to climate policy. The study recruited 149 participants who were randomly assigned to either the neutral or pro-climate conditioned survey. Each question in the pro-climate conditioned survey contains framing in the form of both pro-climate language and specific cognitive biases such as base rates, temporal construal, emotional arousal, etc. The results, which are based on the difference in participant responses between the neutral and pro-climate survey, showed that the participants in the pro-climate condition had significantly different responses towards climate policy compared to those in the neutral condition. Namely, questions 16, 23, 26, and 37 showed statistically significant differences between the two conditions. While questions 16 and 26 are general priming questions where the only difference between the two conditions is the pro-climate language, questions 23 and 37 tested the effect and cumulative priming influence of specific cognitive biases. All four questions’ results’ implications are then thoroughly discussed, along with a more general discussion of the overall priming influence of the pro-climate survey. Overall, these findings indicate that the inclusion of cognitive bias in survey questions can prime individuals and influence their identification and implementation of climate-based policy initiatives. These results highlight the importance of understanding how cognitive biases can affect responses to surveys and, in turn, influence policy decisions. Along with discussions of the qualitative implications of this study’s quantitative results, potential limitations associated with this study’s methods, and broader conclusions of this study’s practical application are discussed.","PeriodicalId":89844,"journal":{"name":"Psychology (Irvine, Calif.)","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology (Irvine, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2023.1410089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public policies are an imperative population intervention to guide human decision-making towards the intended goal in order to achieve both the public good and improvements in society. However, recent years have witnessed increased noncompliance to public policies and their general failures to influence target population’s decision-making in dire areas of issues. One primary example is climate policy. While traditional methods of policy framing are currently met with nonoptimal population responses, incorporating common cognitive biasing strategies may provide a solution. Thus, this research study aims to investigate the impact of cognitive bias on responses towards climate policy. The study compared the responses of two independent groups to a survey that differed in the statement tone: one survey was neutral, while the other incorporated various forms of cognitive bias related to climate policy. The study recruited 149 participants who were randomly assigned to either the neutral or pro-climate conditioned survey. Each question in the pro-climate conditioned survey contains framing in the form of both pro-climate language and specific cognitive biases such as base rates, temporal construal, emotional arousal, etc. The results, which are based on the difference in participant responses between the neutral and pro-climate survey, showed that the participants in the pro-climate condition had significantly different responses towards climate policy compared to those in the neutral condition. Namely, questions 16, 23, 26, and 37 showed statistically significant differences between the two conditions. While questions 16 and 26 are general priming questions where the only difference between the two conditions is the pro-climate language, questions 23 and 37 tested the effect and cumulative priming influence of specific cognitive biases. All four questions’ results’ implications are then thoroughly discussed, along with a more general discussion of the overall priming influence of the pro-climate survey. Overall, these findings indicate that the inclusion of cognitive bias in survey questions can prime individuals and influence their identification and implementation of climate-based policy initiatives. These results highlight the importance of understanding how cognitive biases can affect responses to surveys and, in turn, influence policy decisions. Along with discussions of the qualitative implications of this study’s quantitative results, potential limitations associated with this study’s methods, and broader conclusions of this study’s practical application are discussed.
测量气候导向决策中认知偏差的有效性:对政策构思和执行的新思考
公共政策是一种必要的人口干预,以指导人类决策朝着既定目标发展,从而实现公共利益和社会进步。然而,近年来出现了越来越多的不遵守公共政策的情况,这些政策普遍未能影响目标人口在严重问题领域的决策。一个主要的例子是气候政策。虽然传统的政策框架方法目前遇到了非最优的人口反应,但结合共同的认知偏见策略可能提供一个解决方案。因此,本研究旨在探讨认知偏见对气候政策反应的影响。该研究比较了两个独立群体对一项调查的反应,这些调查在陈述语气上有所不同:一项调查是中立的,而另一项调查则包含了与气候政策相关的各种形式的认知偏见。这项研究招募了149名参与者,他们被随机分配到中立或支持气候条件的调查中。支持气候条件调查中的每个问题都包含支持气候语言和特定认知偏差(如基本比率、时间解释、情绪唤醒等)形式的框架。结果表明,亲气候条件下的被试对气候政策的反应与中立条件下的被试有显著差异。也就是说,问题16、23、26和37在两种情况下显示了统计学上的显著差异。问题16和26是一般启动问题,两种情况之间的唯一区别是支持气候的语言,问题23和37测试了特定认知偏见的效果和累积启动影响。然后对所有四个问题的“结果”含义进行了深入讨论,并对亲气候调查的总体启动影响进行了更广泛的讨论。总体而言,这些发现表明,在调查问题中纳入认知偏见可以启动个人,并影响他们确定和实施基于气候的政策举措。这些结果强调了理解认知偏见如何影响对调查的反应,进而影响政策决策的重要性。在讨论本研究定量结果的定性含义的同时,还讨论了与本研究方法相关的潜在局限性,以及本研究实际应用的更广泛结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信