Cultural theory and political philosophy: Why cognitive biases toward ambiguous risk explain both beliefs about nature's resilience and political preferences regarding the organization of society.

Abstract

Many studies have observed a correlation between beliefs regarding nature's resilience and (political) preferences regarding the organization of society. Liberal-egalitarians, for example, generally believe nature to be much more fragile than libertarians, who believe nature to be much more resilient. Cultural theory explains this correlation by the idea that people are only able to see those risks that fit their preferred organization of society. This article offers an alternative, second explanation for the observed correlation: Both beliefs regarding nature's resilience and political preferences can be explained by the same cognitive biases toward ambiguous risk, that is, dispositions determining our expectations regarding the possible state of affairs resulting from our acts and their probabilities. This has consequences for political philosophy and the psychology of risk. In particular, there is a knowledge gap in psychology regarding the cognitive biases underlying the belief that despite ambiguity, experts can determine safe limits for human impacts on the environment.