Multimedia environmental decision-making simulation

Summers, Craig

doi:10.3758/bf03200548

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Situations in which many people discount long-term risks in favor of smaller, individual benefits can collectively produce a great deal of harm in the long term. Multi-billion dollar problems such as the collapse of the Atlantic fisheries (Summers, 1995; in press), the interests of the military-industrial complex in maintaining the Cold War (Summers and Morin, 1995; Summers, 1996), and for example, the accumulation of the national debt can be explained on the basis of the "discounting" of long-term social costs in favor of more immediate personal benefits.…”

Section: Ethical Problems With Compensationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear waste goes on the road: Risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities.

Summers

Hine²

1997

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the toxicity and half-life of nuclear waste, the permanent disposal of stockpiles in Canada is arguably Canada's largest and most difficult environmental problem. While requiring permanent storage, radioactive waste is notorious for arousing local protest and not-inmy-back-yard (NIMBY) reactions. Nevertheless, the great majority of research by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has been on natural science and engineering aspects of the proposed underground repository. The need to transport the waste from Canada's nuclear facilities to a remote northern site on the Canadian Shield provides a unique experimental design opportunity. Four northern communities were surveyed in this study, on their willingness to (1) host an underground repository for nuclear waste near their community or (2) reside on the transportation route along which the nuclear waste would travel to the permanent disposal location. Overall, there was considerable opposition to either hosting a nuclear waste disposal site or being along the transportation route to it. This lack of support was not related to the economic prospects that a megaproject like the underground nuclear waste repository will create. Beyond the strong opposition that was observed overall, however, we did find that there was slightly greater acceptability with involvement in the planning process. Similarly, the low acceptability along potential transportation corridors could be partially offset by direct monetary payments. Individual differences were also measured for trust in the government regulatory agencies, perceived fairness of the process, emotional responses, and faith in science and technology to deal with future problems. Together, these variables accounted for 50% of the variance in acceptability of either hosting the repository or being along the transportation route. Ethical implications of (i) the two-stage siting process Canada is following, and (ii) using monetary compensation to offset perceived risks, are discussed. Ultimately, burden sharing by distributing the risks with the benefits may be a fairer and more effective way of avoiding NIMBY.

show abstract

Section: Ethical Problems With Compensationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear waste goes on the road: Risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities.

Summers

Hine²

1997

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hardin's article has stimulated considerable interest among social and environmental psychologists, who have generated a substantial body of research addressing the problem (for reviews see Dawes, 1980; Komorita & Parks, 1994; Messick & Brewer, 1983). Much of this research has involved computerized simulations in which participants, in small groups, manage a limited shared resource over several harvest trials (Fusco, Bell, Jorgenson, & Smith, 1991; Gifford & Wells, 1991; Mosler, 1993; Parker, Lui, Messick, Messick, Brewer, Kramer, Samuelson & Wilke, 1983; Summers, in press).…”

Section: Cognitive Mediation In Commons Dilemmasmentioning

confidence: 99%

What harvesters really think about in commons dilemma simulations: A grounded theory analysis.

Hine¹,

Gifford²

1997

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal protocols and structured interviews were collected to investigate decision making in a simulated commons dilemma. Grounded theory was used to identify the main motivational and cognitive mediators of harvest choices during the simulation. The core category that emerged from the analysis was labeled goal satisficing. Most participants adopted or formulated specific harvest goals prior to and during the simulation. These goals guided decision-making, influencing which strategies were employed, and ultimately how many points were harvested from the pool on each trial. Five action strategies that participants used to pursue their goals were identified: developing initial harvest plans, monitoring pool size and others' harvests, developing expectancies about others, simulating possible outcomes, and strategic influence. The results suggest that defection (resource overuse) occurs in commons dilemmas for two main reasons: a failure to adopt cooperative goals, or a failure to implement effective action strategies after such goals are adopted.

show abstract

“…• The desire of individuals and communities to use limited resources such as fish stocks, water supplies or computer systems, versus the depletion of the resource and associated social costs when all parties maximize their take (Blomquist & Ostrom, 1985; Hardin, 1968; Martin, 1989, 1992; Summers, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics and ethics in post-Cold War demilitarization: Empirical evidence for decision traps and value tradeoffs.

Summers

Morin²

1995

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several years following the Cold War, it has been difficult to reduce military expenditures because of the reliance of communities and individuals on the economic benefits. Maintaining armed forces that exceed security needs may contribute to arms proliferation and a variety of opportunity costs domestically. Individuals in the defense infrastructure may therefore be in a "decision trap" in which the risks of protecting one's livelihood become difficult to justify. In the survey reported in this article, groups receiving military income gave greater support to military expenditures than the general public. To consider whether this could be explained as a decision trap, the effect of removing economic incentives was evaluated. After military bases were closed in two communities, individuals who lost military income were found to support economic conversion at levels comparable to those found in the general public.costs when other important programs cannot be supported. In Canada, the Minister of National Defence established an advisory group on base closures in 1991, to "elaborate a procedure that would allow for more rational responses by government to DND [Department of National Defence] proposals, and to develop principles that should apply to closing military installations in Canada" (Minister's Advisory Group on Defence Infrastructure, 1992, p. 15). Although a discussion of similarities and differences in Canadian and U.S. military expenditures is beyond the bounds of this article, and although Canada has much lower levels of military spending, in both Canada and the United States the reduction of military expenditures has been difficult to implement because it conflicts with the employment needs of many communities and sectors of the work force.This study looks at factors affecting views about maintaining Cold War levels of military spending. How do people rationalize supporting work for which there is no longer a need, and that may actually be harmful to others? To look at motivations and justifications, we have surveyed Armed Forces personnel, veterans, defense production employees, former defense workers, and members of the general public.Several different terms have been used to refer to situations in which there is conflict between immediate self-interest and broader social consequences: social dilemmas (Dawes, 1980), social traps (Cross & Guyer, 1980; Platt, 1973), and commons dilemmas (Dawes, 1973;Hardin, 1968). This type of conflict seems to characterize the situation currently faced by many defense workers. On one hand, there is a need to maintain one's livelihood and to provide family support. But on the other hand, with the end of the Cold War, maintaining high levels of militarization cannot be justified. High levels of military spending are likely to increase national debts, use money that could be better spent on a variety of other programs (schools, roads, environmental protection, and so on), and contribute to arms races and wars. To the extent that their own interests conflict with the n...

show abstract

Multimedia environmental decision-making simulation

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Nuclear waste goes on the road: Risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities.

Nuclear waste goes on the road: Risk perceptions and compensatory tradeoffs in single-industry communities.

What harvesters really think about in commons dilemma simulations: A grounded theory analysis.

Politics and ethics in post-Cold War demilitarization: Empirical evidence for decision traps and value tradeoffs.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About