17 research outputs found
Reasons for cooperation and defection in real-world social dilemmas
Interventions to increase cooperation in social dilemmas depend on understanding decision makers’ motivations for cooperation or defection. We examined these in five real-world social dilemmas: situations where private interests are at odds with collective ones. An online survey (N = 929) asked respondents whether or not they cooperated in each social dilemma and then elicited both open-ended reports of reasons for their choices and endorsements of a provided list of reasons. The dilemmas chosen were ones that permit individual action rather than voting or advocacy: (1) conserving energy, (2) donating blood, (3) getting a flu vaccination, (4) donating to National Public Radio (NPR), and (5) buying green electricity. Self-reported cooperation is weakly but positively correlated across these dilemmas. Cooperation in each dilemma correlates fairly strongly with self-reported altruism and with punitive attitudes toward defectors. Some strong domain-specific behaviors and beliefs also correlate with cooperation. The strongest example is frequency of listening to NPR, which predicts donation. Socio-demographic variables relate only weakly to cooperation. Respondents who self-report cooperation usually cite social reasons (including reciprocity) for their choice. Defectors often give self-interest reasons but there are also some domain-specific reasons—some report that they are not eligible to donate blood; some cannot buy green electricity because they do not pay their own electric bills. Cooperators generally report that several of the provided reasons match their actual reasons fairly well, but most defectors endorse none or at most one of the provided reasons for defection. In particular, defectors often view cooperation as costly but do not endorse free riding as a reason for defection. We tentatively conclude that cooperation in these settings is based mostly on pro-social norms and defection on a mixture of self-interest and the possibly motivated perception that situational circumstances prevent cooperation in the given situation
Cognitive Biases about Climate Variability in Smallholder Farming Systems in Zambia
Given the varying manifestations of climate change over time and the influence of climate perceptions on adaptation, it is important to understand whether farmer perceptions match patterns of environmental change from observational data. We use a combination of social and environmental data to understand farmer perceptions related to rainy season onset. Household surveys were conducted with 1171 farmers across Zambia at the end of the 2015/16 growing season eliciting their perceptions of historic changes in rainy season onset and their heuristics about when rain onset occurs. We compare farmers' perceptions with satellite-gauge-derived rainfall data from the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Station dataset and hyper-resolution soil moisture estimates from the HydroBlocks land surface model. We find evidence of a cognitive bias, where farmers perceive the rains to be arriving later, although the physical data do not wholly support this. We also find that farmers' heuristics about rainy season onset influence maize planting dates, a key determinant of maize yield and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings suggest that policy makers should focus more on current climate variability than future climate change.National Science Foundation [SES-1360463, BCS-1115009, BCS-1026776]6 month embargo; published online: 29 March 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]
On the Importance of Strengthening Moderate Beliefs in Climate Science to Foster Support for Immediate Action
This is the publisher's version, also available electronically from "http://www.mdpi.com".Whereas many studies focus on climate skeptics to explain the lack of support for immediate action on climate change, this research examines the effect of moderate believers in climate science. Using data from a representative survey of 832 Indiana residents, we find that agreement with basic scientific conclusions about climate change is the strongest predictor of support for immediate action, and the strength of that agreement is an important characteristic of this association. Responses indicate widespread acceptance of climate change, moderate levels of risk perception, and limited support for immediate action. Half of the respondents (50%) preferred “more research” over “immediate action” (38%) and “no action” (12%) as a response to climate change. The probability of preferring immediate action is close to zero for those who strongly or somewhat disbelieve in climate change, but as belief in climate change grows from moderate to strong, the probability of preferring immediate action increases substantially; the strongest believers have a predicted probability of preferring immediate action of 71%. These findings suggest that, instead of simply engaging skeptics, increasing public support for immediate action might entail motivating those with moderate beliefs in climate change to hold their views with greater conviction
Perceptions of water systems
Public understanding of the water system is vital in confronting contemporary water challenges, as public support is necessary for implementing measures to address shortages and repair infrastructure. In this study, university student participants (N = 457) were asked to draw diagrams illustrating how water reaches the tap in an average home in the U.S. and is then returned to the natural environment. We also conducted an expert elicitation (N = 15) to create a simplified, accurate diagram by which to code each student drawing. Results showed major gaps in understanding, where 29% of the student participants did not draw a water treatment plant, 64% did not draw a wastewater treatment plant, and 1 in 5 participants depicted untreated wastewater returning to the natural environment. For the majority of non-environmental students, the water system stops at the home. These gaps reveal a critical area for public environmental education efforts
Reasons for cooperation and defection in real-world social dilemmas
Interventions to
increase cooperation in social dilemmas depend on understanding decision
makers' motivations for cooperation or defection. We examined these in five
real-world social dilemmas: situations where private interests are at odds with
collective ones. An online survey (N = 929) asked respondents whether or not
they cooperated in each social dilemma and then elicited both open-ended
reports of reasons for their choices and endorsements of a provided list of
reasons. The dilemmas chosen were ones that permit individual action rather
than voting or advocacy: (1) conserving energy, (2) donating blood, (3) getting
a flu vaccination, (4) donating to National Public Radio (NPR), and (5) buying
green electricity. Self-reported cooperation is weakly but positively
correlated across these dilemmas. Cooperation in each dilemma correlates fairly
strongly with self-reported altruism and with punitive attitudes toward
defectors. Some strong domain-specific behaviors and beliefs also correlate
with cooperation. The strongest example is frequency of listening to NPR, which
predicts donation. Socio-demographic variables relate only weakly to
cooperation. Respondents who self-report cooperation usually cite social
reasons (including reciprocity) for their choice. Defectors often give
self-interest reasons but there are also some domain-specific reasons---some
report that they are not eligible to donate blood; some cannot buy green
electricity because they do not pay their own electric bills. Cooperators
generally report that several of the provided reasons match their actual
reasons fairly well, but most defectors endorse none or at most one of the
provided reasons for defection. In particular, defectors often view cooperation
as costly but do not endorse free riding as a reason for defection. We
tentatively conclude that cooperation in these settings is based mostly on
pro-social norms and defection on a mixture of self-interest and the possibly
motivated perception that situational circumstances prevent cooperation in the
given situation
Energy conservation goals: What people adopt, what they recommend, and why
Failures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by adopting policies, technologies, and lifestyle
changes have led the world to the brink of crisis, or likely beyond. Here we
use Internet surveys to attempt to understand these failures by studying
factors that affect the adoption of personal energy conservation behaviors and
also endorsement of energy conservation goals proposed for others. We
demonstrate an asymmetry between goals for self and others (“I’ll do the easy
thing, you do the hard thing”), but we show that this asymmetry is partly
produced by actor/observer differences: people know what they do already (and
generally do not propose those actions as personal goals) and also know their
own situational constraints that are barriers to action. We also show, however,
that endorsement of conservation goals decreases steeply as a function of
perceived difficulty; this suggests a role for motivated cognition as a barrier
to conservation: difficult things are perceived as less applicable to one’s
situation
Recommended from our members
Big, hot, or bright? Integrating cues to perceive home energy use
Despite constantly using energy and having extensive interactions
with household appliances, people consistently mis-estimate the
amount of energy that is used by home appliances. This poses
major problems for conservation efforts, while also presenting an
interesting case study in human perception. Since many forms of
energy used are not directly perceptible, and since the amount of
energy that is being used by an appliance is often difficult to infer
from appearances alone, people often rely on cues. Some of these
cues are more reliable than others and previous literature has
investigated which of these cues people rely on. However, past
literature has always studied these proximal cues in isolation—
despite the fact that, during real-world perception, people are
always integrating a variety of cues. Here, we investigate how
people rely on a variety of cues, and how individual differences
in the reliance on those cues predicts the ability to estimate home
energy use
Cognitive biases about climate variability in smallholder farming systems in Zambia
Given the varying manifestations of climate change over time and the influence of climate perceptions on adaptation, it is important to understand whether farmer perceptions match patterns of environmental change from observational data. We use a combination of social and environmental data to understand farmer perceptions related to rainy season onset. Household surveys were conducted with 1171 farmers across Zambia at the end of the 2015/16 growing season eliciting their perceptions of historic changes in rainy season onset and their heuristics about when rain onset occurs. We compare farmers' perceptions with satellite-gauge-derived rainfall data from the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Station dataset and hyper-resolution soil moisture estimates from the HydroBlocks land surface model. We find evidence of a cognitive bias, where farmers perceive the rains to be arriving later, although the physical data do not wholly support this. We also find that farmers' heuristics about rainy season onset influence maize planting dates, a key determinant of maize yield and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings suggest that policy makers should focus more on current climate variability than future climate change.National Science Foundation [SES-1360463, BCS-1115009, BCS-1026776]6 month embargo; published online: 29 March 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]