Robyn S. Wilson

When Less is More: How Affect Influences Preferences When Comparing Low and High‐risk Options

Recent research involving the evaluability hypothesis has focused on how the presentation of hard to evaluate or easy to evaluate attributes influences preferences for options in either separate or joint evaluations. One explanation for the weight that an attribute carries during a decision is related to the ease with which the value of that attribute can be mapped into an affective frame of reference. In other words, affect helps a decision maker to attach meaning to information, which in turn, influences their ability to use it during judgment. Merging themes from evaluability with those from studies of affect and affective heuristics, however, raises an important question: If enhanced evaluability is explained by making the attributes of an option more or less meaningful in the context of choice, can the affective characteristics of the context of the evaluation counteract any gains achieved through presenting alternatives in side‐by‐side comparisons? Two experiments were conducted in an attempt to answer this question. Subjects in both experiments received quantitative information about the nature of risks associated with two problems—one whose context was affect‐poor combined with relatively high risks and another whose context was affect‐rich combined with relatively low risks. In both experiments, subjects largely ignored the quantitative information presented about the risks and instead focused on the affective characteristics of the problem context when making their choices. This pattern of choice and preference behavior was consistent across both separate and joint evaluations. The results suggest that despite expected gains in evaluability, which should be brought on by side‐by‐side comparisons, affective responses to a stimulus may overwhelm analytic computations that are also necessary during decision making.

Managing Wildfire Events: Risk-Based Decision Making Among a Group of Federal Fire Managers

Managing wildfire events to achieve multiple management objectives involves a high degree of decision complexity and uncertainty, increasing the likelihood that decisions will be informed by experience-based heuristics triggered by available cues at the time of the decision. The research reported here tests the prevalence of three risk-based biases among 206 individuals in the USDA Forest Service with authority to choose how to manage a wildfire event (i.e., line officers and incident command personnel). The results indicate that the subjects exhibited loss aversion, choosing the safe option more often when the consequences of the choice were framed as potential gains, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with risk seeking attitudes. The subjects also exhibited discounting, choosing to minimize short-term over long-term risk due to a belief that future risk could be controlled, but this tendency was less pronounced among those with more experience. Finally, the subjects, in particular those with more experience, demonstrated a status quo bias, choosing suppression more often when their reported status quo was suppression. The results of this study point to a need to carefully construct the decision process to ensure that the uncertainty and conflicting objectives inherent in wildfire management do not result in the overuse of common heuristics. Individual attitudes toward risk or an agency culture of risk aversion may counterbalance such heuristics, whereas increased experience may lead to overconfident intuitive judgments and a failure to incorporate new and relevant information into the decision.

The Role of Affect in Public Support and Opposition to Wolf Management

Individuals process information through two systems: the experiential system, containing affect and emotion, and the analytic system, containing logic and normative rules. Both are involved in decision making, and expected to help explain choices to support or oppose wildlife-related policies. In the present study, an Internet survey of motivated, informed individuals is used to investigate the role of both systems in wolf recovery policy choices. Integral affect measures serve as the experiential component in our model, while objective knowledge and beliefs about outcomes of wolf recovery serve as the analytic component. Results indicate that affect has a greater effect than knowledge on beliefs, and is more important for explaining intentions to oppose than to support wolf recovery. Knowledge of differences in information processing between those that support versus oppose wolf recovery allows managers to design outreach that motivates greater analytic processing, potentially mitigating the effects of experiential processing.

Balancing Emotion and Cognition: a Case for Decision Aiding in Conservation Efforts

Despite advances in the quality of participatory decision making for conservation, many current efforts still suffer from an inability to bridge the gap between science and policy. Judgment and decision-making research suggests this gap may result from a persons reliance on affect-based shortcuts in complex decision contexts. I examined the results from 3 experiments that demonstrate how affect (i.e., the instantaneous reaction one has to a stimulus) influences individual judgments in these contexts and identified techniques from the decision-aiding literature that help encourage a balance between affect-based emotion and cognition in complex decision processes. In the first study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on their stated conservation objectives and made decisions that reflected their initial affective impressions. Value-focused approaches may help individuals incorporate all the decision-relevant objectives by making the technical and value-based objectives more salient. In the second study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on statistical risk and again made affect-based decisions. Trade-off techniques may help individuals incorporate relevant technical data, even when it conflicts with their initial affective impressions or other value-based objectives. In the third study, subjects displayed a lack of trust in decision-making authorities when the decision involved a negatively affect-rich outcome (i.e., a loss). Identifying shared salient values and increasing procedural fairness may help build social trust in both decision-making authorities and the decision process.

Investigating the Human Dimension of Weed Management: New Tools of the Trade

Abstract The human dimension of weed management is most evident when farmers make decisions contrary to science-based recommendations. Why do farmers resist adopting practices that will delay herbicide resistance, or seem to ignore new weed species or biotypes until it is too late? Weed scientists for the most part have ignored such questions or considered them beyond their domain and expertise, continuing to focus instead on fundamental weed science and technology. Recent pressing concerns about widespread failure of herbicide-based weed management and acceptability of emerging technologies necessitates a closer look at farmer decision making and the role of weed scientists in that process. Here we present a circular risk-analysis framework characterized by regular interaction with and input from farmers to inform both research and on-farm risk-management decisions. The framework utilizes mental models to probe the deeply held beliefs of farmers regarding weeds and weed management. A mental model is a complex, often hidden web of perceptions and attitudes that govern how we understand and respond to the world. Ones mental model may limit ability to develop new insights and adopt new ways of management, and is best assessed through structured, open-ended interviews that enable the investigator to exhaust the subjects inherent to a particular risk. Our assessment of farmer mental models demonstrated the fundamental attribution error whereby farmers attributed problems with weed management primarily to factors outside of their control, such as uncontrolled weed growth on neighboring properties and environmental factors. Farmers also identified specific processes that contribute to weed problems that were not identified by experts; specifically, the importance of floods and faulty herbicide applications in the spread of weeds. Conventional farmers expressed an overwhelming preference for controlling weeds with herbicides, a preference that was reinforced by their extreme dislike for weeds. These preferences reflect a typical inverse relationship between perceived risk and benefit, where an activity or entity we perceive as beneficial is by default perceived as low risk. This preference diminishes the ability of farmers to appreciate the risks associated with overreliance on herbicides. Likewise, conventional farmers saw great risk and little benefit in preventive measures for weed control. We expect that thorough two-way communication and a deeper understanding of farmer belief systems will facilitate the development of audience-specific outreach programs with an enhanced probability of affecting better weed management decisions.

The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland–urban interface residents

One factor that is critical to human judgments about risk, and was often overlooked in past research on public support for fuels treatment, is affect or the largely unconscious negative or positive feelings invoked by a stimulus (in this case, fuels management). This study aims to test a model for public support based on individual knowledge, exposure, affective response, perceived risk and perceived benefit associated with fuels management. Data collection occurred in residential communities throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin, located in the intermountain western region of the United States. Path analyses indicated that support for both prescribed burning and mechanical thinning is driven largely by the perceived benefits of the technique and affective responses (negative or positive reactions to the images automatically associated with a specific technique). Affect also has a significant influence on perceived risk for prescribed burning, whereas perceived risk, in turn, has a significant influence on support for prescribed burning. The results suggest that communication efforts aimed at building support should focus on the benefits to forest health and future fire risk reduction, as these were the most prevalent positive affective associations and the primary benefits of the techniques. For prescribed burning, emphasising the degree of control that managers have over the technique could also counteract negative affective associations and decrease perceived risk. Language: en

Improving nutrient management practices in agriculture: The role of risk‐based beliefs in understanding farmers' attitudes toward taking additional action

A recent increase in the amount of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) entering the western Lake Erie basin is likely due to increased spring storm events in combination with issues related to fertilizer application and timing. These factors in combination with warmer lake temperatures have amplified the spread of toxic algal blooms. We assessed the attitudes of farmers in northwest Ohio toward taking at least one additional action to reduce nutrient loss on their farm. Specifically, we (1) identified to what extent farm and farmer characteristics (e.g., age, gross farm sales) as well as risk-based beliefs (e.g., efficacy, risk perception) influenced attitudes, and (2) assessed how these characteristics and beliefs differ in their predictive ability based on unobservable latent classes of farmers. Risk perception, or a belief that negative impacts to profit and water quality from nutrient loss were likely, was the most consistent predictor of farmer attitudes. Response efficacy, or a belief that taking action on ones farm made a difference, was found to significantly influence attitudes, although this belief was particularly salient for the minority class of farmers who were older and more motivated by profit. Communication efforts should focus on the negative impacts of nutrient loss to both the farm (i.e., profit) and the natural environment (i.e., water quality) to raise individual perceived risk among the majority, while the minority need higher perceived efficacy or more specific information about the economic effectiveness of particular recommended practices.

Organic Farmer Knowledge and Perceptions are Associated with On-Farm Weed Seedbank Densities in Northern New England

Abstract Weed management remains a high priority for organic farmers, whose fields generally have higher weed density and species diversity than those of their conventional counterparts. We explored whether variability in farmer knowledge and perceptions of weeds and weed management practices were predictive of variability in on-farm weed seedbanks on 23 organic farms in northern New England. We interviewed farmers and transcribed and coded interviews to quantify their emphasis on concepts regarding knowledge of ecological weed management, the perceived risks and benefits of weeds, and the perceived risks and benefits of weed management practices. To characterize on-farm weed seedbanks, we collected soil samples from five fields at each farm (115 fields total) and measured germinable weed seed density. Mean weed seed density per farm ranged from 2,775 seeds m−2 to 24,678 seeds m−2 to a soil depth of 10 cm. Farmers most often reported hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species (Digitaria spp.) as their most problematic weeds. The proportion of the sum of these two most problematic weeds in each farms seedbank ranged from 1 to 73% of total weed seed density. Farmer knowledge and perceptions were predictive of total seed density, species richness, and proportion of hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species. Low seed densities were associated with farmers who most often discussed risks of weeds, benefits of critical weed-free management practices, and learning from their own experience. These farmers also exhibited greater knowledge of managing the weed seedbank and greater understanding of the importance of a long-term strategy. Targeted education focusing on this set of knowledge and beliefs could potentially lead to improved application and success of ecological weed management in the future, thus decreasing labor costs and time necessary for farmers to manage weeds. Nomenclature: Large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSA; smooth crabgrass, Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. ex Muhl. DIGIS; hairy galinsoga, Galinsoga quadriradiata Cav. GAQU.

Why less is more: exploring affect-based value neglect

Previous research indicates that the affective nature of the problem context can override gains in the evaluability of risk attributes brought on by side‐by‐side comparisons of two problems. Specifically, in a joint evaluation, an affect‐rich problem will be given greater management preference than an affect‐neutral problem even when the risk is significantly greater for the neutral problem. A series of new experiments were conducted to explore the relevance of this concept (i.e., affect‐based value neglect) for the evaluation of two affect‐rich problems. Consistent with previous research, the results indicated no preference for either problem evaluated in isolation, given that both the affective impression and the level of risk were hard to evaluate. Again, consistent with previous research, there was no preference for either problem in a joint evaluation when the difference in risk between the two problems was small (one problem posing 1.5‐times greater risk than the other). However, when the risk difference was large – 3‐times greater – preference was given to managing the higher‐risk problem. Additional evidence indicates that joint evaluations may increase the significance of probabilities as a form of risk communication, and that increased availability of one problem may dominate both initial affective impressions and the presentation of risk attributes.

The relationship between lay and technical views of Escherichia coli O157 risk

Here, we bring together and contrast lay (accessible primarily through social science methodologies) and technical (via risk assessment and epidemiological techniques) views of the risk associated with the Escherichia coli O157 pathogen using two case study areas in the Grampian region of Scotland, and North Wales. Epidemiological risk factors of contact with farm animals, visiting farms or farm fields and having a private water supply were associated with postcode districts of higher than average disease incidence in the human population. However, this was not the case for the epidemiological risk factor of consumption of beef burgers, which was independent of disease incidence in the postcode district of residence. The proportion of the population expressing a high knowledge of E. coli O157 was greatest in high-incidence disease districts compared with low-incidence areas (17% cf. 7%). This supports the hypothesis that in high-disease-incidence areas, residents are regularly exposed to information about the disease through local cases, the media, local social networks, etc. or perhaps that individuals are more likely to be motivated to find out about it. However, no statistically significant difference was found between high- and low-incidence postcode districts in terms of the proportion of the population expressing a high likelihood of personal risk of infection (10% cf. 14%), giving a counterintuitive difference between the technical (epidemiological and quantitative microbiological risk assessment (QMRA)) and the lay assessment of E. coli O157 risk. This suggests that lay evaluations of E. coli O157 risk reflect intuitive and experience-based estimates of the risk rather than probabilistic estimates. A generally strong correspondence was found in terms of the rank order given to potential infection pathways, with environment and foodborne infection routes dominating when comparing public understanding with technical modelling results. Two general conclusions follow from the work. First, that integrative research incorporating both lay and technical views of risk is required in order that informed decisions can be made to handle or treat the risk by the groups concerned (e.g. the public, policy makers/risk managers, etc.). Second, when communicating risk, for example, through education programmes, it is important that this process is two-way with risk managers (e.g. including Food Standards Agency officials and communications team, public health infection control and environmental health officers) both sharing information with the public and stakeholder groups, as well as incorporating public knowledge, values and context (e.g. geographical location) into risk-management decisions.