Information, values and expert decision-making: the case of soil decontamination
- 380 Downloads
Building on insights from cognitive psychology and scholarship on decision-making, this article examines the respective role of values and information, and the interaction between them, in the formation of expert judgment. We analyze data from an original expert survey on soil decontamination practices and test several hypotheses found in the literature. While it is common to assume that experts rely primarily on factual information when making decisions, we find that values may also orient the judgment of experts when such information is lacking. In such cases, experts may be influenced by their value predispositions, leading to a wider range of expert assessments. Conversely, the judgment of experts who possess the relevant information tends to converge on the best known outcomes. We thus find that relevant knowledge mediates the role of values in expert judgment. While suggesting that some caution should always be taken when deferring to experts, our findings suggest that governments and the public are justified in taking experts’ judgment seriously.
KeywordsExpert Decision-making Cognitive psychology Values Soil contamination
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Genome Quebec and Genome Canada. They also thank the members of Genorem for their contribution to this research, as well as Patrick Fournier, Patrick Marier, four anonymous reviewers and the editorial team at Policy Sciences for their helpful comments and suggestions. Monika Smaz and Irena Nedeva provided excellent research assistance.
- Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Doyle, C. (2008). La Phytoremédiation: Une Solution À La Contamination Des Sites de Traitement Du Bois? Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
- Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and in the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Henderson, M. (2012). The geek manifesto: Why science matters. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
- Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.Google Scholar
- Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- McIntyre, T. (2003). Phytoremediation of heavy metals from soils. In D. T. Tsao (Ed.), Phytoremediation, advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology (Vol. 78, pp. 97–123). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Montpetit, É., & Lachapelle, E. (2015). Can policy actors learn from academic scientists? Environmental Politics. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2015.1027058.
- Sabatier, P. A., & Zafonte, M. (1995). The views of bay/delta water policy activists on endangered species issues. West/Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 2, 131–146.Google Scholar
- Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
- Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar