Policy Sciences

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 155–171 | Cite as

Information, values and expert decision-making: the case of soil decontamination

Research article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Expert Decision-making Cognitive psychology Values Soil contamination 

References

  1. Atkinson, M. M. (2013). Policy, politics and political science. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 46(04), 751–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barac, T., Taghavi, S., Borremans, B., Provoost, A., Oeyen, L., Colpaert, J. V., et al. (2004). Engineered endophytic bacteria improve phytoremediation of water-soluble, volatile, organic pollutants. Nature Biotechnology, 22(5), 583–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barke, R. P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty, L. C., & Dolan, C. (2013). The potential use of phytoremediation for sites with mixed organic and inorganic contamination. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43(3), 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bissonnette, L., St-Arnaud, M., & Labrecque, M. (2010). Phytoextraction of heavy metals by two Salicaceae clones in symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi during the second year of a field trial. Plant and Soil, 332(1–2), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blinder, A. S. (1997). Is government too political? Foreign Affairs, 76, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campos, V. M., Merino, I., Casado, R., Pacios, L. F., & Gomez, L. (2008). Review: Phytoremediation of organic pollutants. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Considine, M., Alexander, D., & Lewis, J. M. (2014). Policy design as craft: Teasing out policy design expertise using a semi-experimental approach. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doyle, C. (2008). La Phytoremédiation: Une Solution À La Contamination Des Sites de Traitement Du Bois? Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
  14. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottweis, H. (1998). Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and in the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson, M. (2012). The geek manifesto: Why science matters. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
  20. Ikem, A., & Egiebor, N. O. (2005). Assessment of trace elements in canned fishes (mackerel, tuna, salmon, sardines and herrings) marketed in Georgia and Alabama (United States of America). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 18(8), 771–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2003). (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Murray, C. (2009). Beliefs about radiation: Scientists, the public and public policy. Health Physics, 97(5), 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lachapelle, E., Montpetit, É., & Gauvin, J.-P. (2014). Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: The role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 674–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. List, J. A. (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: The ‘More is Less’ phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Mitchell, N. J., Herron, K. G., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Whitten, G. D. (2007). Elite beliefs, epistemic communities and the Atlantic divide: Scientists’ nuclear policy preferences in the United States and European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37(04), 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montpetit, É. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montpetit, É., & Lachapelle, E. (2015). Can policy actors learn from academic scientists? Environmental Politics. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1027058.
  34. Nisbet, M. C. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paarlberg, R. L. (2008). Starved for science: How biotechnology is being kept out of africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., & Montanarella, L. (2013). Contaminated sites in Europe: Review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reichenauer, T. G., & Germida, J. J. (2008). Phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soil and groundwater. ChemSusChem, 1(8–9), 708–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rietig, K. (2014). ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rimkutė, D. (2015). Explaining differences in scientific expertise use: The politics of pesticides. Politics and Governance, 3(1), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rimkutė, D., & Haverland, M. (2015). How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees. Comparative European Politics, 13(4), 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21(2), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Sabatier, P. A., & Zafonte, M. (2001). Policy knowledge: Advocacy organizations. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 17, pp. 11563–11568). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salt, D. E., Blaylock, M., Nanda, P. B. A., Kumar, V. D., Ensley, B. D., Chet, I., et al. (1995). Phytoremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Nature Biotechnology, 13(5), 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  47. Silva, C. L., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2007). The precautionary principle in context: U.S. and E.U. scientists’ prescriptions for policy in the face of uncertainty. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 640–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silva, C. L., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Barke, R. P. (2007). Reconciling scientists’ beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: Explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 755–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M., & Mosca, G. (2010). Field crops for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 8(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Metre, P. C., & Mahler, B. J. (2005). Trends in hydrophobic organic contaminants in urban and reference lake sediments across the United States, 1970–2001. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(15), 5567–5574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & Pattison, A. (2010). Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., & Pierce, J. J. (2011). Foes to friends: Changing contexts and changing intergroup perceptions. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 13, 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de science politiqueUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations