Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of information presentation on regulatory decisions for products of biotechnology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
EURO Journal on Decision Processes

Abstract

Experts and laypeople often have to make judgements based on a large body of evidence that is uncertain and inconclusive. Theory suggests people are likely to modify their decisions according to how information is framed and structured. This study assesses the effect of information form (text versus numerical) and sequence (bundled versus non-bundled) on decision outcomes regarding the regulation of plants with novel traits. Both experts and laypersons were surveyed and offered one of eight different treatments that tested for the effect of information presentation, the effect of the assigned decision role (as an individual or a member of a decision committee), and the structure of the decision itself. Results show that non-experts are more prone than experts to change their decisions when faced with different structures or decision architectures, especially when the form of information changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The list of all PNT approved in Canada can be found at: http://inspection.gc.ca/active/netapp/plantnoveltraitpnt-vegecarnouvcn/pntvcne.aspx.

References

  • Adjerid I, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G (2014) Framing and the malleability of privacy choices. In: Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS). The Pennsylvania State University

  • Ambrus A, Greiner B, Greiner B (2009) Group vs individual decision-making: is there a shift? Economics working papers 0091. Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science. https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper91.pdf

  • Amit E, Gottlieb S, Greene (2014) Visual versus verbal thinking and dual-process moral cognition. In: Sherman JW, Gawronski B, Trope Y (eds) Dual-process theories of the social mind. The Guilford Press, pp 340–354

  • Artinger F et al (2015) Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. J Org Behav 36(S1):S33–S52

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I, Dexter AS (1985) An experimental evaluation of graphical and color-enhanced information presentation. Manag Sci 31(11):1348–1364

    Google Scholar 

  • Blinder AS, Morgan J (2005) Are two heads better than one? Monetary policy by committee. J Money Credit Bank 37(5):789–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein G, Yaniv I (1998) Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: are groups more “rational” players? Exp Econ 1(1):101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Buda R, Zhang Y (2000) Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. J Prod Brand Manag 9(4):229–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell I (2007) Chi squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med 26(19):3661–3675

    Google Scholar 

  • CFIA (2015) Plants with novel traits. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/eng/1300137887237/1300137939635. Accessed 22 Oct 2015

  • Charness G, Sutter M (2012) Groups make better self-interested decisions. J Econ Perspect 26(3):157–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark L, Phillips P (2013) Bioproduct approval regulation: an analysis of front-line governance complexity. AgBioForum 16:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C (20160 Achieving regulatory excellence. Brookings Institution Press, Washington. Project MUSE

  • Czerlinski J, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) How good are simple heuristics? Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • del Campo C et al (2016) Decision making styles and the use of heuristics in decision making. J Bus Econ 86(4):389–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1949) A theory of co-operation and competition. Hum Relat 2(2):129–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich C (2010) Decision making: factors that influence decision making, heuristics used, and decision outcomes. Stud Pulse 2(02). http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=180

  • Einsiedel E (2012) The landscape of public participation on biotechnology. In: Weitze MD et al (eds) Biotechnologie-Kommunikation: Kontroversen, Analysen, Aktivitäten. Springer, Berlin, pp 379–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Eller E et al (2013) Psychological influences on the individual assessment of risks. Emerging Risk Discussion Paper. Technical Report

  • Evans JSBT (2003) In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 7(10):454–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk C, Rainie L (2015) Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghani E, Laswad F, Tooley S, Jusoff K (2009) The role of presentation format on decision-makers’ behaviour in accounting. Int Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v2n1p183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, TAR Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D (2002) Introduction—heuristics and biases: then and now. In: Griffin D, Kahneman D, Gilovich T (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner A (2008) Does intuition beat fast and frugal heuristics? A systematic empirical analysis. In: Plessner H, Betsch C, Betsch T (eds) Intuition in judgment and decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 309–325

  • Hahn U, Chater N (1998) Similarity and rules: distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable? Cognition 65(2–3):197–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond KR et al (1987) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 17(5):753–770

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ (1992) Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cogn Psychol 24(1):1–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber O (1980) The influence of some task variables on cognitive operations in an information-processing decision model. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 45(1–3):187–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs J (2015) Introducing plants with novel traits. The regulatory steps involved in bringing plants with novel traits from the lab to the field. Annex Business Media Publication, Simcoe

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong SW (2007) The effects of product presentation on consumer experiences, emotion, and website patronage intention towards an apparel website. In: Apparel, events and hospitality management. Iowa State University: Digital Repository @ Iowa State University, p 72. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/

  • Jiang Z, Benbasat I (2007) The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Q 31(3):475–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung JY, Mellers BA (2016) American attitudes toward nudges. Judgm Decis Making 11(1):62–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003a) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1449–1475

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003b) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2012) The human side of decision making. J Invest Consult 13:9–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, pp 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, vol 36. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 331–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsikopoulos KV (2011) Psychological heuristics for making inferences: definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decis Anal 8(1):10–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelton AS, Pennington RR, Tuttle BM (2010) The effects of information presentation format on judgment and decision making: a review of the information systems research. J Inf Syst 24(2):79–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 55(1):623–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr NL, MacCoun RJ, Kramer GP (1996) Bias in judgment: comparing individuals and groups. Psychol Rev 103(4):687–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw R, Tuttle BM (1998) Information presentation and judgment strategy from a cognitive fit perspective. J Inf Syst 12(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz DN, Schkade DA (1993) Information displays and decision processes. Psychol Sci 4(4):221–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Klenk ME, Paritosh PK (2006) Cognitive processes in quantitative estimation: analogical anchors and causal adjustment. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1bn8m0tk

  • Kruglanski AW (1989) The psychology of being “right”: the problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychol Bull 106(3):395–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski AW, Gigerenzer G (2011) Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychol Rev 118(1):97–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugler T, Kausel EE, Kocher MG (2012) Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Cognit Sci 3(4):471–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin J et al (1980) Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208(4450):1335–1342

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP, Morgan JN, Nisbett RE (1990) Teaching the use of cost-benefit reasoning in everyday life. Psychol Sci 1(6):362–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick DM, Moore DA, Bazerman MH (1997) Ultimatum bargaining with a group: underestimating the importance of the decision rule. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 69(2):87–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskaliuk J et al (2017) Environmental effects on cognition and decision making of knowledge workers. J Environ Psychol 49:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee N et al (2016) Comparing groups versus individuals in decision making: a systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 5(1):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Neckles HA et al. (2018) Optimization of salt marsh management at the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, Delaware, through use of structured decision making. Open-File Report, Reston, VA

  • Painton S, Gentry JW (1985) Another look at the impact of information presentation format. J Consum Res 12(2):240–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Lennon SJ, Stoel L (2005) On-line product presentation: effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychol Mark 22(9):695–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters E et al (2006) Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci 17(5):407–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 28(1):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Dosher BA (1983) Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 9(4):676–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Samat S, Acquisti A (2017) Format vs. content: the impact of risk and presentation on disclosure decisions. In: Symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS). Santa Clara, California

  • Savadori L et al (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24(5):1289–1299

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade DA, Kleinmuntz DN (1994) Information displays and choice processes: differential effects of organization, form, and sequence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 57(3):319–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Simkin D, Hastie R (1987) An information-processing analysis of graph perception. J Am Stat Assoc 82(398):454–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):125–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Speier C (2006) The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(11):1115–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone DN, Schkade DA (1991) Numeric and linguistic information representation in multiattribute choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 49(1):42–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus SG, Parker AM, Bruce JB (2011) The group matters: a review of processes and outcomes in intelligence analysis. Group Dyn: Theory Res Pract 15(2):128–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2013) Simpler: the future of government. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Burgman M (2015) Policy advice: use experts wisely. Nature 526(773):317–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas M, Morwitz VG (2009) The ease-of-computation effect: the interplay of metacognitive experiences and naive theories in judgments of price differences. J Mark Res 46(1):81–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas M, Park J (2013) The precision effect: How numerical precision influences everyday judgments. Johnson School Research Paper Series #23-2013, 2013. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2229833 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2229833

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458

    Google Scholar 

  • van Deventer DR, Zimmermann T (2014) The impact of heuristics on the practice of risk management: the example of default probabilities. J Risk Manag Financ Inst 7(2):153–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I (1994) The effect of information presentation on decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. Inf Manag 27(2):103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I, Galletta D (1991) Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Inf Syst Res 2(1):63–84

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D (2013) Bridging the gap between science and decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14055

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou C, Jagannathan K, Meng Q (1998) Integration of linguistic and numerical information for hybrid intelligent control. In: SMC’98 conference proceedings. 1998 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (Cat. No. 98CH36218)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Genome Canada for financial assistance (through the VALGEN project managed by Genome Prairie) and for the advice of two anonymous reviewers. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Simona Lubieniechi (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada. simona.lubieniechi@usask.ca) for her contribution to the survey design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada

    Rim Lassoued, Hayley Hesseln & Stuart J. Smyth

  2. The Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, 101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5B8, Canada

    Peter W. B. Phillips

Authors
  1. Rim Lassoued
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hayley Hesseln
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter W. B. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stuart J. Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rim Lassoued.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lassoued, R., Hesseln, H., Phillips, P.W.B. et al. Effects of information presentation on regulatory decisions for products of biotechnology. EURO J Decis Process 8, 151–175 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-020-00114-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-020-00114-9

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation