What motivates choice? Behavioral decision theory for environmental policy and management

The realm of environmental policy and management requires that decision makers weigh a diverse set of objectives and evaluate alternatives that often seem equally important. In order to ensure that all of the decision relevant information is incorporated in a manner that produces well-informed judgments it is important to understand what motivates choice behavior in these contexts. The research presented in this dissertation tests the relevance of several key findings from behavioral decision theory for predicting and explaining choice behavior in common environmental policy and management decision contexts. Specifically, an experiment designed to test extensions of the evaluability hypothesis demonstrated that the affective characteristics of problem context may actually work to override gains in the evaluability of the risk attributes brought on by side-by-side comparisons. This behavioral tendency is referred to as "affect-based value neglect" or the tendency for individuals to place greater weight on their affective reactions to problem context at the expense of decision relevant risk information. Another experiment designed to test extensions of prospect theory into the way individuals attribute value to the gains and losses of others demonstrated that individuals have a difficult time differentiating between the impact of gains and losses in emotionally significant contexts (e.g., environmental protection, job security). The results also revealed a lack of trust in the ability of unknown others to appreciate the significant impact of a loss. Overall, the research presented in this dissertation points to the power of affective reactions and their tendency to influence or even dominate choice behavior. Decision making authorities need to pay careful attention to the factors that motivate choices in environmental policy and management decision processes. An over reliance on simplifying heuristics may bias the decision making process and lead to outcomes that do not truly reflect the smartest management choices or the most thoughtful policy options.