Is a Rational Politics of Disaster Possible? Making Useful Decisions for Others in an Experimental Disaster Game.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2.
SUBMITTER: Andrews TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7978452 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In quantum game theory, one of the most intriguing and important questions is, "Is it possible to get quantum advantages without any modification of the classical game?" The answer to this question so far has largely been negative. So far, it has usually been thought that a change of the classical game setting appears to be unavoidable for getting the quantum advantages. However, we give an affirmative answer here, focusing on the decision-making process (we call 'reasoning') to generate the best strategy, which may occur internally, e.g., in the player's brain. To show this, we consider a classical guessing game. We then define a one-player reasoning problem in the context of the decision-making theory, where the machinery processes are designed to simulate classical and quantum reasoning. In such settings, we present a scenario where a rational player is able to make better use of his/her weak preferences due to quantum reasoning, without any altering or resetting of the classically defined game. We also argue in further analysis that the quantum reasoning may make the player fail, and even make the situation worse, due to any inappropriate preferences.
| S-EPMC4753459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany people display omission bias in medical decision making, accepting the risk of passive nonintervention rather than actively choosing interventions (such as vaccinations) that result in lower levels of risk.ObjectiveTesting whether people's preferences for active interventions would increase when deciding for others versus for themselves.Research designSurvey participants imagined themselves in 1 of 4 roles: patient, physician treating a single patient, medical director creating treatment guidelines, or parent deciding for a child. All read 2 short scenarios about vaccinations for a deadly flu and treatments for a slow-growing cancer.ParticipantsTwo thousand three hundred and ninety-nine people drawn from a demographically stratified internet sample.MeasuresChosen or recommended treatments. We also measured participants' emotional response to our task.ResultsPreferences for risk-reducing active treatments were significantly stronger for participants imagining themselves as medical professionals than for those imagining themselves as patients (vaccination: 73% [physician] & 63% [medical director] vs 48% [patient], Ps<.001; chemotherapy: 68% & 68% vs 60%, Ps<.012). Similar results were observed for the parental role (vaccination: 57% vs 48%, P=.003; chemotherapy: 72% vs 60%, P<.001). Reported emotional reactions were stronger in the responsible medical professional and parental roles yet were also independently associated with treatment choice, with higher scores associated with reduced omission tendencies (OR=1.15 for both regressions, Ps<.01).ConclusionsTreatment preferences may be substantially influenced by a decision-making role. As certain roles appear to reinforce "big picture" thinking about difficult risk tradeoffs, physicians and patients should consider re-framing treatment decisions to gain new, and hopefully beneficial, perspectives.
| S-EPMC1924622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined risky sexual choice under the lens of rational decision-making. Participants (N = 257) completed a novel sexual-choice task in which they selected from among hypothetical sexual partners varying in physical attractiveness and in the probability that one would contract a sexually transmitted infection (STI) from a one-time sexual encounter with them. We found that nearly all participants evaluated the sexual-choice alternatives in a coherent fashion consistent with utility-based theories of rational choice. In subsequent analyses, we classified participants' responses according to whether their sexual preferences were based on maximizing attractiveness or minimizing the risk of STIs. Finally, we established an association between sexual choice in our task and reported real-world sexual risk-taking.
| S-EPMC7580154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Livestock industries are vulnerable to disease threats, which can cost billions of dollars and have substantial negative social ramifications. Losses are mitigated through increased use of disease-related biosecurity practices, making increased biosecurity an industry goal. Currently, there is no industry-wide standard for sharing information about disease incidence or on-site biosecurity strategies, resulting in uncertainty regarding disease prevalence and biosecurity strategies employed by industry stakeholders. Using an experimental simulation game, with primarily student participants, we examined willingness to invest in biosecurity when confronted with disease outbreak scenarios. We varied the scenarios by changing the information provided about 1) disease incidence and 2) biosecurity strategy or response by production facilities to the threat of disease. Here we show that willingness to invest in biosecurity increases with increased information about disease incidence, but decreases with increased information about biosecurity practices used by nearby facilities. Thus, the type or context of the uncertainty confronting the decision maker may be a major factor influencing behavior. Our findings suggest that policies and practices that encourage greater sharing of disease incidence information should have the greatest benefit for protecting herd health.
| S-EPMC6469775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immoral behavior often consists of weighing transgression of a moral norm against maximizing personal profits. One important question is to understand why immoral behaviors vary based on who receives specific benefits and what are the neurocomputational mechanisms underlying such moral flexibility. Here, we used model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate how immoral behaviors change when benefiting oneself or someone else. Participants were presented with offers requiring a tradeoff between a moral cost (i.e. profiting a morally bad cause) and a benefit for either oneself or a charity. Participants were more willing to obtain ill-gotten profits for themselves than for a charity, driven by a devaluation of the moral cost when deciding for their own interests. The subjective value of an immoral offer, computed as a linear summation of the weighed monetary gain and moral cost, recruited the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) regardless of beneficiaries. Moreover, paralleling the behavioral findings, this region enhanced its functional coupling with mentalizing-related regions while deciding whether to gain morally tainted profits for oneself vs charity. Finally, individual differences in moral preference differentially modulated choice-specific signals in the dorsolateral PFC according to who benefited from the decisions. These findings provide insights for understanding the neurobiological basis of moral flexibility.
| S-EPMC7304519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three experiments studied the hedonicity of decision making. Participants rated their pleasure/displeasure while reading item-sentences describing political and social problems followed by different decisions (Questionnaire 1). Questionnaire 2 was multiple-choice, grouping the items from Questionnaire 1. In Experiment 1, participants answered Questionnaire 2 rapidly or slowly. Both groups selected what they had rated as pleasant, but the 'leisurely' group maximized pleasure less. In Experiment 2, participants selected the most rational responses. The selected behaviors were pleasant but less than spontaneous behaviors. In Experiment 3, Questionnaire 2 was presented once with items grouped by theme, and once with items shuffled. Participants maximized the pleasure of their decisions, but the items selected on Questionnaires 2 were different when presented in different order. All groups maximized pleasure equally in their decisions.These results support that decisions are made predominantly in the hedonic dimension of consciousness.
| S-EPMC2082033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The literature has been relatively silent about post-conflict processes. However, understanding the way humans deal with post-conflict situations is a challenge in our societies. With this in mind, we focus the present study on the rationality of cooperative decision making after an intergroup conflict, i.e., the extent to which groups take advantage of post-conflict situations to obtain benefits from collaborating with the other group involved in the conflict. Based on dual-process theories of thinking and affect heuristic, we propose that intergroup conflict hinders the rationality of cooperative decision making. We also hypothesize that this rationality improves when groups are involved in an in-group deliberative discussion. Results of a laboratory experiment support the idea that intergroup conflict -associated with indicators of the activation of negative feelings (negative affect state and heart rate)- has a negative effect on the aforementioned rationality over time and on both group and individual decision making. Although intergroup conflict leads to sub-optimal decision making, rationality improves when groups and individuals subjected to intergroup conflict make decisions after an in-group deliberative discussion. Additionally, the increased rationality of the group decision making after the deliberative discussion is transferred to subsequent individual decision making.
| S-EPMC4252077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDecision analysis and game theory have proved useful tools in various biodiversity conservation planning and modeling contexts. This paper shows how game theory may be used to inform group decisions in biodiversity conservation scenarios by modeling conflicts between stakeholders to identify Pareto-inefficient Nash equilibria. These are cases in which each agent pursuing individual self-interest leads to a worse outcome for all, relative to other feasible outcomes. Three case studies from biodiversity conservation contexts showing this feature are modeled to demonstrate how game-theoretical representation can inform group decision-making.Methodology and principal findingsThe mathematical theory of games is used to model three biodiversity conservation scenarios with Pareto-inefficient Nash equilibria: (i) a two-agent case involving wild dogs in South Africa; (ii) a three-agent raptor and grouse conservation scenario from the United Kingdom; and (iii) an n-agent fish and coral conservation scenario from the Philippines. In each case there is reason to believe that traditional mechanism-design solutions that appeal to material incentives may be inadequate, and the game-theoretical analysis recommends a resumption of further deliberation between agents and the initiation of trust--and confidence--building measures.Conclusions and significanceGame theory can and should be used as a normative tool in biodiversity conservation contexts: identifying scenarios with Pareto-inefficient Nash equilibria enables constructive action in order to achieve (closer to) optimal conservation outcomes, whether by policy solutions based on mechanism design or otherwise. However, there is mounting evidence that formal mechanism-design solutions may backfire in certain cases. Such scenarios demand a return to group deliberation and the creation of reciprocal relationships of trust.
| S-EPMC2877714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A recent trial in rheumatoid arthritis found an inexpensive, but infrequently used, combination of therapies is neither inferior nor less safe than an expensive biologic drug. If the trial had been conducted over 10 years ago, arguably 100's of millions of dollars since spent on biologics could have been released to other, more effective treatments. Given the ever increasing number of trials proposed, this commentary uses the trial as an example to challenge payers and research funders to make smarter investments in clinical research to save potential future costs.NCT00405275 , registered 29 November 2006.
| S-EPMC4693420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the classical view of economic choices, subjects make rational decisions evaluating the costs and benefits of options in order to maximize their overall income. Nonetheless, subjects often fail to reach optimal outcomes. The overt value of an option drives the direction of decisions, but covert factors such as emotion and sensitivity to sunk cost are thought to drive the observed deviations from optimality. Many questions remain to be answered as to (1) which contexts contribute the most to deviation from an optimal solution; and (2) the extent of these effects. In order to tackle these questions, we devised a decision-making task for mice, in which cost and benefit parameters could be independently and flexibly adjusted and for which a tractable optimal solution was known. Comparing mouse behavior with this optimal solution across parameter settings revealed that the factor most strongly contributing to suboptimal performance was the cost parameter. The quantification of sensitivity to sunk cost, a covert factor implicated in our task design, revealed it as another contributor to reduced optimality. In one condition where the large reward option was particularly unattractive and the small reward cost was low, the sensitivity to sunk cost and the cost-led suboptimality almost vanished. In this regime and this regime only, mice could be viewed as close to rational (here, 'rational' refers to a state in which an animal makes decisions basing on objective valuation, not covert factors). Taken together, our results suggest that "rationality" is a task-specific construct even in mice.
| S-EPMC7803778 | biostudies-literature