| 1. |
- Gustafsson, Mathias Petter, 1970, et al.
(författare)
-
Managing uncertain common resources
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects. - 9781138009370 ; , s. 219-225
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Gustafsson, Mathias Petter, 1970, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome-desirability bias in resource management problems
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Thinking and Reasoning. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1464-0708 .- 1354-6783. ; 5:4, s. 327-337
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Sequences of numbers representing prior resource size were presented to participants in a common-pool resource dilemma. The numbers were sampled from uniform probability distributions with either a low variance (low resource uncertainty) or a high variance (high resource uncertainty). Presentations were both sequential and simultaneous. Three groups of 16 undergraduates either estimated the size of the resource when it did not represent value to them; requested an amount from the resource, identified with a sum of money, when the outcome of the requests only depended on resource size; or requested from the resource (sum of money) when the outcome of the requests depended on both resource size and how much others in a group requested. In support of an individual outcome-desirability bias due to selective recall of the number sequences, after sequential presentation larger requests were observed when resource uncertainty was high than when it was low. No effects of resource uncertainty or presentation were found on the estimates of resource size. Whether or not the outcome of the requests depended on others' requests made little difference.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gustafsson, Mathias Petter, 1970, et al.
(författare)
-
Overharvesting of resources of unknown size
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Acta Psychologica. - : Elsevier BV. - 0001-6918. ; 103:1-2, s. 47-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In two resource-dilemma experiments participants were free to request an amount from an available resource whose size was a random variable with a uniform distribution either within a small interval (low resource uncertainty) or within a large interval (high resource uncertainty). In Experiment 1, one group of 20 undergraduates guessed the size of the resource as well as rated how confident they were. In three other groups equal numbers of undergraduates requested an amount which they would receive if it did not exceed the available resource. In one of these groups the outcome was only dependent on resource size, whereas in the remaining groups the outcome also depended on the requests by four other unfamiliar subjects who were either real or imaginary. Partially supporting a perceptual-bias explanation, subjects were in all groups found to overestimate or overharvest when resource uncertainty increased. Yet, an optimism or outcome-desirability bias explanation was maintained since the requests increased more with resource uncertainty than did the guesses whether or not the outcome depended on otherś requests. Experiment 2 employed another three groups of 20 undergraduates in a step-level resource-dilemma. Confirming the conclusion of Experiment 1, the results supported the outcome-desirability bias explanation but failed to support an egoism-bias explanation in showing that the overharvesting effect of resource uncertainty was not affected by social uncertainty.
|
|
| 4. |
- Gärling, Tommy, 1941, et al.
(författare)
-
Different kinds and roles of environmental uncertainty
- 1998
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Psychology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0272-4944 .- 1522-9610. ; 18:1, s. 75-83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In environmental psychology different roles appears to be ascribed to the concept of environmental uncertainty: in environmental aesthetics optimization of environmental uncertainty is assumed to explain preferences, in environmental- stress research minimization of environmental uncertainty is assumed to reduce stress, and in research on resource dilemmas environmental uncertainty is assumed to be accurately monitored. An analysis of the different definitions in each area of research reveals that environmental uncertainty refers to both event- event and response- consequence covariation, that it is not assumed to be inherent but to relate to ignorance or faulty information processing, and that it is multifacet subsuming the concepts of probability, vagueness and ambiguity. Although the different research areas do not seem to differ importantly in their definitions of environmental uncertainty, there are differences in emphasis. A possible reconciliation rests on: (1) that in research on resource dilemmas it is incorrect that people accurately monitor environmental uncertainty but, in fact, are susceptible to a desirability bias; (2) that sensation seeking plays a role for risk taking in resource dilemmas; and (3) that in environmental- stress research conditions of high environmental uncertainty have primarily been investigated, thus leaving out conditions when an increase of uncertainty would be desirable. It may be concluded then that basically people are optimizers of environmental uncertainty. However, this does not rule out that they, under most of the prevailing conditions, want to reduce environmental uncertainty. To help them do that seems, therefore, more appropriate than to do the reverse.
|
|
