SDEST: Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo

SDEST：当权衡成为禁忌时进行负责任的分析

• 批准号: 0114924
• 负责人: Robin Gregory
• 金额: $ 23.2万
• 依托单位: Decision Science Research Institute
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2001
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2001-09-01 至 2004-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0114924&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: SDEST; Responsible; Analysis; When; Tradeoffs

Taboo tradeoffs have been identified in the context of a variety of environmental and health risk policies that involve emotional, moral, or ethical issues that are fundamentally difficult to resolve or think about. At the extreme, people asked for their opinions in these settings may resist making tradeoffs, for example by refusing to answer or by stating extreme values for questions that require a balancing of costs and benefits, because a norm that is protected or regarded as sacred is perceived as being violated. The expression of such taboo or protected values raises the questions of how and whether it is proper, in both a professional (analytical) and an ethical sense, to seek to elicit certain difficult tradeoffs because people may consider they are being asked to violate or transgress an absolute standard or rule that they have established. This proposal uses a mixture of theory-based and experiment-based research to examine the logic and treatment of such highly charged values. The proposed research is designed to distinguish between the expression of tradeoffs that truly are taboo and expressed tradeoffs that are, instead, possible to elicit but difficult, for example because they are cognitively complex (in the sense of involving multiple and/or disparate dimensions) or evoke a strong moral and emotional response or encourage anticipatory regret and worry in the event that something goes awry. The research builds on the work of the psychologists Philip Tetlock (focusing on value conflicts and taboo tradeoffs), Jonathan Baron (focusing on protected values), and their colleagues, proposing a three-part investigation of (a) reasons for the apparent existence of a taboo on making tradeoffs, (b) techniques that might usefully and appropriately be employed for eliciting tradeoffs in such settings, and (c) factors that decision makers might use in determining whether and how to construct and assess tradeoffs and their implications. Benefits of the proposed two-year research effort include a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of taboo or protected values and the provision of additional guidance to public decision makers regarding methods for displaying or inquiring about tradeoffs in such a way as to facilitate responsible thought and deliberation. If successful, the end result will be better access for citizens who seek to provide input to controversial policy debates, more informed public decisions, and the adoption of policy alternatives that more clearly reflect and advance citizens' underlying values.

在各种环境和健康风险政策的背景下，禁忌权衡已经被确定，这些政策涉及从根本上难以解决或思考的情感、道德或伦理问题。在极端情况下，在这些情况下，被问及意见的人可能会拒绝做出权衡，例如拒绝回答或对需要平衡成本和收益的问题提出极端的价值观，因为被保护或被视为神圣的规范被认为是违反的。这种禁忌或受保护的价值观的表达提出了一个问题，即在专业（分析）和道德意义上，如何以及是否适当，寻求引起某些困难的权衡，因为人们可能认为他们被要求违反或违反他们所建立的绝对标准或规则。本提案采用理论和实验研究相结合的方法来检验这种高度带电值的逻辑和处理方法。拟议的研究旨在区分真正禁忌的权衡表达和可能引出但困难的表达权衡，例如，因为它们是认知复杂的（在涉及多个和/或不同维度的意义上），或者唤起强烈的道德和情感反应，或者在出现问题时鼓励预期的后悔和担忧。这项研究建立在心理学家菲利普·泰特洛克（专注于价值冲突和禁忌权衡）、乔纳森·巴伦（专注于受保护的价值观）和他们的同事的工作基础上，他们提出了一个由三部分组成的调查：(a)在做出权衡时明显存在禁忌的原因，(b)在这种情况下可能有用且适当地用于引发权衡的技术，决策者在决定是否以及如何构建和评估权衡及其影响时可能使用的因素。拟议的为期两年的研究工作的好处包括更全面地了解禁忌或受保护价值的概念，并为公共决策者提供额外的指导，以促进负责任的思考和审议的方式展示或询问权衡的方法。如果成功，最终的结果将是为寻求在有争议的政策辩论中提供意见的公民提供更好的机会，更明智的公共决策，以及采用更清楚地反映和促进公民基本价值观的政策选择。