A Study of Consensus Making Process in Environmental Risk Managernent

本研究考察了在环境风险管理者造成事故后，什么样的政策可以恢复他们受到威胁的信任。应用了信号效应和人质释放模型。人质寄存是指寄存重要物品，寄存者在社会交换中欺骗他人，将被没收的行为。从经济学的角度预测，人质释放会增加作为信任改善指标的合作行为，因为它会引起报酬结构的变化。然而，从心理学的角度来看，信任的改善是可以预测的，因为人质释放的自愿性具有信号效应，可以提高受托人对受托人的诚信和能力的感知。实验结果表明，风险管理者可以通过对自己引入监督和惩罚规则的自愿人质发布来恢复公众的信任和对能力的感知。另一方面，同样的人质在利益相关者提出要求后发布，根本不能提高他们的信任。这些结果表明，作为诚信和能力信号的自愿性对信任的恢复比报酬结构的变化更重要。然而，一项有关公众对宫森河修复工作的意见的社会调查却显示出不同的结果。调查结果显示，公众对人质发布的评价（对自己引入监督和处罚规则）与他们对责任人的信任之间存在独立关系，这表明公众参与并不一定能提高风险管理者的信任。最后，讨论了导致实验结果与社会调查结果差异的因素。

The present research examined what policies can recover the endangered trust of environmental risk managers after they cause an accident. Models of signaling effects and the hostage posting were applied. Hostage posting means to deposit something important which will be forfeited if the poster deceives others in social exchange. From the economics viewpoint, it is predicted that hostage posting will increase cooperative behavior, which is an index of the improvement of trust, because it causes the change of pay-off structure. However, from the psychological viewpoint, the improvement of trust is predicted because the voluntariness in hostage posting has signaling effects that improves the trusters' perception of integrity and competence of the trustees. Results of experiments suggest that risk managers can recover the public trust and perception of competence by a voluntary hostage posting that introduces a monitoring and penalty rule to themselves. On the other hand, the same hostage posted after the stakeholders' demand cannot improve their trust at all. These results mean that the voluntariness working as a signal of integrity and competence is more important for the recovery of trust than the change of the pay-off structure. However, a social survey concerning the public opinion on the repair work of the Miyamori River showed different results. The results of the survey showed the independent relationship between the public evaluation of the hostage posting (an introduction of monitoring and penalty rule to themselves) and their trust in the responsible, suggesting that the public participation cannot always improve the trust of risk managers. Finally, the factors that caused differences between the results of the experiments and the social survey were discussed.