Is a Rational Politics of Disaster Possible? Making Useful Decisions for Others in an Experimental Disaster Game.

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Behavior Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2
Talbot M Andrews, Andrew W Delton, Reuben Kline
{"title":"Is a Rational Politics of Disaster Possible? Making Useful Decisions for Others in an Experimental Disaster Game.","authors":"Talbot M Andrews,&nbsp;Andrew W Delton,&nbsp;Reuben Kline","doi":"10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Disaster responses are political. But can citizens make useful disaster decisions? Potential obstacles are that such decisions are complex, involve public goods, and often affect other people. Theories of political decision-making disagree on whether these problems can be overcome. We used experimental economic games that simulate disaster to test whether people are willing and able to prevent disasters for others. Groups of players face a complex task in which options that might help vary in their riskiness. Importantly, although all options are reasonable, which option is most useful depends on the experimental condition. We find that players will pay to help, can identify which option is most useful across experimental conditions, and will pay to learn how best to help. Thus, players were able to make useful and costly decisions to prevent others from experiencing disaster. This suggests that, in at least some situations, citizens may be able to make good disaster decisions.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":48166,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior","volume":"45 1","pages":"305-326"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Disaster responses are political. But can citizens make useful disaster decisions? Potential obstacles are that such decisions are complex, involve public goods, and often affect other people. Theories of political decision-making disagree on whether these problems can be overcome. We used experimental economic games that simulate disaster to test whether people are willing and able to prevent disasters for others. Groups of players face a complex task in which options that might help vary in their riskiness. Importantly, although all options are reasonable, which option is most useful depends on the experimental condition. We find that players will pay to help, can identify which option is most useful across experimental conditions, and will pay to learn how best to help. Thus, players were able to make useful and costly decisions to prevent others from experiencing disaster. This suggests that, in at least some situations, citizens may be able to make good disaster decisions.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理性的灾难政治可能吗?在实验性灾难游戏中为他人做出有用的决定
灾难应对是政治性的。但是,公民能做出有用的灾难决策吗?潜在的障碍是,这些决定很复杂,涉及公共利益,而且经常影响到其他人。政治决策理论对这些问题能否克服存在分歧。我们使用模拟灾难的实验性经济游戏来测试人们是否愿意并且能够为他人预防灾难。玩家群体面临着一项复杂的任务,其中的选择可能有助于风险的变化。重要的是,尽管所有选项都是合理的,但哪种选项最有用取决于实验条件。我们发现玩家愿意花钱提供帮助,能够在实验条件下识别出最有用的选择,并且愿意花钱学习如何提供最好的帮助。因此,玩家能够做出有用且昂贵的决定,以防止其他人遭遇灾难。这表明,至少在某些情况下,公民可能能够做出正确的灾难决策。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s11109-021-09700-2获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Behavior
Political Behavior POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Political Behavior publishes original research in the general fields of political behavior, institutions, processes, and policies. Approaches include economic (preference structuring, bargaining), psychological (attitude formation and change, motivations, perceptions), sociological (roles, group, class), or political (decision making, coalitions, influence). Articles focus on the political behavior (conventional or unconventional) of the individual person or small group (microanalysis), or of large organizations that participate in the political process such as parties, interest groups, political action committees, governmental agencies, and mass media (macroanalysis). As an interdisciplinary journal, Political Behavior integrates various approaches across different levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical domain (contextual analysis). Officially cited as: Polit Behav
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Electability: Candidate (and Voter) Ideology, Race, and Gender Risk Preferences in the Delegation Process Support for Gun Reform in the United States: The Interactive Relationship Between Partisanship and Trust in the Federal Government Millionaire Justices and Attitudes Towards the Supreme Court Racial and Partisan Social Information Prompts Campaign Giving: Evidence from a Field Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1