SDEST: Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo

Decision Science Research Institute, Eugene OR

Investigators

Abstract

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.