 |
|
Current Positions:
- Assistant Professor, Work and Org. Psychology, University of Amsterdam
- Affilate Researcher, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED), Columbia University, New York.
|
| |
|
|
Topic 1: Environmental Decisions by Groups and Individuals (with Elke Weber, Kerry Milch, Kirstin Appelt, Nicole Yoskowitz & Julie Smith; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED), Columbia University, New York ) One of the major challenges that faces mankind is the solution of environmental problems. The implementation of any solution to environmental problems critically depends on human decision-making. Since many environmental decisions are made by groups, we compare environmental decisions by individuals and groups, as they often have different outcomes: Sometimes individuals do better, at other times group decisions prevail. At CRED, we examine the relative advantages and disadvantages of having environmental decisions made by individuals or groups. We focus on environmental decisions, important and complex decisions that involve uncertainty, with consequences that are realized at different points in time, and conflicting goals (consideration of short- vs. long-term, individual vs. collective, and material vs. moral/ethical consequences). We investigate goal setting, information use, and deliberation processes. This research will reveal (a) how groups vs. individuals deal with environmental decisions, (b) under what circumstances decisions benefit from being made by groups rather than individuals, (c) how group decisions are affected by the composition of the group, (d) how group decisions can be improved, and (e) how these improvements can be implemented in the field of environmental decision making. In 2007 we have been awarded an NSF grant for further research on this topic. CRED has recently published The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public. It can be downloaded for free (at http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/ or click below on CRED GUIDE). See also:
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED)
CRED project 1
CRED project 2
CRED EUROPE
CRED GUIDE on the psychology of Climate Change Communication |
| |
|
|
Topic 2: Paradoxical effects of Power in UltimatumGames In a recent paper (JPSP, 2008) we argue that the frame that is evoked in ultimatum bargaining is influenced by power differences. Using delta ultimatum games, as developed by Suleiman (1996), we show that allocators' offers in ultimatum games decrease when recipients have less power to harm the allocator, but increase again when the recipients are completely powerless. This is attributed to the emergence of feelings of social responsibility due to a difference in perceived frame for the allocator: When the recipients have power, allocators act as sophisticated profit maximizers, when the recipient has no power, a social responsibility norm emerges. We furthermore show that recipients are unable to correctly predict this difference in frame (and the resulting offers) for the the allocator and thus make counterproductive choices with regard to which power level they prefer. Results are discussed in relation to literature on strategic vs. socially responsible behavior and the literatureon empathy gaps. Project 1: Causes ofsocially responsible behavior in dictator games (with Eric van Dijk, Leiden University & Carsten de Dreu , UvA) Project 2: Paradoxical power preferences: Empathy gaps or Myth of Self-interest? (with Eric van Dijk, Leiden University & Carsten de Dreu , UvA) Project 3: Neural substrates of socially responsible behavior inUltimatum- and Dictator games (with Bernd Figner and Elke Weber, Columbia University , New York )
|
| |
|
|
Topic 3: Indecision and Decision Avoidance. Another line of research focuses on indecision and/or decision avoidance. Although this is a topic that has been undervalued in the field of decision making - much more is known about how people decide than about why they would not- we consider it an important cause of inefficient behavior on many levels of society. In the project we distinguish between decision avoidance and indecision, avoidance indicating a reluctance to enter a decision space and indecisionindicating a situation in which a decision space is entered but not (yet) exited or exited in an avoidant way (by passing the buck or picking the default, for example). In our research we aim to identify antecedentsof these two types of non-decision and integrate them into a comprehensive model of non-decision. Project 1: A two-dimensional model predicting decision process avoidance. (with BernardNijstad, Carstende Dreu and Ilona McNeill , UvA) Project 2: Tracing the processes that produce indecision (with Sheena Iyengar, Columbia University , New York and Bernard Nijstad and Ilona McNeill , UvA) Project 3: The avoidance of negotiations and moral decisions (with Carsten deDreu and Shaul Shalvi, UvA) Project 4: Causes of indecision (with Bernard Nijstad , Carsten de Dreu and Bram Duyx, UvA)
|
| |
|
|
Topic 5: Measuring Social Value Orientation (with Ryan Murphy, Center for Decision Sciences, Columbia University , New York ) In interdependent situations, the weight that is given to one’s own and another person’s outcome can be characterized in terms of Social Value Orientation. This is a general inclination to care more for one’s own outcomes (pro-self)or the outcomes of one’s own outcomescombined with those of another (prosocial). This very general distinction between typesof people has frequently beenshown to interact with many different factors in negotiation and social decision making. We argue that the currently popular dichotomous measurementof this underlying preferencefor differential combinations of own and other’s outcomes is rather crude and suffers from confounds. Improving uponit can yield much more detailed predictions, makes it possible to better investigate the influence ofcontextual factors as well as personality-related ones on behavior in social decision making, and will make adoption of this concept by related fields (such as economics) more likely.
|
| |
|
