Good decisions, bad decisions: the interaction of process and outcome in evaluations of decision quality

Abstract

Process-based considerations are generally accepted by experts and analysts as being the fundamental drivers of decision quality. However, little work has been done to account for the role of a risk management decision's outcome as a key driver of the public judgments about decision quality. To this end, the objective of the research reported here was straightforward to determine -via an experimentthe relative importance of decision-making process and the associated outcome in lay evaluations of decision quality. Our results demonstrate that people seem to have a difficult time unpacking decision-making processes, even ones they strongly prefer, from their associated outcomes when evaluating decision quality. From a practical standpoint, our results cast doubt on the generally accepted belief that participatory and deliberative decision-making processes (e.g., for risk management) will -on their own -contribute to positive evaluations of decision quality.

Managing risks through ISO 31000: A critical analysis

“…Corvellec, 2010 ), there is a danger that standard ' s reassuring image may represent a kind of rational myth ( Boiral, 2007 ) or a simulacra ( Grandy and Mills, 2004 ) whose adoption is intended primarily to reassure the internal and external stakeholders ( Arvai and Froschauer, 2010 ). Implementation of the ISO 31000 standard can reinforce the belief in the measurability and controllability of risk.…”

“…For instance, many authors ( Noji, 2001 ;Salehi and Ali, 2006 ;Monterrubio, 2010 ) point out the global impact of the resurgence of infectious diseases such as SARS and H1N1 and the necessity to rethink risk management on a global rather than a local scale. Indeed, the apparent proliferation of new transboundary risks is linked to the phenomenon of increasingly tight coupling between systems ( Linnerooth-Bayer et al , 2001 ;Perrow, 1999 ;Boin and Lagadec, 2000 ;Smith and Fischbacher, 2009 ;Arvai and Froschauer, 2010 ), to the point that a breakdown in any one system eventually has an impact all the connected systems ( Shrivastava, 1994 ;Noji, 2001 ;Power, 2009 ). For example, the airline industry is obliged to constantly seek increasingly sophisticated technologies in an effort to ensure security in the context of our ever more crowded air space.…”

Citizen views about public meetings

“…While deliberation has become a regular focus for discussion and research in the academic arena, how much of this discussion has entered the mainstream? It is clear that citizens often do not want the burden of direct participation in governance (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002) and that even good procedures may not have much influence in the face of clearly negative outcomes (Skitka and Mullen 2008;Arvai and Froschauer 2010). However, we still believe that most citizens expect that -should they become interested -authorities will provide mechanisms to ensure voice.…”

Practical solutions for making models indispensable in conservation decision‐making

“…Trust between participants and modellers can be deepened by addressing such perceptions directly and openly and by engaging participants in active group decision-making where genuine opportunities for involvement and collaboration are promoted (Practical solution 5ii; Sultana & Abeyasekera, 2008;Eden, 2011). Finally, trust can be deepened between modellers and the wider community (those not actively involved in the decision-making process), by actively communicating the outcomes of the decision-making process (Practical solution 5iii; Arvai & Froschauer, 2010).…”

“…For example, active involvement of participants in formulating problems and contributing to management decisions (as recommended in Improve modelling practice) can improve the social benefits of decision-making (Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2000;Beierle, 2002); a balanced representation of participants (i.e. involving experts from different disciplines and various stakeholder groups) can improve social, knowledge-base and environmental benefits of decision-making (Newig & Fritsch, 2009;Arvai & Froschauer, 2010); and, involving participants with prior knowledge or involvement in the decision context can improve the knowledge-base of decisions (Alberts, 2007).…”