The Social Context of Decisions

Larrick, Richard P.

doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062445

Cited by 48 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 130 publications

(137 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ley and Weber () indicated that venue shoppers choose venues by strategically assessing venue contexts. This argument aligns well with one central premise of behavioral theory, which states that societal contexts shape humans’ attitudes, standpoints, and decisions (see e.g., Larrick, ). On this theoretical ground, we presume that advocates, who look out for the most promising venues to promote their objectives but lack information on venue decision makers, will strategically consider venue contexts, since these shape the judgments of venue decision makers.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworksupporting

confidence: 75%

Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices

Hartung

2020

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) fall within the scope of the restrictive provisions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Previously, various actors had lobbied in order to influence the European Union's (EU's) regulatory decision on NPBTs. This study examines the venue choices taken by Cibus, a biotech company that promoted NPBT deregulation. It shows that the firm bypassed the EU level and that it lobbied competent authorities (CAs) in certain member states to gain support for the deregulation of NPBTs. Cibus chose the CAs because their institutional "closedness" reduced the risk of the debate over the deregulation of NPBTs becoming public. However, the CA's specific competences and their influence on EU decision making were of likewise importance. The firm lobbied CAs based in Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Two factors appear to have influenced Cibus' choices for these countries: high-level political support for agribiotech and the high relevance of biotech sectors. In contrast, public support for GMOs turned out to have hardly any influence, and virtually no association could be observed for the agricultural application of biotechnology in the past nor for the weakness of domestic anti-GMO lobby groups. Finally, the in-depth study on Germany affirms that "closedness" was important for Cibus' choices and reveals that technical information served as a venue-internal factor that influenced the firm's choices. KEY WORDS: agricultural biotechnology, inside lobbying, EU multilevel system, new plant breeding techniques, venue choice 关键词: 农业生物技术, 内部游说, 欧盟多层体系, 新植物育种技术, 场地选择 Cabildeo interno sobre la regulación de nuevas técnicas de fitomejoramiento en la Unión Europea: determinantes de lugares para eventosEn julio de 2018, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea decidió que las nuevas técnicas de fitomejoramiento (NPBT) están dentro del alcance de las disposiciones restrictivas sobre organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM). Anteriormente, varios actores habían cabildeado para influir en la decisión reguladora de la Unión Europea (UE) sobre NPBT. Este estudio examina las opciones de lugar tomadas por Cibus, una compañía de biotecnología que promovió la desregulación de NPBT. Muestra que la empresa pasó por alto el nivel de la UE y presionó a las autoridades competentes (CA) en ciertos estados miembros para obtener apoyo para la desregulación de las NPBT. Cibus eligió a las AC porque su "cerramiento" institucional redujo el riesgo del debate sobre la desregulación de las Determinants of Venue Choices 93NPBT que se hacen públicas. Sin embargo, las competencias específicas de la AC y su influencia en la toma de decisiones de la UE fueron igualmente importantes. La firma presionó a las AC con sede en Finlandia, Alemania, Irlanda, Suecia, España y el Reino Unido. Dos factores parecen haber influido en las elecciones de Cibus para estos países: el apoyo político de alto nivel para la agrobiotecnología y ...

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworksupporting

confidence: 75%

Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices

Hartung

2020

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Skills for social interaction-sending and receiving verbal and non-verbal cues-are central to policymaking success (Klein et al 2006, p. 79;Reiss, 2015). They allow us to get along with peers, exchange ideas, information and skills, establish mutual respect, and encourage input from multiple disciplines and professions (Larrick, 2016). They are easier to describe in the abstract than in practice, but we can identify key categories:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) employs over 2000 scientists and seeks to maximise the value and impact of research in the EU policy process. To that end, its Knowledge management for policy (KMP) initiative synthesised the insights of a large amount of interdisciplinary work on the 'evidence-policy interface' to promote a new skills and training agenda. It developed this training initially for Commission staff, but many of its insights are relevant to organisations which try to combine research, policymaking, management, and communication skills to improve the value and use of research in policy. We recommend that such organisations should develop teams of researchers, policymakers, and 'knowledge brokers' to produce eight key practices: (1) research synthesis, to generate 'state of the art' knowledge on a policy problem; (2) management of expert communities, to maximise collaboration; (3) understanding policymaking, to know when and how to present evidence; (4) interpersonal skills, to focus on relationships and interaction; (5) engagement, to include citizens and stakeholders; (6) effective communication of knowledge; (7) monitoring and evaluation, to identify the impact of evidence on policy; and (8) policy advice, to know how to present knowledge effectively and ethically. No one possesses all skills relevant to all these practices. Rather, we recommend that organisations at the evidence-policy interface produce teams of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and complementary skills.

show abstract

“…Studies of 'processing fluency' suggest that individuals' decisions are influenced by their familiarity with things; the ease in which they process information (Alter and Oppenheimer 2009: 220). Organizational psychology also highlights the importance of 'social context' and 'group processes', which often inhibit an organization's ability to 'liberate' the knowledge provided by each person and broaden the 'information considered before making a decision' (Larrick 2016).…”

Section: Embrace Basic and Applied Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

Cairney

Weible

2017

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is time to imagine a new policy sciences. The policymaking world has moved on since its first design. So too has our understanding of it. The original policy sciences were contextualized, problem-oriented, multi-method, and focused on using scientific research towards the realization of greater human dignity. We introduce a new policy sciences that builds on such aims. We describe the need for realistic depictions of 'rational' and 'irrational' choice, multiple theories to portray the multifaceted nature of complex contexts, and the combination of applied and basic research. To set this new agenda, we build on two foundational strategies: identifying advances in the psychology of decisionmaking and describing how policy theories depict policymaking psychology in complex contexts.

show abstract

The Social Context of Decisions

Cited by 48 publications

References 130 publications

Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices

Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About