Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch

Electronic data

View graph of relations

The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch

Research output: Working paper

Published

Standard

The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch. / Kaivanto, Kim; Kwon, Winston .
Lancaster: Lancaster University, Department of Economics, 2015. (Economics Working Paper Series).

Research output: Working paper

Harvard

Kaivanto, K & Kwon, W 2015 'The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch' Economics Working Paper Series, Lancaster University, Department of Economics, Lancaster.

APA

Kaivanto, K., & Kwon, W. (2015). The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch. (Economics Working Paper Series). Lancaster University, Department of Economics.

Vancouver

Kaivanto K, Kwon W. The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch. Lancaster: Lancaster University, Department of Economics. 2015 Sept. (Economics Working Paper Series).

Author

Kaivanto, Kim ; Kwon, Winston . / The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch. Lancaster : Lancaster University, Department of Economics, 2015. (Economics Working Paper Series).

Bibtex

@techreport{b6ad51e0e2b24382b15ecc6b9045564c,
title = "The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch",
abstract = "In this paper we attempt to recover an integrated conception of the Precautionary Principle (PP). The α=.05 inferential-threshold convention widely employed in science is ill-suited to the requirements of policy decision making because it is fixed and unresponsive to the cost trade-offs that are the defining concern of policy decision making. Statistical decision theory - particularlyin its Signal-Detection Theory (SDT) variant - provides a standard framework within which to incorporate the (mis)classification costs associated with deciding between intervention and non-intervention. We show that the PP implements preventive intervention in precisely those circumstances where the SDT-based model yields a (1,1) corner solution. Thus the PP can be understood as a heuristic variant of the SDT corner solution, which in turn serves to patch the incongruity between the inferential practices of science and the inferential requirements of policy decision making. Furthermore, SDT's analytical structure directs attention to a small number of variables - (mis)classification costs and prior probabilities - as determinants of the (1,1) corner solution. Subjective biases impinging upon these variables - omission bias, protected values, and the affect heuristic in particular, moderated by the decision maker's industry-aligned (insider) or industry-opposed (outsider) status - combine within SDT to successfully retrodict features of the PP previously considered puzzling, if not inconsistent or incoherent. These psychological biases do not exclude, and may in part reflect, the decision maker's deontological moral beliefs, or indeed social norms embodied in the nation's legal system (common law vs. civil law).",
keywords = "precautionary principle, misclassification costs, scientific uncertainty, omission bias, affect heuristic, significance testing, signal-detection theory, behavioral economics",
author = "Kim Kaivanto and Winston Kwon",
year = "2015",
month = sep,
language = "English",
series = "Economics Working Paper Series",
publisher = "Lancaster University, Department of Economics",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Lancaster University, Department of Economics",

}

RIS

TY - UNPB

T1 - The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch

AU - Kaivanto, Kim

AU - Kwon, Winston

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - In this paper we attempt to recover an integrated conception of the Precautionary Principle (PP). The α=.05 inferential-threshold convention widely employed in science is ill-suited to the requirements of policy decision making because it is fixed and unresponsive to the cost trade-offs that are the defining concern of policy decision making. Statistical decision theory - particularlyin its Signal-Detection Theory (SDT) variant - provides a standard framework within which to incorporate the (mis)classification costs associated with deciding between intervention and non-intervention. We show that the PP implements preventive intervention in precisely those circumstances where the SDT-based model yields a (1,1) corner solution. Thus the PP can be understood as a heuristic variant of the SDT corner solution, which in turn serves to patch the incongruity between the inferential practices of science and the inferential requirements of policy decision making. Furthermore, SDT's analytical structure directs attention to a small number of variables - (mis)classification costs and prior probabilities - as determinants of the (1,1) corner solution. Subjective biases impinging upon these variables - omission bias, protected values, and the affect heuristic in particular, moderated by the decision maker's industry-aligned (insider) or industry-opposed (outsider) status - combine within SDT to successfully retrodict features of the PP previously considered puzzling, if not inconsistent or incoherent. These psychological biases do not exclude, and may in part reflect, the decision maker's deontological moral beliefs, or indeed social norms embodied in the nation's legal system (common law vs. civil law).

AB - In this paper we attempt to recover an integrated conception of the Precautionary Principle (PP). The α=.05 inferential-threshold convention widely employed in science is ill-suited to the requirements of policy decision making because it is fixed and unresponsive to the cost trade-offs that are the defining concern of policy decision making. Statistical decision theory - particularlyin its Signal-Detection Theory (SDT) variant - provides a standard framework within which to incorporate the (mis)classification costs associated with deciding between intervention and non-intervention. We show that the PP implements preventive intervention in precisely those circumstances where the SDT-based model yields a (1,1) corner solution. Thus the PP can be understood as a heuristic variant of the SDT corner solution, which in turn serves to patch the incongruity between the inferential practices of science and the inferential requirements of policy decision making. Furthermore, SDT's analytical structure directs attention to a small number of variables - (mis)classification costs and prior probabilities - as determinants of the (1,1) corner solution. Subjective biases impinging upon these variables - omission bias, protected values, and the affect heuristic in particular, moderated by the decision maker's industry-aligned (insider) or industry-opposed (outsider) status - combine within SDT to successfully retrodict features of the PP previously considered puzzling, if not inconsistent or incoherent. These psychological biases do not exclude, and may in part reflect, the decision maker's deontological moral beliefs, or indeed social norms embodied in the nation's legal system (common law vs. civil law).

KW - precautionary principle

KW - misclassification costs

KW - scientific uncertainty

KW - omission bias

KW - affect heuristic

KW - significance testing

KW - signal-detection theory

KW - behavioral economics

M3 - Working paper

T3 - Economics Working Paper Series

BT - The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch

PB - Lancaster University, Department of Economics

CY - Lancaster

ER -