Misjudgment Exacerbates Collective Action Problems
Joshua Lewis (New York University), Shalena Srna (University of Michigan), Erin Morrissey (New York University), Matti Wilks (University of Edinburgh), Christoph Winter (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México and Harvard Univeristy) and Lucius Caviola (Global Priorities Institute, University of Oxford)
GPI Working Paper No. 2-2024
In collective action problems, suboptimal collective outcomes arise from each individual optimizing their own wellbeing. Past work assumes individuals do this because they care more about themselves than others. Yet, other factors could also contribute. We examine the role of empirical beliefs. Our results suggest people underestimate individual impact on collective problems. When collective action seems worthwhile, individual action often does not, even if the expected ratio of costs to benefits is the same. It is as if people believe “one person can’t make a difference.” We term this the collective action bias. It results from a fundamental feature of cognition: people find it hard to appreciate the impact of action that is on a much smaller scale than the problem it affects. We document this bias across nine experiments. It affects elected policymakers’ policy judgments. It affects lawyers’ and judges’ interpretation of a climate policy lawsuit. It occurs in both individualist and collectivist sample populations and in both adults and children. Finally, it influences real decisions about how others should use their money. These findings highlight the critical challenge of collective action problems. Without government intervention, not only will many individuals exacerbate collective problems due to self-interest, but even the most altruistic individuals may contribute due to misjudgment.
Other working papers
Time Bias and Altruism – Leora Urim Sung (University College London)
We are typically near-future biased, being more concerned with our near future than our distant future. This near-future bias can be directed at others too, being more concerned with their near future than their distant future. In this paper, I argue that, because we discount the future in this way, beyond a certain point in time, we morally ought to be more concerned with the present well- being of others than with the well-being of our distant future selves. It follows that we morally ought to sacrifice…
Do not go gentle: why the Asymmetry does not support anti-natalism – Andreas Mogensen (Global Priorities Institute, Oxford University)
According to the Asymmetry, adding lives that are not worth living to the population makes the outcome pro tanto worse, but adding lives that are well worth living to the population does not make the outcome pro tanto better. It has been argued that the Asymmetry entails the desirability of human extinction. However, this argument rests on a misunderstanding of the kind of neutrality attributed to the addition of lives worth living by the Asymmetry. A similar misunderstanding is shown to underlie Benatar’s case for anti-natalism.
Tough enough? Robust satisficing as a decision norm for long-term policy analysis – Andreas Mogensen and David Thorstad (Global Priorities Institute, Oxford University)
This paper aims to open a dialogue between philosophers working in decision theory and operations researchers and engineers whose research addresses the topic of decision making under deep uncertainty. Specifically, we assess the recommendation to follow a norm of robust satisficing when making decisions under deep uncertainty in the context of decision analyses that rely on the tools of Robust Decision Making developed by Robert Lempert and colleagues at RAND …