Decision‐Making, Time Horizons, and Risk in the Very Long‐Term Perspective

Some decisions made today have far†reaching consequences as exemplified by those concerning nuclear power and spent nuclear fuel. The investigation presented here uses a decision theoretic framework in which time horizons and the discounting of negative consequences play significant roles. The results indicated wide variations in the lengths of the planning horizons judged to be adequate not only across a number of activities, including nuclear waste management, but also across groups of subjects (e.g., engineering students, retired people, and nuclear fuel experts). The paper reports typical judgments and correlations between different variables for different groups of subjects. The differences across groups reflect potential sources of conflict, depending in part on different values and different perceptions of more or less uncertain facts. Discounting functions for negative consequences in the future were also established. A range in differences in the speed of discounting were found and illustrated. Furthermore, it was found that substantial proportions in all groups regarded negative consequences related to nuclear waste as nondiscountable. When asked about the effect of time until outcome on acceptable probability of a negative outcome, many subjects used the probability concept in an incoherent way, illustrating the great difficulty in communicating small probabilities in a long†term risk context.

[1]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Time Perception And Long-Term Risks , 1984 .

[2]  S. Klineberg,et al.  Future time perspective and the preference for delayed reward. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[4]  W. Mischel,et al.  Waiting for rewards and punishments: effects of time and probability on choice. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  M. Björkman,et al.  Decision making, risk taking and psychological time: Review of empirical findings and psychological theory , 1984 .

[6]  R L Keeney,et al.  A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Barton A. Weitz,et al.  Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies , 1977 .

[8]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Cognitive processes in judging cumulative risk over different periods of time , 1984 .

[9]  J. Christensen-Szalanski Discount Functions and the Measurement of Patients' Values , 1984, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[10]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk, moral value of actions, and mood , 1986 .

[11]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Cognitive strategies in a complex judgment task: Analyses of concurrent verbal reports and judgments of cumulated risk over different exposure times , 1985 .

[12]  R L Keeney,et al.  An analysis of the portfolio of sites to characterize for selecting a nuclear repository. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Delay of Outcome and Preference for Different Courses of Action , 1979 .

[14]  M. K. Stevenson,et al.  A Discounting Model for Decisions With Delayed Positive or Negative Outcomes , 1986 .

[15]  W. Mischel,et al.  Effects of expected delay time on the subjective value of rewards and punishments. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Patient compliance behavior: the effects of time on patients' values of treatment regimens. , 1985, Social science & medicine.

[17]  U. Lundberg,et al.  Emotional reaction to past and future events as a function of temporal distance. , 1971, Acta psychologica.