Scope of Conflict, Risk Perceptions, and River Restoration: Does the Expansion of the Scope of Conflict Reinforce or Remove Group Biases?
Additional Funding Sources
This research for the project described was supported by the Idaho EPSCoR Program through the State Board of Education under Grant No. AHRC41.
Abstract
The interest group literature consistently notes that groups usually “sing with an upper class accent.” This bias tends to influence the policy proposals they advance. Meanwhile, the scope of conflict literature indicates that when the scope of conflict increases, greater representation follows. This creates a theoretical conundrum. If groups are biased, does an increase in the number of groups involved in an issue lead to greater representation, or greater bias? To examine this question, we compare risk perceptions associated with an ongoing river controversy between its stakeholders and the public. We pool two public opinion surveys, one of stakeholders and the other of the public, and compare perceptions of risk across eight dimensions. The results indicate that there is greater congruence between the public and stakeholders on issues of lesser complexity. However, when there is greater complexity, group expertise appears to bias their perceptions of the problem. This indicates that the expansion of the scope of conflict can remove or mitigate group bias from the policy debate. This research for the project described was supported by the Idaho EPSCoR Program through the State Board of Education under Grant No. AHRC41.
Scope of Conflict, Risk Perceptions, and River Restoration: Does the Expansion of the Scope of Conflict Reinforce or Remove Group Biases?
The interest group literature consistently notes that groups usually “sing with an upper class accent.” This bias tends to influence the policy proposals they advance. Meanwhile, the scope of conflict literature indicates that when the scope of conflict increases, greater representation follows. This creates a theoretical conundrum. If groups are biased, does an increase in the number of groups involved in an issue lead to greater representation, or greater bias? To examine this question, we compare risk perceptions associated with an ongoing river controversy between its stakeholders and the public. We pool two public opinion surveys, one of stakeholders and the other of the public, and compare perceptions of risk across eight dimensions. The results indicate that there is greater congruence between the public and stakeholders on issues of lesser complexity. However, when there is greater complexity, group expertise appears to bias their perceptions of the problem. This indicates that the expansion of the scope of conflict can remove or mitigate group bias from the policy debate. This research for the project described was supported by the Idaho EPSCoR Program through the State Board of Education under Grant No. AHRC41.
Comments
Th24