IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cai/ecoldc/ecop_175_0065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : une analyse des priorités des experts français

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Hussler
  • Patrick Rondé

Abstract

Cognitive Biases and Technological Choices: an Analysis of French Experts'Priorities by Caroline Hussler and Patrick Rondé Amid the current proliferation of socio-technical controversies, the judgment of experts and its representativeness have become core issues. Our article seeks to analyze the behavior of French experts in order to test the neutrality of their technological choices. To address this question, we have drawn on a technology outlook survey conducted in France, in which 1,200 experts were asked to rate the importance of 1,150 technological options for the future. We performed empirical tests to determine whether the respondents'choices depended on their level of expertise. We found that the designated research priorities matched the experts'centers of interest. This suggests that the experts'opinions suffer from biases that are relatively incompatible with the objectivity criteria used to justify the selection of the sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Hussler & Patrick Rondé, 2006. "Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : une analyse des priorités des experts français," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 65-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:cai:ecoldc:ecop_175_0065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=ECOP_175_0065
    Download Restriction: free
    File URL: http://www.cairn.info/revue-economie-et-prevision-1-2006-4-page-65.htm
    Download Restriction: free
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    2. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    3. Sue Mayer, 2003. "Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 177-181, June.
    4. Bryan Caplan, 2002. "Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(479), pages 433-458, April.
    5. Sheffrin,Steven M., 1996. "Rational Expectations," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521479394.
    6. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1981. "Qualitative Response Models: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1483-1536, December.
    7. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    8. Sanbonmatsu, David M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Posavac, Steven S. & Houghton, David C., 1997. "Contextual Influences on Judgment Based on Limited Information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 251-264, March.
    9. Robert J. Blendon, 1997. "Bridging the Gap between the Public's and Economists' Views of the Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 105-118, Summer.
    10. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    11. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryan Caplan, 2002. "Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(479), pages 433-458, April.
    2. Bryan Caplan & Edward Stringham, 2005. "Mises, bastiat, public opinion, and public choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 79-105.
    3. Caplan, Bryan, 2003. "The idea trap: the political economy of growth divergence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 183-203, June.
    4. van der Cruijsen, Carin A.B. & Eijffinger, Sylvester C.W. & Hoogduin, Lex H., 2010. "Optimal central bank transparency," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1482-1507, December.
    5. van der Cruijsen, Carin A.B. & Eijffinger, Sylvester C.W., 2010. "From actual to perceived transparency: The case of the European Central Bank," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 388-399, June.
    6. Stephen C. Miller, 2009. "Economic Bias and Ideology: Evidence from the General Social Survey," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 25(Fall 2009), pages 31-49.
    7. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Klein, Daniel B. & Stern, Charlotta, 2005. "Narrow-Tent Democrats and Fringe Others: The Policy Views of Social Science Professors," Working Paper Series 8/2005, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    9. Lea-Rachel Kosnik, 2008. "Refusing to budge: a confirmatory bias in decision making?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 7(2), pages 193-214, November.
    10. Osterloh, Steffen & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2013. "The political economy of corporate tax harmonization — Why do European politicians (dis)like minimum tax rates?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 18-37.
    11. Bryan Caplan, 2005. "Rejoinder to Wittman: True Myths," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 2(2), pages 165-185, August.
    12. Popova, Olga & See, Sarah Grace & Nikolova, Milena & Otrachshenko, Vladimir, 2023. "The societal costs of inflation and unemployment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1341, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Kyriacou, Andreas, 2009. "Property rights and the Cyprus Problem: insights from economics and social psychology," MPRA Paper 115933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00746617, HAL.
    15. Haferkamp, Alexandra & Fetchenhauer, Detlef & Belschak, Frank & Enste, Dominik, 2009. "Efficiency versus fairness: The evaluation of labor market policies by economists and laypeople," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 527-539, August.
    16. Dickinson, David L. & Oxoby, Robert J., 2011. "Cognitive dissonance, pessimism, and behavioral spillover effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 295-306, June.
    17. Robert R. Prechter Jr. & Deepak Goel & Wayne D. Parker & Matthew Lampert, 2012. "Social Mood, Stock Market Performance, and U.S. Presidential Elections," SAGE Open, , vol. 2(4), pages 21582440124, November.
    18. Zhengyan Li & David M. Konisky, 2023. "Personal attributes and (mis)perceptions of local environmental risk," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 119-152, January.
    19. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00746617 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dalibor Roháč, 2009. "Je predpoklad voličskej racionality len mýtus? [Is the assumption of voters' rationality just a myth?]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2009(2), pages 163-176.
    21. Asatryan, Zareh & Havlik, Annika & Heinemann, Friedrich & Nover, Justus, 2020. "Biases in fiscal multiplier estimates," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cai:ecoldc:ecop_175_0065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cairn.info/revue-economie-et-prevision.htm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.