IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i4p713-728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Robin L. Dillon
  • Genevieve Lester
  • Richard S. John
  • Catherine H. Tinsley

Abstract

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there has been an increase in public discussion regarding U.S. domestic intelligence activities. Domestic intelligence activities focus on gathering information about potential threats from individuals within the United States, and completely rational members of the public can have different opinions about the acceptability of various alternatives depending on one's values toward privacy, civil liberty, and security. Past studies have demonstrated that construction of a multiobjective value model can help clarify public values in controversial risk debates. This research explores a range of domestic intelligence alternatives that vary on multiple objectives, and applies value‐focused thinking to develop a multiattribute utility model to evaluate and compare the alternatives. The process demonstrates the feasibility of eliciting model parameters from individuals and provides a method for identifying the locus of possible disagreements among individuals. The development of the model is described first, followed by insights found from participants who provided both value tradeoffs and performance scores for six different domestic intelligence alternatives. The participants were two student groups and a group of police officers. The analysis showed differences among weights for an additive model for different stakeholder groups and differences among the performance scores. In particular, there is a “halo” effect for alternatives, such that its supporters ranked the alternative higher on all attributes compared to respondents who find the alternative unacceptable. This modeling approach and results offer organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security insights into the debate surrounding new policy initiatives, particularly those requiring sensitive value tradeoffs.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin L. Dillon & Genevieve Lester & Richard S. John & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2012. "Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 713-728, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:713-728
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01747.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01747.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01747.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "Trust and Terrorism: Citizen Responses to Anti‐Terrorism Performance History," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1328-1340, September.
    3. Barry Charles Ezell & Steven P. Bennett & Detlof Von Winterfeldt & John Sokolowski & Andrew J. Collins, 2010. "Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 575-589, April.
    4. Gregory S. Parnell & Christopher M. Smith & Frederick I. Moxley, 2010. "Intelligent Adversary Risk Analysis: A Bioterrorism Risk Management Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 32-48, January.
    5. Paul L. Ewing & William Tarantino & Gregory S. Parnell, 2006. "Use of Decision Analysis in the Army Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Military Value Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 33-49, March.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Thomas Eppel, 1990. "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1011-1030, September.
    7. Ralph L. Keeney, 1988. "Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 396-405, June.
    8. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    9. William L. McGill & Bilal M. Ayyub & Mark Kaminskiy, 2007. "Risk Analysis for Critical Asset Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1265-1281, October.
    10. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1999. "Protected Values and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 79-94, August.
    11. Paul Slovic, 2002. "Terrorism as Hazard: A New Species of Trouble," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 425-426, June.
    12. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    13. H. Rosoff & D. Von Winterfeldt, 2007. "A Risk and Economic Analysis of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 533-546, June.
    14. Keeney, Ralph L. & Renn, Ortwin & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 1987. "Structuring West Germany's energy objectives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 352-362, August.
    15. Ward Edwards & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1987. "Public Values in Risk Debates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 141-158, June.
    16. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2011. "A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1470-1487, September.
    17. Thomas F. Sanquist & Heidi Mahy & Frederic Morris, 2008. "An Exploratory Risk Perception Study of Attitudes Toward Homeland Security Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1125-1133, August.
    18. Viscusi, W Kip & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 2003. "Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 99-120, March-May.
    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. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    2. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    3. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    4. Robin L. Dillon & Vicki M. Bier & Richard Sheffield John & Abdullah Althenayyan, 2023. "Closing the Gap Between Decision Analysis and Policy Analysts Before the Next Pandemic," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 109-132, June.
    5. Gilberto Montibeller & L. Alberto Franco & Ashley Carreras, 2020. "A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2462-2477, November.
    6. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    7. Ashley B. C. Goode & Erin Rivenbark & Jessica A. Gilbert & Conor P. McGowan, 2023. "Prioritization of Species Status Assessments for Decision Support," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 311-325, December.
    8. Sumitra Sri Bhashyam & Gilberto Montibeller, 2016. "In the Opponent's Shoes: Increasing the Behavioral Validity of Attackers’ Judgments in Counterterrorism Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 666-680, April.
    9. E. S. Levine, 2012. "Estimating Conditional Probabilities of Terrorist Attacks: Modeling Adversaries with Uncertain Value Tradeoffs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 294-303, February.
    10. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    11. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    12. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    13. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    14. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    15. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
    16. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    17. Jason R. W. Merrick & Laura A. McLay, 2010. "Is Screening Cargo Containers for Smuggled Nuclear Threats Worthwhile?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 155-171, June.
    18. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    19. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    20. Kenneth C. Fletcher & Ali E. Abbas, 2018. "A Value Measure for Public‐Sector Enterprise Risk Management: A TSA Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 991-1008, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:713-728. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.