Advertisement

Managing cognitive biases during disaster response: the development of an aide memoire

  • Benjamin Brooks
  • Steven CurninEmail author
  • Christine Owen
  • Chris Bearman
Original Article
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Disasters are highly complex with often extreme consequences and are often exacerbated by decision errors. Human behaviour in this domain offers a fertile ground for studying decision-making and identifying opportunities for improvement. This research sought to improve the quality of decision-making by developing an aide memoire for managing cognitive biases in emergency management. Based on the appropriate literature, 58 of Australia’s leading marine spill disaster response experts identified and ranked the most important cognitive biases in a group setting. The results were translated into language relevant to emergency management practitioners and reframed into a series of questions. The identification of nine cognitive biases in the aide memoire can first be used to assess the available information, intelligence and decisions, and then used to determine the meaning of the information, intelligence and decisions. The paper discusses the applicability of the aide memoire to decision errors identified in recent man-made and natural disasters. Finally, the article addresses a criticism that research findings are often not useful to industry by suggesting how the aide memoire can be used in practice.

Keywords

Cognitive bias Decision-making Disasters Emergency management decision aid 

Notes

References

  1. Adam C, Gaudou B (2017) Modelling human behaviours in disasters from interviews: application to Melbourne bushfires. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 20(3):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alidina S, Goldhaber-Fiebert SN, Hannenberg AA et al (2018) Factors associated with the use of cognitive aids in operating room crises: a cross-sectional study of US hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers. Implement Sci 13:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ancona D (2016) Sensemaking: framing and acting in the unknown. In: Snook S, Nohria N, Khurana R (eds) The handbook for teaching leadership. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  4. Arnott D (2006) Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf Syst J 16:55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM et al (2013) Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. N Engl J Med 368:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer M, Frese M (2003) Innovation is not enough: climates for initiation and psychological safety, process innocations, and firm performance. J Organ Behav 24:45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM (2009) Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Hum Relat 62:1327–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordley R (2001) Naturalistic decision making and prescriptive decision theory. J Behav Decis Mak 14:355–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornstein BH, Emler AC (2001) Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J Eval Clin Pract 7:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowen MG, Power CF (1993) The moral manager: communicative ethics and the “Exxon Valdez” disaster. Bus Ethics Q 3:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks B, Curnin S, Bearman C, Owen C, Rainbird S (2016) An assessment of the opportunities to improve strategic decision-making in emergency and disaster management. Aust J Emergency Manage 31(4):38–43Google Scholar
  12. Brooks B, Curnin S, Bearman C, Owen C (2018) Human error during the multilevel responses to three Australian bushfire disasters. J Contingencies Crisis Manage 26(4):440–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burian BK, Clebone A, Dismukes K, Ruskin KJ (2017) More than a tick box. Anesth Analg 126:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catchpole K, Russ S (2015) The problem with checklists. BMJ Qual Saf 24:545–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaparro A, Keebler JR, Lazzara EH, Diamond A (2019) Checklists: a review of their origins, benefits, and current uses as a cognitive aid in medicine. Ergon Des 27(2):21–26Google Scholar
  16. Chua A, Kaynak S, Foo S (2007) An analysis of the delayed response to Hurricane Katrina through the lens of knowledge management. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58:391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Comes T (2016) Cognitive biases in humanitarian sensemaking and decision-making lessons from field research. In: 2016 IEEE international multi-disciplinary conference on cognitive methods in situation awareness and decision support CogSIMA 2016, pp 56–62Google Scholar
  18. Commonwealth of Australia (2018) Decision making during a crisis: a practical guide. ACT, Belconnen, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  19. Croskerry P (2002) Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med 9:1184–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Ven AH, Van Johnson PE (2006) Academy of management knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev 31:802–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44:350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards W (1954) The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull 51:380–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Endsley MR (1995) Towards a theory of situational awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engle RW (2002) Working memory capacity as executive attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischoff B (2003) Hindsight foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. BMJ Qual Saf 12:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fletcher KA, Bedwell WL, Frick SE, Telford BN (2018) Enhancing training with well-designed checklists. Int J Train Dev 22:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friesen G, Weller PA (2006) Quantifying cognitive biases in analyst earnings forecasts. J Financ Mark 9:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gawande AA (2011) The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. Profile Books Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrald JR, Marcus HS, Wallace WA (1990) The EXXON Valdez: an assessment of crisis prevention and management systems. Interfaces (Providence) 20:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haugen AS, Høyland S, Thomassen Ø, Aase K (2015) ‘It’s a state of mind’: a qualitative study after two years’ experience with the World Health Organization’s surgical safety checklist. Cogn Technol Work 17:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henshel RL, Johnston W (1987) The emergence of bandwagon effects: a theory. Sociol Q 28:493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinds PJ (1999) The curse of expertise: the effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. J Exp Psychol Appl 5:205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hockley W (2008) The picture superiority effect in associative recognition. Mem Cognit 36:1351–1359.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol 64:515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahneman D, Miller DT (1986) Norm theory. Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol Rev 93:136–153.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3:430–454.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Stud Manag Sci 12:313–327Google Scholar
  40. Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim B, Reeves TC (2007) Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instr Sci 35:207–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9005-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein G (2008) Naturalistic decision making. Hum Factors 50:456–460.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis G, Jones H, Nelson R et al (1846) Aide-Mémoire to the military sciences, vol 3. Weale, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Maitlis S (2005) The social processes of organizational. Acad Manag J 48:21–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshall SD, Sanderson P, McIntosh CA, Kolawole H (2016) The effect of two cognitive aid designs on team functioning during intra-operative anaphylaxis emergencies: a multi-centre simulation study. Anaesthesia 71:389–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller PA, Stahlberg D (2007) The role of surprise in hindsight bias: a metacognitive model of reduced and reversed hindsight bias. Soc Cogn 25:165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murata A, Nakamura T, Karwowski W (2015) Influence of cognitive biases in distorting decision making and leading to critical unfavorable incidents. Safety 1:44–58.  https://doi.org/10.3390/safety1010044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. National Oil Spill Commission (2011) Deep water: the gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Neisser U (1976) Cognition and reality. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Okoli JO, Weller G, Watt J (2016) Information processing and intuitive decision-making on the fireground: towards a model of expert intuition. Cogn Technol Work 18:89–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0348-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reader TW, Connor PO (2014) The Deepwater Horizon explosion: non- technical skills, safety culture, and system complexity. J Risk Res 17:405–424.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.815652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reisberg D (2006) Cognition: exploring the science of the mind, 3rd edn. W. W. Norton & Company Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Ritov I, Baron J (1992) Status-quo and omission biases. J Risk Uncertain 5:49–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenthal TL, Downs A (1985) Cognitive aids in teaching and treating. Adv Behav Res Ther 7:1–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(85)90010-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salkind N (2010) Encyclopedia of research design, vol 3. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salmon P, Stanton N, Walker G et al (2008) What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 9:297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Shanteau J (1989) Cognitive heuristics and biases in behavioral auditing: review, comments and observations. Acc Organ Soc 14:165–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(89)90040-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shefrin H, Cervellati EM (2011) BP’s failure to debias: underscoring the importance of behavioral corporate finance. Q J Financ 1:127–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shiwakoti N, Tay R, Stasinopoulos P, Woolley P (2018) Passengers’ perceived ability to get out safely from an underground train station in an emergency situation. Cogn Technol Work 20:367–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0473-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sibbald M, De Bruin ABH, van Merrienboer JJG (2014) Finding and fixing mistakes: do checklists work for clinicians with different levels of experience? Adv Heal Sci Educ 19:43–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9459-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stiegler MP, Tung A (2014) Cognitive processes in anesthesiology decision making. Anesthesiology 120:204–217.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36172-2_200957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Teague B, McLeod R, Pascoe S (2009) Final report, volume 4, the statements of lay witnessesGoogle Scholar
  66. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science (80-) 185:1124–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science (80-) 211:453–458.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev 95:371–384.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vanderhaegen F (2017) Towards increased systems resilience: new challenges based on dissonance control for human reliability in Cyber-Physical&Human Systems. Annu Rev Control 44:316–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Watkins M, Bazerman M (2003) Predictable surprises: the disasters you should have seen coming. Harv Bus Rev 81:72–85Google Scholar
  73. Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  74. Weick K, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (1999) Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. In: Sutton R, Staw B (eds) Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press, Stanford, pp 81–123Google Scholar
  75. Whittaker J, Handmer J (2010) Community bushfire safety: a review of post-Black Saturday research. Aust J Emerg Manag 25:7–13Google Scholar
  76. Wilson T, Brekke N (1994) Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychol Bull 116:117–142.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yates J (1990) Judgement and decision-making. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  78. Zajonc R (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Maritime CollegeUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Appleton InstituteCentral Queensland UniversityWayvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research CentreMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations