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

A Correction to this article was published on 17 June 2019

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Change history

  • 17 June 2019

    The original article can be found online.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For this paper, the Australian term of bushfire shall be used which is comparable to the term of forest fire in Europe and wildfire in North America.

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):1–16

    Google 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 13:1–12

    Google 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 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnott D (2006) Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf Syst J 16:55–78

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM et al (2013) Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. N Engl J Med 368:246–253

    Google 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 24:45–68

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM (2009) Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Hum Relat 62:1327–1356

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bordley R (2001) Naturalistic decision making and prescriptive decision theory. J Behav Decis Mak 14:355–357

    Google 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 7:97–107

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bowen MG, Power CF (1993) The moral manager: communicative ethics and the “Exxon Valdez” disaster. Bus Ethics Q 3:97–115

    Google 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):38–43

    Google 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):440–452

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burian BK, Clebone A, Dismukes K, Ruskin KJ (2017) More than a tick box. Anesth Analg 126:223–232

    Google Scholar 

  14. Catchpole K, Russ S (2015) The problem with checklists. BMJ Qual Saf 24:545–549

    Google 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):21–26

    Google 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 58:391–403

    Google 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 56–62

  18. Commonwealth of Australia (2018) Decision making during a crisis: a practical guide. ACT, Belconnen, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  19. Croskerry P (2002) Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med 9:1184–1204

    Google Scholar 

  20. De Ven AH, Van Johnson PE (2006) Academy of management knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev 31:802–821

    Google Scholar 

  21. Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44:350

    Google Scholar 

  22. Edwards W (1954) The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull 51:380–417

    Google Scholar 

  23. Endsley MR (1995) Towards a theory of situational awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64

    Google Scholar 

  24. Engle RW (2002) Working memory capacity as executive attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:19–23

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fischoff B (2003) Hindsight foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. BMJ Qual Saf 12:304–311

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fletcher KA, Bedwell WL, Frick SE, Telford BN (2018) Enhancing training with well-designed checklists. Int J Train Dev 22:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  27. Friesen G, Weller PA (2006) Quantifying cognitive biases in analyst earnings forecasts. J Financ Mark 9:333–365

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gawande AA (2011) The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. Profile Books Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harrald JR, Marcus HS, Wallace WA (1990) The EXXON Valdez: an assessment of crisis prevention and management systems. Interfaces (Providence) 20:14–30

    Google 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 17:55–62

    Google 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 360:491–499

    Google Scholar 

  32. Henshel RL, Johnston W (1987) The emergence of bandwagon effects: a theory. Sociol Q 28:493–511

    Google 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 5:205–221

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol 64:515–526

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Stud Manag Sci 12:313–327

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Klein G (2008) Naturalistic decision making. Hum Factors 50:456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lewis G, Jones H, Nelson R et al (1846) Aide-Mémoire to the military sciences, vol 3. Weale, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maitlis S (2005) The social processes of organizational. Acad Manag J 48:21–49

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:371–378

    Google 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 25:165–184

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. National Oil Spill Commission (2011) Deep water: the gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. Washington, DC

  50. Neisser U (1976) Cognition and reality. WH Freeman and Company, New York

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. Reisberg D (2006) Cognition: exploring the science of the mind, 3rd edn. W. W. Norton & Company Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ritov I, Baron J (1992) Status-quo and omission biases. J Risk Uncertain 5:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Salkind N (2010) Encyclopedia of research design, vol 3. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks

    Google 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 9:297–323

    Google Scholar 

  59. Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shefrin H, Cervellati EM (2011) BP’s failure to debias: underscoring the importance of behavioral corporate finance. Q J Financ 1:127–168

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Teague B, McLeod R, Pascoe S (2009) Final report, volume 4, the statements of lay witnesses

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  72. Watkins M, Bazerman M (2003) Predictable surprises: the disasters you should have seen coming. Harv Bus Rev 81:72–85

    Google Scholar 

  73. Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google 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 81–123

    Google Scholar 

  75. Whittaker J, Handmer J (2010) Community bushfire safety: a review of post-Black Saturday research. Aust J Emerg Manag 25:7–13

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Yates J (1990) Judgement and decision-making. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zajonc R (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Curnin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brooks, B., Curnin, S., Owen, C. et al. Managing cognitive biases during disaster response: the development of an aide memoire. Cogn Tech Work 22, 249–261 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00564-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive bias
  • Decision-making
  • Disasters
  • Emergency management decision aid