Decision inertia: Deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters

Alison, Laurence; Power, Nicola; Heuvel, Claudia van den; Humann, Michael; Palasinksi, Marek; Crego, Jonathan

doi:10.1111/joop.12108

Cited by 69 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 80 publications

(111 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, not only can Hydra facilitate practitioner training, but it creates a data-rich environment from which it is possible to conduct research (Alison et al, 2013); for example, by analysing the data that are digitally recorded during the simulation (e.g., decision logs, audio recordings). Previously, Hydra has been used for research in terms of providing secondary data that were collected during training events (e.g., Alison, Power, van den Heuvel, and Waring, 2015;Alison, Power, van den Heuvel, Humann, et al, 2015). The present study was unique, using Hydra as a platform to specifically design a simulation for both training and research (see Appendix for a guide).…”

Section: Data Collection: Hydramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When placed under conditions of high stress, individuals abandon collective goals and instead focus on the most important 'sacred values' of their own agency. It was found during a simulated emergency response to a major aeroplane crash that when tasks lacked direction, were non-time bounded, and involved two or more agencies, that teams focussed on intra-agency information seeking rather than collaborative communication and action (Alison, Power, van den Heuvel, Humann, et al, 2015). The more complex the incident, the less collaborative the multiteam response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This occurs when intrateam members favour in-group goals over collective interteam goals and so will prioritize the goals of their own team. Alison, Power, van den Heuvel, Humann, et al (2015) found that emergency responders prioritized intra-agency information seeking over interagency information sharing when incident demands increased. Thus, although clear and concrete goals can facilitate decision-making performance (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2006, when goals are used inappropriately, by being too abstract, too specific, or in direct conflict with competing personal or intrateam goals, then decision processing can derail.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power

Alison

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When operating in multiteam settings, it is important that goals are cohesive between team members, especially in high‐stakes, risky, and uncertain environments. This study explored goal consistency during a multiteam emergency response simulation. A total of n = 50 commanders from the UK Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services, and Ambulance Services took part in a simulated terrorism exercise, who were split into n = 13 teams. Each team responded to the same simulated terrorist event, which was based on a ‘Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack’ (MTFA) at a city centre train station. Data were collected using electronically time‐stamped ‘decision logs’ and post‐incident questionnaires that measured team members’ self‐reported goals. Goals that were ‘attack’ focussed (e.g., ‘treat patients’) were coded as ‘approach’ (i.e., focussed on achieving positive outcomes) and goals that were ‘defence’ focussed (e.g., protect emergency responders) were coded as ‘avoid’ (i.e., focussed on avoiding negative outcomes). It emerged that different agencies prioritized different goal types; Fire commanders initially prioritized avoid goals but then increased approach orientations, Ambulance commanders were consistently approach oriented, and Police commanders showed goal conflict (tensions between adopting approach and avoid goals). Despite goal differences, participants rated that their interagency goals were consistent in a post‐scenario questionnaire, suggesting that commanders were unaware of the nuanced differences between their agency‐specific objectives. At the multiteam level, teams who predominantly held attack/approach goals were significantly faster at decision logging early in the incident, yet defend/avoid teams were faster at decision logging later into the incident. Implications for multiteam coordination are discussed. Practitioner points The ‘save life’ goal in multiteam emergency response settings is vague and open to interpretation. This can impede coordination when agencies assume that they are working towards the same ‘save life’ goal, but are actually focussed on different and role‐specific objectives with regard to how they will achieve it. A joint decision model that helps to clarify agency‐specific tactical priorities may be more useful in multiteam contexts than one that uses ambiguous and abstract (i.e., ‘save life’) interagency goals. A focus on achieving positive outcomes (attack/approach goal; e.g., ‘treat patients’) can speed up decision‐making during the early stages of an incident, but when the situation becomes more complex and dynamic, then a focus on avoiding negative outcomes (defend/avoid goal; e.g., protect emergency responders from harm) might lead to faster action. When responding to complex emergencies, practitioners should focus on satisficing to achieve ‘least‐worst’ outcomes rather trying to maximize gains.

show abstract

Section: Data Collection: Hydramentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power

Alison

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the individual level, SA is important for ensuring that decisions made are appropriate to the situation and are implemented in a timely manner (Alison et al ., ). Effective teamwork requires that all members have the SA needed to address their responsibilities, referred to as team situation awareness (TSA; Endsley & Jones, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Findings from this domain highlight the importance of having access to relevant information for developing an accurate understanding of what is happening and how this might progress (referred to as situation awareness or SA; Endsley, , , ) so that decisions and actions taken are appropriate to the situation (Rankin, Dahlbäck, & Lundbery, ). Failure to share or pay attention to relevant information can lead to increased uncertainty and delayed decision‐making (Alison et al ., ), resulting in devastating consequences, as disasters such as the Clapham Rail Crash and Cumbrian Shootings demonstrate (Pollock, ). Understanding what facilitates information sharing is therefore vital to improving SA and decision‐making in ‘extreme’ environments, including disasters (DeChurch et al ., ), military operations (DeCostanza, DiRosa, Jiménez‐Rodríguez, & Cianciolo, ), and medical emergencies (Mathieu, Marks, & Zaccaro, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

Waring

Alison

Carter

et al. 2018

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research demonstrates that information sharing is facilitated by familiarity, and having a common understanding of problems, use of lexicon, and semantic meaning. These factors can be difficult to develop within extreme environments such as disasters as members of the multi‐agency system that responds often have limited experience of working together. Public inquiries repeatedly highlight the impact of information sharing difficulties on public safety, but limited academic research has focused on identifying concrete behaviours that facilitate interteam information sharing within such environments. This paper presents a case study of a national disaster response exercise involving 1,000 emergency responders. Data consist of structured observations, recordings of interteam meetings, and interviews with emergency responders. Results of mixed‐method analysis indicate that interteam information sharing is delayed by limited situation awareness and poor articulation. Conversely, adopting behaviours that promote common frames for understanding interteam capabilities and information requirements improves information sharing and potentially reduces cognitive effort required to process information. Findings contribute to interteam communication theory by highlighting that in complex, time‐constrained environments, having a shared understanding of responsibilities and information requirement is important for minimizing redundant deliberation and improving relevance and speed.Practitioner points Facilitating the exchange and interpretation of relevant information is important for improving situation assessment, decision‐making, and the implementation of appropriate actions for addressing risks.Interteam information sharing can be particularly challenging when teams are comprised of members from across different organizations with different language and cultures that must form ad hoc to rapidly respond to problems in extreme environments.Adopting communication strategies that develop common frames‐of‐reference can facilitate information sharing and interteam responses to disasters.

show abstract

Team Decision Making

Reader¹

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision inertia: Deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters

Cited by 69 publications

References 80 publications

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

Team Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About