Critical thinking

Stanton, Neville A.; Wong, W.Y.; Gore, Julie; Sevdalis, Nick; Strub, Michael H.

doi:10.1080/1464536x.2011.564479

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the decades that followed, NDM researchers have broadened their inquiry to include additional cognitive phenomena, not only decision-making (Orasanu & Connolly, 1993;Stanton, Salmon, & Walker, 2015;Stanton, Wong, Gore, Sevdalis, & Strub, 2011). Just dialling back the calendar 20-30 years, NDM research has changed many core beliefs that used to be held in the basic research and the applied communities.…”

Section: Developing Ndm Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We no longer believe that we can reduce uncertainty by gathering more information (performance seems to go down when too much information is gathered -Uncertainty can stem from inadequate framing of data, not just from the absence of data, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993;Flin, O'Connor, & Crichton, 2008;Grossman, Spencer, & Salas, 2014;Omodei, McLennan, Elliott, Wearing, & Clancy, 2005). We no longer believe that we can improve performance by teaching critical thinking precepts such as listing assumptions (too often the flawed assumptions are ones we are not even aware of and would never list, Hoffman et al, 2014;Klein, 2011;Salas, Rosen, & DiazGranados, in press;Stanton et al, 2011).…”

Section: Developing Ndm Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reflections on applications of naturalistic decision making

Klein¹

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Developing Ndm Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developing Ndm Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on applications of naturalistic decision making

Klein¹

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…NDM rejects the notion of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ decisions and instead seeks to understand the cognitive processes associated with choice implementation by studying decision‐making ‘in the wild’ (Gore, Banks, Millward, & Kyraikidou, ; McAndrew & Gore, ). NDM emphasizes the importance of real‐world contexts, domain‐specific expertise, and macrocognition in distributed and sociotechnical teams (Stanton, Wong, Gore, Sevdalis, & Strub, ). The aim of NDM is ‘to understand how people make decisions in real‐world contexts that are meaningful and familiar to them’ (Lipshitz et al ., , p. 332).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To clarify, macrocognition is the study of ‘how teams move between internalisation and externalisation of cognition to build knowledge in service of problem solving’ (Fiore et al ., , p. 203). It considers both social and technical influences on team cognition during the decision process (Schubert, Denmark, Crandall, Grome, & Pappas, ) to increase understanding of collective group cognition during sense making (Stanton et al ., ). Teams are not only made up of a collection of individuals, but also consist of ‘subteams’ (or ‘agencies’).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Alison

Power

Heuvel

et al. 2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study demonstrates how naturalistic decision-making (NDM) can be usefully applied to study 'decision inertia'-Namely the cognitive process associated with failures to execute action when a decision-maker struggles to choose between equally perceived aversive outcomes. Data assessed the response and recovery from a sudden impact disaster during a 2-day immersive simulated emergency response. Fourteen agencies (including police, fire, ambulance, and military) and 194 participants were involved in the exercise. By assessing the frequency, type, audience, and content of communications, and by reference to five subject matter experts' slow time analyses of critical turning points during the incident, three barriers were identified as reducing multiagency information sharing and the macrocognitive understanding of the incident. When the decision problem was non-time-bounded, involved multiple agencies, and identification of superordinate goals was lacking, the communication between agencies decreased and agencies focused on within-agency information sharing. These barriers distracted teams from timely and efficient discussions on decisions and action execution with seeking redundant information, which resulted in decision inertia. Our study illustrates how naturalistic environments are conducive to examining relatively understudied concepts of decision inertia, failures to act, and shared situational macrocognition in situations involving large distributed teams. Practitioner points Researchers can use NDM to explore the cognitive processing associated with failures to act/decision inertia. Complexities in the decision-making environment of a multiteam system (e.g., non-time-bounded choice, large team size, and lack of strategic goals) are associated with decision-making failures. Barriers cause decision inertia as teams focus on redundant intra-agency information seeking rather than cooperative interagency communications. Strategic direction is especially important for shifting multiteam system communication towards interagency discussions on action execution. If the behavioural implementation of making a decision is the execution of action (Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, & Salas, 2001; Yates, 2003), then failing to make a decision (e.g., making an executive choice) is when action execution fails. Traditional decision-making

show abstract

“…Research from the NDM field is published in a range of journals, with the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making as a principal outlet of empirical findings and theoretical argument (see the special issues on 20 years of NDM, Flin & Militello, 2010;van Winsen & Dekker, 2015). Special issues on NDM have appeared in theoretical journals (Stanton, Wong, Gore, Sevdalis, & Strub, 2011) as well as applied journals (Stanton & Wong, 2010). As previously noted, an over-rehearsed debate between NDM and more traditional decision researchers (Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, & Salas, 2001;Lipshitz & Strauss, 1997) in the special NDM issue of the Journal of Behavioural Decision Making has somewhat waned due to a decrease in conceptual polarity in recent years (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).…”

Section: Origins and Evolution Of Ndm Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%