Cue Generation amongst Firefighters: Competent vs. Expert Differences

Information processing and intuitive decision-making on the fireground: towards a model of expert intuition

“…2) provided additional evidence to suggest that intuitive insight and intuitive judgment represent two different but related routes to intuitive decision-making. The former relates to decisions made during unusual circumstances that require improvisation (creative decisions), which is only possible through insight (Polanyi 1962), whereas the latter, intuitive judgment, relates to decisions made through pattern recognition-in which case a decision-maker will assess an ongoing situation and then match the cues, goals and actions against the repertoire of patterns stored in the memory (Klein 2008;Perry and Wiggins 2008;Keller et al 2010). Hence, although the creative use of intuition appeared to be significantly less prominent than its use in judgment making, there are reasons to believe that problem-solving on the fireground involves both intuitive insight and intuitive judgment.…”

“…However, other authors have argued that the basis of experts' competence cannot exactly be explained by simply stating that they possess extensive domain knowledge (Perry and Wiggins 2008;Pollock et al 2002). Cognitive load theorists, for example, have mostly attributed experts' competence to the way they are able to effectively organize and apply their wide range of knowledge in solving complex problems (Sweller 1994;Dreyfus 2004;Anderson and Schooler 2000;Pollock et al 2002;Hilbig et al 2010).…”

“…The main argument put forward by these authors is that individuals with better information processing capabilities tend to think more intuitively, since their working memory will usually be occupied with more important and up-to-date information. The need to always ignore potential sources of distractions or irrelevant information on the fireground cannot be overemphasized as such acts help a great deal in minimizing the risk of cognitive overload (Sweller 1994;Perry and Wiggins 2008;Marewski et al 2010).…”

Towards the Classification of Fireground Cues: A Qualitative Analysis of Expert Reports

“…The study set out to identify and categorize various cues utilized by experienced fireground commanders in the UK and Nigeria, with respect to a retrospective incident reported by each expert. While we acknowledge that the list of cues presented in Table is not exhaustive, we also note that the total number of elicited cues seem quite encouraging in relation to other cue elicitation studies (Calderwood, Crandall, & Baynes, ; Perry et al., ; Wiggins et al., ; Wong, ), outnumbering even those identified by Klein and his colleagues in their seminal work with urban firefighters (Klein et al., ).…”

“…Over the years, research on cue‐based performance has gained more attention as scholars continue to explore the critical cues upon which experts base their judgement. In both judgement and decision‐making (JDM) and naturalistic decision‐making (NDM) literatures, scholars have proposed possible ways through which cue‐based learning could be improved for training purposes (Crandall & Gretchell‐Leiter, ; Klein, ; Lamb, Davies, Bowley, & Williams, ; O'Hare, Wiggins, Williams, & Wong, ; Okoli, Weller, Watt, & Wong, ; Perry & Wiggins, ; Spence & Brucks, ; Wiggins & O'Hare, ; Wong, ). Specifically, some of the studies in JDM literature have utilized a cue‐based learning approach known as multiple‐cue probability learning (MCPL) to explain how decision‐makers make sense of information accruing from task‐related cues (Castellan, ; Juslin, Jones, Olsson, & Winman, ; Newell, Lagnado, & Shanks, ; Steinmann, ).…”