Understanding Preferences in Experience-Based Choice

McAndrew, Claire; Gore, Julie

doi:10.1177/1555343412463922

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By researching ‘natural’ environments where the researcher cannot manipulate rigorously defined independent variables, nor quantify objective dependent outcomes, the objectivity of research conclusions is reduced. There is a risk that researchers’ interests could bias the interpretation of the data, creating the potential for unreliable or invalid findings (Lipshitz et al ., ; McAndrew & Gore, ), as researchers continually return to and attempt to explain the data, thereby risking post‐hoc rationalization and assumed significance. Likewise, it is possible that the ability to immerse oneself in the data, with the freedom for methodological flexibility, is a strength for NDM research that primarily desires pragmatic solutions derived from the data to help practitioners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The NDM paradigm 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, 2006;McAndrew & Gore, 2013). NDM emphasizes the importance of real-world contexts, domain-specific expertise, and macrocognition in distributed and sociotechnical teams (Stanton, Wong, Gore, Sevdalis, & Strub, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

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

show abstract

“…Using Hydra as a simulation platform for Naturalistic Decision Making research 'Naturalistic Decision Making' (NDM) research seeks to understand how people operate and cope with decision problems 'in the wild' (Gore, Banks, Millward, & Kyriakidou, 2006;McAndrew & Gore, 2012). Simulations offer a fruitful method for collecting NDM data in high-fidelity environments, whilst maintaining experimental control.…”

Section: Data Collection: Hydramentioning

confidence: 99%

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

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

“…Other emergent areas that require further investigation by NDM scholars include the importance of affect and expertise (Mosier & Fischer, 2010) and the exploration of new contexts and domains, such as intelligence analysis (Roth et al, 2010;Ormerod & Dando, 2014) and trading (McAndrew & Gore, 2013), where decision problems are so new and drawing upon expertise is very challenging. We are also pleased to note that there are a growing number of researchers who recognize complexity and combine NDM methods with areas traditionally studied by behavioural decision researchers and those from the heuristics and biases tradition.…”

Section: Methodological Strengths and Limitations Of Ndm Techniques Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications for naturalistic decision‐making

Gore

Flin

Stanton

et al. 2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding Preferences in Experience-Based Choice

Cited by 23 publications

References 61 publications

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

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

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

Applications for naturalistic decision‐making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About