Supporting Decision Making by a Critical Thinking Tool

Abstract

Building up situation understanding is one of the most difficult tasks in the beginning stages of largescale accidents. As ambiguous information about the events becomes available, decision-makers are often tempted to quickly develop a particular story to explain the observed events. As the accident evolves, decision-makers can fail to revise their initial assessments despite contradicting information. Our approach is to reduce fixation errors and confirmation bias by providing critical thinking support. In a laboratory experiment with 60 participants, we compared the effect on decision making of a critical thinking tool, which requires the explication of evidence-conclusion relations in situation assessment, with two control conditions. Participants acted as crisis managers determining the likely cause of accidents. The results show a positive impact of the tool on both the decision-making process and decision making effectiveness. Participants did, however, take more time to arrive at a conclusion using the tool.

Keywords

Fixation errors confirmation bias information order framing story building critical thinking decision support crisis management.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cohen

M.S.

Freeman

J.T.

Wolf

(1996). Metarecognition in time-stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors, 38(2), 206–219.

Cook

R.I.

Woods

D.D.

(1994). Operating at the sharp end: The complexity of human error. In Bogner

M.S.

(Ed.), Human error in medicine (pp. 255–310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Klein

(1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pennington

Hastie

(1993). The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perrin

B.M.

Barnett

B.J.

Walrath

Grossman

J.D.

(2001). Information order and outcome framing: An assessment of judgment bias in a naturalistic decisionmaking context. Human Factors, 43(2), 227–238.