This laboratory experiment shows how time constraint and event severity affect convergent and divergent thinking processes among professional emergency response personnel addressing a simulated emergency situation. Increasing time constraint resulted in fewer options considered, fewer recommendations made, fewer decisions taken, and less favorable decision outcomes. Increasing event severity had a more ambiguous effect, suggesting the need for further study on the effect of this factor alone and in conjunction with time constraint.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelardoS.PazerH. L.DankoW. D.WallaceW. A. (1983). Simulation of a Crisis Management Information Network: A Serendipitous Evaluation. Decision Sciences, 14(4), 588–606.
2.
Ben ZurH.BreznitzS. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 89–104.
3.
CookeN. J.ShopeS. M. (2004). Designing a Synthetic Task Environment. In SchiflettS. G.ElliottL. R.SalasE.CoovertM. D. (Eds.), Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation and Application (pp. 263–278). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
4.
CropleyA. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.
5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005). Typed Resource Definitions: Fire and Hazardous Materials Resources (No. FEMA 508–4). Washington, D.C.
6.
GrayW. D. (2002). Simulated task environments: The role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(2), 205–227.
7.
GuQ.MendonçaD. (2006). Group information foraging in emergency response: an illustration incorporating discrete-event simulation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th conference on Winter simulation.
8.
HutchinsE. (1991). Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), 14–39.
9.
KellyJ. R.KarauS. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1342–1354.
10.
KerrN. L.TindaleR. S. (2004). Group Performance and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655.
11.
MendonçaD.BeroggiG. E. G.Van GentD.WallaceW. A. (2006). Assessing Group Decision Support Systems for Emergency Response Using Gaming Simulation. Safety Science, 44(6), 523–535.
12.
MendonçaD.WallaceW. A. (2007). A Cognitive Model of Improvisation in Emergency Management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Part A, 37(4), 547–561.
13.
MontgomeryD. C. (1997). Design and Analysis of Experiments (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
QuarantelliE. L. (1978). Uses and Problems of Local EOCs in Disasters. Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center.
15.
SvensonO. L. A.EdlandA. (1987). Change of preferences under time pressure: Choices and judgements. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28(4), 322–330.
16.
VidailletB. (2001). Cognitive Processes and Decision Making in a Crisis Situation: A case study Organizational Cognition: Computation and Interpretation (pp. 241–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
WebbG. R. (2004). Role Improvising during Crisis Situations. International Journal of Emergency Management, 2(1–2), 47–61.
