Cognitive biases in humanitarian sensemaking and decision-making lessons from field research

T. Comes
{"title":"Cognitive biases in humanitarian sensemaking and decision-making lessons from field research","authors":"T. Comes","doi":"10.1109/COGSIMA.2016.7497786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Time and again, humanitarian decision-makers are confronted with stress and pressure, distorted, lacking and uncertain information, and thus they are working in conditions that are known to introduce or enforce biases. Decision analysis has been designed to overcome such biases, and a network of “digital responders” organized over the Internet has set out to improve judgments by providing better information. However, without any structured support to determine objectives, goals and preferences and detached from the context of operational decision-makers, remote analysts may face the very biases they are trying to help overcome. This article sets out to identify biases that matter for humanitarian decision support, reflecting on the role of field-based decision-makers and digital responders. The most important biases are reviewed to provide an assessment on their role in the course of a disaster response. To this end, a literature review is combined with results from fieldwork in three humanitarian disasters. I identify areas that are particularly sensitive to reinforced biases, and others, where digital volunteers can likely help, and conclude the paper with an agenda for future research.","PeriodicalId":194697,"journal":{"name":"2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/COGSIMA.2016.7497786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

Abstract

Time and again, humanitarian decision-makers are confronted with stress and pressure, distorted, lacking and uncertain information, and thus they are working in conditions that are known to introduce or enforce biases. Decision analysis has been designed to overcome such biases, and a network of “digital responders” organized over the Internet has set out to improve judgments by providing better information. However, without any structured support to determine objectives, goals and preferences and detached from the context of operational decision-makers, remote analysts may face the very biases they are trying to help overcome. This article sets out to identify biases that matter for humanitarian decision support, reflecting on the role of field-based decision-makers and digital responders. The most important biases are reviewed to provide an assessment on their role in the course of a disaster response. To this end, a literature review is combined with results from fieldwork in three humanitarian disasters. I identify areas that are particularly sensitive to reinforced biases, and others, where digital volunteers can likely help, and conclude the paper with an agenda for future research.
认知偏差在人道主义意义和决策的经验教训,从实地研究
人道主义决策者一次又一次地面临着压力和压力,以及扭曲、缺乏和不确定的信息,因此他们是在已知会引入或实施偏见的条件下工作的。决策分析就是为了克服这种偏见而设计的,在互联网上组织起来的“数字应答者”网络已经开始通过提供更好的信息来改进判断。然而,如果没有任何结构化的支持来确定目标、目标和偏好,并且脱离了操作决策者的背景,远程分析师可能会面临他们试图帮助克服的偏见。本文旨在识别对人道主义决策支持至关重要的偏见,反映实地决策者和数字响应者的作用。对最重要的偏差进行审查,以评估它们在灾害应对过程中的作用。为此,本文结合三次人道主义灾难的实地调查结果,进行文献综述。我确定了对强化偏见特别敏感的领域,以及数字志愿者可能提供帮助的其他领域,并在论文的最后提出了未来研究的议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信