Decision Biases and Heuristics Among Emergency Managers: Just Like the Public They Manage For?

被引:38
作者
Roberts, Patrick S. [1 ]
Wernstedt, Kris [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Tech, Sch Publ & Int Affairs, Ctr Publ Adm & Policy, 1021 Prince St, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA
[2] Virginia Tech, Sch Publ & Int Affairs, Alexandria, VA USA
[3] Ardhi Univ, Inst Human Settlements Studies, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
behavioral public administration; emergency management; decision making; heuristics; prospect theory; PROSPECT-THEORY; COGNITIVE BIASES; REFERENCE POINTS; LOSS AVERSION; RISK; PREFERENCES; DISASTER; COMMUNICATION; PROBABILITY; INSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1177/0275074018799490
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
We present evidence that emergency managers exhibit some of the same decision biases, sensitivity to framing, and heuristics found in studies of the general public, even when making decisions in their area of expertise. Our national survey of county-level emergency managers finds that managers appear more risk averse when the outcomes of actions are framed as gains than when equivalent outcomes are framed as losses, a finding that is consistent with prospect theory. We also find evidence that the perceived actions of emergency managers in neighboring jurisdictions affect the choices a manager makes. In addition, our managers show evidence of attribution bias, outcome bias, and difficulties processing numerical information, particularly probabilities compared to frequencies. Each of these departures from perfect rationality points to potential shortfalls in public managers' decision making. We suggest opportunities to improve decision making through reframing problems, providing training in structured decision-making processes, and employing different choice architectures to nudge behavior in a beneficial direction.
引用
收藏
页码:292 / 308
页数:17
相关论文
共 114 条
[1]   Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement [J].
Abdellaoui, Mohammed ;
Bleichrodt, Han ;
Paraschiv, Corina .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2007, 53 (10) :1659-1674
[2]   Adjust for Multiple Comparisons? It's Not That Simple [J].
Althouse, Andrew D. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2016, 101 (05) :1644-1645
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1983, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes
[4]  
[Anonymous], WORKING PAPER
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2016, STAND DEF FIN DISP C, V9th, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1600-6143.2005.00812.X
[6]   Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites [J].
Arvai, J .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 37 (08) :1469-1476
[7]  
Arvai J, 2006, J FOREST, V104, P173
[8]   OMISSION BIAS AND PERTUSSIS VACCINATION [J].
ASCH, DA ;
BARON, J ;
HERSHEY, JC ;
KUNREUTHER, H ;
MESZAROS, J ;
RITOV, I ;
SPRANCA, M .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1994, 14 (02) :118-123
[9]   STUDIES OF INDEPENDENCE AND CONFORMITY .1. A MINORITY OF ONE AGAINST A UNANIMOUS MAJORITY [J].
ASCH, SE .
PSYCHOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, 1956, 70 (09) :1-70
[10]   Prospect theory and public service outcomes: Examining risk preferences in relation to public sector reforms [J].
Baekgaard, Martin .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2017, 95 (04) :927-942