Fire alarm or false alarm?! Situation awareness and decision-making ‘bias’ of firefighters in training exercises

Di Catherwood, Graham Edgar, Geoff Sallis, A R Medley, David Brookes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firefighters display different decision-making biases: either a liberal bias to accepting information as true or a conservative bias to rejecting information, with the former carrying risk of “false alarm” errors and the latter of “misses”.

Design/methodology/approach – Situation awareness (SA) and decision-making biases were examined in Fire and Rescue (FRS) “table-top” and Breathing Apparatus (BA) training exercises. The former involved showing 50 operational FRS personnel a powerpoint presentation representing the drive-to, views and information related to the incident. The BA study involved 16 operational FRS personnel entering a smoke-filled training building in a search-and-rescue exercise. True/False answers to statements about the incidents were analysed by a signal-detection-type tool (QASA) to give measures of SA and bias.

Findings – In both studies, there were two groups showing different bias patterns (either conservative with risk of “miss” errors, or liberal with risk of “false alarms”) (p≤0.001), but not different SA (p>0.05).

Research limitations/implications – Future work will involve more realistic training exercises and explore the consistency of individual bias tendencies over different contexts.

Practical implications – Risk in fireground decision making may be minimised by increasing awareness of individual tendencies to either conservative or liberal bias patterns and the associated risk of respectively making “miss” or “false alarm” errors.

Social implications – The results may help to minimise fireground risk.

Originality/value – This is the first evidence to show firefighter decision bias in two different exercises.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)135-158
Number of pages24
JournalInternational Journal of Emergency Services
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Decision-making bias
Exercise
Incidents
Personnel
Search and rescue
Decision bias
Decision making
Design methodology

Cite this

Fire alarm or false alarm?! Situation awareness and decision-making ‘bias’ of firefighters in training exercises. / Catherwood, Di; Edgar, Graham; Sallis, Geoff; Medley, A R; Brookes, David.

In: International Journal of Emergency Services , Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012, p. 135-158.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Catherwood, Di ; Edgar, Graham ; Sallis, Geoff ; Medley, A R ; Brookes, David. / Fire alarm or false alarm?! Situation awareness and decision-making ‘bias’ of firefighters in training exercises. In: International Journal of Emergency Services . 2012 ; Vol. 1, No. 2. pp. 135-158.
@article{18347a4419a74f5291aa891fd376b81f,
title = "Fire alarm or false alarm?! Situation awareness and decision-making ‘bias’ of firefighters in training exercises",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firefighters display different decision-making biases: either a liberal bias to accepting information as true or a conservative bias to rejecting information, with the former carrying risk of “false alarm” errors and the latter of “misses”.Design/methodology/approach – Situation awareness (SA) and decision-making biases were examined in Fire and Rescue (FRS) “table-top” and Breathing Apparatus (BA) training exercises. The former involved showing 50 operational FRS personnel a powerpoint presentation representing the drive-to, views and information related to the incident. The BA study involved 16 operational FRS personnel entering a smoke-filled training building in a search-and-rescue exercise. True/False answers to statements about the incidents were analysed by a signal-detection-type tool (QASA) to give measures of SA and bias.Findings – In both studies, there were two groups showing different bias patterns (either conservative with risk of “miss” errors, or liberal with risk of “false alarms”) (p≤0.001), but not different SA (p>0.05).Research limitations/implications – Future work will involve more realistic training exercises and explore the consistency of individual bias tendencies over different contexts.Practical implications – Risk in fireground decision making may be minimised by increasing awareness of individual tendencies to either conservative or liberal bias patterns and the associated risk of respectively making “miss” or “false alarm” errors.Social implications – The results may help to minimise fireground risk.Originality/value – This is the first evidence to show firefighter decision bias in two different exercises.",
author = "Di Catherwood and Graham Edgar and Geoff Sallis and Medley, {A R} and David Brookes",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1108/20470891211275920",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "135--158",
journal = "International Journal of Emergency Services",
issn = "2847-0894",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fire alarm or false alarm?! Situation awareness and decision-making ‘bias’ of firefighters in training exercises

AU - Catherwood, Di

AU - Edgar, Graham

AU - Sallis, Geoff

AU - Medley, A R

AU - Brookes, David

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firefighters display different decision-making biases: either a liberal bias to accepting information as true or a conservative bias to rejecting information, with the former carrying risk of “false alarm” errors and the latter of “misses”.Design/methodology/approach – Situation awareness (SA) and decision-making biases were examined in Fire and Rescue (FRS) “table-top” and Breathing Apparatus (BA) training exercises. The former involved showing 50 operational FRS personnel a powerpoint presentation representing the drive-to, views and information related to the incident. The BA study involved 16 operational FRS personnel entering a smoke-filled training building in a search-and-rescue exercise. True/False answers to statements about the incidents were analysed by a signal-detection-type tool (QASA) to give measures of SA and bias.Findings – In both studies, there were two groups showing different bias patterns (either conservative with risk of “miss” errors, or liberal with risk of “false alarms”) (p≤0.001), but not different SA (p>0.05).Research limitations/implications – Future work will involve more realistic training exercises and explore the consistency of individual bias tendencies over different contexts.Practical implications – Risk in fireground decision making may be minimised by increasing awareness of individual tendencies to either conservative or liberal bias patterns and the associated risk of respectively making “miss” or “false alarm” errors.Social implications – The results may help to minimise fireground risk.Originality/value – This is the first evidence to show firefighter decision bias in two different exercises.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess whether firefighters display different decision-making biases: either a liberal bias to accepting information as true or a conservative bias to rejecting information, with the former carrying risk of “false alarm” errors and the latter of “misses”.Design/methodology/approach – Situation awareness (SA) and decision-making biases were examined in Fire and Rescue (FRS) “table-top” and Breathing Apparatus (BA) training exercises. The former involved showing 50 operational FRS personnel a powerpoint presentation representing the drive-to, views and information related to the incident. The BA study involved 16 operational FRS personnel entering a smoke-filled training building in a search-and-rescue exercise. True/False answers to statements about the incidents were analysed by a signal-detection-type tool (QASA) to give measures of SA and bias.Findings – In both studies, there were two groups showing different bias patterns (either conservative with risk of “miss” errors, or liberal with risk of “false alarms”) (p≤0.001), but not different SA (p>0.05).Research limitations/implications – Future work will involve more realistic training exercises and explore the consistency of individual bias tendencies over different contexts.Practical implications – Risk in fireground decision making may be minimised by increasing awareness of individual tendencies to either conservative or liberal bias patterns and the associated risk of respectively making “miss” or “false alarm” errors.Social implications – The results may help to minimise fireground risk.Originality/value – This is the first evidence to show firefighter decision bias in two different exercises.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20470891211275920

U2 - 10.1108/20470891211275920

DO - 10.1108/20470891211275920

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 135

EP - 158

JO - International Journal of Emergency Services

JF - International Journal of Emergency Services

SN - 2847-0894

IS - 2

ER -