Innate Reasoning and Critical Incident Decision-Making
The author describes the theory behind intuitive and analytical decision making during investigations. Forms of reasoning are described (including their limitations) together with a brief overview of what the fields of neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology might be able to contribute to our understanding. We often make decisions based on a serial assessment of information and we choose the first available workable option that appears to satisfy our requirements. Decisions during major incidents often have to be made in quick time by exercising swift judgement by choosing between options (including not to act). Inevitably, complex situations have to be simplified in the human mind with the number of options considered at any one time severely limited and inferences rapidly drawn. Heuristics are often employed to facilitate this, which whilst often effective are also linked with a number of well-known cognitive biases.
KeywordsReasoning Evolutionary psychology Heuristics Cognitive biases and decision making Drawing inferences in decision making
- Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012, July–September). Homo Heuristicus: Less-Is-More Effects in Adaptive Cognition. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 19(4), 6–16.Google Scholar
- College of Policing. (2015). Critical Incident Management Introduction and Types of Critical Incidents [Online]. Available at https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/critical-incident-management/types-of-critical-incident/.
- Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Eyre, M., & Alison, L. (2007). To Decide or Not to Decide: Decision Making and Decision Avoidance in Critical Incidents. In D. Carson, B. Milne, F. Pakes, K. Shalev, & A. Shawyer (Eds.), Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Eyre, M., & Alison, L. (2010). Investigative Decision Making. In J. Brown & E. Campbell (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Findley, K., & Scott, M. (2006). The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases. Wisconsin Law Review [Online]. Available at https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/hyjb3/findley_scott_final.pdf.
- Garrett, M. (2014). Complexity of Our Brain. Psychology Today [Online]. Available at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iage/201402/complexity-our-brain.
- Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoffrage, U., Krauss, S., Martignon, L., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015, October). Natural Frequencies Improve Bayesian Reasoning in Simple and Complex Inference Tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1473.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Koehler, D. & Harvey, N. (Eds.). (2004). Blackwell Handbook of Judgment & Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Lipshitz, R., & Ben Shaul, O. (1997). Schemata and Mental Models in Recognition-Primed Decision Making. In C. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Meder, B., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Statistical Thinking: No One Left Behind. In E. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic Thinking, Advances in Mathematics Education. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Mellers, B. (1996, March). From the President Society for Judgment and Decision Making. Newsletter, XV(1) [Online]. Available at http://www.sjdm.org/newsletters/96-mar.html#2.
- Patokorpi, E. (2007). Logic of Sherlock Holmes in Technology Enhanced Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 171–185.Google Scholar
- Pinker, S. (2003). How the Mind Works. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Schum D., & Starace, S. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sharps, M. (2010). Processing Under Pressure: Stress, Memory and Decision-Making in Law Enforcement. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications.Google Scholar
- Staller, M., & Zaiser, B. (2015). Developing Problem Solvers: New Perspectives on Pedagogical Practices in Police Use of Force Training. Journal of Law Enforcement, 4(3).Google Scholar
- Todd, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart [Online]. Available at http://www-abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/users/ptodd/SimpleHeuristics.BBS/.