MAPPING DECISIONS TO IMPROVE CRISIS RESPONSE

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 349-351
Author(s):  
William Healy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Crisis Response ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Contingency Planning ◽  
Dynamic Event ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
The Right

ABSTRACT Judgment and decision making are key components of every response and most current contingency plans fail to acknowledge this fully. Decision Mapping is a concept that provides planners with the tools to identify and analyze key decisions that may present themselves during the event timeline, and it prepares leaders to make quick and informed decisions. It provides an organized method to identify stakeholders, information needs, authorities, and consideration thresholds in a prioritized structure to give leaders the right perspective for balancing competing needs. It is a new way to approach contingency planning that goes beyond the listing of resources and views a response as a dynamic event with many uncertain components.

scholarly journals Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben M Tappin ◽  
Valerio Capraro
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Dictator Game ◽  
Psychological Theory ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Social Life

Prosociality is fundamental to human social life, and, accordingly, much research has attempted to explain human prosocial behavior. Capraro and Rand (Judgment and Decision Making, 13, 99-111, 2018) recently provided experimental evidence that prosociality in anonymous, one-shot interactions (such as Prisoner’s Dilemma and Dictator Game experiments) is not driven by outcome-based social preferences – as classically assumed – but by a generalized morality preference for “doing the right thing”. Here we argue that the key experiments reported in Capraro and Rand (2018) comprise prominent methodological confounds and open questions that bear on influential psychological theory. Specifically, their design confounds: (i) preferences for efficiency with self-interest; and (ii) preferences for action with preferences for morality. Furthermore, their design fails to dissociate the preference to do “good” from the preference to avoid doing “bad”. We thus designed and conducted a preregistered, refined and extended test of the morality preference hypothesis (N=801). Consistent with this hypothesis, our findings indicate that prosociality in the anonymous, one-shot Dictator Game is driven by preferences for doing the morally right thing. Inconsistent with influential psychological theory, however, our results suggest the preference to do “good” was as potent as the preference to avoid doing “bad” in this case.

Executive Selection—What's Right … and What's Wrong

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
George P. Hollenbeck
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Selection Decisions ◽  
Executive Selection ◽  
Decision Making Problem ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Psychometric Validity

Although recent reviews of executive selection have catalogued much that we as industrial–organizational (I–O) psychologists are doing right in our research and practice, we are confronted with the facts that executive selection decisions are often, if not usually, wrong and that I–O psychologists seldom have a place at the table when these decisions are made. This article suggests that in our thinking we have failed to differentiate executive selection from selection at lower levels and that we have applied the wrong models. Our hope for the future lies not in job analyses, developing new tests, meta-analyses, or seeking psychometric validity, but in viewing executive selection as a judgment and decision-making problem. With the right focus, applying our considerable methodological skills should enable us to contribute toward making better judgments. When we have a better mousetrap, organizations (if not the world) will beat a path to our door.

scholarly journals Benefits and Limitations of Using Decision-Analytic Tools to Assess Uncertainty and Prioritize Landscape Conservation Cooperative Information Needs

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 280-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Post van der Burg ◽  
Catherine Cullinane Thomas ◽  
Tracy Holcombe ◽  
Richard D. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Landscape Conservation ◽  
Decision Context ◽  
Effective Delivery ◽  
The Right ◽  
Funding Research

Abstract The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are a network of partnerships throughout North America that are tasked with integrating science and management to support more effective delivery of conservation at a landscape scale. To achieve this integration, some LCCs have adopted the approach of providing their partners with better scientific information in an effort to facilitate more efficient and coordinated conservation decisions. Taking this approach has led many LCCs to begin funding research to provide the information for improved decision making. To ensure that funding goes to research projects with the highest likelihood of leading to more integrated broad-scale conservation, some LCCs have also developed approaches for prioritizing which information needs will be of most benefit to their partnerships. We describe two case studies in which decision-analytic tools were used to quantitatively assess the relative importance of information for decisions made by partners in the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. The results of the case studies point toward a few valuable lessons in terms of using these tools with LCCs. Decision-analytic tools tend to help shift focus away from research-oriented discussions and toward discussions about how information is used in making better decisions. However, many technical experts do not have enough knowledge about decision-making contexts to fully inform the latter type of discussion. When assessed in the right decision context, however, decision analyses can point out where uncertainties actually affect optimal decisions and where they do not. This helps technical experts understand that not all research is valuable in improving decision making. Perhaps most important, our results suggest that decision-analytic tools may be more useful for LCCs as a way of developing integrated objectives for coordinating partner decisions across the landscape, rather than simply ranking research priorities.

Awareness and Decision Making in Professional Ethics

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronny Swain
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Professional Ethics ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Professional Autonomy ◽  
Ethical Awareness ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Aid Decision

The paper describes the development of the 1998 revision of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Code of Professional Ethics. The Code incorporates the European Meta-Code of Ethics and an ethical decision-making procedure borrowed from the Canadian Psychological Association. An example using the procedure is presented. To aid decision making, a classification of different kinds of stakeholder (i.e., interested party) affected by ethical decisions is offered. The author contends (1) that psychologists should assert the right, which is an important aspect of professional autonomy, to make discretionary judgments, (2) that to be justified in doing so they need to educate themselves in sound and deliberative judgment, and (3) that the process is facilitated by a code such as the Irish one, which emphasizes ethical awareness and decision making. The need for awareness and judgment is underlined by the variability in the ethical codes of different organizations and different European states: in such a context, codes should be used as broad yardsticks, rather than precise templates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document