Understanding Decision Inertia: An Exploratory Examination of the Manifestation of Decision Inertia in High-stakes Events

Abstract

This PhD by Compilation presented a holistic, but narrow focus on the concept of decision inertia and the challenges faced by those operating in high-stakes scenarios. In high-stakes scenarios, decisions are often made in the context of a ‘best’ outcome, and whilst this is not a criticism of decision-making strategies, in a high-stakes environment there is seldom a best possible outcome: rather least-worst outcomes are more optimal. As such, decision-making in these environments has often been observed to make, not poor decisions, but rather sub-optimal decisions (e.g., a failure to act), mediated by decision inertia. Thus, the aim of the current thesis was two-fold: (i) to understand the decision-making challenges that manifest in response to a high-stakes event, and (ii) examine these challenges, not from an organisational or political perspective, but rather focusing on the individual determinants (e.g., socio-cognitive) related to decision-making challenges. Using a mixed-methods framework, a series of five interdependent studies were undertaken to explore the manifestation of decision inertia. This thesis integrated qualitative techniques to examine the lived experiences of practitioners confronting high-stakes scenarios, alongside quantitative methodologies aimed at empirically testing theoretical models of decision-making. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that our understanding of why individuals have a strong desire to take action, but then fail to take action, or take action that is sub-optimal under the circumstances (e.g., delayed action) are widely understood from an organisational (e.g., interoperability) or politically centric (e.g., application of policy and protocols) dimension. Results also revealed that there was a lack of empirical investigation that had sought to identify the socio-cognitive determinants of how and why individual's might be susceptible to decision inertia, and subsequently how this related to sub- optimal decision outcomes. When examined in context to a high-stakes event (i.e., The Manchester Arena Bombing), results consolidated these findings, suggesting an overarching focus on organisational and politically centric failures. Study 3 then utilised a naturalistic decision-making approach; however, with a novel twist to assess the efficacy of 360-degree Extended Reality (XR) technologies as an empirical tool. This enabled an examination of the socio-cognitive determinants and the manipulation of these determinants to establish future models of the predictive factors that might result in an increased susceptibility to decision inertia, and how this might lead to sub-optimal outcomes. Findings revealed that 360-degree XR could be used as an effective empirical tool and allow for the development of predictive models. Using the dataset from study 3, study 4 then sought to assess the association of two socio-cognitive determinants that were identified in study 1 (i.e., personality and morality). It was found that in isolation, personality had limited predictive value; however, when considered in hierarchy with morality, the predictive models suggested a significant association with decision inertia. Finally, study 5 extended the analysis of socio-cognitive determinants (based on the findings from study 4). Morality and Bayesian updating, decision modality and narrative framing were explored as potential determinants of decision inertia. Findings revealed morality orientation (deontological versus consequentialism) and narrative framing effects were associated determinants. In particular, narrative framing, using a grim perspective (i.e., pessimistic narratives), reduced decision inertia effects highlighting the practical implications of least-worst narrative in response to high-stakes events. Considerations and discussions around these determinants are provided and considered in the context of high-stakes environments. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

Date of Award	3 Sept 2024
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	University of Portsmouth
Supervisor	Becky Milne (Supervisor), Andrea Mary Shawyer (Supervisor) & Amy Meenaghan (Supervisor)