ABSTRACT
As we outlined in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, we have a relatively clear understanding of the conditions under which intuitive and deliberate decision modes result in good choices. Intuition is particularly appropriate when decisions must be made quickly, holistic processing is important, and the link between cues and effects are stablethat is, when decision-makers are able to clearly and consistently link certain inputs to certain outcomes. Deliberation, in contrast, is particularly beneficial when outside information must be included in a decision, demanding analyses must be performed, and the biases of the intuitive mode are a concern. However, in practice these conditions are almost never clear-cut but, rather, tend to overlap. Therefore, these insights do not help us understand how decision-makers actually make decisions in complex task environments nor do they typically help us decide whether a decision should be or has been made using a particular decision mode. For example, in Chapter 1 we discussed the ill-fated decisions of the captain of a damaged search and rescue cruiser to first lead his crew to the forecastle for evacuation by helicopter and then back to the safe deckhouse when evacuation was ultimately not possible-a decision that eventually claimed his life when he did not make it back to the deckhouse safely in stormy weather. We will never know how the captain made this decision, but it is worthwhile to consider which approach would have been most appropriate. Should this decision have been made using a more intuitive or more deliberate mode? There were a variety of indications that making this decision intuitively was a good idea, such as the large number of available cues (sea state, state of his crew, wind, helicopter presence, influence of external conditions on helicopter operability, more cruisers on the way, damage to the ship, and so on). However, there were also good reasons to use a deliberate mode, such as the conscious calculation of risk and reward for the dangerous trip to the forecastle, avoidance of intuitive decision biases,
and a lack of experience with comparable situations. Thus, it was by no means clear which decision mode the captain would use. Yet, the choice of decision mode would certainly have impacted the decision that was ultimately made. An intuitive decision could have led to substantial decision biases; attribute substitution (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002), for example, seems rather likely. It is conceivable that the captain, upon seeing the helicopter on scene, focused his decision-making on how to reach the forecastle, thus neglecting the broader and more relevant decisions of whether the risk of going to the forecastle was outweighed by the probability that the helicopter could successfully evacuate the crew given the weather and sea state conditions and whether the crew should instead stay in the deckhouse and wait for a safer evacuation route at a later time (see Figure 4.1).
