Britannia P&I Club and CONOVAH explore the impact of psychology in safety-critical situations, such as the role of thinking systems in decision making.
As explained by Britannia, in the realm of decision-making, our brains operate through two distinct but interconnected processes, as described by Daniel Kahnemann: System 1 and System 2. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate in economics, introduces two systems of thinking: System 1, which operates quickly and automatically, relying on intuition and heuristics; and System 2, which is slow, deliberate, and analytical. Kahneman illustrates how these systems interact in various aspects of our lives, from making simple everyday choices to complex financial decisions.
Characteristics and functions of System 1
System 1 is our brain’s automatic, fast, and intuitive mode of thinking. It operates effortlessly and quickly, making it well-suited for routine tasks and familiar situations. Here are some key characteristics and functions of System 1:
- Rapid Processing: System 1 processes information swiftly and without conscious effort, enabling us to make quick judgments and responses.
- Pattern Recognition: This system excels at recognizing patterns based on prior experiences and stored knowledge, helping us react effectively in situations we’ve encountered before.
- Associative Thinking: System 1 often works through associations, linking current stimuli with familiar concepts and emotions, which can influence our decision-making.
- Heuristics: It relies on mental shortcuts and heuristics to simplify complex problems and arrive at efficient solutions.
- Unconscious Influences: System 1 can be influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, and habits without our awareness, shaping our decisions.
Characteristics and functions of System 2
System 2 is our brain’s deliberate, slow, and analytical mode of thinking. It requires conscious effort and attention, making it suitable for complex problem-solving and critical analysis. Here are some key characteristics and functions of System 2:
- Conscious Effort: System 2 requires conscious effort and attention to process information and arrive at decisions.
- Analytical Thinking: It is engaged when we encounter unfamiliar or challenging situations that demand careful analysis and consideration of potential outcomes.
- Logic and Reasoning: System 2 employs logical reasoning and critical thinking to evaluate information systematically.
- Cognitive Flexibility: This system allows us to consider multiple perspectives and options before arriving at a decision.
- Overriding Automatic Responses: System 2 can override the automatic responses of System 1 when necessary, helping us avoid impulsive or biased decisions.
Interplay between cognitive biases, Emotions, System 1 and 2
In high-pressure shipboard environments, emotions can significantly impact the functioning of System 1 and System 2. For example, during an emergency situation, fear and adrenaline can trigger instinctive responses from System 1, potentially overriding more deliberate thinking processes. Under the influence of emotions, cognitive biases may become more pronounced, leading to hasty judgments or decisions based on limited information. Recognising the interplay between emotions, cognitive biases, and the brain’s dual systems is crucial for understanding how our decision-making can be affected in safety-critical incidents. You might want to go back and review the case study presented at the start of this guide.
Strategies for recognising and mitigating biases in decision-making
Mitigating the impact of cognitive biases requires intentional effort. For instance, let’s consider the availability bias – crew members may have vivid memories of recent incidents involving certain equipment failures, making them more likely to overestimate the likelihood of similar failures occurring in the future. By conducting thorough risk assessments and using historical data to support decision-making, the crew can counteract the influence of the availability bias and make more informed choices.
Addressing psychological defences and enhancing decision-making
In safety-critical situations on board, individuals may unknowingly resort to psychological defences as a coping mechanism. For example, when faced with a near-miss incident, crew members may downplay the significance of the event to protect their self-esteem or justify their actions. Recognising the presence of these defences is essential to promoting a culture of accountability and continual improvement.