An empirical study on approaches to ambiguity in emergency and disaster response decision-making

Christian Uhr, PhD; Henrik Tehler, PhD; Misse Wester, PhD

doi:10.5055/jem.2018.0384

Authors

Christian Uhr, PhD
Henrik Tehler, PhD
Misse Wester, PhD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2018.0384

Keywords:

ambiguity, ambiguity tolerance, uncertainty, decision-making

Abstract

Results from previous research suggest that the ability to manage ambiguous problems during acute emergency and disaster management is a desirable quality among decision-makers. Ambiguity is a perception that arises when the problem-solver is dissatisfied with his or her understanding of the structure of the problem, and consequently of the problem-solving process. This article presents the results of an empirical study of ambiguity tolerance among Swedish fire commanders. Two different personality tests have been employed. The findings show that the sampled fire commanders are no more ambiguity tolerant than other individuals with no experience of emergency and disaster management; consequently, there appears to be no correlation between ambiguity tolerance and this professional role. Commanders who see themselves as practically oriented are more ambiguity tolerant than those who see themselves as academics. Increasing professional experience and age decreases the frequency of situations in which commanders experience some form of ambiguity. However, experience and age do not affect tolerance if ambiguity is perceived. No correlation between risk tolerance and ambiguity tolerance is found. More research needs to be conducted on how ambiguity tolerance affects performance among decision- makers during emergency and disaster responses.

Author Biographies

Christian Uhr, PhD

Associate Professor in Risk Management and Societal Safety, Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety, Lund University, Sweden

Henrik Tehler, PhD

Professor in Risk Management and Societal Safety, Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety, Lund University, Sweden

Misse Wester, PhD

Professor in Risk Management and Societal Safety, Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety, Lund University, Sweden

References

Baran BE, Scott CW: Organizing ambiguity: A grounded theory of leadership and sensemaking within dangerous contexts. Mil Psychol. 2010; 22: 42-69.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM: Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Weick KE: Sensemaking in Organizations. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.

Endsley MR: Situation awareness: Progress and directions. In Banbury S, Tremblay S (eds.): A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory, Measurement and Application. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2004: 317-341.

Klein G: Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988.

Hsu M, Bhatt M, Adolphs R, et al.: Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science. 2005; 310: 1680-1683.

Scott CW, Trethewey AC: Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards. J Appl Commun Res. 2008; 36: 297-317.

Weick KE: The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Adm Sci Q. 1993; 38(4): 628. doi:10.2307/2393339.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D: Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ Sci. 2005; 16: 409-421.

McLain DL, Kefallonitis E, Armani K: Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: Definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Front Psychol. 2015; 344: 6.

Cohen MD, Marsh JG: Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 1986.

Huber N: An experiential leadership approach for teaching tolerance for ambiguity. J Educ Bus. 2003; 79: 52-55.

Knight K, Kenny A, Endacott R: From expert generalists to ambiguity masters: Using ambiguity tolerance theory to redefine the practice of rural nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 25: 1757-1765.

Budner S: Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J Pers. 1962; 30: 29-50.

MacDonald AP Jr: Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychol Rep. 1970; 26: 291-798.

Norton RW: Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. J Pers Assess. 1975; 39: 607-619.

McLain DL: The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1993; 53: 183-189.

McLain DL: Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II (MSTAT-II). Psychol Rep. 2009; 105: 975-988.

Kline P: Handbook of Psychological Testing, New York: Routledge, 2010.

Furnham A, Marks J: Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology. 2013; 4: 717-728. doi:104236psych49102.

Frenkel-Brunswik E: Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. J Pers. 1949; 18: 108-143.

Furnham A, Ribchester T: Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Curr Psychol. 1995; 14(3): 179-199. doi:10.1007/BF02686907.

Brugnach M, Dewolf A, Pahl-Wostl C, et al.: Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: About knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecol Soc. 2008; 13(2).

Groes S: Information overload in literature. Textual Pract. 2016; 31(7): 1481-1508.

Walker W, Harremoes P, Rotmans J, et al.: Defining uncertainty: Basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. J Integr Assess. 2003; 4(1): 5-17.

Argote L: Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Adm Sci Q. 1982; 27: 420-434. doi:10.2307/2392533.

Lipshitz R, Strauss O: Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision making analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997; 69(2): 441-447.

Schrader S, Riggs WM, Smith RP: Choice over uncertainty and ambiguity in technical problem solving. J Eng Technol Manag. 1993; 10: 73-99.

Mintzberg H: Planning on the left side and managing in the right. Harv Bus Rev. 1976; 54(4): 49-58.

Simon HA: Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Acad Manag Exec. 1987; 1(1): 57-64.

Hirsh JB, Mar RA, Peterson JB: Psychological entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety. Psychol Rev. 2012; 119(2): 304.

Larsson G, Johansson A, Jansson T, et al.: Leadership under severe stress: A grounded theory. In Lester R, Morton AG, Maxwell AL (eds.): Concepts for Airforce Leadership. Maxwell, AL: Air University, 2001: 441-447.

Sjoberg M, Wallenius C, Vrbanjac A, et al.: Ledarskap Och Beslutsfattande under Stress Vid Komplexa Olyckshändelser Inom Svensk Räddningstjänst: En Kvalitativ Intervjuundersökning. Serie T: Utredningar och tekniska rapporter. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Defense University, 2005. ISSN 1401-565.

Taleb NN: The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Random House Publishing, 2007.

Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 221(30): 453-458.

Abrahamsson M, Tehler H: Risk preferences regarding multiple fatalities and some implications for societal risk decision making—An empirical study. J Risk Res. 2006; 9(7): 703-715.[ok]

Wakker P, Deneffe D: Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Manag Sci. 1996; 42(8): 1131-1150.

Creswell JW: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009.

Benjamin AJ, Riggio RE, Mayes BT: Reliability and factor structure of Budner’s tolerance for ambiguity scale. J Soc Behav Pers. 1996; 11(3): 625-632.

Kolin EL, Price L, Zoob I: Development of a sensation-seeking scale. J Consult Psychol. 1964; 28: 277-482.

Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, et al.: Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc. 2000; 2(2): 159-172. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/713670162. Accessed December 10, 2017.

Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR: Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav. 1996; 28(3): 302-339.