Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T03:17:10.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1.8 - Investigative Decision-Making

from Part I - Psychological Underpinnings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

By
Rebecca Howman ,
Marie Eyre  and
Laurence Alison
Edited by
Jennifer M. Brown  and
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Jennifer M. Brown
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Suffolk
Get access

Summary

A detailed account of the history and current developments in the field of investigative decision making. This covers broad decision making theory, namely: traditional decision theory, heuristic and biases, fast and frugal heuristics and naturalistic decision making. This is applied to the current challenges faced by the police with research examples used to illustrate their relevance. The phenomenon of indecision is also discussed in the context of investigations, with consideration to why this occurs as well as considering the devasting and far reaching consequences this can have to an investigation.

Keywords

InvestigationDecision makingTraditional Decision Theory (TDT)Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM)Decision Inertia
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology , pp. 154 - 164
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alison, L., & Crego, J. (Eds.) (2008). Policing critical incidents: Leadership and critical incident management. Willan.Google Scholar
Alison, L., Doran, B., Long, M., Power, N., & Humphrey, A. (2013). The effects of subjective time pressure and individual differences on hypotheses generation and action prioritization in police investigations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 83–93.Google Scholar
Alison, L., Eyre, M., & Humann, M. (2010). Losing sight of the ‘golden mean’: Accountogenic decisions in UK policing. In Mosier, K., & Fischer, U. (Eds.), Knowledge management: Expert performance in complex situations (pp. 275–291). Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
Alison, L., Power, N., van den Heuvel, C., Humann, M., Palasinksi, M., & Crego, J. (2015). Decision inertia: Deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(2), 295–321.Google Scholar
Ask, K., & Alison, L. (2010). Investigators’ decision making. In Granhag, P. A. (Ed.), Forensic psychology in context: Nordic and international perspectives (pp. 35–55). WillanGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, D. (1738/1954). Exposition of a new theory of the measurement of risk. Transl. R. Sommer. Econometrica, 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Barby, J. (2016). Biases and heuristics in decision making and their impact on autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(5), 5–15.Google Scholar
Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Homo heuristicus: Less-is-more effects in adaptive cognition. Malaysian Journal of Medical Science, 19(4), 6–16.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. (2019). Innate reasoning and critical incident decision-making. In Roycroft, M. & Roach, J. (Eds), Decision making in police enquiries and critical incidents (pp. 47–67). Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
Chan, J., & Dixon, D. (2007). The politics of police reform: Ten years after the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(4), 443–468.Google Scholar
Crego, J., & Alison, L. (2004). Control and legacy as functions of perceived criticality in major incidents. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 207–225.Google Scholar
Eyre, M., & Alison, L. (2007). To decide or not to decide: Decision making and decision avoidance in critical incidents. In Carson, D., Milne, R., Pakes, F. J., Shalev, K. and Shawyer, A. (Eds.), Applying psychology to criminal justice (pp. 211–32). Wiley.Google Scholar
Eyre, M., Alison, L., Crego, J., & McLean, C. (2008). Decision inertia: The impact of organisations on critical incident decision-making. In Alison, L., & Crego, J. (Eds.), Policing critical incidents (pp. 201 – 239). Willan.Google Scholar
Fahsing, I., & Ask, K. (2013). Decision making and decisional tipping points in homicide investigations: An interview study of British and Norwegian detectives. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(2), 155–165.Google Scholar
Flin, R., Salas, E., Straub, M., & Martin, L. (Eds.). (1997). Decision making under stress: Emerging themes and applications. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Dhami, M. (2009). Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592–596.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P. W. (2005). Indeterminacy in brain and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 25–56.Google Scholar
Hill, C., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2008). The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(2), 357–371.Google Scholar
Hine, K., Porter, L., Westera, N., Alpert, G., & Allen, A. (2018). Exploring police use of force decision-making processes and impairments using a naturalistic decision-making approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(11), 1782–1801.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R., & Klein, G. (2017). Challenges and prospects for the paradigm of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11, 97–104.Google Scholar
Innes, M. (2003). Investigating murder: Detective work and the police response to criminal homicide. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillian.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 592–596.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. (2013). Effective policing implementation in theory and practice. PalgraveGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. (1993). A recognition primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods. Ablex.Google Scholar
Klein, G. A. (2015). A naturalistic decision-making perspective on studying intuitive decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 164–168.Google Scholar
Knutsson, J. & Tompson, L. (Eds). (2017). Advances in evidence-based policing. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision making analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 69, 149–163.Google Scholar
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 14, 331–352.Google Scholar
Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Report of an inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marshall, B., & Alison, L. (2007). Stereotyping, congruence and presentation order: Interpretative biases in utilizing offender profiles. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(3), 285–303.Google Scholar
Mullins, S., Alison, L., & Crego, J. (2008). Towards a taxonomy of police decision making in murder inquiries. In Alison, L. & Crego, J. (Eds.), Policing critical incidents (pp. 124–150). Willan.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., & Klein, G. A. (2010). The naturalistic decision making perspective. In Cochran, J. J. (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Wiley.Google Scholar
Pascal, B. (1670/1966). Pensees (Krailsheimer, A. J., Trans.). Penguin.Google Scholar
Pliske, R., & Klein, G. (2003). The naturalistic decision making perspective. In Schneider, S. L. & Shanteau, J. (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 559–585). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Power, N., & Alison, L. (2017). Redundant deliberation about negative consequences: Decision inertia in emergency responders. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 23(2), 243–258.Google Scholar
Roycroft, M., & Roach, J. (Eds.). (2019). Decision making in police enquiries and critical incidents. Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Wiley.Google Scholar
Shortland, N. D., Alison, L. J., & Moran, M. (2019). Conflict: How soldiers make impossible decisions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shortland, N., & Alison, L. (2020). Colliding sacred values: A psychological theory of least-worst option selection. Thinking & Reasoning, 26, 118–139.Google Scholar
Todd, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Environments that make us smart: Ecological rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Heuvel, C., Alison, L., & Crego, J. (2012). How uncertainty and accountability can derail strategic “save lives” decisions in counter- terrorism simulations: A descriptive model of choice deferral and omission bias. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 165–187.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. V., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, J, (1997). Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. https://www.australianpolice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RCPS-Report-Volume-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. (2013). Homicide detectives’ intuition. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 10(2), 182–199.Google Scholar
Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (Eds.). (2014). Naturalistic decision making. Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×