Content uploaded by Ian Mccammon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian Mccammon on Apr 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Heuristic Traps in Recreational Avalanche Accidents: Evidence and Implications
Abstract and Figures
Authors note: This article extends the findings I presented at the 2002 ISSW in Penticton, BC. A full version of the article, including a description of the statistical methods used, appeared in the Avalanche Review (Vol. 22, nos. 2 & 3). You can download the two-part article at www.snowpit.com. Several years ago, my buddy Steve died in an avalanche. It was a stormy day and the avalanche danger was high, but Steve and his partners felt that by choosing a familiar route and carefully managing their exposure, they could stay out of trouble. After all, they were experienced backcountry skiers with avalanche training. Steve, the most skilled of the group, had just visited the area less than a week before. Two hours into their tour, they met another party of skiers headed for the same pass and the low-angle slopes on the far side. They briefly discussed the avalanche conditions, and agreed that prudent route selection was the key to safety that day. But ten minutes later, as Steve's group broke trail across a shallow, treed slope, they triggered an avalanche that swept down on them from above. The avalanche caught all three skiers, seriously injuring one man and completely burying Steve. The other party witnessed the accident and came to the rescue, but by the time they dug Steve out, he was dead.
Figures - uploaded by Ian Mccammon
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ian Mccammon
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Educators in these avalanche education courses have a unique set of challenges presented to them. They need to ensure that enough information is provided for travelers to make field observations about the terrain they through which they are travelling and hold a responsibility of teaching these travelers the skills needed to make accurate decisions based on the observations and knowledge they have gained through their education (McCammon, 2004). A growth of avalanche education has increased as a result of the rise in fatalities, as there is a demonstrated demand to from backcountry users to be safer from hazards (Furman et al., 2010). ...
... Avalanche education opportunities have expanded significantly to meet the rise in popularity of the sport and subsequent demand for accessing course information. The increase in education opportunities have likely positively impacted the fatality statistics by keeping the population more aware of the avalanche dangers that exist when recreating in this terrain (McCammon, 2004). ...
... The challenge of educators in this field is not only to impart the information needed to make accurate observations in the field, but also to teach the skills needed to make decisions with the information provided and observed. This observation-based, or analytical, kind of decision-making process can overcome the often default heuristic decision-making tendency, which is ideal as not all heuristics are situationally appropriate (McCammon, 2004). ...
This thesis study is an exploratory look at the deeper layers of influence behind backcountry skiers and snowboarders who have five or fewer years of experience in the backcountry. This user group is relatively new to the sport, which provides an excellent opportunity to examine many of the influencing factors that come into play when entering and progressing into the activity. The human factor is a system and much deeper than heuristics and sharp end decision-making, and this is key to understanding what affects a person when traveling in the backcountry. Through a survey and individual interviews with this user experience group, various factors within the system of influence and how they interact with the decision-making process were identified. The findings show that the role of avalanche education is significant and important to this user group, as gaining the education that these courses provide has become essentially required experience prior to entering the backcountry. The roles of avalanche safety equipment and of social media also proved to be influential. These factors and more impact and inform the decision-making of an individual while they travel in avalanche terrain. To really understand the human factor, these influences, and methods to understand need to be considered. This study demonstrates how layered and multifaceted the human factor can be when looking at specific user groups.
... We derive further factors from results on decision traps (McCammon, 2004) and risk-taking and risk management behavior (Furman et al., 2010;Haegeli et al., 2010;Haegeli et al., 2012;Schwiersch, 2019) among backcountry travelers. According to Furman et al. (2010), risk-taking propensity and heuristic principles that aim to reduce the complexity of decisions are further relevant aspects in decision-making in avalanche terrain. ...
... According to Furman et al. (2010), risk-taking propensity and heuristic principles that aim to reduce the complexity of decisions are further relevant aspects in decision-making in avalanche terrain. Backcountry recreationists establish avalanche-specific heuristics as alternative decision approaches (McCammon, 2004). Relying on these simplifying rules of thumb may result in adverse outcomes (e.g., avalanche accidents) referred to as traps when, for example, critical new information on the hazardous situation is not considered in the decision. ...
... Relying on these simplifying rules of thumb may result in adverse outcomes (e.g., avalanche accidents) referred to as traps when, for example, critical new information on the hazardous situation is not considered in the decision. McCammon (2004) investigates avalanche accidents in the United States and describes the following six heuristic traps: familiarity (i.e., to behave as in the same setting before), consistency (i.e., stick to the initial assessment of the situation), acceptance (i.e., engage in activities that gain respect or acceptance), the expert halo (i.e., rely on the decision of the formal or informal leader of the group), social facilitation (i.e., ski more hazardous terrain when others are present), and scarcity (i.e., the chance of being the first to ski untracked slopes). In this context, the heuristic traps are identified in a specific situation in the field where ski tourers decide whether to ski a slope or not (Furman et al., 2010). ...
Ski touring is a winter sport activity that enjoys increasing popularity. Recreationists practice it exclusively without using ski lifts in the backcountry, where conditions continuously and rapidly change, and avalanche danger exists. Ski tourers can increase their own and others’ avalanche survival chances, among others, by carrying standard avalanche safety equipment (i.e., transceiver, probe, and shovel). Recent studies among backcountry recreationists identify various aspects to influence the decision to ‘carry or not’ this equipment by testing each factor individually for its statistical significance for the decision. This explorative study, in contrast, applies a new methodological approach and considers ‘carry or not’ as a decision process. The analysis bases on the behavioral decision theory and uses the machine learning algorithm decision tree to illustrate the decision process and examine the relative importance of each influencing feature. Therefore, we conduct a researcher-administered survey (n = 359) among ski tourers in a German touring region. According to their carrying behavior, this study classifies ski tourers into three different types: weather-oriented, complex, and conformist. Conformists always carry the avalanche equipment and are known in research. Weather-oriented ski tourers, who predominantly base their decision on environmental conditions (i.e., avalanche danger level and weather), are as new as the complex type, which relies on various features. In contrast to previous findings, personal traits play a subordinate role in the decision process of any type. Furthermore, we interpret environmental aspects in decision-making as decision heuristics that awareness-raising measures and education programs need to address.
... Qualitative research has documented the inherent challenge and freedom involved in the sport, the social connections it facilitates, and the calming focus it brings which enables individuals to "reset" for their everyday lives (Fr€ uhauf et al., effort while making a decision to arrive at a satisfactory outcome or solution while conserving cognitive resources (Arkes & Blumer, 1985;Arnott, 1998;De Martino et al., 2006;Frame, 2012;Kahneman et al., 1982;Kahneman & Tversky, 1973;Slovic et al., 2005;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 1986. In the field of avalanche risk, the decision heuristics framework has dominated as found in post hoc accident analysis carried out by McCammon (Furman et al., 2010;Gr ımsd ottir & Mcclung, 2006;Haegeli et al., 2010Haegeli et al., , 2012Johnson et al., 2016;McCammon, 2004McCammon, , 2002McCammon, , 2000McCammon, , 2009. ...
... Further, confidence in their decision-making was enhanced after participation in the course. By exploring change over time, the current findings extend the existing literature that has primarily looked at associations between level of avalanche education and avalanche safety practices (Balent et al., 2016;Fitzgerald et al., 2016;Hendrikx & Johnson, 2014Mannberg et al., 2018;McCammon, 2004McCammon, , 2000Sykes et al., 2020;Tremper, 2008). ...
With the burgeoning popularity of winter backcountry leisure, there has been an increased interest in implementing education to prevent avalanche related accidents. Yet little research has explored whether avalanche education actually improves avalanche risk awareness. The current study examined why participants enrolled in avalanche education, what they learned, and whether participation led to changes in risk perceptions, risk perception confidence, and decision-making. Backcountry skiers and snowboarders enrolled in an introductory avalanche course in Montana (N = 184, 47.28% female) completed surveys before and after the course that included randomized photos of regional avalanche terrain. Multi-level models demonstrated that participants became more conservative in their risk perceptions and their stated willingness to ski uncertain terrain between pre- and post-test. Perception confidence increased, with larger gains for women, novices, and risk averse skiers. The results provide preliminary evidence that avalanche education may impact risk perceptions and provide useful hands-on skills for winter backcountry recreationalists.
... The risk of avalanches can be roughly estimated by simple rules of thumb based on the current risk level provided by the regional avalanche-report and the steepness of the mountain hillside in question. However, as research suggests (e.g., McCammon, 2004;Raue et al., 2017), many non-snow factors such as biases in perception, group dynamics or bodily states can deteriorate decision making in the mountains. Applying the RCF in this case could help improve personal decision making by considering relevant influencing factors in the decision-making process beyond just the avalanche risk level. ...
Risk culture shapes individual, group, organizational and societal risk perception and behavior, and, therefore, is a promising concept in risk analysis. Risk culture concepts are popular among practitioners since they have the potential to integrate different research strands and provide practical guidelines. However, such concepts are still ill-defined and their empirical foundations are limited. We introduce a new framework for risk culture that is derived from research on organizational culture and risk climate, and which aims to overcome the shortcomings of current models. The Risk Culture Framework is a 3x3 matrix that differentiates three influence domains (i.e. person, social context & risk situation) and three cultural layers (i.e. observable, non-observable & implicit factors). The framework can be applied in different contexts and fields of risk research. Each cell of the matrix can be filled with specific, proven factors that are relevant to the context of interest. The framework aims to enable integration of different disciplines and approaches, to enlarge the understanding of mechanisms that shape risk perception and behavior, to navigate the conception of research studies, to provide a blueprint for comprehensive risk measures, to guide practical risk analysis, and to facilitate benchmarking for appropriate risk cultures. Considerations for the application of the Risk Culture Framework, as well as its validation through future research, are outlined.
... This approach is often interpreted to be due to a situational inability of individuals to perceive probabilities or environmental information indicating avalanche hazard [94]. This cognitive bias and heuristics paradigm is exemplified in the concept of 'heuristic traps' [92,96], which is widely applied in avalanche education curricula, for instance, as a basis of decision-aids or checklists as practical tools to reduce error [93,97]. Despite the width of application, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of education on heuristic traps is not yet available in the peer reviewed literature. ...
The last few decades have witnessed a surge of interest in adventure sports, and has led to an emerging research focus on these activities. However, recent conceptual analyses and scientific reviews have highlighted a major, fundamental question that remains unresolved: what constitutes an adventure sport. Despite several proposals for definitions, the field still seems to lack a shared conceptualization. This deficit may be a serious limitation for research and practice, restricting the development of a more nuanced theoretical explanation of participation and practical implications within and across adventure sports. In this article, we address another crucial question, how can adventure sports be better understood for research and practice? We briefly summarize previous definitions to address evident confusion and a lack of conceptual clarity in the discourse. Alternatively, we propose how an ecological perspective of human behaviors, such as interactions with the environment, may provide an appropriate conceptualization to guide and enhance future research and practice, using examples from activities such as freeride skiing/snowboarding, white-water kayaking, climbing, mountaineering and the fields of sport science, psychology and avalanche research and education. We draw on ecological dynamics as a transdisciplinary approach to discuss how this holistic framework presents a more detailed, nuanced, and precise understanding of adventure sports.
... Some of the mechanisms by which group dynamics can make for bad decisions are by now well known. McCammon in a famous study identified different heuristic traps for individual and group decision making (McCammon, 2004(McCammon, , 2009. One of these is the expert halo, where someone is perceived to be an expert on the basis of characteristics that are not necessarily good indicators of expertise, such as age or even a good track record of avoiding avalanches (Ebert, 2015;Ebert & Photopoulou, 2013). ...
Avalanche studies have undergone a transition in recent years. Early
research focused mainly on environmental factors. More recently, attention has turned to human factors in decision making, such as behavioural and cognitive biases. This article adds a social component to this human turn in avalanche studies. It identifies lessons for decision making by groups of skiers from the perspective of social choice theory, a sub-field of economics, decision theory, philosophy and political science that investigates voting methods and other forms of collective decision making.
In the first part, we outline the phenomenon of wisdom of crowds,
where groups make better decisions than their individual members.
Drawing on the conceptual apparatus of social choice theory and using
idealised scenarios, we identify conditions under which wisdom of crowds arises and also explain how and when deciding together can instead result in worse decisions than may be expected from individual group members. In the second part, we use this theoretical understanding to offer practical suggestions for decision making in avalanche terrain. Finally, we make several suggestions for risk management in other outdoor and adventure sports and for outdoor sports education.
... This approach is often interpreted to be due to a situational inability of individuals to perceive probabilities or environmental information indicating avalanche hazard 82 . This type of cognitive bias and heuristics paradigm is exemplified in the concept of 'heuristic traps' 81,84 which is widely applied in avalanche education curricula, for instance as a basis of decision-aids or checklists as practical tools to reduce error 81,85 . Despite the width of application, empirical evidence of effectiveness of education on heuristic traps remains missing in the peer reviewed literature. ...
The last few decades have witnessed a surge of interest in adventure sports, and an emerging research focus on these activities. However, recent conceptual analyses and scientific reviews have highlighted a major, fundamental question that remains unresolved: what constitutes an adventure sport (and are they ‘sports’ at all)? Despite several proposals for definitions, the field still seems to lack a shared conceptualization. This deficit may be a serious limitation for research and practice, restricting the development of a more nuanced theoretical explanation of participation and prac-tical implications within and across adventure sports. In this article we address another crucial question, how can adventure sports be better understood for research and practice? We briefly summarize previous definitions to address evident confusion and lack of conceptual clarity in the discourse. Alternatively, we propose how an ecological perspective on human behaviors, as in-teractions with the environment, may provide an appropriate conceptualization to guide and enhance future research and practice, using examples from activities such as freeride skiing / snowboarding, white-water kayaking, climbing, mountaineering and the fields of sport science, psychology and avalanche research and education. We draw on ecological dynamics as a trans-disciplinary approach to discuss how this holistic framework presents a more detailed, nuanced, and precise understanding of adventure sports.
... In the vast majority of cases, the victims themselves triggered the avalanche that impacts them (Boudières, 2007). Since the 2000s, many studies focused on the human factors which lead to accidents, in particular the decision-making mechanism responsible for 'errors in judgment' (McCammon, 2003;Haegeli et al., 2010;Marengo et al., 2017), the effect of the size of the group of practitioners (Zweifel et al., 2016) as well as their experience and socioeconomic background (Mannberg et al., 2018). Other studies examined the aspects of communication and preventive action (Poizat, 2001;Boudières, 2007), as well as the individual relationship to risk and its management by local actors Soulé, 2002, 2007;Soulé and Corneloup, 2001). ...
... The other approach (NDM), enables decisions to be made in shorter timeframes with less or poorer quality information. This NDM aspect is less cognitively demanding in simpler tasks but prone to bias and decision-making traps (McCammon, 2004). In complex tasks, the process appears equally cognitively demanding because of the time frame context and sub-optimal information (Collins & Collins, 2019b). ...
This paper aims to stimulate debate and prompt further research regarding the training, development and Higher Education (HE) of aspiring adventure professionals (AP's). The design of the paper draws on 10 years of observations and trends within the HE outdoor degree teaching sector, in tandem with the authors' own extensive professional outdoor careers. Initial findings indicate the role and significance of Professional Judgement and Decision Making (PJDM) in professional practice within adventure sports (AS) coaching and leadership. Consequently, PJDM is found to be a vital element of the education of the AP. The training and practice of these PJDM skills is a situated cognition that is conspicuous in its absence within many coach and leader education programmes where the AP is required to balance pedagogical and welfare demands in consequential environments. A cognitive apprenticeship approach is advocated which builds on recent articles highlighting the importance of PJDM in such domains.
### Brugger, M., Fritz, L., Hellberg, F., Hummel, C., Schwiersch, M. & Streicher, B. (2022). Sind Skitourengeher*innen tatsächlich anfällig für Entscheidungsfallen? Antworten zum Einfluss von Heuristiken aus der Skitourenstudie der DAV-Sicherheitsforschung. Bergundsteigen (121), 48-57. ##### Nach Lawinenunfällen taucht oft die Frage auf, ob die Gefahreneinschätzung der Betroffenen unangemessen war und ob sie in eine sogenannte Entscheidungsfalle getappt sind: Trotz Lawinenwissens und Kenntnis aktueller Verhältnisse haben sie sich vielleicht von anderen Faktoren, wie z. B. von vorhandenen Spuren, zu einer Fehleinschätzung verleiten lassen. Die DAV- Sicherheitsforschung hat in den Wintern 2020 und 2022 eine große Feldstudie durchgeführt und unter anderem untersucht, ob das Risiko, dem sich Skitourengruppen aussetzen, von solchen verzerrenden Faktoren beeinflusst wird.
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. In general, the heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. This chapter describes three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty. The first is representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event belongs to a class or event. The second is the availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development, and the third is adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
On March 3, 1979, fourteen members of a Seattle mountain climbing club set out for the summit of Suntop Mountain. As they neared the top, eight of them left the security of the trees and marched out together onto an open slope. A slab triggered and all eight were swept down the hill. Everyone in the party had attended the standard one-hour avalanche lecture that is part of the club's "winter travel" course. Several were considered to be highly experienced winter mountaineers. The person breaking trail had been climbing for more than ten years. Interestingly, it was his third avalanche ride. On April 28, 1975, a mountaineering class from a local university assembled at Timberline on the old Mount St. Helens. The instructor, a climber of more than ten years experience, led them into the approaching storm in search of a site for their overnight snow camp. He selected a sheltered spot known as the Sugar Bowl, in the lee of a large, steep moraine. A spontaneous storm release avalanche killed five of his students. On January 16, 1974, two experienced instructors working for a large wilderness school took 15 students on a two-week long "expedition" into the Wyoming Tetons. Their immediate objective was Glacier Gulch, but they never got there. On the 5th day, while traversing a steep moraine, an avalanche overwhelmed the party, killing three. The Park Service Report described the leaders as "competent mountaineers" and considered the group "well led".
How do people make decisions? How do they sift through the information without drowning in a sea of alternatives? And what are the factors that lead them in a certain direction?
This book offers some tentative answers. It is a book intended for nonspecialists who would like an introduction to psychological research on judgment and decision making. The focus is on experimental findings rather than psychological theory, surprising conclusions rather than intuitions, and descriptive prose rather than mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This study tested for behavioral and hormonal reactions of young men to brief social encounters with potential mating partners. Male college students were randomly assigned to engage in a short conversation with either a young man (male condition) or a young woman (female condition). Participants provided saliva samples before and after the conversation, completed a battery of psychological measures after the interaction, and had their behavior rated by their conversation partners. Salivary testosterone (T) increased significantly over baseline levels in the female condition only, though differences between conditions were not significant. In addition, change in T was significantly correlated with the degree to which the female confederates thought the male participants were trying to impress them. These behavioral ratings, in turn, were correlated with the participants' ratings of the female confederates as potential romantic partners. Results were generally consistent with the hypothesis that human males may exhibit a behavioral and endocrine courtship response that is similar to that observed in males of many nonhuman vertebrate species.
The role of social facilitation and imitation in group risk-taking was explored in two experiments. The first experiment tried to determine if individual risk preferences can be changed by the mere presence of others and if these changes can account for shifts toward risk. Subjects predicted which of two differentially probable stimulus events would occur in a series of 360 trials. Expected value of the choices was held constant by varying the payoff inversely with the frequency of the two events. After 180 trials alone, subjects were put into one of four conditions, Control, Audience, Coaction, and Group. In the two social facilitation conditions, Audience and Coaction, there was an enhancement of dominant responses (i.e., conservative choices). But the Group condition showed a change in the risky direction, indicating that social facilitation processes cannot account for risky shifts. Experiment II replicated the social facilitation effects found in Experiment I, but failed to find pronounced tendencies of individuals to make their choices consistent with those of others. These weak imitation effects were found for a situation in which only knowledge of others' choices was accessible to the subject and in a situation in which both this knowledge was accessible and others were actually present. The implications of these findings for theories of risky shift were discussed.