Cited by 78Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Decision-making during high-risk events: a systematic literature review

Open access
Reale, Carrie, Salwei, Megan E., Militello, Laura G., Weinger, Matthew B., Burden, Amanda, Sushereba, Christen, Torsher, Laurence C., Andreae, Michael H. +5 more·2023·Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

Abstract

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/15553434221147415

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Literature shows that stress, affect, and uncertainty systematically shape judgment quality, risk processing, and reliance on heuristics in high-stakes environments.

    “Literature shows that stress, affect, and uncertainty systematically shape judgment quality, risk processing, and reliance on heuristics in high-stakes environments (Lerner et al., 2015; Reale et al., 2023).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Reale et al., 2023

    The Results sections on stress and uncertainty report effects on decision-making in high-risk situations, and the Discussion links nonproductive emotional responses to decision-making difficulties. But the paper does not establish that stress, affect, and uncertainty systematically shape risk processing or reliance on heuristics; its Performance section says none of the reviewed studies measured uncertainty’s effect on decision-making performance. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Anders S, Reale C, Salwei ME, Slagle J, Militello LG, Gaba D, Sushereba C, & Weinger MB (2022). Using a hybrid decision making model to inform qualitative data coding. In Paper presented at the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, New Orleans, LA, 20-23 March, 2022.
  2. Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, & Burden A (2014). Crisis management in anesthesiology E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
  3. Klein G (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. In Rouse W (Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems research (5, pp. 47– 92). JAI Press.
  4. Reale C, Sushereba C, Anders S, Gaba D, Burden A, & Militello L (2021). What good are models? In Paper presented at the Naturalistic Decision Making/Resilience Engineering Conference, France, 21-23 June, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reale, C., Salwei, M. E., Militello, L. G., Weinger, M. B., Burden, A., Sushereba, C., Torsher, L. C., Andreae, M. H., Gaba, D. M., McIvor, W. R., Banerjee, A., Slagle, J., & Anders, S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Applied Decision Science (United States) (US)
  • Cooper Medical School of Rowan University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Reale, Carrie
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
Published
2023-01-17
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
188-212
ISSN
1555-3434 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319834122
Cited by
78
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Library of Medicine Institutional Training Program in Biomedical Informatics and Data Science (T15LM007450-19)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS26158 / K12HS026395 / 1K01HS029042)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
decision-making under pressure, high-risk decision-making, naturalistic decision making, recognition-primed decision, time pressure, stress, uncertainty, decision errors, practitioner experiences, crisis management, healthcare decision-making, military decision-making, aviation decision making, fire and rescue services

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review