SPURS: A framework towards Scenario Planning for Unexpected events, Response, and Startle using research, horror films, and video games

Introduction: Decision makers face major challenges during crisis events as unexpected events may occur at any time. The startle reaction that may generate from these events can have a negative effect on subsequent decision-making. Therefore, it is important for personnel to train for the ability to quickly recognise and react quickly to unexpected cues, in order to regain control of the situation. Method: Using research, and learning lessons from horror films and video games, the SPURS framework provides design guidelines that can assist with the building and configuration of simulated training scenarios containing unexpected events and cues. Results and discussion: SPURS factors are chosen in order to illustrate how a simulated training scenario with unexpected events may work. As a consequence, successful training can be acquired where the trainee sees what needs to be done, quickly assesses resources, and implements timely decisionmaking in order to regain control of the crisis.

[1]  Jonathan Frome,et al.  Helpless spectators : generating suspense in videogames and film , 2004 .

[2]  Jane Barnett,et al.  Startle reaction: Capturing experiential cues to provide guidelines towards the design of realistic training scenarios , 2012 .

[3]  Robert Baird,et al.  The Startle Effect: Implications for Spectator Cognition and Media Theory , 2000 .

[4]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[5]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[6]  M. F. Luce,et al.  An Information Processing Perspective on Choice , 1995 .

[7]  Denis Fischbacher-Smith,et al.  Crisis management in a complex world , 2010 .

[8]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) , 1988, Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference.

[9]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  Support Requirements for Cognitive Readiness in Complex Operations , 2012 .

[10]  William A. Hunt,et al.  The startle pattern , 1939 .

[11]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Preference, Belief, and Similarity: Selected Writings , 2003 .

[12]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[13]  J. G. Miller,et al.  Information input overload and psychopathology. , 1960, The American journal of psychiatry.

[14]  Kathryn Mearns,et al.  Situation awareness and safety in offshore drill crews , 2006, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[15]  C. Chabris,et al.  Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events , 1999, Perception.

[16]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[17]  William Wong,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Startling and Surprising Events in Immersive Training Systems for Emergency Response , 2012 .

[18]  Sae Schatz,et al.  Cognitive Readiness and the Challenge of Institutionalizing the “New” Versus “News” , 2012 .

[19]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[20]  D. Broadbent,et al.  What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity , 1989 .

[21]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  A cost-benefit mechanism for selecting problem-solving strategies: Some extensions and empirical tests , 1982 .

[22]  Gary Klein,et al.  Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making , 2009 .

[23]  C. Hermann.  Some Consequences of Crisis Which Limit the Viability of Organizations , 1963 .