Assessing Mental Models of Emergencies Through Two Knowledge Elicitation Tasks

Abstract

Objective: The goals of this study were to assess the risk identification aspect of mental models using standard elicitation methods and how university campus alerts were related to these mental models. Background: People fail to follow protective action recommendations in emergency warnings. Past research has yet to examine cognitive processes that influence emergency decision-making. Method: Study 1 examined 2 years of emergency alerts distributed by a large southeastern university. In Study 2, participants listed emergencies in a thought-listing task. Study 3 measured participants’ time to decide if a situation was an emergency. Results: The university distributed the most alerts about an armed person, theft, and fire. In Study 2, participants most frequently listed fire, car accident, heart attack, and theft. In Study 3, participants quickly decided a bomb, murder, fire, tornado, and rape were emergencies. They most slowly decided that a suspicious package and identify theft were emergencies. Conclusion: Recent interaction with warnings was only somewhat related to participants’ mental models of emergencies. Risk identification precedes decision-making and applying protective actions. Examining these characteristics of people’s mental representations of emergencies is fundamental to further understand why some emergency warnings go ignored. Application: Someone must believe a situation is serious to categorize it as an emergency before taking the protective action recommendations in an emergency warning. Present-day research must continue to examine the problem of people ignoring warning communication, as there are important cognitive factors that have not yet been explored until the present research.