Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jun 22:12:650525.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650525. eCollection 2021.

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

Affiliations
Review

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

Michaéla C Schippers et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity-a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes-as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be implemented to counter these information-processing errors and improve decision-making processes in uncertain times.

Keywords: COVID-19; crisis; groupthink; information-processing failures; reflexivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Information processing failures and remedies fostering reflexivity. Adapted from Schippers et al. (2014).

References

    1. Abazi V. (2020). Truth distancing? Whistleblowing as remedy to censorship during COVID-19. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11 375–381. 10.1017/err.2020.49 - DOI
    1. Abrusci E., Dubberley S., McGregor L. (2020). “An infomedic in the pandemic: Human rights and COVID-19 misinformation,” In Covid-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues. A Project of the School of Law and Human Rights Centre, eds Ferstman C., Fagan A. (Essex, UK: University of Essex; ), 287–296.
    1. Acenowr C. P., Coles M. E. (2021). OCD during COVID-19: understanding clinical and non-clinical anxiety in the community. Psychiatry Res. 300:113910. 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113910 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alwan N. A., Burgess R. A., Ashworth S., Beale R., Bhadelia N., Bogaert D., et al. (2020). Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now. Lancet 396 e71–e72. 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32153-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amerio A., Bianchi D., Santi F., Costantini L., Odone A., Signorelli C., et al. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic impact on mental health: a web-based cross-sectional survey on a sample of Italian general practitioners. Acta Biomed. 91 83–88. 10.23750/abm.v91i2.9619 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources