Evidence for Overthinking and Poor Decision Making After Mistakes: Implications for Crisis and Risk Communication

Extreme weather events, such as floods, are increasing in frequency, severity, and extent, which creates additional pressure to effectively communicate during crises. Moreover, effective communication should only be considered effective if it generates appropriate responses. Here we sought to understand how different types of flood hazard warnings were perceived and acted upon over the course of an experiment. Of specific interest is how the decision making process evolved and changed throughout the experiment (behavioral dynamism), as both the exposure to the warnings and the potential for making significant response errors increased. To test flood warning message efficacy and behavioral dynamism, we used a serious game methodology to gather data from the public. Specifically, using video game software, we developed a virtual neighborhood with an approaching storm, and then provided participants with flood hazard warning messages. Participants would then decide how to respond to the messages by either evacuating or preparing for the storm at home. Data were collected while participants experienced a series of these simulated events. A nationally representative sample of 746 participants completed the experiment. Our findings revealed that participants made significantly worse decisions after making a costly mistake, providing evidence of cascading errors. Moreover, on average, they took longer than expected to make the poor decisions, indicating that they may have been “overthinking”. Overall, results provide evidence of a difficult-to-measure phenomenon, where individuals make sequentially bad decisions. Finding ways to reduce or break the cycle of bad decisions could help protect lives and property.