Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study

IntroductionThe ability to perform optimally under pressure is critical across many occupations, including the military, first responders, and competitive sport. Despite recognition that such performance depends on a range of cognitive factors, how common these factors are across performance domains remains unclear. The current study sought to integrate existing knowledge in the performance field in the form of a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive mechanisms that underlie performance under pressure.MethodsInternational experts were recruited from four performance domains [(i) Defense; (ii) Competitive Sport; (iii) Civilian High-stakes; and (iv) Performance Neuroscience]. Experts rated constructs from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework (and several expert-suggested constructs) across successive rounds, until all constructs reached consensus for inclusion or were eliminated. Finally, included constructs were ranked for their relative importance.ResultsSixty-eight experts completed the first Delphi round, with 94% of experts retained by the end of the Delphi process. The following 10 constructs reached consensus across all four panels (in order of overall ranking): (1) Attention; (2) Cognitive Control—Performance Monitoring; (3) Arousal and Regulatory Systems—Arousal; (4) Cognitive Control—Goal Selection, Updating, Representation, and Maintenance; (5) Cognitive Control—Response Selection and Inhibition/Suppression; (6) Working memory—Flexible Updating; (7) Working memory—Active Maintenance; (8) Perception and Understanding of Self—Self-knowledge; (9) Working memory—Interference Control, and (10) Expert-suggested—Shifting.DiscussionOur results identify a set of transdisciplinary neuroscience-informed constructs, validated through expert consensus. This expert consensus is critical to standardizing cognitive assessment and informing mechanism-targeted interventions in the broader field of human performance optimization

The Making of an Expert Detective. Thinking and Deciding in Criminal Investigations

Drawing on theoretical frameworks developed in social and cognitive psychology, this thesis examines the degree to which individual and systemic factors may compensate for inherent biases in criminal detectives’ judgments and decision-making. Study I – an interview study – explored criminal detectives’ views of critical factors related to decision making in homicide investigations. Experienced homicide investigators in Norway (n = 15) and the UK (n = 20) were asked to identify decisional ‘tipping point’– decisions that could change detectives’ mind-set from suspect identification to suspect verification together with situational and individual factors relating to these decisions. In a content analysis, two types of decision were identified as typical and potentially critical tipping-points: (1) decisions to point-out, arrest, or charge a suspect, and (2) decisions concerning main strategies and lines of inquiry in the case. Moreover, 10 individual factors (e.g. experience) and 14 situational factors (e.g. who is the victim) were reported as related to the likelihood of mind-set shifts, most of which correspond well with previous decision-making research. Study II, using a quasi-experimental design, compared the quality of investigative decisions made by experienced detectives and novice police officers in two countries with markedly different models for the development of investigative expertise (England and Norway). In England, accredited homicide detectives vastly outperformed novice police officers in the number of adequate investigative hypotheses and actions reported. In Norway, however, bachelor educated police novices did marginally better than highly experienced homicide detectives. Adopting a similar design and the same stimulus material, Study III asked if a general test of cognitive abilities used in the selection process at the Norwegian Police University College could predict police students’ ability to generate investigative hypotheses. The findings did not support such a notion and this is somewhat in line with the available knowledge in the area showing that cognitive ability tests have low predictability for applied reasoning tasks. Taken together, this thesis suggests that investigative judgments are highly susceptible to the individual characteristics and biases of the detective. The results indicate that detective-expertise might act as a viable safeguard against biased decision-making, but length of experience alone does not predict sound judgments or decisions in critical stages of criminal investigations. Education and training is a solid foundation for the making of an expert detective. Nevertheless all participants’ researched across the two experiments were biased towards crime and guilt assumptive hypotheses. Hence, true abductive reasoning (i.e. to identify all competing explanations) and the presumption of innocence is hard to operationalise even for expert detectives with extensive training

Profiling police investigative thinking : a study of police officers in Norway

This knowledge management study is concerned with how police detectives experience,\ud understand, and think about the process of doing serious and complex criminal investigations. Detectives apply several investigative thinking styles, which are labeled method style, challenge style,skill style, and risk style, respectively. These four thinking styles are modeled in terms of maturity. Over time, it is assumed that detectives will apply higher-level styles such as skill style and risk style. This hypothesis was tested empirically in a survey of police officers in Norway. Support was found for the hypothesis. For example, more years as a detective is positively correlated with both the skill style and the risk style

Creativity as determinant of thinking style in police investigations

This paper is concerned with how police detectives experience, understand, and think about the process of doing serious and complex criminal investigations. Imagination and creativity are considered inevitably essential components of this process. Investigative thinking by detectives is classified into four styles: method, challenge, skill and risk style. Some of these styles are expected to require more creativity than other styles. Our research proposition suggests that more creative detectives apply higher investigative thinking styles. Support for this proposition was found in empirical evidence collected among police investigators in Norway, as both the skill style and risk\ud style were significantly related to the extent of creativity

Investigative thinking and creativity : an empirical study of police detectives in Norway

This paper makes distinctions among four investigative thinking styles of detectives: method style, challenge style, skill style, and risk style. Based on previous research, this study empirically tested, to what extent there are cumulative relationships among these thinking styles. Furthermore, this research studied relationships between investigative thinking styles and creativity in police investigations. Significant relationships were found between the extent of the challenge and risk styles and the extent of creativity