avalanche: human risk factors impacting decision making

The recent avalanche tragedy that killed nine backcountry skiers on February 17th is recounted in this NY Times article, ‘Avalanche!’: Survivors Recount the Tragedy at Perry’s Peak

I’d like to just focus on one part of that narrative. There is a section of the article that addresses “failures in human decision making” when it comes to measuring risks in conjunction with others. Read the section immediately below:

“Avalanche prediction has improved dramatically since the 1980s, but knowing when snow is likely to slide has not led to a drop in fatalities. Many backcountry users continue to go into dangerous terrain, even when advised of the risk.

“That has caused avalanche safety experts in recent decades to recognize that accidents have as much to do with failures in human decisions as they do with failures in snow layers. In response they have shifted education toward helping people spot human factors that push them to take dangerous risks.

Backcountry users are taught to recognize a group of human decision-making traps that can make getting caught in an avalanche more likely, said Sara Boilen, a psychologist in Montana, an avid backcountry skier and a snow safety researcher who regularly gives an avalanche safety talk.

People skiing familiar terrain — such as experienced guides on home turf — are more likely to assume a familiar route is safe. Skiers who see an opportunity as scarce or fleeting — such as a long-awaited trip or fresh powder — are more likely to downplay the danger. Individuals wanting to fit in with the group may be reluctant to speak out. Novices are prone to defer to someone they see as an expert, and not question their decisions.

In groups of six to 10, statistics show, the risk grows substantially, as numbers give the illusion of safety and unspoken competition pushes the tolerance for risk.

Over time, Dr. Boilen said, taking risks can become normalized.

“It’s very hard to avoid. I’ve seen it in my friends, I’ve seen it in myself,” she said. “You can creep past a red line you would never intentionally step across.”

So we have much better science today than ever before—yet, we have the human connection that can override even the best science and then group behaviors can come into play. I’m reminded of the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster when a small set of engineers caved to the pressure from others to go ahead and launch. Back then it was called Group Think

Certainly, in the military, servicemembers are trained to put aside individual reservations about combat decisions. To function in combat you need cohesion and unity of effort. But, but, but, every risk decision is not connected to combat.

Watch for the warning signs outlined above.