Analysis of emergency decision-making behavior characteristics driven by implicit memory in context of sudden accidents

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.2114

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the influence of cognitive psychology on emergency decision-making in the context of sudden accidents and improve individual's emergency response ability, a re-recognition test was designed to measure implicit memory levels by using the task dissociation framework in cognitive psychology. An emergency decision-making behavior simulation experiment was conducted to test response time and behavioral choices, and to evaluate emergency decision-making abilities based on reaction time and accuracy. By comparing the differences between individuals with different implicit memory levels in emergency decision-making behavior, the process characteristics and automatic generation mechanisms of emergency decision-making behavior driven by implicit memory were analyzed. The results show that implicit memory can affect the information perception, cognitive processing, and behavioral selection processes of emergency decision-making. Compared to individuals with low implicit memory, those with high implicit memory have faster emergency response speed and higher accuracy in the choice of emergency behavior. During the initiation of danger perception, they respond rapidly through unconscious extraction of relevant memories. And they consume less attention resources during cognitive processing, exhibiting certain characteristics of automated behavior and reducing self-damage, thereby enhancing the stability of the individual's emotional state in emergency decision-making situations and reducing risk-taking behavior.

Key words: sudden aceidents, implicit memory, emergency decision-making behavior, automated behavior, cognitive resources, processing separation paradigm

HAN Yu, LI Jiameng, GU Jing. Analysis of emergency decision-making behavior characteristics driven by implicit memory in context of sudden accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 234-239.

Figures/Tables 10

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

Fig.3

Tab.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 19

[1]	中华人民共和国统计局. 中华人民共和国2022年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[EB/OL].(2023-02-28). http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202302/t20230228_1919011.html.
[2]	于明璐. 应对突发事件的应急行为决策效应研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工业大学, 2015.
	YU Minglu. Research on effect of emergency behavioral decision making in contingency response[D]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2015.
[3]	朱伟, 王亚飞, 张鹏, 等. 突发事件下多路径行人通行行为模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):151-156. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.021
	ZHU Wei, WANG Yafei, ZHANG Peng, et al. Model of pedestrian behavior in multi-path evacuation in emergencies[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):151-156. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.021
[4]	李国为, 杨鹏飞, 黄伟, 等. 噪声对矿工反应能力影响的实验研究[J]. 西安科技大学学报, 2022, 42(3):423-429.
	LI Guowei, YANG Pengfei, HUANG Wei, et al. Experimental study of noise on miners' reaction ability[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Science and Technology, 2022, 42(3):423-429.
[5]	李琰, 毛钰, 张燕. 建筑工人应急行为影响机制[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(10):1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.10.001
	LI Yan, MAO Yu, ZHANG Yan. Influence mechanism of construction workers' emergency behavior[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(10):1-7. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.10.001
[6]	史鹏, 吕中凡, 王国动, 等. 空间工作记忆容量对足球运动员进攻战术决策视觉信息加工的影响[J]. 河南师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2022, 50(4):150-156.
	SHI Peng, LYU Zhongfan, WANG Guodong, et al. The effect of space working memory capacity on visual information processing of offensive tactical decisions of football players[J]. Journal of Henan Normal University: Natural Science Edition, 2022, 50(4):150-156.
[7]	HAN Yu, YIN Zhenzhen, LIU Jialun, et al. Defining and testing a safety cognition framework incorporating safety hazard perception[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2019, 145(1): DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001718.
[8]	张孟春. 建筑工人不安全行为产生的认知机理及应用[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2012.
	ZHANG Mengchun. Cognitive mechanisms and applications of unsafe behavior of construction workers[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2012.
[9]	PARKIN A J, REID T K, RUSSO R. On the differential nature of implicit and explicit memory[J]. Memory & Cognition, 1990, 18(5):507-514. doi: 10.3758/BF03198483
[10]	张晓丹. 内隐记忆实验综述[J]. 黑龙江教育学院学报, 2018, 37(11):91-93.
	ZHANG Xiaodan. An overview of implicit memory experiment[J]. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 2018, 37(11):91-93.
[11]	SHIFFRIN R M, SCHNEIDER W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory[J]. Psychological Review, 1977, 84(2):127-190. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
[12]	刘文婧. 基于前景理论的突发事件应急响应群决策研究[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2018.
	LIU Wenjing. Research on emergency response group decision-making based on prospect theory[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2018.
[13]	JACOBY L L. A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 1991, 30(5):513-541. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F
[14]	卢利萍, 恽晓平. 内隐记忆的测验方法及其理论基础[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2009, 4(10):843-849.
	LU Liping, YUN Xiaoping. The assessment of implicit memory and its rationale[J]. Chinese Journal of Stroke, 2009, 4(10):843-849.
[15]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 关于2020年房屋市政工程生产安全事故情况的通报[EB/OL].(2021-05-21). https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/zhengce/zhengcefilelib/202210/20221026_768565.html.
[16]	FAY S, ISINGRINI M, CLARYS D. Effects of depth-of-processing and ageing on word-stem and word-fragment implicit memory tasks: test of the lexical-processing hypothesis[J]. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2005, 17(6):785-802. doi: 10.1080/09541440440000212
[17]	陆颖之, 周成林. 不同维度的情绪刺激对认知-运动表现的影响[C]. 2015第十届全国体育科学大会, 2015:588-590.
[18]	KAHNEMAN D. Attention and effort[M]. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973:112-135.
[19]	ISEN A M, PATRICK R. The effect of positive feelings on risk taking[J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1983, 31(2):194-202.

试验类别	试验指标	指标说明
行为试验	决策准确率	回答决策问题的正确率
行为试验	决策反应时	决策问题出现到结束的时间
再认试验	再认准确率	事故再认的正确率

正态参数		p
M/%	SD/%	0.054
72.23	12.81	0.054

内隐记忆水平	高内隐记忆水平		低内隐记忆水平
准确率/%	64.21±16.10		52.35±8.31
反应时/ms	1 445.63±87.50		1 563.12±121.72
事故特征	频发事故	偶发事故	频发事故	偶发事故
准确率/%	74.74±16.11	53.68±20.06	58.82±13.17	45.88±9.39
反应时/ms	1 328.89±118.19	1 545.47±122.27	1 515.18±118.21	1 609.82±152.33

内隐记忆水平	认知努力	心理压力	时间压力
高	2.63	2.79	4.37
低	3.24	3.41	4.53