Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Offence or defence?

Electronic data

  • JOOP_FINAL

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Power, N. and Alison, L. (2017), Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack. J Occup Organ Psychol, 90: 51–76. doi:10.1111/joop.12159 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12159/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 397 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Offence or defence?: approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>03/2017
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Issue number1
Volume90
Number of pages26
Pages (from-to)51-76
Publication statusPublished
Early online date26/09/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

When operating in multiteam settings, it is important that goals are cohesive between team members, especially in high-stakes, risky, and uncertain environments. This study explored goal consistency during a multiteam emergency response simulation. A total of n = 50 commanders from the UK Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services, and Ambulance Services took part in a simulated terrorism exercise, who were split into n = 13 teams. Each team responded to the same simulated terrorist event, which was based on a ‘Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack’ (MTFA) at a city centre train station. Data were collected using electronically time-stamped ‘decision logs’ and post-incident questionnaires that measured team members’ self-reported goals. Goals that were ‘attack’ focussed (e.g., ‘treat patients’) were coded as ‘approach’ (i.e., focussed on achieving positive outcomes) and goals that were ‘defence’ focussed (e.g., protect emergency responders) were coded as ‘avoid’ (i.e., focussed on avoiding negative outcomes). It emerged that different agencies prioritized different goal types; Fire commanders initially prioritized avoid goals but then increased approach orientations, Ambulance commanders were consistently approach oriented, and Police commanders showed goal conflict (tensions between adopting approach and avoid goals). Despite goal differences, participants rated that their interagency goals were consistent in a post-scenario questionnaire, suggesting that commanders were unaware of the nuanced differences between their agency-specific objectives. At the multiteam level, teams who predominantly held attack/approach goals were significantly faster at decision logging early in the incident, yet defend/avoid teams were faster at decision logging later into the incident. Implications for multiteam coordination are discussed.

Bibliographic note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Power, N. and Alison, L. (2017), Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack. J Occup Organ Psychol, 90: 51–76. doi:10.1111/joop.12159 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12159/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.