Counterfactuals and their implications: a study of using backward counterfactual statements in accident investigations
(2024) FLMU16 20232Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety
- Abstract
- This research explores how aviation accident investigation reports are written and their impact on organisational learning and perception of accidents. It examines the role of backward counterfactual statements in shaping organisational learning from commercial aviation accidents. Hindsight bias can lead investigators to overstate their understanding of an accident's causes, influencing the inclusion of backward counterfactual statements in reports. These statements often blame individuals rather than systemic factors, hindering comprehensive (systems) learning. This research promotes more effective learning from accidents by highlighting the importance of focusing on systemic factors and local rationality over individual blame and... (More)
- This research explores how aviation accident investigation reports are written and their impact on organisational learning and perception of accidents. It examines the role of backward counterfactual statements in shaping organisational learning from commercial aviation accidents. Hindsight bias can lead investigators to overstate their understanding of an accident's causes, influencing the inclusion of backward counterfactual statements in reports. These statements often blame individuals rather than systemic factors, hindering comprehensive (systems) learning. This research promotes more effective learning from accidents by highlighting the importance of focusing on systemic factors and local rationality over individual blame and counterfactual thinking. Through quantitative analysis, it investigates whether reports without backward counterfactual statements offer more significant organisational learning opportunities in the aviation industry.
The effect of backward counterfactual statements was analysed by letting participants read an accident report with or without the independent variable ‘backward counterfactual statements’. Two independent covariates included the status as an instructor and the participants' experiences. The questions afterwards were divided into two dependent variables: the participants' judgment of the operator in the accident and their acceptance of systems thinking.
The empirical evidence did not support the research question that backward counterfactual statements significantly affect judgement and acceptance of systems thinking after reading adapted accident reports. The research spanned various analyses, including the role of professional experience and the specific influence of flight instructors. Nevertheless, no statistically significant effects attributable to backward counterfactual statements were found.
The findings challenge assumptions regarding the negative effect of backward counterfactual statements in shaping the reader’s analysis and interpretation, possibly suggesting a more complicated relationship between narrative framing in accident reports and cognitive processing. Additionally, the lack of significant differences across various levels of professional experience and among instructors may imply that judgement and systems thinking in aviation safety contexts may not be as susceptible to modification through this study’s narrative framing of case studies.
In essence, this thesis suggests that the impact of backward counterfactual statements on individuals' judgement and acceptance of systems thinking within the aviation industry, and thereby on organisational learning from accident reports, may be less significant than expected. By employing other methodological approaches, future research may offer deeper insights into optimising accident report narratives for organisational learning opportunities in aviation and beyond. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9171195
- author
- van Rooij, Tim Geert LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- FLMU16 20232
- year
- 2024
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- keywords
- Counterfactuals, Counterfactual thinking, Aviation Safety, Hindsight bias, Airline, Pilots, Survey, Local rationality, Systems thinking, Judgement, FLMU06
- language
- English
- id
- 9171195
- date added to LUP
- 2024-08-16 14:41:52
- date last changed
- 2024-08-16 14:41:52
@misc{9171195,
abstract = {{This research explores how aviation accident investigation reports are written and their impact on organisational learning and perception of accidents. It examines the role of backward counterfactual statements in shaping organisational learning from commercial aviation accidents. Hindsight bias can lead investigators to overstate their understanding of an accident's causes, influencing the inclusion of backward counterfactual statements in reports. These statements often blame individuals rather than systemic factors, hindering comprehensive (systems) learning. This research promotes more effective learning from accidents by highlighting the importance of focusing on systemic factors and local rationality over individual blame and counterfactual thinking. Through quantitative analysis, it investigates whether reports without backward counterfactual statements offer more significant organisational learning opportunities in the aviation industry.
The effect of backward counterfactual statements was analysed by letting participants read an accident report with or without the independent variable ‘backward counterfactual statements’. Two independent covariates included the status as an instructor and the participants' experiences. The questions afterwards were divided into two dependent variables: the participants' judgment of the operator in the accident and their acceptance of systems thinking.
The empirical evidence did not support the research question that backward counterfactual statements significantly affect judgement and acceptance of systems thinking after reading adapted accident reports. The research spanned various analyses, including the role of professional experience and the specific influence of flight instructors. Nevertheless, no statistically significant effects attributable to backward counterfactual statements were found.
The findings challenge assumptions regarding the negative effect of backward counterfactual statements in shaping the reader’s analysis and interpretation, possibly suggesting a more complicated relationship between narrative framing in accident reports and cognitive processing. Additionally, the lack of significant differences across various levels of professional experience and among instructors may imply that judgement and systems thinking in aviation safety contexts may not be as susceptible to modification through this study’s narrative framing of case studies.
In essence, this thesis suggests that the impact of backward counterfactual statements on individuals' judgement and acceptance of systems thinking within the aviation industry, and thereby on organisational learning from accident reports, may be less significant than expected. By employing other methodological approaches, future research may offer deeper insights into optimising accident report narratives for organisational learning opportunities in aviation and beyond.}},
author = {{van Rooij, Tim Geert}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Counterfactuals and their implications: a study of using backward counterfactual statements in accident investigations}},
year = {{2024}},
}