Information Seeking and Processing in the Field

A subsample of survey participants (n = 230) was also asked a series of questions regarding their information gathering and processing practices in the field when riding.

Frequency of Procedures

To assess participants' information gathering habits, they were asked to indicate how often they perform a number of standard information seeking procedures (Table 5.17 and Figure 5.32).

Table 5.17. Frequency of information gathering and processing procedures (Cronbach alpha values in brackets)

Activity n Median* IQR

Information Seeking (0.725)

1. Scan the landscape for signs of avalanches 230 4 4, 5

2. Test the stability of small slopes with your sled before moving into larger

terrain 229 4 3, 4

3. Examine terrain with respect to its exposure to avalanche danger 229 4 4, 5 4. Talk to riders outside of my group about avalanche conditions 230 3 3, 4 Information Processing

5. Combine your observations into a mental picture of the current

avalanche conditions 230 4 4, 5

*Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4), Always (5)

Figure 5.32. Frequency of information seeking and processing procedures in the field

The most commonly reported information gathering practice is scanning the landscape for avalanches followed by examining the terrain with respect to its exposure to

avalanche hazard. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test did not detect any significant difference in the reported frequency of these two practises. The moderately high Cronbach alpha value (0.820) indicates considerable consistency between these two ratings. The frequency of testing small slopes was significantly lower (pair-wise Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Boniferroni correction: p-value <0.001) and the reported frequency of talking to riders outside your group was significantly lower again (pair-wise Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Boniferroni correction: p-value = 0.001). An examination of the most common

0%  

scan  the  landscape  for  signs  of   avalanches?  

test  the  stability  of  small  slopes   with  your  sled  before  moving   into  larger  terrain?  

examine  terrain  with  respect  to   its  exposure  to  avalanche   danger?  

Talk  to  riders  outside  of  my   group  about  avalanche   conditions?  

combine  your  observations   into  a  mental  picture  of  the   current  avalanche  conditions?  

indicates that while scanning for avalanches and assessing the terrain for exposure to avalanche hazard often go hand in hand, testing small slopes and talking to others are more distinct avalanche safety practices (Table 5.18).

Table 5.18. Five most common patters for information seeking and processing Scan for 1. Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always 68 (30%) 2. Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always Sometimes Freq/Always 40 (18%) 3. Freq/Always Sometimes Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always 20 (8%) 4. Freq/Always Freq/Always Freq/Always Never/Rarely Freq/Always 13 (6%) 5. Freq/Always Sometimes Freq/Always Sometimes Freq/Always 12 (5%)

Sum 149 of 228

(65%) The reported frequency of assimilating the collected avalanche safety information into a mental picture of the current conditions was in the same range as scanning the terrain signs of avalanches and examining the terrain for exposure to avalanche hazard.

Personal Confidence in Procedures

Participants were also asked to rate their confidence in different aspects of their

personal field observation seeking and processing skills on a scale from zero (cannot do at all) to 100 (highly confident can do), (Table 5.19).

Table 5.19. Confidence in field observation seeking and processing skills

Statement n Median IQR

Making field observations for accurately assessing local avalanche

conditions 227 70 50, 80

Asking the right questions when talking about local avalanche conditions 228 70 60, 80 Creating an accurate mental picture of the local avalanche conditions 225 70 60, 80 There are no significant difference in the distributions of these three ratings and an exceptionally high Cronbach alpha value (0.99) indicates very high consistency between the three ratings. As a consequence, the average rating of these three questions

provides a meaningful single measure of their overall confidence in their field skills.

Susceptibility for Heuristic Traps

To assess their susceptibility for heuristic traps, survey participants were presented with statements about personal decision-making that reflect situations associated with five of the heuristic traps described by McCammon (2002). Participants were asked to indicate

how much these statements reflect their personal approach to travelling in avalanche terrain on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), (Table 5.20).

Table 5.20. Assessment of personal susceptibility to heuristic traps

Statement n median IQR

1. Scarcity:

I need to go further to find fresh powder when an area is tracked out. 230 5 4, 6 2. Expert Halo:

I sometimes overly trust the safety judgment of better riders and tend to interpret their riding skills as avalanche skills.

230 4 2, 5

3. Familiarity:

I have noticed myself being less cautious when riding in areas I am very familiar with.

230 5 3, 5.75

4. Social Facilitation:

Having other riders watch or a camera running really motivates me to push my riding further.

230 4 2, 5

5. Commitment:

I am pretty committed when riding and I rarely deviate from my original plans. 229 4 2, 5 1 (strongly disagree), 7 (strongly agree)

Pair-wise comparisons indicate that participants agreed significantly more with the scarcity statement than any other statement (Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Boniferroni corrections: p-values <0.001 for all comparisons). They agreed second most with the familiarity statement, which exhibits a rating that is significantly higher than the remaining three statements (Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Boniferroni corrections: p-values <0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were observed in the ratings for expert halo, social facilitation and commitment.

A low Cronbach alpha value (0.587) and low correlations among the ratings indicate that the five different statements clearly represent different dimensions of heuristic traps and that participants responded to them in distinct fashions.