Abstract

In this article we examine by means of a serious game how ten teams of police leaders from major criminal investigation teams from five regional forces in the Netherlands, during criminal investigation, deal with tunnel vision and other potential causes of flawed decision-making, described according to Naturalistic Decision-Making models. Findings show that in the serious game, the danger of tunnel vision was widely acknowledged and that a great deal of energy was wasted as a result. In addition, the teams proved susceptible to other types of decision-making pitfalls. For example, the teams searched predominantly for confirmatory evidence, unconsciously used ingrained process-related rules of thumb, and there was evidence of a form of ‘information impulsion fallacy’. The present research is an elaboration on existing literature in that it attempts to shed light on decision-making practices during criminal investigations. The study shows that a serious game can be a useful tool to uncover decision-making behaviour.