| Autor: |
D'Alessio I; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Quaglieri A; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Burrai J; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Pizzo A; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Mari E; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Aitella U; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Lausi G; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Tagliaferri G; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Cordellieri P; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Giannini AM; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy., Cricenti C; Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy. |
| Abstrakt: |
This review aims to map studies on governmental and institutional decision-making processes in emergencies. The literature reveals various approaches used by governments in managing emergencies. Consequently, this article suggests the need for a systematic literature review to outline how institutional decision-makers operate during emergencies. To achieve this goal, the most widely used databases in psychological research were consulted, with a specific focus on selecting scientific articles. Subsequently, these studies were rigorously assessed for their relevance using a structured literature selection process following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. At the conclusion of the review process, nine studies were identified, each suggesting different methods by which governments manage emergencies. This diversity arises because emergency decision-making processes must account for numerous variables that change depending on the type of crisis and the specific context. However, several critical aspects have emerged, such as the centrality of pre-disaster planning to improve intervention practices and methods, attention to information gaps that inevitably arise during an emergency, and the importance of streamlining and delegating decision-making to emergency responders in the field to counter the phenomenon of centralized decision-making that often hampers crucial interventions during emergencies. |
