Towards an Exploration of Several Dimensions in Learning:

Application on Crisis Management

Sammy Teffali, Nada Matta and Eric Châtelet

Université de Technologie de Troyes, 12 rue Marie Curie, 10300 Troyes, France

Keywords: Crisis Management, Stress, Knowledge, Learning, Experience Feedback, Fuzzy Sets.

Abstract: A crisis is a complex situation, which actors have some difficulties to manage it. They are under stress to

deal with problems that they cannot predict consequences. The human conditions (familial and life) and, the

influence of the environment (politic, economic, media) pushes the actors to lose control of the crisis

situation. The question we face in this paper is: “is it possible to predict stress impact situations based on

experience feedback?” “Is it possible to use this type of prediction for learning?” Our main hypothesis to

represent experience feedback in a situation prediction in order to show negative consequences and

correctness actions is taken account. Fuzzy theory concept is used in prediction in order to generate several

situations and allow learners to explore different options.

1 INTRODUCTION

During crisis management actors are submitted to

different types of pressures driven by some factors

(politics; time; media; environment; etc.). Those can

lead to potentially dangerous or catastrophic results.

Among these factors are the stress and its different

impacts on the managers and actors. The purpose of

this paper is to predict a stress impact situation by

using fuzzy sets and knowledge management. This

can help crisis management actors to learn by

exploring different situations due to stress impacts.

So, the main questions can be: Is it possible to

predict the impact of the stress in this type of

situation by using the fuzzy logic? How can

prediction help in learning? In this paper, some

answers to these questions are explored, especially,

the representation of experience feedback with stress

impact in crisis management. Firstly, a presentation

of the concept of the rhizome and the learning in the

organization are shown. The description of the crisis

management as a cooperative situation and the

impact of the stress during the crisis that can

generate some uncertainty situations is studied.

Then, the use of the fuzzy logic in the representation

of the stress impact during a crisis situation is

discussed and a representation of the structure of the

fuzzy generator called “NOE” is proposed. The

fuzzy set generator can predict different situations of

crisis by using a kind of elements that we defined.

This study is illustrated in a real case of a terrorist

attack crisis management in Algeria during a civil

war.

2 CONSIDERING UNCERTAINTY

IN LEARNING

Cyert and March define learning as the adaptation of

the organization to its environment (Cyert and

March 1963). Whereas, it is a process for creating

knowledge by transforming a feedback experience

(Kolb 1984). The knowledge is acquired by the

combination of the transformation of the feedback

experience and the prehension. The human behavior,

its language, comprehension, reasoning are more

complex and multiple. It is like a rhizome. This has

various shapes, from the beginning of its

ramifications to the bulbs and tubers. The

philosophic concept of the rhizome (Deleuze and

Guattari 1988) is used in learning to use virtual

environments, for instance to manage crisis

situations (Laurent et al. 2016). This concept is used

in our approach. Uncertainty is a situation of

inadequate information. It can be of three sorts:

inexactness, unreliability, and borders with

ignorance (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990). It can

prevail in situations where a lot of information is

available (Van Asselt and Rotmans 2002). A new

information or knowledge can decrease or increase

Teffali, S., Matta, N. and Châtelet, E.

Towards an Exploration of Several Dimensions in Learning: Application on Crisis Management.

DOI: 10.5220/0006920001530160

In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2018) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 153-160

ISBN: 978-989-758-330-8

153

the uncertainty. Uncertainty is related to factors or

determinants that may influence actions or

responses. The difficulty to manage the uncertainty

had brought Zadeh to use the fuzzy logic (Lotfi

Asker Zadeh 1983). This reinforces our choice for

the fuzzy theory. In addition, some researchers

suggest that uncertainty may be an important

mediator of the impact of role stressors on the stress

(T. Beehr 2000; T. A. Beehr and Bhagat 1985;

O’Driscoll and Beehr 1994). In the daily life and, for

any problem or situation, experience feedback is

used. Yet, knowledge management approaches

define some techniques to promote learning from

experience feedback. By including experience

feedback on technical and organizational means,

actors can learn how to face stress in crisis

management. Then, an actor or a group of actors can

adjust its approaches; policies; procedures; methods;

models and its organization, guided by previous

experiences, to try to obtain as possible as a nominal

situation.

3 CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND

THE STRESS

3.1 The Crisis Management

The crisis is an unstable and dangerous situation

affecting individual, group, community and the

whole society. It generated a collective stress

(Rosenthal, Charles, and Hart 1989). It is an

exceptional situation. One of the definitions of crisis

is: “a serious threat to the basic structures the

fundamental values and, norms which under time

pressure and, highly uncertain circumstances

necessitates making a critical decision” (Rosenthal,

Charles, and Hart 1989). A crisis requests an

organization to manage it and, to make pertinent

decisions with the aim to request from this situation

or to reduce its effect in a short time with minimal

damage. The crisis situation can be represented as

relations between event and states respecting this

dynamicity (Sediri et al. 2013). Each state can be

defined as a couple “event/consequences” (Sediri et

al. 2013). A state can generate events and events can

modify states and so on.

3.1.1 Crisis Management as Collaborative

Activity

As indicated previously, during a crisis management

actors come from different organizations. They

work, communicate, cooperate, coordinate and,

exchange their own experiences. Their main

common objective is how to deal with the crisis for

reducing its effect? In this relationship, is noted that

multiple actors are interdependent in their work.

They interact each other to improve the state of their

common field. In CSCW (Computer-Supported

Cooperative Work), this activity is defined as:

“distributed in the sense that decision-making agents

are semi-autonomous in their work in terms of

contingencies, criteria, methods, specialties,

perspectives, heuristics, interests, motives and so

forth” (Schmidt 1994). This distributed activity can

be represented as Triple C (Communication,

Coordination, Cooperation). Several papers in the

literature mention the role of Triple C in crisis

management, and their interdependence (Martin,

Nolte, and Vitolo 2016). The interdependence of the

3C is affected by the regulation. Indeed, the

regulation adjusting consists of sending or to

receiving information, giving a warning

(Communication); using means (Coordination); and

to use the procedure, decision and organization

(Cooperation). Experience feedback can be so

represented considering these three dimensions.

3.2 The Stress in Crisis Management

3.2.1 Stress

As is noted above, the stress is an important factor in

the success or the failure of the decision-making in a

situation of crisis management. It is a particular

relation between an actor and his specific

environment. Its evaluation can be weak or exceed

the actor resources and can be endangered his well-

being (Richard S Lazarus and Folkman 1984). It was

noticed that “Some policymakers reveal

resourcefulness in crisis situations seldom seen in

their day-to-day activities; others appear erratic,

devoid of sound judgment, and disconnected”

(Hermann 1979). Several approaches for the stress

have been proposed, based on response (Selye

1974); stimulus (Hobfoll 1989); the interactionism

(Jones, Bright, and Clow 2001); and the

transactional approaches (Cox, Griffiths, and Rial-

González 2000). In the case of this study, the

transactional approach is chosen. It is related to

cognitive and emotional processes, which gives

interaction between a person and his environment

(Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, and LePine 2004). This

indicates that the individual and the demand are two

components. Those define themselves in a

continuous process with a retroactive loop. More

concretely, the stress result from the imbalance

KMIS 2018 - 10th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

154

observed during the cognitive evaluation between

the demand and, the capacity to deal with. Indeed,

an actor possesses personal characteristics that

differentiate him from others. He is under the

influence of environmental variables. There are

different studies that propose training and mental

preparation methods to help actors to face the stress

in crisis management (Ducrocq et al. 2000;

Pauchant, Mitroff, and Lagadec 1991). This paper

focus on the impact of stress on decision-making in

order to promote learning from fails and guides

based on experience feedback.

3.2.2 The Impact of the Stress on

Decision-making in a Crisis

Management

Boswel et al present four classes of indicators that

influence stress conditions (Boswell, Olson-

Buchanan, and LePine 2004). (1) Task conditions:

workload, etc; (2) relational conditions: conflict,

harassment, etc; (3) job conditions: Mobility, no

promotion, etc; (4) interaction private/profession:

husband, children, family, etc. Different observable

indicators of the stress are considered in psychology

as manifestations of stress. Some of these are mainly

noted: Speech rhythm (Kanfer 1959; Siegman and

Pope 2016), repetition of expressions and words

(Kasl and Mahl 1965; Osgood and Walker 1959),

using specific words (Kasl and Mahl 1965; Lalljee

and Cook 1973; Siegman and Pope 2016) etc; super

activity, inadequate movement (Dittmann 1962;

Mehrabian and Ksionzky 1972) etc; silence

(Aronson and Weintraub 1972; Weintraub and

Aronson 1967); ambivalence, self-confidence

(Aronson and Weintraub 1972; Eichler 1965;

Osgood and Walker 1959); hostility and aggression

(Gottschalk et al. 1966; Murray 1954); inappropriate

behavior and actions (Mehrabian 1968b, 1968a).

Other studies have shown some manifestations of

stress impact on decision-making as: Situation and

context simplification (Lazarus et al, 1966; Holsti et

al, 1964); fixation on one possibility without any

flexibility and alternatives (Berkowitz 1962; Holsti,

Brody, and North 1964; De Rivera 1968; Rosenblatt

1964); consulting several opinions without

concluding on a decision (Holsti 1972; Cooper et al,

1988); imposing a decision without measuring the

impact and the consequences (Holsti 1972; Korchin

1964); missing decision-making and actions (Holsti

1972; Schlenker and Miller 1977). In this work,

some of these indicators that can be measured

directly from crisis management actions feedback

are selected: super activity and imposing decision

without considering the impact; silence, missing

decision and actions; speech rhythm, aggression, and

conflict of opinions and decisions; simplification of

the situation and inadequate means and actions. The

stress during a situation of crisis management

generates some uncertainty situations as we noted

above. Fuzzy logic can be used in order to simulate

this type of uncertainty.

4 “NOE” GENERATOR OF

STRESS IMPACT

4.1 The Fuzzy Sets

It is a mathematical theory of Lotfi Zadeh (Lotfi A

Zadeh 1996) based on intuitive reasoning. This

theory considers the subjectivity and the impreci-

sion. It may treat digital literacy; non-measurable

values and for a linguistic issue (Bouchon-Meunier,

Yager, and Zadeh 1995). Fuzzy sets provide

techniques to represent subjective and uncertain

reasoning. Its goal is to build a formal system that it

can make a qualitative reasoning (Rosental 2004).

The fuzzy sets are used in different domains like

pattern recognition, robotics, biology, economy,

medicine, ecology, etc. (Zimmermann 2010).

4.2 Representing Stress Impacts with

Fuzzy Sets

The advantage of the fuzzy theory is to use the

linguistic value and to give for this value a

mathematical sense. The main characteristic of this

theory is the quantification of the uncertainty. As we

know, the human reasoning in different areas is

based on uncertainty. One of our principal

preoccupations is how to interpret the impact of the

stress in crisis situations using the human behavior

and reasoning. Our proposition is so to use the

natural expression or words with fuzzy theory and

especially the fuzzy sets. Our model representation

is based on event/state representation. We know that

state can generate events and events can modify

states and so on. And also action or data and actors

compose that event. On the other hand, the state is

composed of actors; place; means; and data.

4.3 “NOE” Architecture

Considering all these components, and the fuzzy

logic theory we imagined a fuzzy generator called

“Noé” who can generate state by introducing event.

Towards an Exploration of Several Dimensions in Learning: Application on Crisis Management

155

In the beginning we feed all the components

mentioned above in a knowledge-base. The

information contained in the event is introduced in

the generator. By using the fuzzy theory and the

knowledge-base, “Noé” generates the out-put state.

4.3.1 Components of the Model

As previously announced, the crisis situation can be

represented by several states evolving through time

and space. A state can generate events and events

can modify states and so on. For the next phase of

this study, we are going to give more precision about

some components that will enable us to use this

theory.

We define for the first time a number of the sets:

 A is a universe of three actions:

A= a

{ }

(1)

Where a

=Communication, a

=Coordination and

=cooperation.

 B is a universe of n actors:

B= b

,....,b

{ }

(2)

 C is a universe r places:

C = c

,....,c

{ }

(3)

 D is a universe of j data: D includes different

kinds of information as weather (w); crisis-place

(cp); victims (v); population (p); morphology-of-

land (m); assailant (as): infrastructure (in); and

crisis-situation (cs). Then the function D is

represented as the intersection of r-tuples noted.

𝐷(𝑤

𝑗

, 𝑣

𝑗

, 𝑐𝑝

𝑗

, 𝑣

𝑗

, 𝑝

𝑗

, 𝑚

𝑗

, 𝑎𝑠

𝑗

, 𝑖𝑛

𝑗

, 𝑐𝑠

𝑗

)

(4)

 E is the universes of z places:

E = e

,....,e

{ }

(5)

 F is the universe of q means:

F = f

, f

,...., f

{ }

(6)

 T the set of I time:

T = t

,....,t

{ }

(7)

 The linguistic modifier is a set of atomic terms

defined and in relation to the feedback

experience of the expert.

G = equal,increase,decrease, probably

{ }

(8)

 The State is defined as a function composed by

actors (b), place (c), means (f) and data (d).

state= b

, f

( )

, b

, f

( )

,...., b

, f

( )

{ }

(9)

 The function event is composed by the couple

action (1) or data (4), and by actors (2).

event = a ou d

( )

, a ou d

( )

,...., a ou d

( )

{ }

(10)

For all a ∈

{

, a

}

. State and event

attributes are detailed in the following.

The objective is to define the impact-stress

function O composed by the functions state (9),

events (10), and the sets of the time (7) and the

linguistic modifier (8).

Decision = O= ÇG

event

,state

i-1

( )

;i =1,n

{ }

(11)

By using the impact-stress function O we can

generate several situations during a crisis situation.

4.4 Using “NOE” for Generating

Situation

To verify our generator, we called a crisis

management expert. . The expert is the one who has a

good mastery of his activity and is considered a

reference by his colleagues (Bogner and Menz 2009).

Several primitives can be used (entity relations,

ontologies, etc.) to model results of interviews. We

choose entity-relations to illustrate the situations

through events-states in order to illustrate the

dynamicity of this type of situation. . This interview

allows us to verify our generator NOE by using the

triple C actions cited above. An example for each C

action is cited below in this paper.

4.4.1 For the Communication Action

Communi-

cation

Silence

Speak quickly

The Chief

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Means: equal

Population: probably

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Weather: change

Victims: increase

Means: equal

Population:

probably

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

The

subordinate

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Means: equal

Population: probably

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Means: equal

Population:

probably

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

The

population

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Assailant: probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

KMIS 2018 - 10th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

156

4.4.2 For the Coordination Action

Coordination

Inappropriate

Aggression

The Chief

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Means: decrease

Population:

probably

Assailant:

probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Place of crisis:

probably

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Means: decrease

Population:

probably

Assailant:

probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Place of crisis:

probably

The

subordinate

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Means: decrease

Population:

probably

Assailant:

probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Place of crisis:

probably

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Means: decrease

Population:

probably

Assailant:

probably

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Place of crisis:

probably

The

population

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Assailant: increase

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Weather: probably

Victims: increase

Assailant: increase

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

4.4.3 For the Cooperation Action

The cooperation action affects only the subordinate

actors and the population.

Cooperation

Simplification of

the situation

Imposing a

decision

The

subordinate

The

population

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Assailant:

increase

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

Weather:

probably

Victims: increase

Assailant:

increase

Situation of crisis:

probably

Infrastructure:

probably

5 CASE APPLICATION

5.1 Case Observed and Studied with

the Stress

A real case study in a situation of crisis

management. The author's observation can reveal

some aspects of the impact of the stress during this

event. It also provides, a timeline for actors reaction

with a general view on errors committed, means

used, the places where the event was reported and,

different information and data known. For this, a

retired officer of the Algerian Army has been

interviewed (as an expert) about one of crisis

situations he dealt with.

5.1.1 Case Description

A lieutenant of Algerian Army explains, in this case,

his experience about a terrorist attack on two

villages “Ramkaa and Had El Chekala”, in the

Algerian mountain. In fact, the army had to deal

with a group of terrorists in the area. The tactical

command post was installed near the mountain, in

order to prepare their track. In the morning (6h AM)

of a day in February, some soldiers had been awake

by a young man running to the camp and crying:

“They killed them, they killed them.” Soldiers tried

to calm the young man and conducted him to the

nursery. The crowd woke colonel and lieutenant.

The young man explained then that the terrorists

were killed all people in his village. Colonel asked

the lieutenant to prepare three cars, and they directly

went to villages with only simple guns. They drove

on a winding road. Terrorist cloud is everywhere and

could be attacking them. Arriving at the village, they

discover horrible landscape, “everywhere dead

bodies, disembowelled women, blood, etc.” They

were shocked and did not believe their eyes. One of

the Chief starts to talk nonsense words. Soldiers

removed his weapon, they were afraid about his

safety. The Colonel decided then to visit the nearby

village with the lieutenant and some soldiers. They

discovered the same horrible situations, adding that,

the school was burned with the nursery and the post-

office. The colonel sat on the ground without

moving. Soldiers and Lieutenant did not have any

idea on how to react and what to do. Their radio did

not work. There was no network. They stayed in this

state more than one hour and a half. Then, other

soldiers arrived at the base of ambulances and radio-

communication post. Because they guess that their

colleagues needed help after two hours of silence.

After that, the colonel recovered his senses and

Towards an Exploration of Several Dimensions in Learning: Application on Crisis Management

157

called the government crisis cells. He called the

tactical command post to send him fire fighters and

medical emergency resources. It was about 10h AM.

Crisis Cells were installed at Ramkaa village. Dead

Bodies were gathered. They discovered some

survivals. They received first aid on site. Helicopters

arrived and first evacuations started at 1 PM.

5.1.2 Case Analysis

The case analysis shows us some impact of the

stress: (I) Imposing a decision without measuring the

impact and the consequences: The colonel took

three vehicles with simple guns and went to the

village. He decided then to visit the nearby village

with the lieutenant and some soldiers; (II) Repetition

of expressions and words: One of the Chiefs started

spelling nonsense words; (III) Silence, missing

decision and actions: The colonel sat on the ground

without moving. Soldiers and Lieutenant did not

have any idea on how to react and what to do. (IV)

Simplification of the situation and inadequate means

and actions: With simple guns, they went to villages.

Their radio did not work. There was no network.

The impact of this stress during this situation is:

time-lost; wounded died (waiting from 6h AM to 1h

PM); the first soldiers can be attacked and killed by

terrorists on the road and in the villages; no

communications between operational and tactical

teams. This analysis, show us, how the stress can

cause considerable damage during a crisis situation.

5.2 Using NOE to Generate Situations

from the Case Studied

We use the generator NOE for the same situation

example, we noted that for the same state and for the

same action, cooperation, the fuzzy generator can

generate a variety of situations (Figure 1).

Otherwise, for the same state we can use other

actions and with the fuzzy generator, we can

generate a considerable number of state.

Figure 1: The NOE generation

KMIS 2018 - 10th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

158

6 CONCLUSIONS

The present study is to determine the stress impact

including the experience feedback in the situation of

the crisis management. It suggests a Stress Impact

predicts situations, which generate a number of very

useful states for crisis management training actors.

Based on that, we answer the main question about

the possibility to represent stress impact in crisis

management and by using experience feedback in

order to show consequences of stress behavior.

Experience feedback is also used in our system to

show actions to avoid stress consequences.. Actions

are defined under three dimensions: cooperation,

coordination, and communication-related to the

representation of collaborative crisis management

activity. This representation is illustrated in a real

case study in order to verify its applicability. The

situations predict system is based on the Fuzzy set

theory that helps to deal with uncertainty and

dynamicity of situations. So, for the same state and

for the same action, the predict-system can generate

a variety of situations. We discover that we can

generate lived situation and non-lived situation. The

natural progression of this study is to develop the

algorithm of the stress impact prediction in order to

test in other crisis cases. This type of environment

can illustrate the rhizome principle and be used for

learning when integrated in simulation. This can

help the crisis manager to explore different

situations of the crisis and discover stress

consequences to deal with.

REFERENCES

Aronson, Harriet, and Walter Weintraub. 1972. “Personal

Adaptation as Reflected in Verbal Behavior.” In

Studies in Dyadic Communication, Pergamon Press

New York, 265–78.

Van Asselt, Marjolein B A, and Jan Rotmans. 2002.

“Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling.”

Climatic change 54(1–2): 75–105.

Beehr, T. 2000. “An Organizational Psychology Meta-

Model of Organizational Stress.” Theories of

Occupational Stress.

Beehr, Terry A, and Rabi S Bhagat. 1985. “Introduction to

Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations.”

Human stress and cognition in organizations 3: 19.

Berkowitz, Leonard. 1962. “Aggression: A Social

Psychological Analysis.”

Bogner, Alexander, and Wolfgang Menz. 2009. “The

Theory-Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological

Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction.” In

Interviewing Experts, Springer, 43–80.

Boswell, Wendy R, Julie B Olson-Buchanan, and Marcie

A LePine. 2004. “Relations between Stress and Work

Outcomes: The Role of Felt Challenge, Job Control,

and Psychological Strain.” Journal of Vocational

Behavior 64(1): 165–81.

Bouchon-Meunier, Bernadette, Ronald R Yager, and Lotfi

Asker Zadeh. 1995. 4 Fuzzy Logic and Soft

Computing. World Scientific.

Cooper, Cary L, Stephen J Sloan, and Stephen Williams.

1988. Occupational Stress Indicator. Nfer-Nelson

Windsor.

Cox, Tom, Amanda Griffiths, and Eusebio Rial-González.

2000. Research on Work-Related Stress. European

Communities.

Cyert, Richard M, and James G March. 1963. “A

Behavioral Theory of the Firm.” Englewood Cliffs, NJ

2: 64–67.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1988. A Thousand

Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Bloomsbury

Publishing.

Dittmann, Allen T. 1962. “The Relationship between

Body Movements and Moods in Interviews.” Journal

of Consulting Psychology 26(5): 480.

Ducrocq, F et al. 2000. “Post-Traumatic Stress, Post-

Traumatic Depression and Major Depressive Episode:

Literature.” L’Encephale 27(2): 159–68.

Eichler, Myron. 1965. “The Application of Verbal

Behavior Analysis to the Study of Psychological

Defense Mechanisms: Speech Patterns Associated

with Sociopathic Behavior.” The Journal of Nervous

and Mental Disease 141(6): 658–63.

Funtowicz, Silvio O, and Jerome R Ravetz. 1990. 15

Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Gottschalk, Louis A, Carolyn M Winget, Goldine C

Gleser, and Kayla J Springer. 1966. “The

Measurement of Emotional Changes during a

Psychiatric Interview: A Working Model toward

Quantifying the Psychoanalytic Concept of Affect.” In

Methods of Research in Psychotherapy, Springer, 93–

126.

Hermann, Margaret G. 1979. “Indicators of Stress in

Policymakers during Foreign Policy Crises.” Political

Psychology 1(1): 27–46. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.

utt.fr/stable/3790849.

Hobfoll, Stevan E. 1989. “Conservation of Resources: A

New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.” American

psychologist 44(3): 513.

Holsti, Ole R. 1972. Crisis Escalation War. McGill-

Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Holsti, Ole R, Richard A Brody, and Robert C North.

1964. “Measuring Affect and Action in Inter National

Reaction Models Empirical Materials From the 1962

Cuban Crisis.” Journal of Peace Research 1(3–4):

170–89.

Jones, Fiona, Jim Bright, and Angela Clow. 2001. Stress:

Myth, Theory and Research. Pearson Education.

Kanfer, Frederick H. 1959. “Verbal Rate, Content and

Adjustment Ratlngs in Experimentally Structured

Interviews. I. Abnorm. Soc.” Psychol 58: 402.

Towards an Exploration of Several Dimensions in Learning: Application on Crisis Management

159

Kasl, Stanislav V, and George F Mahl. 1965. “The

Relationship of Disturbances and Hesitations in

Spontaneous Speech to Anxiety.” Journal of

personality and social psychology 1(5): 425–33.

Kolb, David a. 1984. “Experiential Learning: Experience

as the Source of Learning and Development.” Journal

of Organizational Behavior 8(4): 359–60.

Korchin, Sheldon J. 1964. “Anxiety and Cognition.”

Cognition: Theory, research, promise, ed. E. Scheerer.

Harper & Row.[PFG].

Lalljee, Mansur, and Mark Cook. 1973. “Uncertainty in

First Encounters.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 26(1): 137.

Laurent, Mélody, Nicolas Szilas, Domitile Lourdeaux, and

Serge Bouchardon. 2016. “A Reflexive Approach in

Learning Through Uchronia.” In International

Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling,

Springer, 411–14.

Lazarus, Richard S, and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress,

Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company.

Lazarus, Riehard S, Edward M Opton Jr, and C D

Spielberger. 1966. “The Study of Psychological

Stress: A Summary of Theoretical Formulations and

Experimental Findings.” Anxiety and behavior 1.

Martin, Eric, Isabelle Nolte, and Emma Vitolo. 2016. “The

Four Cs of Disaster Partnering: Communication,

Cooperation, Coordination and Collaboration.”

Disasters 40(4): 621–43.

Mehrabian, Albert. 1968a. “Inference of Attitudes from

the Posture, Orientation, and Distance of a

Communicator.” Journal of consulting and clinical

psychology 32(3): 296.

Mehrabian, Albert. 1968b. “Relationship of Attitude to

Seated Posture, Orientation, and Distance.” Journal of

personality and social psychology 10(1): 26.

Mehrabian, Albert, and Sheldon Ksionzky. 1972.

“Categories of Social Behavior.” Comparative Group

Studies 3(4): 425–36.

Murray, Edward J. 1954. “A Case Study in a Behavioral

Analysis of Psychotherapy.” The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology 49(2): 305.

O’Driscoll, Michael P, and Terry A Beehr. 1994.

“Supervisor Behaviors, Role Stressors and Uncertainty

as Predictors of Personal Outcomes for Subordinates.”

Journal of organizational Behavior 15(2): 141–55.

Osgood, Charles E, and Evelyn G Walker. 1959.

“Motivation and Language Behavior: A Content

Analysis of Suicide Notes.” The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology 59(1): 58.

Pauchant, Thierry C, Ian I Mitroff, and Patrick Lagadec.

1991. “Toward a Systemic Crisis Management

Strategy: Learning from the Best Examples in the US,

Canada and France.” Industrial Crisis Quarterly 5(3):

209–32.

De Rivera, Joseph. 1968. The Psychological Dimension of

Foreign Policy. CE Merrill Pub. Co.

Rosenblatt, Paul C. 1964. “Origins and Effects of Group

Ethnocentrism and Nationalism.” Journal of conflict

Resolution 8(2): 131–46.

Rosental, Claude. 2004. “Fuzzyfying the World: Social

Practices of Showing the Properties of Fuzzy Logic.”

Growing Explanations: Historical Perspectives on

Recent Science. Duke University Press, Durham, NC,

USA.

Rosenthal, Uriel, Michael T Charles, and Paul’T Hart.

1989. Coping with Crises: The Management of

Disasters, Riots, and Terrorism. Charles C Thomas

Pub Ltd.

Schlenker, Barry R, and Rowland S Miller. 1977.

“Egocentrism in Groups: Self-Serving Biases or

Logical Information Processing?” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 35(10): 755.

Schmidt, Kjeld. 1994. “Modes and Mechanisms of

Interaction in Cooperative Work.” Risø National

Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.

Sediri, Mohamed, Nada Matta, Sophie Loriette, and Alain

Hugerot. 2013. “Crisis Clever, a System for

Supporting Crisis Managers.” In Proceedings of IEEE,

ACM, Proceeding ISCRAM, 10th Internationa

Conference on Information Systems for Crisis

Response and Management. Baden-Baden, Germany,.

Selye, Hans. 1974. “Stress without Distress.” New york:

26–39.

Siegman, Aron Wolfe, and Benjamin Pope. 2016. Studies

in Dyadic Communication. Elsevier.

Weintraub, Walter, and H Aronson. 1967. “THE

application of verbal behavior analysis to the study of

psychological defense mechanisms. Iv: speech pattern

associated with depressive behavior.” The Journal of

nervous and mental disease 144(1): 22–28.

Zadeh, Lotfi A. 1996. “Fuzzy Sets.” In Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy

Logic, And Fuzzy Systems: Selected Papers by Lotfi A

Zadeh, World Scientific, 394–432.

Zadeh, Lotfi Asker. 1983. “The Role of Fuzzy Logic in

the Management of Uncertainty in Expert Systems.”

Fuzzy sets and systems 11(1–3): 199–227.

Zimmermann, H‐ J. 2010. “Fuzzy Set Theory.” Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics

2(3): 317–32.

KMIS 2018 - 10th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

160