The recent avalanche tragedy in California can be viewed as a social psychological phenomenon.

Four heuristic "traps" were identified by avalanche writer Ian McCammon for understanding bad ski decisions.

The heuristic framework helps to answer the question, "Why wasn't the trip called off?"

In the past, avalanche tragedies were viewed mainly as natural events, with post-mortem analysis focused mainly on physical factors such as snow load, slope angle and weather conditions. As a result of an influential 2002 paper by avalanche writer Ian McCammon, it is now accepted that multi-fatality avalanche accidents are social phenomena, with the outcome (human deaths) attributable less to natural forces and more to bad decisions. The recent Castle Peak (California) ski tragedy, in which nine people lost their lives, offers an opportunity to test the validity of McCammon’s theory.

The Event and Its Decision Points

The original party consisted of four guides (three male, one female) and 12 customers, all of them women. One customer backed out for unknown reasons, which left a total of 15. The remaining group of nine women customers were mostly moms whose children were on the ski team for Sugar Bowl (an older resort just south of I-80 and adjoining Donner Pass). They each paid around $1,200 to Blackbird Mountain Guides, a well-respected ski guiding firm, to spend two nights at the Frog Lake ski “hut” (actually a very nice facility) during “ski week,” when schools are on break. This was an annual outing, which was much anticipated by the participants. Many of the women lived in Mill Valley, an affluent Bay Area community three hours away, but some of them also owned homes near Sugar Bowl.

The party assembled on........

© Psychology Today