Based on mental model theory, we expect individuals to construct a mental representation of the system they interact with which tends to be a strong reduction of reality and is tailored to the specific situation and task at hand. Such reductions may be particularly significant in complex decision situations involved in local spatial choice behavior. In this article, we develop a method to model and measure mental representations of decision problems involving individual spatio-temporal choice behavior in different situations. The so-called CNET method consists of an interview protocol to elicit the structures at the individual level as a causal network. We test the proposed method in a case study involving 180 respondents and an experimental shopping-trip planning task. The results indicate that the method is an adequate way of eliciting mental representations. We show how the networks revealed can be used to model and simulate reasoning and decision-making processes.
Bara, B.G., Bucciarelli, M., & Lombardo, V. (2001). Model theory of deduction: A unified computational approach. Cognitive Science, 25, 839-901.
2.
Barrouillet, P., & Lecas, J.-F. (1998). How can mental models theory account for content effects in conditional reasoning? A developmental perspective. Cognition, 67, 209-253.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management . London: Sage.
5.
Gärling, T., & Evans, W. (Eds.). (1991). Environment, cognition and action. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Gärling, T., Böök, A., & Selart, M. (1997). Investigating spatial choice and navigation in large scale environments. In N. Foreman & R. Gillet (Eds.), Handbook of spatial search paradigms and methodologies (Vol. 1, pp. 153-180). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
7.
Gentner, D. (2002). Mental models, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Bastes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 9683-9687). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
8.
Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2001). Naïve causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565-610.
9.
Golledge, R.G. (2003). Reflections on recent cognitive behavioural research with an emphasis on research in the United States of America. Journal of the Institute of Australian Geographers, 41, 117-130.
10.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60-72.
11.
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning . Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310.
12.
Heckerman, D., Mandani, A., & Wellman, M.P. (1995). Real-world applications of Bayesian networks. Communications of the ACM, 38(3), 24-26.
13.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M.A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
14.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
15.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 434-442.
Kearney, A.R., & Kaplan, S. (1997). Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM) . Environment and Behavior, 29, 579-617.
18.
Kuipers, B., Tecuci, D.G., & Stankiewicz, B.J. (2003). The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational and empirical exploration. Environment and Behavior, 35, 81-106.
19.
Loewenstein, G. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research . Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 499-505.
20.
Neapolitan, R.E. (1990). Probabilistic reasoning in expert systems: Theory and algorithms. New York: John Wiley .
21.
Norsys Software Corporation. (1997). Netica: Application for belief networks and influence diagrams: User's guide, version 1.05 for Windows. Vancouver, Canada: Author.
22.
Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (1999). Modeling consumer perception of public space in shopping centers. Environment and Behavior , 31, 45-65.
23.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
24.
Russel, S., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Saisa, J., & Gärling, T. (1987). Sequential spatial choices in the large-scale environment. Environment and Behavior, 19, 614-635.
26.
Schachter, R. (1986). Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research, 34, 871-882.
27.
Spiegelhalter, D.J., Philip, A., Lauritzen, S.L., & Cowell, R.G. (1993). Bayesian analysis in expert systems. Statistical Science, 8, 219-283.
28.
Timmermans, H.J.P., Arentze, T.A., & Joh, C.H. (2002). Analysing space-time behaviour: New approaches to old problems. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 175-190.
29.
Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces. Environment and Behavior, 35, 66-80.
