This study investigates how task demand and experience influence perceived available cognitive resources and control mode, and how these factors affect performance under pressure. It also examines how control mode-cognitive resource mismatches impact performance within the contextual control model (COCOM) framework.
Background
Adaptive decision-making is essential in high-stakes domains. COCOM posits that individuals adopt control modes, which are patterns of decision-making strategies ranging from reactive to planful (Scrambled, Opportunistic, Tactical, Strategic), based on contextual factors like subjectively available time. However, empirical validation of COCOM mechanisms remains limited.
Method
Thirty-seven participants completed an air traffic control simulation game across three sessions (representing experience) and four task levels. Behavior-anchored questionnaires assessed perceived cognitive resources and control mode. Performance was obtained from simulation logs.
Results
Perceived available cognitive resources decreased with task demand but increased with experience. Participants employed more planful control modes as cognitive resources and experience increased. Cognitive resource appraisals mediated the effect of task demand on control mode. Planful control was associated with higher performance when paired with high cognitive resources and complex tasks. Performance declined when planful modes were chosen despite low perceived resources.
Conclusion
Findings provide within-person evidence for a mechanistic pathway of adaptive cognitive control, demonstrating that task demand and experience shape cognitive resource appraisals, which in turn influence control mode and performance. Mode-resource alignment is critical for effective decision-making, enhancing performance.
Application
Training and decision support can target control mode-cognitive resource alignment by building metacognitive skills for monitoring cognitive resources and selecting appropriate control modes.
AltyJ. L.HollnagelE. (2000). Adapting to the operator’s needs in abnormal situations. In Proceedings of the 18th European annual conference on human decision making and manual control (pp. 145–155). European Commission Joint Research Centre.
2.
BlattbergR. C.HochS. J. (1990). Database models and managerial intuition: 50% model + 50% manager. Management Science, 36(8), 887–899. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.8.887
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
4.
CrescenziA.CapraR.ChoiB.LiY. (2021, March). Adaptation in information search and decision-making under time constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and retrieval (pp. 95–105). Association for Computing Machinery.
5.
DhamiM. K.MumpowerJ. L. (2018). Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008780
6.
EfklidesA. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
7.
FeighK.PritchettA.DenqT.JackoJ. (2006). Contextual control modes during an airline rescheduling task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 50(3), 457–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000352
8.
GanzachY.KlugerA. N.KlaymanN. (2000). Making decisions from an interview: Expert measurement and mechanical combination. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00191.x
HammondK. R. (2000). Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In ConnollyT.ArkesH. R.HammondK. R. (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 53–65). Cambridge University Press.
11.
HockeyG. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1–3), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0511(96)05223-4
12.
HollnagelE. (1993). Models of cognition: Procedural prototypes and contextual control. Le Travail Humain: A Bilingual and Multi-Disciplinary Journal in Human Factors, 56(1), 27–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40659769.
13.
HollnagelE. (2000). Modeling the orderliness of human action. In SarterN. B.AmalbertiR. (Eds.), Cognitive engineering in the aviation domain: Designing for situation awareness (pp. 65–98). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
IacobucciD.SchneiderM. J.PopovichD. L.BakamitsosG. A. (2016). Mean centering helps alleviate “micro” but not “macro” multicollinearity. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1308–1317. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0624-x
15.
KaberD. B.WrightM. C.PrinzelL. J.IIIClamannM. P. (2005). Adaptive automation of human-machine system information-processing functions. Human Factors, 47(4), 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872005775570989
16.
KannallyC.PaladuguA.NijveldtR.McSherryL.IJtsmaM. (2025). An exploratory study of contextual control modes in teamwork. Human Factors, 67(5), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208241292669
17.
KeiserN. L.ArthurW.Jr (2021). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1007–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000821
KhooY. L.MosierK. (2005). Searching for cues: An analysis on factors affecting the decision making process of regional airline pilots. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 49(3), 578–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900377
20.
KleinG.MoonB.HoffmanR. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2006.75
21.
KleinG. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In KleinG. A.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR.ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147). Ablex Publishing.
22.
KleinG. A.CrandallB. W. (1995). The role of mental simulation in naturalistic decision making. In FlachJ.HancockP.CairdJ.VicenteK. (Eds.), The ecology of human-machine systems (pp. 324–358). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
KumleL.VõM. L. H.DraschkowD. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0
24.
Laureiro‐MartínezD.BrusoniS. (2018). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4), 1031–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2774
25.
MosierK. L.SethiN.McCauleyS.KhooL.OrasanuJ. M. (2007). What you don’t know can hurt you: Factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 49(2), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312513
OrasanuJ.ConnollyT. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. In KleinG. A.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR.ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 3–20). Ablex.
28.
PattersonM. D.MilitelloL. G.BungerA.TaylorR. G.WheelerD. S.KleinG.GeisG. L. (2016). Leveraging the critical decision method to develop simulation-based training for early recognition of sepsis. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10(1), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416629520
29.
RauffetP.SaidF.LaouarA.ChauvinC.BressolleM. C. (2020). Cognitive control: Transitions in control modes under different level of workload and fNIRS sensitivity. In International conference on computer-human interaction research and applications (pp. 1–16). Springer Nature Switzerland.
ShenhavA.BotvinickM. M.CohenJ. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007
32.
StantonN. A.AshleighM. J.RobertsA. D.XuF. (2001). Testing Hollnagel’s contextual control model: Assessing team behaviour in a human supervisory control task. Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327566IJCE0502_2
33.
SussmanR. F.SekulerR. (2022). Feeling rushed? Perceived time pressure impacts executive function and stress.Acta Psychol (Amst), 1873-6297229, 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.10370235985154
34.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
35.
WickensC. D.HeltonW. S.HollandsJ. G.BanburyS. (2021). Engineering psychology and human performance. Routledge.
36.
WickensC. D.HutchinsS.CarolanT.CummingJ. (2013). Effectiveness of part-task training and increasing-difficulty training strategies: A meta-analysis approach. Human Factors, 55(2), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812451994
37.
WuC. M.SchulzEricPleskacT. J.SpeekenbrinkM. (2022). Time pressure changes how people explore and respond to uncertainty. Sci Rep, 2045-232212(1), 412235260717. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07901-1.
38.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A. (2002). Malleable attentional resources theory: A new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Human Factors, 44(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497709
