A group of 92 male engineers, with comparison groups of 80 women and 55 human factors specialists, responded to an 18-item questionnaire covering various problems of potentially ambiguous display-control relations, labeling, and word usage. Some questions elicited strong commonality of response. Others illustrate response variability and group differences. Developed as a teaching aid, a questionnaire of this kind can also be used as a tool for exploring compatibility relations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acton, M. B.At home on the range?Human Factors Society Bulletin, 1976, 19(7), 1–2. Note also the subsequent correction in 1976, 19(8), 2.
2.
Baddeley, A. D.Language habits, S-R compatibility, and verbal learning. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77(3), 463–468.
3.
Brebner, J. and Sandow, B.The effect of scale side on population stereotype. Ergonomics, 1976, 19(5), 571–580.
Chapanis, A. and Lindenbaum, L. E.A reaction time study of four control-display linkages. Human Factors, 1959, 1, 1–7.
6.
Conrad, R. and Hull, A. J.The preferred layout for numeral data-entry keysets. Ergonomics, 1968, 11, 165–173.
7.
Fitts, P. M.Engineering psychology and equipment design. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.) Handbook of experimental psychology.New York: Wiley, 1951.
8.
Fitts, P. M. and Deininger, R. L.S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 483–492.
9.
Fits, P. M. and Seeger, C. M.S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Expermental Psychology, 1953, 46, 199–210.
10.
Lavender, H. J. Jr., and Ekstrom, R. M.A red-green paradox?Human Factors, 1968, 10, 63–66.
11.
Loveless, N. E.Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 1962, 5, 357–383.
12.
Lutz, M. C. and Chapanis, A.Expected locations of digits and letters on ten-button keysets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 314–317.
13.
Morrill, C. S. and Davies, B. L.Target tracking and acquisition in three dimensions using a two-dimensional display surface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 214–221.
14.
Ramsey, C. G. and Sleeper, H. R.Architectural graphics standards (6th ed.). New York: Wiley, 1970.
15.
Ray, R. D. and Ray, w. D.An analysis of domestic cooker control design. Ergonomics, 1979, 22, 1243–1248.
16.
Sanders, M. S. and McCormick, E. J.Workbook for human factors in engineering and design.Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1976.
17.
Seibel, R.Data entry devices and procedures. In H. P. Van Cott and R. G. Kinkade (Eds.) Human engineering guide to equipment design.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
18.
Sheridan, T. B.Human error in nuclear power plants. Technology Review, 1980, 82(4), 22–33.
19.
Small, A. M.Compatibility as a principle in multi-sensory displays. Paper presented at the Ergonomics Research Society Meeting, April 1951.
20.
Small, A. M. Personal communication, 5 October 1977.
21.
Smith, S. L.Exploring stimulus-response compatibility with words and pictures. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 1977, 58–62.
22.
Stroop, J. R.Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 643–662.
