As we develop new ways of looking at decision making in applied contexts, such as those outlined in naturalistic decision models, it is easy to assume that these new models should be used in place of ‘old’ theories in investigations of human decision making – and in many cases it may be appropriate to do so. In substituting the new for the old, however, it is important not to lose sight of the potential contributions that theoretically sound and empirically tested models can make to our understanding of judgment and decision making in modern environments. The purpose of this panel is to highlight a classic theoretical and methodological approach to the judgment process, Egon Brunswik's probabilistic functionalism and associated Lens Model framework (e.g., 1943; 1956; Hammond & Stewart, 2001), to present its basic tenets, and to discuss its viability and applicability in the context of modern human factors investigations (Kirlik, 2001). In particular, defining facets of Brunswikian theory and the Lens Model make this approach ideal for explorations of human judgment in high-technology environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanL.CohenM. S.BresnickT. A.ChinnisJ. O.Jr.LaskeyK. B. (1993). Real-Time Expert System Interfaces, Cognitive Processes, and Task Performance: An Empirical Assessment,”Human Factors, 35, 243–261.
2.
AdelmanL.MillerS. L.YeoC. (in press). Using Brunswikian theory and the lens model equation to understand the effects of computer displays on distributed team performance. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptation in human-technology interaction: Methods, models and measures. NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BassE. J. (2002). Human-automated Judgment Learning: A research paradigm based on Interpersonal Learning to investigate human interaction with automated judgments of hazards. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (03) B, (UMI No. 3046873).
4.
BassE. J.PritchettA. R. (2002). Human-automated judgment learning: a methodology to investigate human interaction with automated judges. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Baltimore, MD, Sept. 30-Oct. 4.
5.
BisantzA.KirlikA.GayP.PhippsD.WalkerN.FiskA. D., (2000). Modeling and analysis of a dynamic judgment task using a lens model approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 30, 6, 605–616.
6.
BisantzA.PritchettA. (2003). Measuring the fit between human judgments and automated alerting algorithms: A study of collision detection. Human Factors, 45(2), 266–280.
7.
BrehmerB. (1973). Effects of task predictability and cue validity on interpersonal learning of inference tasks involving both linear and nonlinear relations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 24–46.
8.
BrehmerB.AllardR. (1991). Dynamic decision making: The effects of task complexity and feedback delay. In RasmussenJ.BrehmerB.LeplatJ. (Eds.), Distributed decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative work. NY: Wiley & Sons. (pp. 319–334).
9.
BrehmerB.HammondK. R (1973). Cognitive sources of interpersonal conflict: Analysis of interactions between linear and nonlinear cognitive systems. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 290–313.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
12.
ChapanisA. (1988). Some generalizations about generalization. Human Factors, 30(3), 253–268.
13.
ConnollyT. (1988). Hedge-clipping, tree-felling, and the management of ambiguity: The need for new images of decision-making. In PondyL. R.BolandR. J. J.ThomasH. (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change. NY: Wiley & Sons (pp. 37–50).
14.
CookseyR. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
DorseyD. W.CoovertM. D. (2003). Mathematical modeling of decision making: A soft and fuzzy approach to capturing hard decisions. Human Factors, 45(1), 117–135.
16.
HammondK. R. (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy. New York: Oxford Press.
17.
HammondK. R.StewartT. R. (Eds.) (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
HammondK. R.WilkinsM.ToddF. J. (1966). A research paradigm for the study of interpersonal learning. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 221–232.
19.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D.KirlikA. (in press). Supporting situation awareness through attention guidance and diagnostic aiding: Costs, benefits, and the integration of relevant information cues. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptation in human-technology interaction: Methods, models and measures. NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
HurschC. J.HammondK. R.HurschJ. L. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability. Psychological Review, 71, 42–60.
21.
JhaP.BisantzA. M. (2001). Modeling fault diagnosis in a dynamic process control task using a multivariate lens model. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
22.
KirlikA. (2001). Human factors. In HammondK. R.StewartT. (Eds.) The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, and Applications. NY: Oxford University Press, 2001.
23.
KleinG. A.CalderwoodR. (1991). Decision models: Some lessons from the field. IEEE Transactions of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21(5), 1018–1026.
24.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
25.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
26.
MosierK. L. (2002). Automation and cognition: Maintaining coherence in the electronic cockpit. In SalasE. (Ed.), Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Volume 2. Elsevier Science Ltd. (pp. 93–121).
27.
MosierK. L.SkitkaL. J.HeersS.BurdickM. D. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 47–63.
28.
MurphyA. H. (1988). Skill scores based on the mean square error and their relationships to the correlation coefficient. Monthly Weather Review, 116, 2417–2424.
29.
ParasuramanR. (1986). Vigilance, monitoring, and search. In BoffK.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. Volume 2: Cognitive Processes and performance (pp. 43.1–43.39). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
30.
RasmussenJ.JensenA. (1974). Mental procedures in real life tasks: A case study of electronic troubleshooting. Ergonomics, 17(3), 293–307.
31.
RasmussenJ.PejtersenA. M.GoodsteinL. P. (1994). Cognitive Systems Engineering. NY: Wiley & Sons.
32.
RothrockL.KirlikA. (In Review). Using Genetic Algorithms to Infer Rule-based Judgment Strategies in Dynamic Tasks. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptation in human-technology interaction: Methods, models and measures. NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
RothrockL.KirlikA. (2003). Inferring rule-based strategies in dynamic judgment tasks: Toward a noncompensatory formulation of the lens model. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 33(1), 58–72.
34.
SeongY.BisantzA. M. (2002). Judgment and trust in conjunction with automated decision aids: A theoretical model and empirical investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA.
35.
StewartT. R.LuskC. M. (1994). Seven components of judgmental forecasting skill: Implications for research and improvement of forecasts. Journal of Forecasting, 13, 579–599.
36.
StewartT. R.StraussR.KirlikA. (in press). The extended lens model and its evaluation in a submarine stealth task. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptation in human-technology interaction: Methods, models and measures. NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (1997). Naturalistic Decision Making. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
