Framed incentive structures and context effects may have training implications for applied visual search tasks such as airline luggage screening. Participants were trained with various incentive structures that focused, or were sensitive to, various signal detection outcomes. Also, participants were trained with different context representations (weapons or produce search). Twenty-four hours later, participants performed a transfer session in which the incentive structure and target set was unknown. Incentive structures that focused on negative outcomes (misses) led to a response bias that was closer to optimal compared to structures that focused on positive outcomes (hits). Task context affected response bias but had mixed effects on sensitivity. Results of this study may better inform the design of training and automated support for airline luggage screening and similar applied visual search tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G.BeckH. P.DaweL. A. (2002). The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors, 44(1), 79–94.
2.
ErevI. (1998). Signal detection by human observers: A cutoff reinforcement learning model of categorization decisions under uncertainty. Psychological Review, 105(2), 280–298.
3.
ErevI.GopherD.ItkinR.GreenshpanY. (1995). Toward a generalization of signal detection theory to n-person games: The example of two person safety problem. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 360–375.
4.
GonzalezC.DanaJ.KoshinoH.JustM. (2005). The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1), 1–20.
5.
GramopadhyeA. K.BellowB. J.GopinathM.BudgaviM. (1997). An evaluation of economic and performance feedback in an inspection task with explicit economic consequences. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20(4), 327–337.
6.
HealyA. F.KubovyM. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 344–354.
7.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
8.
KunreutherH.MeyerR.ZeckhauserR.SlovicP.SchwartzB.SchadeC.LuceM. F.LippmanS.KrantzD.KahnB.HogarthR. (2002). High stakes decision making: Normative, descriptive, and perspective considerations. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 259–268.
9.
LacsonF. C.WiegmannD. W.MadhavanP. (2005). Effects of attribute and goal framing on automation compliance and reliance. Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.
11.
MadhavanP.GonzalezC. (2006). Effects of sensitivity, criterion shifts and subjective confidence on the development of automaticity in airline luggage screening. Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
MadhavanP.GonzalezC.LacsonF. C. (2007, October). Differential base rate training influences detection of novel targets in a complex visual inspection task. Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
MarinC. V.DruryC. G.BattaR.LinL. (2007, October). Human factors contributes to queuing theory: Parkinson's law and security screening. Proceedings from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
McCarleyJ. S.KramerA. F.WickensC. D.VidoniE. D.BootW. R. (2004). Visual skills in airport-security screening. Psychological Science15(5), 302–306.
15.
NygrenT. E. (1997). Framing of task performance strategies: Effects of performance in a multiattribute dynamic decision making environment. Human Factors, 39(3), 425–437.
16.
ParasuramanR. (1986). Vigilance, monitoring, and search. In BoffK.KaufmanL.ThomasJ.Handbook of perception and human performance. Vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance. New York: Wiley.
17.
PerrinB. M.BarnettB. J.WalrathL.GrossmanJ. D. (2001). Information order and outcome framing: An assessment of judgment bias in a naturalistic decision-making context. Human Factors, 43 (2), 227–238.
18.
PisanoE. D.GatsonisC.HendrickE.YaffeM.BaumJ. K.AcharyyaS. (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1773–1783.
19.
SwetsJ. A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47, 522–532.
20.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1984). The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
21.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
