Research in cognitive systems engineering (CSE) and decision support requires an understanding of the psychological processes involved in a given task. The purpose of the present study is to investigate how policy capturing and process tracing may help understand the decision mechanisms involved in a naval air-defense task and characterize how human decision making effectiveness can be improved. We report results from a study in which participants performed a threat evaluation and weapons assignment task within a naval air-defense microworld. Policy capturing and process tracing techniques provide both converging perspectives and complementary insights into complex decision making processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrehmerB. (1994). The psychology of linear judgment models. Acta Psychologica, 87, 137–154.
2.
BrehmerA.BrehmerB. (1988). What have we learned about human judgment from thirty years of policy capturing? In BrehmerB.JoyceC. R. B., Human Judgment: The SJT View (pp. 75–114). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3.
BrehmerB.DörnerD. (1993). Experiments with computer simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 171–184.
4.
BryantD. (2007). Classifying simulated air threats with fast and frugal heuristics. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 20, 37–64.
5.
ChalmersB. A.EasterJ. R.PotterS. S. (2000). Decision-centred visualisations for tactical decision support on a modern frigate. Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Monterey, CA, June 26–28.
6.
CookG. J.SwainM. R., (1993). A computerized approach to decision process tracing for decision support system design. Decision Sciences, 24, 931–952.
7.
DhamiM. K.HarriesC. (2001). Fast and frugal versus regression models of human judgement. Thinking and reasoning, 7, 5–27.
8.
DwyerD.HallJ.VolpeC.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1992). A performance assessment task for examining tactical decision-making under stress (Report No. 92–002). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
9.
EinhornH. J.KleinmuntzD.KleinmuntzB. (1979). Linear regression and process tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review86, 465–485.
10.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
FordJ. K.SchmittN.SchechtmanS. L.HultsB. M.DohertyM. L. (1989). Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 75–117.
12.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.
13.
KimC. N.ChungH. M.ParadiceD. B. (1997). Inductive modeling of expert decision making in loan evaluation: A decision strategy perspective. Decision Support Systems, 21, 83–98.
14.
LiebhaberM. J.KobusD. A.FeherB. A. (2002). Studies of U.S. Navy air defense threat assessment: Cues, information order, and impact of conflicting data (technical report SSC-1888). San Diego, CA: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.
15.
LiebhaberM. J.SmithP. (2000). Naval air defense threat assessment: Cognitive factors and model. Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Monterey, CA, June 26–28.
16.
MedinD. L.SchwanenflugelP. J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 355–368.
MorrisonJ. G.KellyR. T.MooreR. A.HutchinsS. G. (1998). Implications of decision-making research for decision support and displays. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (eds), Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training (pp. 91–113). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
19.
MorrisonJ. G.MarshallS. P.KellyR. T.MooreR. A. (1997). Eye tracking in tactical decision making environments: Implications for decision support evaluation. International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Washington, DC, June 17–20.
20.
OzkanB.RoweN. C.CalfeeS. H.HilesJ. E. (2005). Three simulation models of naval air defense. International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, McLean, VA, June 13–16.
21.
PayneJ. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.
22.
RehderB.HoffmanA. B. (2005). Thirty-something categorization results explained: Selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 811–829.
23.
RousseauR.TremblayS.LafondD.VachonF.BretonR. (2007). Assessing temporal support for dynamic decision making in C2. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Baltimore, Oct. 1–5.
24.
RouxJ. N.Van VuurenJ. H. (2007). Threat evaluation and weapon assignment decision support: A review of the state of the art, ORiON, 23, 151–186.
25.
RoyJ.ParadisS.AlloucheM. (2002). Threat evaluation for impact assessment in situation analysis systems. Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4729: Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition XI, Orlando, FL.
26.
RussoJ. E.RosenL. D. (1975). An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice. Memory and Cognition, 3, 267–276.
27.
SchoellesM. J.GrayW. D. (2001). Argus: A suite of tools for research in complex cognition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 130–140.
28.
SpicerJ. (2003). Making sense of multivariate data analysis. London: Sage.
29.
ToddP.BenbasatI. (1987). Process tracing methods in decision support systems research: Exploring the black box. MIS Quarterly, 11, 493–512.
