Critical decisions are made every day by teams of individuals who must coordinate their activities to achieve effectiveness. Recently, researchers have suggested that shared mental models among team members may help them to make successful decisions. Several avenues for training shared mental models in teams exist, one of which is training in planning behaviors. The relationship between team planning, team shared mental models, and coordinated team decision making and performance is explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BriggsG. E.JohnstonW. A. (1966). Laboratory research on team training (Contract No. N61339–1327). Port Washington, NY: United States Naval Training Device Center.
2.
BriggsG. E.NaylorJ. C. (1965). Team versus individual training, training task fidelity, and task organization effects on transfer performance by three-man teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 387–392.
3.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (in press). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN. J.Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE. (1992). Can you study real teams in contrived settings? The value of small group research to understanding teams. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 101–124). New York: ABLEX.
5.
FousheeH. C.LauberJ. K.BaetgeM. M.AcombD. B. (1986). Crew factors in flight operations: III. The operational significance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations (NASA Technical Memorandum 88322). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
6.
FousheeH. C.ManosK. L. (1981). Information transfer within the cockpit: Problems in intracockpit communications. In BillingsC. E.CheaneyE. S. (Eds.), Information transfer problems in the aviation system (NASA Technical Paper 1875, pp. 63–71). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
7.
FranzT. M.McCallumG. A.LewisM. D.PrinceC.SalasE. (1990). Pilot briefings and aircrew coordination evaluation: Empirical results. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Department of Defense Symposium, 92–96.
8.
FranzT. M.PrinceC.BakerD. P.ZalesnyM.SalasE. (1991). The pre-flight brief/flight deck performance relationship: Implications for aircrew coordination training. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9.
GinnettR. C. (1987). First encounters of the close kind: The formation process of airline flight crews. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
10.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). Group level issues in the design and training issues of cockpit crews. Cockpit Resource Management Training, (Tech. Rep. No. NASA CP-2455). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
11.
JohnstonW. A. (1966). Transfer of team skills as a function of type of training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(2), 102–108.
12.
JohnstonW. A.BriggsG. E. (1968). Team performance as a function of team arrangement and work load. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(2), 89–94.
13.
KiddJ. S. (1961). A comparison of one-, two-, and three-man work units under various conditions of workload. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(3), 195–200.
14.
KrumR. L.FarinaA. J. (1962). Effectiveness of integrated flight simulator training in promoting B-52 crew coordination (MRL Technical Documentary Report 62–1). Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories.
15.
LanzettaJ. T.RobyT. B. (1960). The relationship between certain group process variables and group problem solving efficiency. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 135–148.
16.
OserR. L.PrinceC. W.MorganB. B.Jr.SimpsonS. S. (1991). An analysis of aircrew communication patterns and content (Tech. Rep. No. NTSC 90–009). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division.
17.
OrasanuJ. M. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making (CSL Tech. Rep. No. 46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory.
18.
OrasanuJ. M.SalasE. (in press). Team Decision Making in Complex Environments. In KleinG.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
RouseW. B.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1296–1308.
20.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SwezeyR. W.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
21.
SundstromE.DeMeuseK. P.FutrellD. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
22.
VolpeC. E.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.SpectorP. E. (1993). Walking in each other's shoes: The impact of cross-training on team coordination, communication and task performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23.
WillagesR. C.JohnstonW. A.BriggsG. E. (1966). Role of verbal communication in teamwork. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 473–476.
