Objective: Payoff effects on strategy development and change were assessed in a synthetic work environment, SYNWORK1. Background: Many work settings require several tasks to be performed concurrently. It is important to know how the strategies used in performing the respective tasks vary with payoffs. Method: Sixty students performed four tasks in SYNWORK1, for which points are received for correct responses and lost for incorrect responses. Individual-task payoffs were varied between participants and were changed after 8 and 12 sessions to examine the effects of a previous strategy on development of a new strategy. Results: Participants were sensitive to initial payoffs and modified their strategies when payoffs changed. However, residual effects of prior payoffs were evident. Conclusion: Payoffs for multiple-task environments need to be explicit, and practice should be provided for strategy development. When payoffs change, strategies adopted reflect current and previous payoffs. Application: The findings can be applied to the design of payoff schedules for multiple-task environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alluisi, E.A. (1967). Methodology in the use of synthetic tasks to assess complex performance. Human Factors, 9, 375-384.
2.
Avjobs.com. (2006). Working at airport traffic control tower (ATCT) jobs. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.avjobs.com/careers/detail.asp?RecID=108
3.
Chiles, W.D. (1982). Workload, task, and situational factors as modifiers of human performance. In E. A. Alluisi & E. A. Fleischman (Eds.), Human performance and productivity: Stress and performance effectiveness (pp. 11-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Elsmore, T.F. (1994). SYNWORK1: A PC-based tool for assessment of performance in a simulated work environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 26, 421-426.
5.
Eng, K., Lewis, R.L., Tollinger, I., Chu, A., Howes, A., & Vera, A. (2006). Generating automated predictions of behavior strategically adapted to specific performance objectives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '06 (pp. 621-630). New York: ACM Press.
6.
Gopher, D. (1980). On the training of time sharing skills: An attention viewpoint. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 24th Annual Meeting (pp. 259-263). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7.
Logan, G.D. (1985). Executive control of thought and action. Acta Psychologica, 60, 193-210.
8.
Meyer, D.E., & Kieras, D.E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
9.
Proctor, R.W., Wang, D.Y., & Pick, D.F. (1998). An empirical evaluation of the SYNWORK1 multiple-task work environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 30, 287-305.
10.
Salthouse, T.A., Hambrick, D.Z., Lukas, K.E., & Dell, T.C. (1996). Determinants of adult age differences on synthetic work performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 2, 305-329.
11.
Salvucci, D. (2005). A multitasking general executive for compound continuous tasks. Cognitive Science, 29, 457-492.
12.
Sit, R.A., & Fisk, A.D. (1999). Age-related performance in a multiple-task environment . Human Factors, 41, 26-34.
13.
Spitz, G. (1988). Flexibility in resource allocation and the performance of time sharing tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1466-1470). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
