The issue of how to support situation awareness among operators of complex systems or vehicles is a growing concern in a number of industries, especially when automation takes the operators partly "out of the loop." Cognitive theory suggests that comprehension of the flow of events is an active process, constrained by the dynamics and modularity of attention and memory. Focusing on issues of commercial aviation, we review the meaning of the term situation awareness both definition ally and by way of examples. We then discuss the cognitive factors involved in achieving and maintaining situation awareness, drawing on recent cognitive theory to clarify their interactions. Finally, having emphasized the need for a more analytic and precise understanding of situation awareness, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of various empirical approaches that might be used toward that end.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M. J., Tenney, Y. J., and Pew, R. W. (1991). State-of-the-art report: Strategic workload and the cognitive management of advanced multi-task systems (CSERIAC 91–6). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
2.
Anderson, R. C., and Pitchard, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,17, 1–12.
3.
Baron, S., Zacharias, G., Muralidharan, R., and Lancraft, R. (1981, August). PROCRU: A model for analyzing flight crew procedures in approach to landing. In Proceedings of the International Federation of Automatic Control 8th Triennial World Congress (Vol. 15, pp. 71–76). Kyoto, Japan: International Federation of Automatic Control.
4.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Beringer, D. B., and Hancock, P. A. (1989). Exploring situational awareness: A review and the effects of stress on rectilinear normalization. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 646–651). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
6.
Berry, D. C., and Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36, 209–231.
7.
Bower, G. H. (1970). Organizational factors in memory. Cognitive Psychology,1, 18–46.
8.
Bower, G. H. (1982). Plans and goals in understanding episodes. In A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 2–15. New York: North-Holland.
9.
Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review,64, 205–215.
10.
Busquets, A. M., Parrish, R. V., Williams, S. P., and Nold, D. E. (1994). Comparison of pilots' acceptance and spatial awareness when using EFIS vs. pictorial display formats for complex, curved landing approaches. In R. D. Gilson, D. J. Garland, and J. M. Koonce, (Eds.), Situational awareness in complex systems (pp. 139–167. Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
11.
Corker, K. M., Cramer, N. L., and Henry, E. H. (1990). Methodology for evaluation of automation impacts on command and control systems (BBN Report 7242). Cambridge, MA: BBN Systems and Technologies.
12.
Dornheim. M. A. (1991, April 8). L.A. tower tapes show controller unaware of aircraft holding on runway. Aviation Week and Space Technology, pp. 61–63.
13.
Duncan, K. (1981). Training for fault diagnosis in industrial process plants. In J. Rasmussen and W. B. Rouse, (Eds.), Human detection and diagnosis of system failures (pp. 553–573. New York: Plenum.
14.
Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
Endsley, M. R. (1989, October). A methodology for the objective measurement of situation awareness.Paper presented at the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development AGARD Symposium on Situation Awareness in Aerospace Operations, Copenhagen, Denmark.
16.
Endsley, M. R. (1993). A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. International Journal of Aviation Psychology,3, 157–168.
17.
Fracker, M. L. (1988). A theory of situation assessment: Implications for measuring situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 102–106). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Franz, T. M., Fowlkes, J., Prince, C., and Salas, E. (1992, August). Understanding and assessing teamwork for training.Paper presented at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
19.
Freeman, C., and Simmon, D. A. (1990, November). Crew resource management model.Paper presented at the Flight Safety Foundation Annual International Air Safety Seminar, Rome, Italy.
20.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
21.
Gillie, T., and Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research,50, 243–250.
22.
Hahn, E. C., and Hansman, R. J. (1992). Experimental studies on the effect of automation on pilot situational awareness in the datalink ATC environment (SAE Technical Paper Series 922022). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
23.
Johnson, E. J., Payne, J. W., and Bettman, J. R. (1988). Information displays and preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,42, 1–21.
24.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior.. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25.
Morgan, B. B., Herschler, D. A., Wiener, E. L., and Salas, E. (1993). Implications of automation technology for aircrew coordination and performance. In W. B. Rouse (Ed.), Human/technology interaction in complex systems (Vol. 6, pp. 105–136). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
26.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1988). Aircraft accident report--Northwest Airlines, McDonnell Douglas DC--9–82, N312RC, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Co., Airport, Romulus MI, August 16, 1987.. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1989). Aircraft accident report--British Midland Airways, Boeing-737–400, G-OBME, East Midland Airport, January 8, 1989.. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology.. San Francisco: Freeman.
29.
Orasanu, J. M. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making (CSL Report 46). Princeton NJ: Princeton University, Cognitive Science Laboratory.
30.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., and Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced "complacency.". International Journal of Aviation Psychology,3, 1–23.
31.
Raby, M., Wickens, C. D., and Marsh, R. (1990). Investigation of factors comprising a model of pilot decision making: Part I. Cognitive biases in workload management strategy (ARL-90–7/SCEEE-90–1). Savoy: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
32.
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction.. New York: North-Holland.
33.
Regal, D. M., Rogers, W. H., and Boucek, G. P. (1988). Situational awareness in the commercial flight deck: Definition, measurement, and enhancement. In Proceedings of the Seventh Aerospace Behavioral Technology Conference and Exposition (pp. 65–69). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
34.
Sanford, A. J., and Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language.. New York: Wiley.
35.
Sarter, N. B., and Woods, D. D. (1991). Situation awareness: A critical but ill-defined phenomenon. International Journal of Aviation Psychology,1, 45–57.
36.
Schank, R. C., Collins, G. C., Davis, E., Johnson, P. N., Lytinen, S., and Reiser, B. J. (1982). What's the point?. Cognitive Science,6, 255–275.
37.
Schneider, W., and Detweiler, M. (1988). The role of practice in dual-task performance: Toward workload modeling in a connectionist/control architecture. Human Factors, 30, 539–566.
38.
Segal, L. D., and Wickens, C. D. (1990). TASKILLAN II: Pilot strategy for workload management. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 66–70). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
39.
Simon, H. A., and Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist,61, 394–403.
40.
Stockton, W. (1988, March 27). Trouble in the cockpit: The airlines tackle pilot error. New York Times Magazine, pp. 38–41, 60, 63, 66–67.
41.
Swets, J. A. (1984). Mathematical models of attention. In R. Parasuraman and R. Davies, (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 183–242. New York: Academic.
42.
Swezey, R. W., and Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their training and performance, New York: Ablex.
43.
Taylor, R. M. (1989). Situational awareness: Aircrew constructs for subjective estimation (IAM Report 670). Famborough, Hampshire, England: Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine.
44.
Tenney, Y. J., Adams, M. J., Pew, R. W., Huggins, A. W. F., and Rogers, W. H. (1992). A principled approach to the measurement of situation awareness in commercial aviation (NASA Contractor Report 4551). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
45.
Wellens, A. R. (1989). Effects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: Some theoretical and empirical observations.IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine,413–19.
46.
Wellens, A. R. (1990). Assessing multi-person and person-machine distributed decision making using an extended psychological distancing model (Final Report AAMRL-TR-90–006). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Human Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command.
47.
Whitaker, L. A., and Klein, G. A. (1988). Situation awareness in the virtual world: Situation assessment report. In Proceedings of the 11 th Symposium of Psychology in the Department of Defense (pp. 321–325). Colorado Springs, CO: U.S. Air Force Academy.
48.
Woods, D. D., Wise, J. A., and Hanes, L. F. (1982). Evaluation of safety parameter display concepts, NP-2239.. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
