In this study, the authors aim to determine the impact of situation awareness (SA) in the decision-making process of “young” watch officers of a Merchant Marine training facility. The trainees were shown an ambiguous interaction situation in which they could choose among several actions. The results show that Level 1 SA (perception of the elements in the environment) tends to be of secondary importance in decision making. The major variables of the decision-making process are the interpretation of the rules and anticipation of the other vessel's intentions. Moreover, four different trainee “profiles” emerged. The main difference between them lies in the distance at which they decided to change course, the direction of this maneuver (port or starboard), the way in which they interpreted the other vessel's intentions (is it going to change course?), and whether the trainees referred to the rules. Of the trainees, 55% performed a maneuver that was against regulations, and 34% did so in an unsafe manner. This result provides an incentive to rethink the training course to put more stress on recognizing prototypical situations and choosing which actions to take in situations such as the one presented here.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndroM.ChauvinC.Le BouarG. (2003). Interaction management and decision making in collision avoidance at sea. In van der VeerG. C.HoornJ. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSPAC′03 (pp. 17–22). Le Chesnay, France: EACE.
2.
BoleA. G.DineleyW. O. (1990). Radar and ARPA manual. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
3.
BrownI. D. (1997). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology. In RothengatterJ. A.VayaE. Carbonell (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 9–19). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
4.
BurtC. (1950). The factorial analysis of qualitative data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 166–185.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.BellH. H. (1997). Training decision makers for complex environments: Implications of the naturalistic decision making perspective. In ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 99–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
ChauvinC. (2000). Analyse de l'activité d'anticollision à bord des navires de commerce: des marques linguistiques aux représentations mentales [Analysis of collision avoidance on board merchant vessels: From linguistic cues to mental representations]. Le Travail Humain, 63, 31–56.
7.
ChauvinC. (2001). Modélisation et simulation cognitive en situation dynamique: Application à la prise de décision en conduite de navire [Cognitive modeling and simulation in dynamic situation: Application to decision making in ship handling]. Psychologie Française, 46, 181–192.
8.
ChauvinC. (2003). Modélisation objet d'une activité de conduite de navire [Object modeling of a ship handling]. In SperandioJ.-C.WolffM. (Eds.), Formalismes de modélisation pour l'analyse du travail et l'ergonomie (pp. 111–136). Paris: PUF.
9.
ChauvinC.LetirandF.DelhommeP. (2007). Corrélats sociocognitifs de la prise de décision en situation d'interaction dynamique [Social-cognitive correlates of decision making in a dynamic situation of interaction]. Le Travail Humain, 70, 33–65.
10.
ChauvinC.SaadF. (2004). Interaction and communication in dynamic control tasks: Ship handling and car driving. In RothengatterT.HugueninR. (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 101–111). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
CockcroftA. N.LameijerJ. N. F. (1996). A guide to collision avoidance rules: International regulations for preventing collisions at sea (5th ed.) Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
12.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.
13.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
14.
EndsleyM. R. (1997). The role of situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. In ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 269–283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
EndsleyM. R. (2000). Direct measurement of situation awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 147–173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
FowlkesJ. E.SalasE.BakerD. P.Cannon-BowersJ. A.StoutR. J. (2000). The utility of event-based knowledge elicitation. Human Factors, 42, 24–35.
17.
HabberleyJ. S.TaylorD. H. (1989). Simulated collision avoidance manoeuvres: A parametric study. Journal of Navigation, 42, 248–254.
18.
HinschW. (1996). Traffic rules to coordinate collision avoidance manoeuvres at sea. In ZhaoJ.WilsonP. A.HuZ.WangF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Preventing Collision at Sea—Collision′96 (pp. 166–172). Dalian, China: Publishing House of Dalian Maritime University.
19.
HockeyG. R. J.HealeyA.CrawshawM.WastellD. G.SauerJ. (2003). Cognitive demands of collision avoidance in simulated ship control. Human Factors, 45, 252–265.
20.
HollardH. (1988). Les règles de barre et de route [Rules of the helm and the road]. Paris: Masson.
21.
KleinG. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
LipshitzR.Ben ShaulO. (1997). Schemata and mental models in recognition-primed decision making. In ZsambokC. E.KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 293–303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
MorelC. (2002). Les décisions absurdes—Sociologie des erreurs radicales et persistantes [Absurd decisions—Sociology of radical and persistent errors]. Paris: Gallimard.
24.
PerrowC. (1999). Normal accidents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1984).
25.
PewR. W. (2000). The state of situation awareness measurement: Heading toward the next century. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 33–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
PliskeR. M.McCloskeyM. J.KleinG. (2001). Decision skills training: Facilitating learning from experience. In SalasE.KleinG. (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 37–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
RasmussenJ. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27, 183–213.
28.
RisserR. (1985). Behavior in traffic conflict situations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 179–197.
29.
RisserR.NickelW. R. (2004). Theories of science in traffic psychology. In RothengatterT.HugueninR. D. (Eds.), Traffic & transport psychology (pp. 47–57). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
30.
SalmonP.StantonN.WalkerG.GreenD. (2006). Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 225–238.
31.
SummalaH. (1997). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. In RothengatterJ. A.VayaE. Carbonell (Eds.), Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 41–52). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
32.
ValotC.GrauJ. C.AmalbertiR. (1993). Les métaconnaissances: Des représentations de ses propres compétences [Meta-knowledge: Representations of one's own competencies]. In Weill-FassinaA.RabardelP.DuboisD. (Eds.), Représentations pour l'action [Representations for action] (pp. 271–293). Toulouse: Octarès.
