This study was designed to test an explanation of the individual differences in the preference for heuristic-based information acquisition interfaces that were reported by Wiggins and Bollwerk (2006) in the context of a simulated in-flight decision task. The information acquisition interfaces were developed on the basis of three decision heuristics: elimination by aspects, frequency comparison, and majority of confirming dimensions. Forty-three pilots, with a mean age of 30, interacted with three information acquisition interfaces during familiarization scenarios and were subsequently asked to select their preferred interface to complete a fourth test scenario. The results indicated that the selection of a particular interface in the test scenario was related to factors other than polychronicity. However, polychronicity was associated with perceptions of the information acquisition interfaces and performance during the familiarization scenarios. The outcomes of the study are discussed in terms of their impact on the development of decision support systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ben-ZurH.WardiN. (1994). Type A behavior pattern and decision making strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 323–334.
2.
BluedornA. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
BluedornA. C.KalliathT. J.StrubeM. J.MartinG. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organisational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 205–230.
4.
CarraherS. M.CuthburtS.CarraherS. C. (2004). A comparison of polychronicity levels among small business owners and non-business owners in the U.S., China, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Mexico. International Journal of Family Business, 1, 97–101.
5.
ConteJ. M.GintoftJ. N. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five personality dimensions, and sales performance. Human Performance, 18, 427–444.
6.
ConteJ. M.JacobsR. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and Big 5 personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and performance. Human Performance, 16, 107–129.
7.
ConteJ. M.RizzutoT. E.SteinerD. D. (1999). A construct-oriented analysis of individual-level polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 269–287.
8.
GigerenzerG. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
GonzalezC. (2004). Learning to make decisions in dynamic environments: Effects of time constraints and cognitive abilities. Human Factors, 46, 449–460.
10.
HallE. T. (1981). The silent language. New York: Anchor. (Original work published 1959).
11.
JohnsonN. E.SaccuzzoD. P.LarsonG. E. (1995). Self-reported effort versus actual performance in information processing paradigms. Journal of General Psychology, 122, 195–210.
12.
KarimA. S.HershauerJ. C.PerkinsW. C. (1998). A simulation of partial information use in decision-making: Implications for DSS design. Decision Sciences, 29, 53–85.
13.
MarayongP.OkamuraA. M. (2004). Speed-accuracy characteristics of human-machine cooperative manipulation using virtual fixtures with variable admittance. Human Factors, 46, 518–532.
14.
MetzgerU.ParasuramanR. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47, 35–49.
15.
MosierK. L.SkitkaL. J. (1996). Human decision-makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and application (pp. 201–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
NewellB. R.LagnadoD. A.ShanksD. R. (2007). Straight choices: The psychology of decision making. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
17.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
O'HareD. (1999). Aeronautical decision-making: Metaphors, models, and methods. In TsangP. S.VidulichM. S. (Eds.), Principles and practice of aviation psychology (pp. 201–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
PaquetteL.KildaT. (1988). The effect of decision strategy and task complexity on decision performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 128–142.
20.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 14, 534–552.
21.
PersingD. L. (1999). Managing in polychronic times: Exploring individual creativity and performance in intellectually intensive venues. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 358–373.
22.
SkitkaL. J.MosierK.BurdickM. D. (2000). Accountability and automation bias. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 701–717.
23.
SpeierC. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 1115–1131.
24.
JohnM.SmallmanH. S.ManesD. I.FeherB. A.MorrisonJ. G. (2005). Heuristic automation for decluttering tactical displays. Human Factors, 47, 509–525.
25.
TverskyA. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.
26.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
WigginsM. W.BollwerkS. (2006). Heuristic-based information acquisition and decision making among pilots. Human Factors, 48, 734–746.
28.
WorkmanM. (2005). Expert decision support system use, disuse, and misuse: A study using the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 211–231.
29.
ZhangM.GoonetillekeR. S.PlocherT.LiangS. M. (2005). Time-related behavior in multitasking situations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 425–455.
