The goal of this research was to examine the diagnosis and decision processes of pilots when dealing with conflicting information. The loose coupling between decision processes and an event outcome makes it hard for researchers to use data such as accident reports as reliable indicators of the quality of decisions, and one problem faced by researchers is determining the extent to which pilot decision processes during events are faulty. We examined pilot strategies in a Web-based automated cockpit scenario as a function of time pressure condition (present vs. absent) and experience with automated systems. Time pressure had an impact on time to diagnosis and information accessed for more experienced pilots only. Pilots who accessed more information were more likely to make accurate diagnoses but were less confident in them. Neither time pressure nor experience had a main effect on diagnosis accuracy or confidence. More experienced pilots tended to conduct a thorough information search when under no time pressure, but time pressure caused pilots of all experience levels to accelerate and filter their information search. Results highlight the importance of training for coherent information use under time pressure given the complexities of automated aircraft.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumannM. R., SniezekJ. A., & BuerkleC. A. (2001). Self-evaluation, stress, and performance: A model of decision making under acute stress. In SalasE., & KleinG. (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 139–158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Ben ZurH., & BreznitzS. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.
3.
BillingsC. E. (1996). Human-centered aviation automation: Principles and guidelines (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 110381). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
4.
Canon-BowersJ. A., SalasE., & ConverseS. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team training: Training shared mental models of complex systems. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 33(12), 1–4.
5.
ChiM. T. H., GlaserR., & FarrM. J. (1988). The nature of expertise.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
EasterbrookJ. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.
7.
EdlandA., & SvensonO. (1993). Judgment and decision making under time pressure: Studies and findings. In SvensonO., & MauleA. J. (Eds.), Time pressure in human judgment and decision making (pp. 27–40). New York: Plenum.
GohJ., & WiegmannD. (2002). Relating flight experience and pilots’ perceptions of decision-making skill. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 81–85). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
HuberO., WiderR., & HuberO. W. (1997). Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. Acta Psychologica, 95, 15–29.
11.
JanisI. (1983). Decision making under stress. In GoldgergerL., & BreznitzS. (Eds.), Handbook of stress (pp. 123–161). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
12.
JanisI., & MannL. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment.New York: Free Press.
13.
JohnsonE. J., PayneJ. W., & BettmanJ. R. (1993). Adapting to time constraints. In SvensonO., & MauleA. J. (Eds.), Time pressure in human judgment and decision making (pp. 103–116). New York: Plenum.
14.
KleinG. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In KleinG. A., OrasanuJ., CalderwoodR., & ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
KleinG. A. (1997). The recognition-primed decision model: Looking back, looking forward. In ZsambokC. E., & KleinG. A. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
MauleA. J., & EdlandA. C. (1997). The effects of time pressure on human judgment and decision making. In RanyardR., CrozierW. R., & SvensonO. (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 188–203). London: Routledge.
17.
MauleA. J., HockeyG. R. J., & BdzolaL. (2000). Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica, 104, 283–301.
18.
MeansB., SalasE., CrandallB., & JacobsT. O. (1993). Training decision makers for the real world. In KleinG. A., OrasanuJ., CalderwoodR., & ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 306–326). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
Ministère de l'Equipement, des Transports, et du Tourisme. (1993). Rapport de la Commission d'Enquête sur l'accident survenu le 20 Janvier 1992 près du Mont Sainte Odile (Bas Rhin) à l'Airbus A320 immatriculé F-GGED exploité par la Compagnie Air Inter [Report of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the accident on January 20, 1992, near Mont Sainte Odile (Bas-Rhine), involving Airbus A320 with the registration number F-GGED and operated by Air Inter, Paris]. Paris: Author.
20.
MorrowD. G., Soederberg MillerL., RidolfoH., MagnorC., FischerU., KokayeffN., & Stine-MorrowE. L. (in press). Expertise and age differences in pilot decision making. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition.
21.
MosierK. L. (2002). Automation and cognition: Maintaining coherence in the electronic cockpit. In SalasE. (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (Vol. 2, pp. 93–121). New York: Elsevier.
22.
MosierK. L., KeyesJ., & BernhardR. (2001). Information presentation and cognitive response in the automated cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Research and Development, 1(2), 117–134.
23.
MosierK. L., & McCauleyS. T. (2006). Achieving coherence: Meeting new cognitive demands in technological systems. In KirlikA. (Ed.), Adaptation in human-technology interaction: Methods, models and measures (pp. 163–174). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
MosierK. L., PalmerE. A., & DeganiA. (1992). Electronic checklists: Implications for decision making. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 7–12). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
MosierK., SethiN., McCauleyS., KhooL., & OrasanuJ. (2007). What you don't know CAN hurt you: Factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit. Human Factors, 49, 300–310.
26.
MosierK. L., SkitkaL. J., DunbarM., & McDonnellL. (2001). Air crews and automation bias: The advantages of teamwork?International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11, 1–14.
27.
MosierK. L., SkitkaL. J., HeersS., & BurdickM. D. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 47–63.
28.
OrasanuJ., & ConnollyT. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. In KleinG. A., OrasanuJ., CalderwoodR., & ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 3–20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29.
OrasanuJ., & FischerU. (1997). Finding decisions in natural environments: The view from the cockpit. In ZsambokC., & KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 343–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
OrasanuJ. M. (1993). Decision-making in the cockpit. In WienerE. L., KankiB. G., & HelmreichR. L. (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 137–172). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
31.
ParasuramanR., & RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 29, 230–253.
32.
RandelJ. M., & PughH. L. (1996). Differences in expert and novice situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 25, 579–597.
33.
SarterN. B., & WoodsD. D. (1994). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation (NASA Contractor Report 177617). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
34.
SarterN. B., WoodsD. D., & BillingsC. (1997). Automation surprises. In SavendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors/ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 1926–1943). New York: Wiley.
35.
StokesA. F., KemperK., & KiteK. (1997). Aeronautical decision making, cue recognition, and expertise under time pressure. In ZsambokC. E., & KleinG. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 183–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
SvensonO., EdlandA., & SlovicP. (1990). Choices and judgments of incompletely described decision alternatives under time pressure. Acta Psychologica, 75, 153–169.
37.
WickensC. D., & FlachJ. M. (1988). Information processing. In WeinerE. L., & NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 111–155). San Diego: Academic Press.
38.
WoodsD. D. (1996). Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity. In ParasuramanR., & MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
ZakayD., & WoolerS. (1984). Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics, 27, 273–284.
