We contrasted and compared independently developed computational models of human performance in a common dynamic decision-making task. The task, called dynamic stocks and flows, is simple and tractable enough for laboratory experiments yet exhibits many characteristics of macrocognition. A macrocognitive model was developed using a computational instantiation of recognition-primed decision making. A microcognitive model was developed using the Adaptive Control of Thought – Rational (ACT-R) cognitive architecture. Both models followed an instance-based learning paradigm and displayed striking similarities, including their constraints, limitations, and the key breakthrough that enabled satisfactory (though still short of human-like) performance, suggesting the emergence of a general design pattern. On the basis of this comparison we argue that although some substantive differences remain, microcognitive and macrocognitive approaches provide complementary rather than contradictory accounts of human behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. L. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. L. (2003). The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 587–637.
4.
Booth SweeneyL.StermanJ. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16, 249–286.
5.
CassimatisN.BelloP.LangleyP. (2008). Ability, breadth and parsimony in computational models of higher-order cognition. Cognitive Science, 32, 1304–1322.
6.
CroninM.GonzalezC. (2007). Understanding the building blocks of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 23, 1–17.
7.
CroninM.GonzalezC.StermanJ. D. (2009). Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 116–130.
8.
DierickxI.CoolK. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.
9.
DuttV.GonzalezC. (2007, July—August). Slope of inflow impacts dynamic decision making. Paper presented at the 25th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA.
10.
EdwardsW. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4, 59–73.
11.
ErevI.ErtE.RothA. E.HaruvyE.HerzogS.HauR., et al. (2009). A choice prediction competition, for choices from experience and from description. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12.
GluckK.PewR. (2005). Modeling human behavior with integrated cognitive architectures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
GonzalezC.DuttV. (2007, July). Learning to control a dynamic task: A system dynamics cognitive model of the slope effect. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, Ann Arbor, MI.
14.
GonzalezC.LebiereC. (2005). Instance-based cognitive models of decision making. In ZizzoD.CourakisA. (Eds.), Transfer of knowledge in economic decision making. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
HintzmanD. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 16, 96–101.
17.
HintzmanD. L. (1986a). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Eugene, OR: Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences.
18.
HintzmanD. L. (1986b). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.
19.
HoffmanR. R.McNeeseM. (2009). A history for macrocognition. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3, 97–110.
20.
JilkD. J.LebiereC.O'ReillyR. C.AndersonJ. R. (2008). SAL: An explicitly pluralistic cognitive architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20, 197–218.
21.
KleinG. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. In RouseW. B. (Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems research (pp. 47–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
22.
KleinG. (1993). Naturalistic decision making: Implications for design. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
23.
KleinG. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
LebiereC. (1999, August). Blending. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual ACT-R Workshop, Fairfax, VA.
25.
LebiereC.ArcherR.BestB.SchunkD. (2008). Modeling pilot performance with an integrated task network and cognitive architecture approach. In FoyleD.HooeyB. (Eds.), Human performance modeling in aviation (pp. 105–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
LebiereC.BothellD. (2004). Competitive modeling symposium: Pokerbot World Series. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (p. 32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
NewellA. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
RobertsS.PashlerH. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367.
StermanJ. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321–339.
31.
StermanJ. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Cambridge, MA: McGraw Hill.
32.
StermanJ. D.Booth SweeneyL. (2002). Cloudy skies: Assessing public understanding of global warming. Systems Dynamics Review, 18, 207–240.
33.
StuderR.BenjaminsV. R.FenselD. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 25, 161–197.
34.
TaatgenN.LebiereC.AndersonJ. R. (2006). Modeling paradigms in ACT-R. In SunR. (Ed.), Cognition and multi-agent interaction: From cognitive modeling to social simulation (pp. 29–52). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
WallachD.LebiereC. (2003). Conscious and unconscious knowledge: Mapping to the symbolic and subsymbolic levels of a hybrid architecture. In JimenezL. (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 215–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36.
WarwickW.HutchinsS. (2004). Initial comparisons between a “naturalistic” model of decision making and human performance data. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (pp. 73–78). Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
37.
WarwickW.McIlwaineS.HuttonR. J. B.McDermottP. (2001). Developing computational models of recognition-primed decision making. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computer Generated Forces (pp. 323–331). Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
