Command Support Research Overview Leonard Adelman C4I Center - - PDF document

1

Command Support Research Overview

Leonard Adelman C4I Center Review May 19, 2006

Research Constants

• Theory driven, empirical research
• Decision processes
• Task dependency

2

Agenda

• Order Effects: How different ordered

sequences of the same information can result in different decisions

– With Patriot air defense officers

• Time Pressure: How it affects team

decision making

– With GMU, ROTC cadets

• Ongoing research

Order Effects

• Substantial research investigating order effects
• Hogarth & Einhorn (1992): Order effects task dependent
• For an air defense task, which (1) is simple for trained

personnel, and (2) involves a short series of information, their review & “anchoring & adjustment” (A&A) theory predicted

– Recency effect when information was presented sequentially, and a probability estimate was obtained after receiving each piece of information (step-by-step) – No order effect when all information was presented at

• nce (i.e., globally), and the probability estimate was
• btained at that time (end-of-sequence)

3

Notional Recency Effect

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 #1 #2 #3 Information Iteam Degree of Belief in Hypothesis (Probabilities)

Order 1 (CD) Order 2 (DC) Global (EOS)

Representative Patriot Track (CD Late Order Sequence)

FSCL Asset Asset

Mode 3 IFF (F) SPC (C) Jam (D) Patriot Leaves SPC & Returns (D) Stops (C)

4

Results: Recency Effect

• 0.12
• 0.1
• 0.08
• 0.06
• 0.04
• 0.02

0.02 0.04 0.06 3 4 5 Information Item Mean Probability Difference CD Order DC Order

Affects Engagements Too

• Number of engagements

– CD Late Order: 9 – DC Late Order: 5

• But it is not that simple: Different layouts

(i.e., contexts) created different effects

– If eliminate tight turn and have aircraft leave safe passage corridor farther from Patriot – Get Primacy Effect

5

• 0.2
• 0.15
• 0.1
• 0.05

0.05 0.1 3 4 5 Information Item Mean Probability Difference CD Order DC Order

Primacy Effect: Mean Differences (for friendly aircraft) Using Different Layout

Primacy Effect Affects Engagements Too

• Mean number of engagements (friends)

– CD Late Order: 1.25 (previously 9) – DC Late Order: 3.00 (previously 5)

• Engagement differences due to primacy

effect more extreme for hostiles

– CD Late Order: 9.25 mean engagements – DC Late Order: 3.25 mean engagements

6

Order Effects: Conclusion

• Order effects can affect engagement decisions
• Primacy effect (under-adjustment) depended on

explaining away later disconfirming information

– Information reinterpretation based on “task” context

• Recency effect (over-adjustment) when could

not explain away later disconfirming information

– Task context where H&E’s model holds

• Both depended on human judgment processes

and situation-specific, task context

– Same results for Patriot teams, not just individuals

Team Decision Making Under Time Pressure

• Examined how

– Increasing levels of time pressure affected the performance of 3-person, ROTC teams – Using different interfaces

• Again, theory-driven empirical research

examining decision processes as a function of task characteristics

7

“Perceptual-Support” Interface

d d d d d d STAFF JUDGMENTS Correct Answer LEADER’S JUDGMENT CUE VALIDITY STAFF’S CUE UTILIZATION UTILIZATION OF STAFF STAFF VALIDITY LEADER’S ACCURACY CUES

Brehmer & Hagafors (1986) Lens Model Representation of Staff Support

d

8

Len Model Equation ra = GRsRe

Answer (Ye) Judgment (Ys) Predictability

• f Ye

Predictability

• f Ys

ra

(achievement)

G

(Knowledge)

Rs Re

cues

Hollenbeck et al.’s (1995) Multi-Level Theory

• f Team Decision Making

9

Path Model Showing Time Pressure’s Effect

Tempo Leader Informity Interface Staff Informity Staff ( rmz) Accuracy Hierarchical (in)Sensitivity (Log) Leader Gz Leader Rsz Decision Accuracy (raz) 0.456*

• 0.521**

0.19*** 0.88***

• 0.495*

0.636**

• 0.510*
• 0.589***

0.700** Cond 2

• 0.734**

0.626** Total R2: 0.988 Adj R2: 0.981

Time Pressure: Conclusion

• One can map how increasing time pressure

causes a decrease in information flow & subsequent team decision processes

• The system interface can affect this process, for

better or for worse

• Again, theory can guide a better understanding
• f how task characteristics affect individual and

team decision processes

10

Ongoing Research

• Order effects for a long series of info

– Again driven by H&E’s theory of A&A – Affect of task complexity & info grouping

• Intuitive versus analytical thought

– Driven by “Cognitive Continuum” Theory – Assumption: Individuals’ decision processes are driven by task characteristics

Selected References

• Adelman, L., Bresnick, T.A., Christian, M. Gualtieri, J., & Minionis, D. (1997). Demonstrating the

effect of context on order effects for an Army air defense task using the Patriot simulator. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 327-342.

• Adelman, L., Bresnick, T.A., Black, P.K., Marvin, F.F., & Sak, S.G. (1996). Research with

Patriot air defense officers: Examining information order effects. Human Factors, 38, 250-261.

• Adelman, L., Miller, S.L., & Yeo, C. (2004). Testing the effectiveness of icons in supporting

distributed team decision making under time pressure. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 34(2), 179-189.

• Adelman, L., Miller, S.L., Henderson, D., & Schoelles, M. (2003). Using Brunswikian theory and

a longitudinal design to study how hierarchical teams adapt to increasing levels of time

• pressure. Acta Psychologica, 112 (2), 181-206.
• Adelman, L., Yeo, C., & Miller, S.L. (2006). Understanding the effects of computer displays and

time pressure on the performance of distributed teams. In A. Kirlick (Ed.), Adaptive Perspectives of Human-Technology Interaction: NY: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 43-54.

• Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). Use of experts in complex judgment making: A paradigm

for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181- 195.

• Hogarth, R.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief adjustment
• model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
• Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Sego, D.J., Hedlund, J., Major, D.A., & Phillips, J. (1995).

Multilevel theory of team judgment making: Judgment performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292-316.

• Keltz, I., & Adelman, L. (2005). Testing information order effects in a long series of evidence.

Proceedings of the 26th National Conference of the American Society of Engineering Management, pp. 483-492.