such as marketing spend and competitor activity but the underlying formal relation between cues and criterion was the same. We found that the advice- taking task was easier from the start and that learning in it was relatively rapid. Recently, we have extended this paradigm to allow us to investigate the trust that people place in their advisors and factors that affect it.
Brunswikian research at the University of Connecticut
Jim Holzworth Storrs, Connecticut Fall, 2002 E-mail: email@example.com
Research in the Brunswikian tradition continues at the University of Connecticut.
My work with Steven Mellor on judgments concerning labor union issues continues. Two studies were described in the Brunswik 2000 Newsletter. These studies have now been accepted for publication. Dan O’Shea, Steven Mellor, David LaHuis and I (2002, Journal of Threat Assessment, 2, 67-84) report on our study concerning contextual and individual influences on the individual’s decision to become a replacement worker during a strike. Steven Mellor, Jim Conway and I (Experimental Psychology, in press) report on our study concerning people’s inclinations to be represented by labor
continuum theory (CCT). collection of biographical
I am continuing my data (biodata) from
university students in an attempt to relate it to styles of inductive reasoning. Dennis Thomas and Kathlea Vaughn are investigating a possible relationship
between the cognitive continuum index within CCT and Seymour Epstein’s experiential index developed within his
proposed rational- cognitive-
experiential self-theory (CEST). James Kramer are investigating cognitive
Pratt and Liz styles and
in visual graphics.
discrimination of computer Holistic and analytical
discrimination judgment strategies are being examined, along with task characteristics, training, and display designs.
Kris Canali, Carrie Nelson, and I continue
research comparing methods of judgment analysis. We are comparing the more traditional representative design of judgment tasks with a more efficient representative design suggested by Gary McClelland. As reported last year, we are finding that the efficient representative design accounts for significantly more judgment variance in judgment analysis, and there are no negative consequences
on cross-validation of judgment policies.
Applying Lens to Free Flight: A Lens model analysis of pilot and controller decision making in a future ATM system
P r a t i k D J h a , A n n M B i s a n t z a n d R a j a Parasuraman *
Department of Industrial Engineering University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Buffalo, New York 14260 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Cognitive Science Laboratory, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC firstname.lastname@example.org
Free flight (RTCA, 1995; Parasuraman, Hilburn, & Hoekstra, 2001) and related concepts
Air-Ground Traffic (NASA, 1999) will
fundamentally change the authority structure in future air traffic management. A move from management by delegation to management by exception is proposed (Billings, 1996), under which the separation assurance function will be a prime responsibility of pilots. However, controllers will still act in the supervisory role and will have the ultimate responsibility of running the system safely. Research on conflict detection has shown that controllers will be unable to perform this task efficiently under high traffic loads without automation tools such as conflict probes (Galster et al., 2001; Metzger & Parasuraman, 2001). Moreover, initial research on conflict resolution indicates that pilots and controllers have different styles of solving conflict (AGIE) (FAA and NASA, 2002). Controllers solve the conflict earlier then pilots and use more altitude and heading clearances while pilots use more speed and heading changes. Also, it has been noted that there is an apparent mismatch of expectations and biases between the pilots and air traffic controllers in their attempt to solve conflicts. One of the reasons cited was that controllers and pilots have different resolution strategies, due to their fundamentally different working goals. Pilots are more “aircraft centric” as compared to controllers who are likely to focus on an entire chunk of airspace, and therefore act in a more “airspace centric” way when making their decisions.
Based on this premise it is likely that there will be situations of interpersonal conflict between pilots and controllers, in their efforts to resolve conflicts. Decisions may be made using different strategies, as well as at different times. Modeling these judgment differences may provide the
Newsletter 2002 page 14 of 28