Ute Fischer

Judgment and decision making by individuals and teams: issues, models, and applications

Consistent with technological advances, the role of the operator in many human factors domains has evolved from one characterized primarily by sensory and motor skills to one characterized primarily by cognitive skills and decision making. Decision making is a primary component in problem solving, human-automation interaction, response to alarms and warnings, and error mitigation. In this chapter we discuss decision making in terms of both front-end judgment processes (e.g., attending to and evaluating the significance of cues and information, formulating a diagnosis, or assessing the situation) and back-end decision processes (e.g., retrieving a course of action, weighing ones options, or mentally simulating a possible response). Two important metatheories—correspondence (empirical accuracy) and coherence (rationality and consistency)—provide ways to assess the goodness of each phase (e.g., Hammond, 1996, 2000; Mosier, 2009). We present several models of decision making, including Brunswiks lens model,...

Error-Challenging Strategies: Their Role in Preventing and Correcting Errors

Two studies were conducted to identify effective communication strategies for calling attention to problems and getting action on them from other crew members. In Study 1, pilots in both crew positions relied primarily on one status-consistent strategy to request action of another crew member: Captains generally preferred to use commands, while first officers predominantly used hints. However, when asked to rate the effectiveness of various strategies in Study 2, captains and first officers: favored communications that appealed to the crew concept rather than to any particular status-based model.

How do Flight Crews Detect and Prevent Errors? Findings from a Flight Simulation Study

In order for a team to maintain safety in a high-risk engineered environment, its members must monitor each others behavior, as well as the situation. The advantage of a team structure is that members can support each other, catching errors and preventing problems from developing into serious situations. In its analysis of aviation accidents in which crew behavior played a role, the National Transportation Safety Board (1994) observed that most of those accidents involved “monitoring and challenging” errors. After an error occurred, the crew either failed to detect it or to communicate effectively in order to ameliorate the outcome. This paper describes a simulator study that examined two factors thought to affect monitoring and challenging: (a) level of physical risk in a developing situation and (b) degree of face threat involved in a challenge. Events were scripted to present errors committed by a confederate pilot (high face threat) or problems developing outside the flight deck (low face threat). Videotapes of performance showed that captains were more assertive and responded earlier than first officers, often preventing the problems from developing. This difference, however, was only evident in high-risk situations. First officers were more sensitive to face threat than captains, indicating a need for techniques to overcome limits to error mitigation in high-face threat situations.

Expertise and Aging in a Pilot Decision-Making Task

We examined age/expertise trade-offs in a laboratory pilot decision-making task. Expert and novice pilots read at their own pace brief scenarios that described simpler or more complex flight situations, then in a standard interview discussed the problem in the scenario and how they would respond if they were pilot-in-command. Decision making was measured by coding the protocols for correctly identifying the problems and solutions to problems. Scenario comprehension was measured by reading time and the accuracy of answering questions about the scenarios. All groups accurately identified the problems, but experts elaborated problem descriptions more than novices did. Older experts elaborated more, and older novices elaborated less, than their younger counterparts. Older experts also identified more appropriate solutions to problems while older novices identified less appropriate solutions compared to their younger counterparts. Reading time findings suggested that experts maintained decision-making accuracy by spending more time on critical information when reading more complex scenarios.

RISK PERCEPTION: A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF AVIATION SAFETY

Abstract Designers of new automated systems typically conduct human-reliability analyses to account for potential human errors that may contribute to system risk. In aviation, the National Transportation Safety Board (1994) found that the second most common type of error in accidents was tactical decision errors. Efforts to improve flight safety frequently involve training crews in effective decision-making. One fact that has become apparent in developing such training is that decision-making depends critically on the crews perceptions of the risks entailed by various threats in the environment. This paper addresses two issues critical to improving the quality of aviation decision-making. (1) How do crews perceive risks associated with aviation decisions? (2) How does risk perception influence flight crews decision-making processes? Research findings that address these questions will be presented, along with implications for improving flight crew decision-making.

Effectiveness of Advanced Collaboration Tools on Crew Communication in Reduced Crew Operations

The present research examines operational performance and verbal communication in airline flight crews under reduced crew operations RCO. Eighteen two-pilot crews flew six scenarios under three conditions; one condition involved current-day operations while two involved RCO. In RCO flights, the Captain initially operated the simulated aircraft alone but could request remote crewmember support as off-nominal events occurred and workload was expected to increase. In one of the two RCO conditions, crewmembers were provided with advanced prototype collaboration tools designed to alleviate difficulties in crew coordination. Crews successfully solved all challenging events without accident and analyses of operational performance did not reveal any differences among the three conditions. In RCO flights, crew communication increased when tools were available relative to flights in which they were not; specifically, there were more acknowledgements and decision-making communications. These results suggest the collaboration tools enable higher degrees of crewmember awareness and/or coordination during distributed operations.

Communication Protocols to Support Collaboration in Distributed Teams Under Asynchronous Conditions

The safety and success of future space missions will depend on the ability of crewmembers and Mission Control to collaborate effectively, even when communication between them is delayed. Communication protocols—i.e., structured communication templates—were designed with the goal to facilitate space-ground collaboration under time-delayed conditions. Their effectiveness was assessed in several space-analog simulation studies. Method: Astronauts and astronaut-like volunteers received communication training prior to their missions. Missions included 2 to 4 days on which communication with Mission Control was delayed. Surveys were administered throughout the mission asking participants to rate the effectiveness of the protocols and their interactions with Mission Control and in a final survey to provide feedback on individual elements of the communication protocols. Results and Discussion: Participants rated the protocols as fairly effective. Their ratings also suggest that the protocols mitigated the negative impacts of communication delay. Participants’ ratings of individual protocol elements were generally high but also point to specific training needs and technology requirements.

Exploring Communication in Remote Teams Issues and Methods

Teamwork in many operational settings, such as air traffic control or telemedicine, involves members who are at different locations and, as in space exploration missions, may communicate under time-delayed conditions. Collaboration and coordination in distributed teams differ from face-to-face interactions in a number of important respects (Brennan & Lockridge, 2006). Remote communication eliminates visual cues and thus requires more effort to establish common ground. Unlike co-present partners, distributed team members cannot rely on gestures and facial expressions to direct the other’s attention and provide feedback on their understanding. Voice communication between remote partners maintains the meaning nuances of face-to-face interactions that is lacking in text-based conversations. On the other hand, writing enables partners to re-read and thus to remember past communications, and to review and revise their messages prior to sharing them with others. These resources are not available in spoken discourse where participants have to rely on their memory or external aids (e.g., note pads) to keep track of the flow of the conversation and to compose their contributions. Transmission delays between partners’ contributions further complicate grounding (Olson, G., & Olson, J., 2000). The timing of turns is challenging, and individual contributions may be out of sequence, making it difficult for team members to follow the thread of a conversation and thus to develop shared situation models. Moreover, distributed teams frequently consist of individuals with different expertise and different goals, differences that may hamper mutual understanding and collaboration (Bearman, Paletz, Orasanu, & Thomas, 2010). This panel brings together researchers who have examined team communication in a variety of domains: healthcare (Morrow), aviation (Mosier), Navy (Miller), disaster response (Veinott), and space missions (Fischer, Miller). Panelists will be asked to characterize the constraints faced by conversational partners in these domains, to present analytic tools for studying remote communication and to discuss procedural or technological solutions to facilitate collaboration and coordination in distributed teams.

Team Stress and Performance: Implications for Long-Duration Space Missions

Interpersonal tensions during long-duration space missions can endanger mission success by preventing crew cooperation or by inducing errors. Crew friction in past U.S. – Russian missions drives home the need to understand how interpersonal stresses precipitate crew breakdowns. Most team research of the past decade has focused on the cognitive and communication aspects of team performance. The present study addressed the interpersonal aspects as well. A computer-based laboratory was created to study team problem solving under stressful conditions. Twelve teams of four males (aged 25-45) participated in six 75-minute search and rescue “missions.” A path model showed that level of mission success reflected degree of team collaboration, which was driven by both group level and individual factors. High levels of team cohesion, a helpful base-station leader, feelings of acceptance, and provision of interpersonal support were associated with high levels of collaboration. Implications of these findings for team composition and training will be discussed.

The Impact of Transmission Delays on Mission Control-Space Crew Communication

During long duration missions space-ground communications will involve delays up to 20 minutes one way, a reality that poses a formidable challenge to team communication and task performance. In the present research we examined how transmission delays impacted the interactions between mission controllers and space crews during routine and off-nominal tasks. Method: Four teams of NASA flight controllers and astronauts participated in a space simulation study involving two 2-hour scenarios with transmission delays of 50 sec and 300 sec. Audio-recordings of space - ground communications were transcribed and their structure (turn taking and sequence) and content examined; specifically, whether speakers identified addressees or themselves, and whether listeners confirmed their understanding. Results and Discussion: Transmission delays disrupted the structure of space-ground communications as contributions by flight controllers and astronauts overlapped or were out of sequence. Space crewmembers and flight controllers did not consistently mark the end of their turn; however, our findings suggest that they were more likely to do so under the longer transmission delay. Omissions of identifiers and inadequate listener feedback were observed under both delay conditions. Strategies supportive of grounding processes were also identified.