Actions & Cognitions Flashcards
What causes are attributed to behaviours?
• dispositional: action seen as caused by personality• situational: action seen as influenced by environment
fundamental attribution error
aka Person Bias (not always an error)In judgments of others’ actions, people tend to:(a) overestimate contribution of dispositional factors, & (b) underestimate effect of the situation
actor-observer discrepancy
aka situation biasIn judgments of one’s own action, people tend to:(a) underestimate disposition, & (b) overestimate the situation
But when people have difficulty using a machine or device, they tend to blame themselves. Why?
- belief that no one else has same problem - belief that device is easy to use
learned helplessness
learned helplessness: every attempt on a task seems to lead to failure–person stops tryingtaught helplessness: person generalizes instances of failure to other, similar taskse.g., I am no good with new technology
seven stages of action
- deciding upon a goal to be achievede.g., want best possible mark in course2. forming an intention e.g., will write term paper3. specifying an actione.g., decide on a topic, choose articles to read4. executing the sequencee.g., actually get and read articles, type ideas5. perceiving the state of the system e.g., typed 12 full pages6. interpreting the state of the system as an outcome e.g., minimum 12 page requirement reached7. evaluating the outcome in terms of the original goal e.g., it’s not good enough–revise draft(stages 2-4: execution, stages 5-7: evaluation)
pros and cons of the 7 stages of action
-pros & cons:-separates cognition and action-can aid design (e.g., where is user having difficulty?)-has discrete serial stages–but people have multiple, overlapping/conflicting goals -neglects the fact that humans have limited capacity, get fatigued-individual differences/experts not taken into account-good for understanding simple tasks, not complex tasks in complex systemsnovices and experts approach things differently!we’re not this logical and structured, we don’t always have one single goal!Focus has shifted to user’s mental model.Although less objective, it allows for differences in people’s knowledge
mental workload
feeling of mental effort or level of use of human operator’s limited resources- as task demand increases, reserve resources decrease- when attention resources are exceeded, further increases in task demand will reduceperformance- new aircraft analyzed in terms of mental workload
measuring workload
• timeline analysis: measure amount of time spent on task relative to time available; shows how time use changes during course of task• primary task measure: change nature of main task; record performance changes• secondary task measure: give secondary task; measure performance as primary taskchanged• subjective measures: self-report of users
Cognitive Task Analysis
- describes cognitive processes required to perform a task- models internal representations and mental processing of users - assumptions:• some actions are physical (e.g., push button “A”) • some actions are mental/cognitive operations(e.g., decide which button to push)- guides development of tools/programs that support the cognitive processes required for atask
Cognitive Task Analysis consists of…
• knowledge elicitation: extracting info via in-depth interviews andobservations about cognitive events, structures, or models- subjects are often subject matter experts (SMEs): have high levels of skill andknowledge in the domain studied• analysis of data to develop explanations, extract meaning- a range of quantitative and qualitative analyses are used• knowledge representation: displaying data and relationships, explanations,and meaning derived from analysis
PARI
(part of cognitive task analysis)- consists of dyad of two experts: one poses problem, the other attempts to solve theproblem- at each step, problem solvers draw a diagram to represent their mental model of the stateof the system-one person has a script with problems
PARI Steps (pros and cons)
• Precursor:Why are you taking this action?How does this relate to acquiring the info you need or goals you’re attempting to reach?• Action:What would your first action be in solving this problem?What steps are required before performing the action? (e.g., consult printedprocedures)• Result:What does the info or feedback tell you about your actions?• Interpretation:Based on your results, what conclusions are you drawing? What needs to be done next?- pros & cons:-good: directed at describing (and relating) -bad: cognitions and actions requires good verbal skills on subject’s part
Situational Awareness
- “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of space and time, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” (Mica R. Endsley, 1988)-Knowing what is going on around you- SA originated in studying aircraft piloting; now also used in domains like weather forecasting, power plant operations, and driving- SA can be seen as the current state of the mental model- SA is the main precursor for decision making and thus performance- used to evaluate system/interface designs, and assess training techniques
3 levels of SA
Level 1 SA: Perception of elements in the environment - includes perception and attentionLevel 2 SA: Comprehension of the current situation- encompasses how people combine, interpret, store, and retain information-novices notice pieces, experts notice patternsLevel 3 SA: Projection of future status- determines decisions made and actions performed- denotes those who have the highest-level understanding of the situation(experts)
SA Demons
attentional tunnelling: attention has limited capacitye.g., Eastern flight 401: debate over broken indicator light vs. broken landing gear caused crash into Florida everglades• requisite memory trap: STM = 7 plus or minus 2e.g., ATC at LAX forgot aircraft was on runway when she assigned another one toland• workload, anxiety, fatigue, and other stressors (WAFOS): make information processing more error prone• data overload: SA affected by organization and display of data• misplaced Salience: too much competition for attention e.g., “Las Vegas Strip” phenomenon• Complexity creep: too many functions to know them all- only 20% of people can properly operate their VCR- 50% of product returns are in full working order, but customers can’t figure outhow to operate the devices (Den Ouden, 2006)• errant mental models: incomplete understanding (due to use of modes of lack of standardization) is problematic–may not even be noticed- errors arise when pilots switch aircraft• out-of-the-loop syndrome: too much reliance on a utomatione.g., crash in Detroit: misconfigured flaps/slats; automated takeoff configurationand warning system failed
Categories of SA-oriented design principles (including 50 specific principles)
- categories of SA-oriented design principles (include 50 specific principles): • general: incorporate SA into designe.g., organize information around goals• certainty: increase confidence in information e.g., explicitly identify missing information• complexity:e.g., just say no to feature creep–or even reduce features• alarms:e.g., make alarms unambiguous• automation:e.g., keep the operator in control and in the loop• multioperator:e.g., build a common picture to support team operations-many people working together
attention and driver distraction
• in 2011 3,331 people died and 387,000 people were injured in police-reported crashes involving driver distraction in the U.S.• cell phones implicated in 2,600 fatalities and 330,000 injuries/year in the U.S., at a cost of $43 billion• glances away from the road longer than 2 seconds more than double odds of crash• 30% of inexperienced drivers glance away longer than 2 seconds (e.g., when interactingwith radio, cassette, or cell phone)• 20% of drivers send or read text messages while driving; 66% of drivers age 18 to 24
categories of driver distraction
• visual: e.g., looking at a map-leads to problems w/ steering/lateral movements like staying in lane• audible: e.g., listening to music• physical: e.g., adjusting stereo controls• cognitive: e.g., thinking about dinner-less longitudinal control, but lateral control improves (b/c still keep eyes on centre of road, decreases cognitive load)Cell phones (and GPS units) involve every category of distraction!
inattentional blindness
stimulus that is presented, but is not attended, is not perceived (a.k.a. “looked-but-didn’t-see” problem)Simons & Chabris (1999):- showed participants a video of two teams of three basketball players- task: count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball - 46% of observers missed the gorilla
inattentional blindness in virtual driving
Most & Astur (2007):- participants in a computer-based driving simulator- task: before arriving at an intersection, looked for a yellow arrow indicating whichway they should turn (and ignore blue arrows)- just as they entered the intersection, a motorcycle unexpectedly crossed their pathand stopped- results:• when motorcycle was yellow, 93% of drivers noticed it and avoided a collision • when it was blue, 36% of them hit it (2 failed to apply the brakes at all!)- while talking on a cell phone, participants were less likely to notice objects (e.g., pedestrians, cars, signs, etc.), even when looking directly at them (Strayer & Drews, 2007)
factors affecting attentional blindness
- conspicuity– sensory conspicuity: increases with greater contrast, size, and flicker (bottom-up processing)- cognitive conspicuity: you can decide what to attend to; meaningful things capture your attention (top-down processing)e.g., noticing your name spoken at a noisy cocktail party2. mental workload and task interference - greater attentional demande.g., counting bounce passes vs. aerial passes resulted in 20% lower detection of gorilla- secondary tasks: some kinds interfere less than others with primary task e.g., walking and chewing gum vs. walking and juggling- low work load and automation: too low mental workload causes disengagement with the task3. expectation- expertise: attention may not be drawn to “irrelevant” stimuli (or, it may be!)e.g., basketball players were more likely to detect the gorilla (62% vs. 38% of nonexperts)- confirmation bias: you see what you expect to seee.g., in April, 2006 rising waters made a ford through the River Avon near Luckington temporarily impassible. Every day for the next 2 weeks, at least one vehicle–relying on GPS navigation–drove past the warning signs and into the river4. Capacity- varies from person to person; varies over time; affected by drugs, alcohol, andfatigue- automatic processese.g., pilot flying an unfamiliar aircraft increased fuel flow during an engine fire, because controls were opposite to those of the familiar aircraft
NHTSA 100-car naturalistic driving study
- over the course of a year, 241 volunteer drivers in Northern Virginia/Washington, DC were studied- cars/SUVs were outfitted with video-enhanced electronic data recorders- major findings:• drowsiness/fatigue increases risk of crash/near-crash by a factor of 4ו distraction almost triples the risk of a crash• drivers who are distracted are more likely to be involved in a crash/near-crash; theyare unable to predict when it is safe to direct their attention away from driving• nearly 80% of crashes (65% of near-crashes) involved some driver distraction within3 seconds before the event• most common distraction: cell phone (dialing is more dangerous than talking orlistening, but occurs less often; all three activities caused similar number ofcrashes)• factors increasing crash/near-crash risk:- reaching for a moving object: 9×- looking at an external object: 3.7× - reading: 3×- applying makeup: 3×
Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997): identified collisions in Toronto having significant damage
- of 5,890 drivers, 1,064 had cell phone; consent & billing records obtained from 699- 170 drivers made a call up to 10 minutes before the collision- 4.3× greater relative risk when using a cell phone, compared to similar interval on theday before- if blood-alcohol level is 50% above the limit, relative risk = 10
David L. Strayer et al. (2001):- used Crown Victoria® driving simulator
- while talking on a cell phone, subjects twice as likely to miss simulated traffic signals- drove as if impaired- no advantage for hands-free vs. hand-held phone- performance not disrupted by listening to radio or books on tape- also found by Transport Canada (2002)- and by Parkes & Hooijmeijer (2000): significant deterioration in situational awarenessin hands-free phone condition (vs. no-phone control)
Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer (2004):- measured how well drivers followed task instructions (take a particular turn-off) duringsimulated driving
- compared conversing on a cell phone vs. conversing with a passenger (vs. control) - talked about close-call situations they experienced (would think this would prime them!)-half of cell phone users missed an exit, a few with passengers, barely any with control condition
how is talking to a passenger different from talking to someone on a cell phone?
• it’s easier to hear a passenger, so less attention is required• passenger conversations make more references to traffic; this creates a shared SA,mitigating the potential negative effects of conversing on driving• social demands: there is pressure to keep a conversation going and not stop talkingto concentrate on driving- cell phone-caused driving deficits are not reduced by practice
Olson & colleagues (2009):- naturalistic study of long-haul commercial truck drivers
- text messaging results in 23.2× greater risk of crash or near-crash event!!!!
worldwide legislation against cell-phone use while driving
- all Canadian provinces have laws against use of handheld cell phones and/or textmessaging- Japan bans all cell phone use while driving- 36 US states have some form of legislation against hand-held cell phone use whiledriving- 32 US states ban texting while driving- however, fines are low (e.g., $20 for first offence, $50 for subsequent offences in CA) - before the ban in New York, 2.3% of drivers used phones while driving- immediately after the ban, the number dropped to 1.1%, but two years later was up to2.1% (Sundeen, 2005)- “publicized enforcement” (legislation + enforcement + education campaigns) is requiredfor long-term compliance (McCartt et al., 2006)
BMW iDrive
“The sole purpose of the iDrive is to eliminate driver distraction.” – Gordon Keil,BMW of North America• “driving zone”: functions for driving and safetye.g., directional signals, windshield wipers, cruise control, automatic gearshift- located around steering wheel• “comfort zone”: frequently used systems that require frequent adjustmentse.g., lights, climate control, seat position- controlled by conventional switches on dashboard/centre console• “controller”: manages over 700 other infrequently accessed functions- large knob in console between front seats: combo rotary/pushbutton/slide control with force feedback- to change functions, push console knob; twist knob to scroll through menus; click button on knob to select functions- knob: 8 categories corresponding to compass positions: communication, car, drive, help, entertainment, configuration, climate control, information- simplified version has only 4- different types of haptic feedback given for different functions- originally used Microsoft Windows CE for Automotive v3.5 OS, which displayed awarning message about distractions each time car was startedCONS-poor conceptual model-more difficult for inexperienced users to use-slow response times: require additional attention; experienced users make moreerrors! (not fast enough to process their requests)-obscure abbreviations
Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, principles for minimizing driver distraction
- NHTSA challenged industry to respond to concerns about crashes due to electronic distractions- established 24 principles for minimizing driver distraction via efficient design (do not apply to collision avoidance systems or voice-activated devices):• installatione.g., physical location should not obstruct driver’s field of view • information presentatione.g., use standard icons or symbols• interaction with displays and controlse.g., feedback should be timely and clearly perceptible • systems behavioure.g., lock out distracting functions while driving • information about the systeme.g., instructions should be correct and simple(these haven’t caught on in a big way)
Other driver safety initiatives
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (U.S. Department of Transportation): integrated in-vehiclesystems that help drivers operate more safely and effectivelye.g., adaptive cruise control uses radar to maintain safe distance from vehicle in front,automatic parkingIntelligent Transportations Systems: aid transport and traffic management to increasesafety, coordination, and efficiency of transportation networks e.g., red light cameras, variable speed limits (changes speed limit depending on traffic conditions!)
decision making heuristics: overconfidence, Langer study card game
overestimating the accuracy of your knowledge and judgmentsLanger (1975):- participants played a card game which involved drawing for the high card - played against confederate of the researcher- independent variable: personality of the opponent• “dapper”: outgoing, appeared confident, and dressed in stylish clothes• “schnook”: shy, nervous, awkward, and dressed in ill- fitting clothes- dapper opponent was viewed as more competent- participants bet less money against the dapper opponent, and bet more against theschnook
decision making heuristics: availability heuristic
estimating probability of an event based on the ease with which examples come to minde.g., Are there more words that begin with k or that have k as the third letter?
decision making heuristics: illusory correlation, Ward & Jenkins (1965) cloud seeding
the perception of a relationship where none exists (or vice- versa)Ward & Jenkins (1965):- is cloud-seeding worthwhile? (lining clouds w/ silver nitrate to increase chance of rain)- data given for 50 days- “results” were random, yet subjects perceived a relationship
decision making heuristics: confirmation bias, Wason (1966)
seeking evidence that confirms your beliefs–even to the exclusion of contradictory information!Assuming that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other, whichcard(s) must be turned over to test this statement?“If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.”- results: 33% chose positive evidence alone; only 4% chose positive and negative evidence
decision making heuristics: meaningfulness, ohnson-Laird, Legrenzi, & Legrenzi (1972) and envelopes
people are better with concrete than abstract problemsYou work in a post office, sorting envelopes. Assuming each envelope has a stamp, which envelope(s) must be turned over to test this rule?“If an envelope is sealed, it must have a 50 lire stamp.”- results: 87.5% of Italians–who were familiar with the rule–chose positive and negative evidence (did not use positive evidence alone a la confirmation bias)
decision making heuristics: hindsight bias
tendency to believe, after learning an outcome, that one would have foreseen ite.g., separation strengthens romantic attraction vs. separation weakens romantic attractionabsence makes the heart grow fonderOROut of sight out of mind, or, absence makes the heart go wander (lol)
decision making heuristics: representativeness heuristic, birthday problem
judging probabilities based on how they seem to resemble particular prototypes (reasoning vs similarities)Q: “What is the minimum number of persons there should be in a meeting room forthere to be a better than 50% chance that two of them have the same birthday?” A: 24 (36 people increases probability to 90%)It’s not (365 × 2) + 1 = 183
decision making heuristics: anchoring & adjustment, grocery store field experiments
a suggested reference point (anchor) can affect subsequent decisions (adjustment)- exp’t. 1 tested anchoring provided by multiple-unit prices on various itemse.g., “on sale: 6 cans for $3” (vs. “on sale: 50¢ each”)- results: multiple-unit prices resulted in a 32% increase in sales- exp’t. 2 tested anchoring provided by purchase limits on cans of soupe.g., “no limit” vs. “limit of 4” vs. “limit of 12”LIMIT of 12 doubled amount ppl would buy!conclusion: purchase quantity decisions can be affected by anchoring
decision making heuristics: framing, contrast & focus frame, ground beef samples (fat content)
judgments can be affected by the way information is presentedcontrast frame: one thing is trivialized or exaggerated by comparison withsomething elsee.g., “For less than the cost of a cup of coffee per day, you can feed a child for amonth.”focus frame: draws attention to a specific aspect of an issuee.g., per 125 mL serving, Breyers’ Smooth & DreamyTM chocolate ice cream (1⁄2 the fat!) has the same calories (130) and more sugar than regular Double Churn ice cream (16 g vs. 15 g of sugars)Levin & Gaeth (1988):- gave identical samples of ground beef to two groups of tasters- frame: sample described as either a) 75% lean, or b) 25% fat- compared to ordinary ground beef, group a) rated it less greasy, of higherquality, and better tasting (opposite for group b)- conclusion: we prefer alternatives that emphasize the positive (info that showspotential gain, not loss)
How to make people more rational? What works and what doesn’t work?
• practice? (no, giving them problems doesn’t work)• expertise? (depends on domain) • feedback?- often ambiguous- often delayed- processed selectively• debiasing: target specific aspects of decision-making flawse.g., explaining why you may not be correct reduces overconfidence-educating people on their biases, maybe works, time intensive• proceduralization: turn decision making into an algorithm • automation:- multiple sources of info may be (appropriately) displayed - offload memory demands to computer- expert systems can aid in diagnosis- provide recommendations for choice of action• redesign
how do we make people upgrade fridges? (greatest energy-consuming appliance)
• tax credits/rebates: not immediate enough• public education: knowledge vs. behaviour gap• laws/regulations: immediate, grudging compliance •feedback: must be immediate (can get devices that show how much you’re spending per kilowatt hour)
