Framing, Loss Aversion, and Visualization of Risk for a Dynamic Simulation Environment

The purpose was to understand the effects of loss aversion and framing on situation awareness (SA) and decision making for a dynamic missile simulation task. Whereas framing has been shown in numerous experiments that were based on the original paradigm, we hypothesized that the loss aversion effects were more general and would extend to conditions in which sure gains were not possible and would affect SA as well as decision making. Forty-eight students participated in a dynamic simulation in which operators had to decide which cities to defend and to answer SA probes while viewing 2-min scenarios wherein probabilities were assigned to a number of target cities as the missile attack unfolded. The authors varied frame in terms of lives lost or survived for a chosen allocation scheme and varied presentation mode in terms of either expected value or individual risk indices (probabilities and lives) as part of the graphic displays. There were significant effects on missile conservation decisions, coverage of small cities, and SA. The results supported theories positing more general effects of loss aversion related to negative affect. Guidelines related to presenting gain or loss information via graphic displays were suggested.

[1]  Ling Rothrock,et al.  Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense: Implications toward visualization design , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  H. Simon,et al.  "Models of Man"@@@Models of Man: Social and Rational. Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. , 1959 .

[3]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Eric R. Zieyel Operations research : applications and algorithms , 1988 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[6]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  Emergent Features and Graphical Elements: Designing More Effective Configural Displays , 1993 .

[7]  Sean A. Spence,et al.  Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[8]  Sabrina M. Tom,et al.  The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk , 2007, Science.

[9]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Naive Probability: A Mental Model Theory of Extensional Reasoning , 1999 .

[10]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[11]  Thomas E. Nygren,et al.  Framing of Task Performance Strategies: Effects on Performance in a Multiattribute Dynamic Decision Making Environment , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Michael J. Barnes,et al.  Systematic analysis of risk visualization strategies for homeland defense , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).

[13]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). , 1999 .

[14]  Patricia L. McDermott,et al.  The Presentation of Risk and Uncertainty in the Context of National Missile Defense Simulations , 2003 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[16]  Susan S. Kirschenbaum,et al.  Effects of Graphic and Verbal Probability Information on Command Decision Making , 1994 .

[17]  H. Hart How we decide , 2001, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[18]  Wang Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains , 1996, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[19]  W. C. Howell of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2010 .

[20]  Haydee M. Cuevas,et al.  Improving Situation Awareness through Cross-Training , 2005 .

[21]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[23]  Christopher B. Mayhorn,et al.  Decisions, Decisions: Analysis of Age, Cohort, and Time of Testing on Framing of Risky Decision Options , 2002, Hum. Factors.