Retention of a Time Pressure Heuristic in a Target Identification Task

ABSTRACT S. Rice and D. Keller (2009) previously reported that participants who were put under time pressure tended to comply more with a diagnostic aid than participants who were not put under time pressure. The present study investigates whether or not learning the benefits of this time pressure heuristic carries over to a second session. Seventy-two New Mexico State University students performed a simulated target-detection task, assisted by a 95% reliable diagnostic aid. Participants were exposed to the following conditions, which were composed of two sessions: speeded–speeded, unspeeded–speeded, speeded–unspeeded, or unspeeded–unspeeded. Results showed that participants who completed the speeded condition for Session 1 performed just as well in the 2nd session regardless of whether or not they were put under time pressure. Participants found that complying with the aid was beneficial to overall performance and continued to comply in a 2nd session even when allowed more time to overrule the aid.

[1]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust , 2007 .

[2]  Erica L. Wohldmann,et al.  Specificity effects in training and transfer of speeded responses. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Jonathan Evans.  Hypothetical Thinking: Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement , 2007 .

[4]  Wim De Neys,et al.  Dual Processing in Reasoning , 2006, Psychological science.

[5]  Erica L. Wohldmann,et al.  Skill training, retention, and transfer: The effects of a concurrent secondary task , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Automation Reliability in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload , 2006, Hum. Factors.

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

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

[9]  M. Bouton.  Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  A. M. Rich,et al.  Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance , 2001 .

[11]  Jonathan Evans.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers,et al.  The effects of time pressure on chess skill: an investigation into fast and slow processes underlying expert performance , 2007, Psychological research.

[13]  A. John Maule,et al.  The effects of time pressure on human judgement and decision making , 1997 .

[14]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. , 1975 .

[15]  Arthur F Kramer,et al.  Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task. , 2006, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[16]  J. P. Morgan,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 2005, Technometrics.

[17]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[18]  P M Todd,et al.  Précis of Simple heuristics that make us smart , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[20]  R. Hogarth.  Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. , 1981 .

[21]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[22]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[23]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[24]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses? , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[25]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rationality and reasoning , 1996 .

[26]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Workload and Reliability of Predictor Displays in Aircraft Traffic Avoidance , 2000 .

[27]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[28]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making , 1993 .

[29]  G. Hockey,et al.  Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[30]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[31]  Rhona Flin,et al.  Decision making under stress : emerging themes and applications , 1998 .

[32]  Gary Klein,et al.  Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions , 2017 .

[33]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[34]  Transfer of learning in choice reactions: contributions of specific and general components of manual responses. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[35]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[36]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[37]  Alison M. Bacon,et al.  Reasoning under time pressure. A study of causal conditional inference. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[38]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[39]  Stephen Rice.  Examining Single- and Multiple-Process Theories of Trust in Automation , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[40]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  Time Pressure and Information Integration in Social Judgment , 1993 .

[41]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Framing and Time Pressure in Decision Making , 1993 .

[42]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.