Abstract : The purpose of this research was to investigate decision response times in a dynamic tactical scenario in which participants interacted with a virtual command-post environment. Fifty-two Marines with varying amounts of command-post experience assessed the situation as it developed, determined tactical leverage points, formed a plan of action, and submitted battle orders. Two scenarios, which differed in the level of certainty in the information provided, were studied. The tactical decision process was modeled and analyzed in the following sequential, cognitive stages: situation assessment, course of action selection, course of action execution. Results show that the time required to assess the situation was significantly different between the experience groups (p <.05), revealing that the High-Experience group took considerably longer than the Low-Experience group to assess the situation. However, once the assessment was complete, the selection of a course of action (COA) was significantly faster for the High-Experience group than the Low-Experience group. In addition, a statistically significant main effect of Task Certainty was found indicating that COA selection under conditions of Low Certainty took significantly longer than under conditions of High Certainty. Time required for COA execution indicated a significant main effect of Experience (p <.05), a main effect of Task Certainty approaching statistical significance (p = .067), and a statistically significant interaction (p <.05). These results indicate that the time needed to execute the COA, once determined, is significantly less for the highly experienced individuals under conditions of low certainty. However, under conditions of high certainty, no statistically significant time differences were found distinguishing the High- and Low-Experience groups. The High-Experience group was significantly more accurate than the Low-Experience group for developing an appropriate COA.
[1]
Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
,
1974,
Science.
[2]
Mica R. Endsley,et al.
Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
,
1995,
Hum. Factors.
[3]
M. St John,et al.
Tactical Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Experiments I and II
,
2000
.
[4]
David M. Gaba,et al.
Situation Awareness in Anesthesiology
,
1995,
Hum. Factors.
[5]
Jared Freeman,et al.
Metarecognition in Time-Stressed Decision Making: Recognizing, Critiquing, and Correcting
,
1996,
Hum. Factors.
[6]
Wendy J. Reece,et al.
Evidence and Uncertainty in Subjective Prediction: Influences on Optimistic Judgment
,
1993
.
[7]
Dariush Arai.
Temporal resolution of uncertainty in risky choices
,
1997
.
[8]
R. Lipshitz,et al.
Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis
,
1997
.
[9]
Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.
The effect of constant outcome value on judgments and decision making given linguistic probabilities
,
1992
.
[10]
Eduardo Salas,et al.
Situation Awareness in Team Performance: Implications for Measurement and Training
,
1995,
Hum. Factors.
[11]
David O'Hare,et al.
The 'Artful' Decision Maker: A Framework Model for Aeronautical Decision Making
,
1992
.
[12]
E. Shafir.
Uncertainty and the difficulty of thinking through disjunctions
,
1994,
Cognition.
[13]
G. Klein,et al.
A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making.
,
1993
.
[14]
R. Dhar.
The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice
,
1996
.
[15]
Marvin S. Cohen,et al.
Metarecognition in Time-Stressed Decision Making: Recognizing, Critiquing, and Correcting
,
1996,
Hum. Factors.
[16]
R. Dhar.
Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option
,
1997
.