1. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Situation Awareness
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

2. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
What is Situation Awareness (SA)?
Awareness of the meaning of dynamic changes in the environment
“Perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” (Endsley, 1995)
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

3. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Stages of SA
Perception
Understanding
Prediction
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

4. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Power Grid Failure
“Lack of Situation Awareness” as a root cause
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

5. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Measuring SA
SAGAT (Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique
Operator performs a complex task
Periodic interruptions
Asked SA questions
Location of other people
Location of hazards
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

6. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Decision Making
Perception
Understanding
Prediction
DECISIONMAKING
Wickens Ch7
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

7. Decision-Making Tasks
A decision making task is a task where
a person selects one choice from a number of choices
there is some information available on the choices
the time frame is relatively long (1 sec)
there is some uncertainty
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

8. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Tasks
medical diagnosis
flight judgements
process control
fault diagnosis
safety-related behaviour
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

9. Normative vs Descriptive Models
specify what people should ideally do, utility
Descriptive
describe what people actually do
descriptions of what can influence decision making
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

10. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Normative Methods
Multi-attribute utility theory
Expected value theory
Subjective expected value theory
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

11. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
U(v)= S
i=1 n
a(i)u(i)
The sum over all attributes of the magnitude of each attribute multiplied by its utility
A way of comparing alternatives that have many different dimensions
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

12. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Car Example in Text
You’ve weighted the various car attributes as follows:
Engine performance 8
Brake performance 5
Styling 4
Seat comfort 2
Floor mats 1
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

13. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Car example
You are considering the following cars
2004 Mazda 3
2002 Honda Civic
2003 Ford Focus
2004 Honda Civic
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

14. The cars rate as follows:
Styling
Brakes
Seats
Mats
Engine
Score
Utility 4 5 2 1 8 M3 3 9 56 H2 60 FF
120 H4
118
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

15. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Expected Value Theory
determines the value of various outcomes under uncertainty
assumes people should pick the highest value outcome
probabilistic “gambling” type questions
p=0.2 of winning $50 E=0.2x$50=$10
p=0.6 of winning $20 E=0.6x$20=$12
People should pick option two
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

16. Problem with Expected Value Theory
People don’t actually make the “optimal” choice
Values on outcomes can be subjective, different for different people
Subjective Expected Utility Theory
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

17. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
SEUT
Assigns a subjective utility value, instead of the objective value used in EVT
Basic idea is still
probability (p) x utility (u)
highest expected utility is the best decision
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

18. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Descriptive Models
Mostly isolate effects that can influence decision making
Understand why human decision making doesn’t follow normative models
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

19. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Descriptive Models
Satisficing: People look for the first solution that meets the criteria, not the optimal solution
Used when there are a large number of potential alternatives, limited time
Simplifications, heuristics and biases
People create easier ways of thinking about things
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

20. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Heuristics and Biases
Three stages:
1. Getting information input (cues)
2. Generating hypotheses
3. Plan generation and action choice
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

21. 1. Cue Perception and integration
Input or Cue Biases :
People pay attention to a limited number of cues,
Early information is more influential (cue primacy),
Late information is underweighted,
Very visible cues are given more weight,
Overweighting of unreliable information.
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

22. 2. Hypothesis Generation and Selection
Biases:
People only generate a small number of hypotheses
Most frequently seen hypotheses are preferred (availability heuristic)
Minimal information gathering if there is a strong cue match (representativeness)
Overconfidence. Tend to think they are more correct than they really are.
Cognitive Tunneling: Reluctance to change from a hypothesis
Confirmation bias: Tendency to only look for confirming information.
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

23. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
3. Action Choice
Biases in Action Choice:
Retrieving a small number of actions
Retrieving the most frequent or recently used actions
Evaluation or estimation of the likely outcomes of actions
Framing bias: presentation of problem affects the decision
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

24. Special Case of Framing Bias
“Sunk Cost Bias”
Investors who resist selling losing stocks even when the long term better choice is to sell
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

25. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
The SRK Framework
Suggests people have to make three categories of “decisions”
1. automated or skill based decisions
2. procedural or rule based decisions
3. knowledge based decisions
Depends on familiarity of the situation and experience of the person
Copyright Catherine M. Burns

26. Copyright Catherine M. Burns
Decision Support
Often aim to reduce decision making biases
make relevant cues more salient
suggest alternative courses of action
provide additional information, especially disconfirming information
show realistic simulations of decisions
Simulation, expert systems and displays
Copyright Catherine M. Burns