The performance effects of graphic and verbal representations of uncertainty were investigated within the context of a spatial problem., Sixteen experienced naval submarine officers acted as decision makers (i.e., submarine commanders) in eight simulated scenarios. Four scenario problems were presented with either a verbal or a graphic representation of uncertainty. The degree of uncertainty was controlled by manipulating oceanic conditions and information modeling. The graphic representation of uncertainty resulted in superior range estimates only when the oceanic noise was high and the environmental information was properly modeled. No reliable differences in confidence were observed. These results suggest that for spatial problems, a graphic/spatial representation of uncertainty may considerably improve the judgments of decision makers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bagley, J. B. (1987). User manual for the advanced combat control system simulator: Version 2.0.Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Combat Systems Division. (Available to authorized requesters only.)
2.
Boles, D. B., and Wickens, C. D. (1987). Display formatting in information integration and non integration tasks. Human Factors, 29, 395–406.
3.
Budescu, D. V., and Wallsten, T. S. (1990). Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 240–263.
4.
Budescu, D. V., Weinberg, S., and Wallsten, T. S. (1988). Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 281–294.
5.
Corbin, R. M. (1980). Decisions that might not get made. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. 47–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Coury, B. G., Boulette, M. D., and Smith, R. A. (1989). Effect of uncertainty and diagnosticity on classification of multidimensional data with integral and separable displays of system status. Human Factors, 31, 551–569.
7.
Erev, I., and Cohen, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 45, 1–18.
8.
Gong, K. F., Magliaro, A. A., and Baylog, J. G. (1984). A decision-directed approach to solution integration for tracking in an underwater environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE 18th Asilomar Conference on Circuits, Systems, and Computers (pp. 300–307). Pacific Grove, CA: IEEE Asilomar.
9.
Hammel, S. E., Aidala, V. J., Gong, K. F., and Lindgren, A. G. (1983). Recursive versus batch processing algorithms for bearings-only tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE Oceans 1983 Meeting (pp. 50–61). San Francisco: IEEE Oceans.
10.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
11.
Kirschenbaum, S. S. (1992). Influence of experience on information-gathering strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 343–352.
12.
Klayman, J. (1984). Learning from feedback in probabilistic environments. Acta Psychologica, 56, 81–92.
13.
Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In A. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Larkin, J., McDermot, J., Simon, D. P., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1345.
15.
Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovick, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., and Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray pictures. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, and M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311–342).
16.
Lopes, L. L. (1986). Aesthetics and the decision sciences. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 16, 434–438.
17.
Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
18.
Schwartz, D. R., and Howell, W. C. (1985). Optional stopping performance under graphic and numeric CRT formatting. Human Factors, 27, 433–444.
19.
Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation of verbal, graphic, and color information displays. Human Factors, 23, 541–550.
20.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1982). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In D. Kahneman, P. Siovic, and A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 117–128). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22, 219–240.
