Skill-based differences in option generation in a complex task: a verbal protocol analysis

Abstract

In recent models of decision-making, cognitive scientists have examined the relationship between option generation and successful performance. These models suggest that those who are successful at decision-making generate few courses of action and typically choose the first, often best, option. Scientists working in the area of expert performance, on the other hand, have demonstrated that the ability to generate and prioritize task-relevant options during situation assessment is associated with successful performance. In the current study, we measured law enforcement officers’ performance and thinking in a simulated task environment to examine the option generation strategies used during decision-making in a complex domain. The number of options generated during assessment (i.e., making decisions about events in the environment) and intervention (i.e., making decisions about personal courses of action) phases of decision-making interact to produce a successful outcome. The data are explained with respect to the development of a situational representation and long-term working memory skills capable of supporting both option generation processes.

Appendix

Thought statement types

Monitor:

Heeded information that was present in the current environment (e.g., “The suspect was standing in front of me”)

Recall:

Previous information that was heeded in the current environment and that is no longer available but subsequently recalled (e.g., “I recall my fellow officer moving the people away” [the officer subsequently exited the scene])

Infer:

Information that is inferred about some aspect of the current scenario, but where that information is not present in the current environment (excluding evaluative inferences; e.g., “If my partner doesn’t turn the siren off, the hostage takers will hear us approaching”)

Evaluate:

A relative value-based inference about some aspect of the past, current or future environment but where the inferred value or information is not present in the current environment (e.g., “The boy appeared to be depressed”)

Predict:

An anticipated future situational event (e.g., “I think he’s going to go back in the school”)

Desire:

A desired current or future event/state/outcome or desired current or future action (e.g., “I wish he would take the gun away from the store manager’s head”)

Plan:

A decision to pursue a specific course of action in the future based on a future context (e.g., “If the object around the suspect’s waist is really a bomb, then I will shoot him”)

Alternative:

A possible course of action that was imminently available without a decision to pursue it (e.g., “I could try to talk the suspect down”)

Decide:

A decision to pursue a specific course of action imminently (e.g., “I was going to talk to the boy and find out what his problem was”)

Act:

A verbal or physical action and/or execution of a decision (e.g., “I told him to release the store manager”)

Exemplar scenarios

Blow up

Radio message/context “You and your partner are responding to a call describing a disturbance outside of a school. A boy sitting on the grass directly in front of you has been acting suspiciously.”

Scenario description The participant arrives on scene with another officer. The fellow officer escorts students away from the suspect and asks the participant to take care of the suspect. As the participant approaches the suspect, the boy gets up and becomes verbally aggressive. The boy is wearing an untucked, partially buttoned shirt. A wire can be seen hanging down under the shirt. The boy opens his shirt to expose an improvised explosive device around his waist. A school bus approaches in the background. The boy removes the actuator from his waistline and holds it in his hand. He then gets flustered and drops the actuator on the ground. He bends down to pick it back up and then detonates the device just as the school bus pulls up next to him.

The time between the turning point (denoted in italics in the scenario description) and the end of the trial (i.e., if participant did not shoot) was 13.51 s.

Convenience store

Radio message/context “While on patrol, you stop at the neighborhood convenience store for a cup of coffee. You are getting out of your car and going into the store.

Scenario description The participant enters the store. The store manager greets him and nervously invites him to stay and have a cup of coffee. The camera pans to allow the participant to looking around the store (and away from the store manager). While looking around, the sound of a round being chambered into a firearm can be heard. The camera pans back around to show the perpetrator holding the store manager hostage. After a few seconds, the perpetrator surrenders, puts his weapon down, and releases the store manager. Immediately afterwards, the perpetrator then draws a backup weapon and shoots in the direction of the participant.

The time between the turning point and the end of the trial was 5.46 s.

School hostage

Radio message/context “You and your partner are responding to a call describing a possible hostage situation at a school. You are in the passenger seat and your partner is driving to the scene.”

Scenario description The officers drive into the school’s service (i.e., back) entrance. After entering this area, just as they stop and begin to get out of the car vehicle, a male suspect armed with an assault rifle becomes visible, close to the rear entrance to the school. The male immediately turns to run back into the school and appears surprised to see the police. The suspect opens the rear door and enters the school with the assault rifle.

The time between the turning point and the end of the trial was 6.07 s.