Jeffrey P. Schwartz
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Decision aids are being built by several research organizations. However, as noted by Wohl (1981), relatively few decision aids are in actual use. Problems with decision structuring methodology and failure to consult users during aid development are two reasons for this. A more important reason is the lack of general interface design guidelines directed specifically at decision aid designers. Three aspects of aid-user interaction--decision contingency, decision emergence, and the aid-user relationship--are issues which cannot be addressed by the decision structuring portion of aids but which require careful consideration during interface design. The development of a decision situation taxonomy which accounts for these issues is advocated as the starting point for general decision aid interface design guidance.
- Adelman, L. Involving users in the development of decision-analytic aids: The principle factor in successful implementation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1982, 33, 333--342.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Adelman, L., Donnell, M. L., Phelps, R. H., and Patterson, J. F. An iterative Bayesian decision aid: Toward improving the user-aid and user-organization interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1982, SMC-12, 733--743.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beach, L. R., and Mitchell, T. R. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3, 439--449.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boguslaw, R., and Porter, E. H. Team functions and training. In: R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Psychological Pinciples in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehar, and Winston, 1962.Google Scholar
- Brown, R. V., Kahr, A. S., and Peterson, C. Decision analysis for the manager. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1974.Google Scholar
- Cohen, M. S., Bromage, R. C., Chinnis, J. O., Payne, J. W., and Ulvila, J. W. A personalized and prescriptive attack planning decision aid (Technical Report 82-4). Falls Church, VA: Decision Science Consortium, July 1982.Google Scholar
- Dawes, R. M. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 571--582.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edwards, W. The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 380--417.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edwards, W. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1961, 12, 473--498.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edwards, W. Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 1962, 4, 59--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ehrenreich, S. L. Query languages: Design recommendations derived from the human factors literature. Human Factors, 1981, 23, 709--725.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 53--88.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huber, O. The influence of some task variables on cognitive operations in an information processing decision model. Acta Psychologia, 1980, 45, 187--196.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janis, I. L., and Mann, L. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: Free Press, 1977.Google Scholar
- Keen, P. G. W., and Morton, M. S. Decision support systems: An organizational perspective. Reading, Mas.: Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
- Mackie, R. R. Design criteria for decision aids--the user's perspective. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 24th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, October 1980, 80--84.Google Scholar
- Martin, J. Design of man-computer dialogues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miller, L. A., and Thomas, J. C. Behavioral issues in the use of interactive systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1977, 9, 509--536.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patterson, J. F., Randall, L. S., and Stewart, R. R. Advisory decision aids: A prototype (Technical Report PR-80-27-312). McLean, VA: Decision and Designs, Inc., 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Payne, J. W. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92, 382--402.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Phelps, R. H., Halpin, S. M., and Johnson, E. M. A decision support framework for decision aid designers (Technical Report ARI-TR-504). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, January 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schlaifer, R. Analysis of decision under uncertainty. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.Google Scholar
- Schrenk, L. P. Aiding the decision maker: A decision process model. Ergonomics, 1969, 12, 443--457.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schum, D. A. Current developments in research on cascaded inference processes. In: T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
- Simpson, H. A human factors style guide for program design: Taking the user into account in the design of software. Byte, 1982, 7, 108.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P. Fischoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 28, 1--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211, 453--458.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, 185, 1124--1131.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wise, J. A. Cognitive bases for an expanded decision theory. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 1979, 336--339.Google Scholar
- Wohl, J. G. Force management decision requirements for Air Force Tactical Command and Control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1981, SMC-11, 618--639.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Woodson, W. E. Human factors design handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
- Yates, J. F., and Goldstein, W. M. Personal decision aiding: Some observations about the Beach Birth Planning Procedure. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1983, 31, 26--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yntema, P. B., and Klem, L. Telling a computer how to evaluate multidimensional situations. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1965, HFE-6, 3--13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yntema, D. B., and Torgerson, W. S. Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1961, HFE-2, 20--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zachary, W., Wherry, R., Glenn, F., and Hopson, J. Decision situations, decision processes, and decision functions: Towards a theory-based framework for decision-aid design. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. Gaithersburg, MD: March 1982. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Lack of guidance for decision aid interface design
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
The Effects of Decision Guidance and Problem Modeling on Group Decision-Making
Despite the advances in group decision support system (GDSS) research, few GDSS studies concentrate on problem-modeling tools to support decisions that cross boundaries of functional areas within the business. These decisions have a substantial effect ...
Involvement and Decision-Making Performance with a Decision Aid: The Influence of Social Multimedia, Gender, and Playfulness
This research explores how multimedia vividness and the use of computer-based social cues can influence involvement with technology and decision-making outcomes. An experiment is conducted that examines the effect that increased levels of vividness (...
Comments