Cited by 62Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsData Visualization and Analytics

Supporting Complex Decision Making Through Option Awareness

Pfaff, Mark S., Klein, Gary L., Drury, Jill L., Moon, Sung Pil, Liu, Yikun, Entezari, Steven O.·2013·Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

Abstract

This article describes the theoretical underpinnings and preliminary experimental support for option awareness (OA): the perception and comprehension of the relative desirability of available options, as well the underlying factors and trade-offs that explain that desirability. The authors’ research has produced a body of theory and experimental findings supporting the potential for OA to beneficially augment situation awareness (SA) and help decision makers identify the most robust options: those that are most likely to turn out well under the widest range of possible future conditions. OA incorporates perspectives from rationalistic and naturalistic models of decision making, as both are used concurrently in the types of complex high-technology work the authors have examined, including emergency management, infectious disease containment, and air traffic control. The authors have developed approaches to support OA through the use of exploratory modeling and visual analytics. These systems were tested over the course of four human-in-the-loop experiments. The results demonstrate the value of this approach to improve decision accuracy, confidence, and speed for decision makers facing scenarios at varying levels of difficulty. The methodology described here provides a framework to move forward with research on supporting OA in complex and uncertain scenarios in a variety of task domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1555343412455799

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfaff, M. S., Klein, G. L., Drury, J. L., Moon, S. P., Liu, Y., & Entezari, S. O.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University (US)
  • Mitre (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Pfaff, Mark S.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
Published
2012-09-10
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
155-178
ISSN
1555-3434 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087087443
Cited by
62
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
complex decision-making, situational awareness, decision support, exploratory modeling, visual analytics, naturalistic decision making, rational decision-making, trade-offs, decision accuracy, decision confidence, emergency management, air traffic control, uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review