SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Herdener N, Wickens CD, Clegg BA, Smith CA. Hum. Factors 2016; 58(6): 899-914.

Affiliation

Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0018720816645259

PMID

27125532

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand factors that influence the prediction of uncertain spatial trajectories (e.g., the future path of a hurricane or ship) and the role of human overconfidence in such prediction.

BACKGROUND: Research has indicated that human prediction of uncertain trajectories is difficult and may well be subject to overconfidence in the accuracy of forecasts as is found in event prediction, a finding that indicates that humans insufficiently appreciate the contributions of variance in nature to their predictions.

METHOD: In two experiments, our paradigm required participants to observe a starting point, a position at time T, and then make a prediction of the location of the trajectory at time NT. They experienced several trajectories from the same underlying model but perturbed by random variance in heading and speed.

RESULTS: In Experiment 1A, people predicted linear paths well and were better in heading predictions than in speed predictions. However, participants greatly underestimated the variance in predicted location, indicating overconfidence. In Experiment 1B, the effect was replicated with frequencies rather than probabilities used in variance estimates. In Experiment 2, people predicted nonlinear trajectories poorly, and overconfidence was again observed. Overconfidence was reduced on the more difficult predictions. In both main experiments, those better at predicting the mean were not better at predicting the variance.

CONCLUSIONS: Predicting the level of uncertainty in spatial trajectories is not well done and may involve qualitatively different abilities than prediction of the mean. APPLICATION: Improving real-world performance at prediction demands developing better understanding of variability, not just the average case. Biases in prediction of uncertainty may be addressed through debiasing training and/or visualization tools that could assist in more calibrated action planning.

© 2016, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print