Citation

Hirt ER, Castellan NJ. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1988; 14(1): 122-131.

Affiliation

Indiana University, Bloomington.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1988, American Psychological Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2964501

Abstract

Fault trees have been advocated as aids for problem solvers. However, research has suggested limitations in their usefulness. Fischhoff, Slovic, and Lichtenstein (1978) found that subjects given incomplete (pruned) trees were insensitive to omissions; these authors hypothesized that Tversky and Kahneman's (1974) availability heuristic was the mediating factor. Using a within-subjects design, subjects in Experiment 1 received both full and pruned trees and estimated probabilities for various reasons why a car would fail to start. To increase the availability of omissions, some Experiment 1 subjects first generated possible causes of starting failure. The basic Fischhoff et al. findings were replicated, but several aspects of the results argued against the availability hypothesis as the mechanism for judgment. Instead, subjects appeared to idiosyncratically redefine category membership when making judgments based upon pruned trees. By employing a sorting task in Experiment 2 we corroborated the results of Experiment 1: Subjects do redefine the actual contents of the categories when faced with an omission from the fault tree. The implications of these results for the use of fault trees as a problem solving aid are discussed.

Language: en