Utilizing Simulation to Train Decision Making with Conflicting Information

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1206)


The modern operational environment often involves performance utilizing a range of different information systems. Performers are often required to assimilate information, identify any discrepancies between information sources and determine ground truth. As a result, it is critical to prepare individual performers to make effective decisions when faced with information conflicts. This paper presents a discussion of training techniques which can utilize simulation platforms to train skills necessary to prepare performers to make effective decision under these circumstances. Also presented are use case examples of how these strategies could be implemented within simulation platforms across multiple domains. Finally, a training-needs-based approach is presented to guide development of valid and operationally relevant, simulation-based training exercises that target decision making with conflicting information.


Training Decision-making Conflicting information Simulation 


  1. 1.
    Mosier, K.L., Sethi, N., McCauley, S., Khoo, L., Orasanu, J.M.: What you don’t know can hurt you: factors impacting diagnosis in the automated cockpit. Hum. Factors 49(2), 300–310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, K., Li, Z.: How does information congruence influence diagnosis performance? Ergonomics 58(6), 924–934 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carroll, M., Sanchez, P.: Decision making with conflicting information: influencing factors and best practice guidelines. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1–21 (2020)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L., Burdick, M., Rosenblatt, B.: Automation bias and errors: are crews better than individuals? Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 10(1), 85–97 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dzindolet, M.T., Peterson, S.A., Pomranky, R.A., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P.: The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58(6), 697–718 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bahner, E., Huper, A.D., Manzey, D.: Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66, 688–699 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilson, R.D., Deaton, J.E., Mouloua, M.: Coping with complex alarms: sophisticated aircraft cockpit alarm systems demand a shift in training strategies. Ergon. Des. 4(4), 12–18 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woods, D.D., Sarter, N.B.: Learning from automation surprises and “going sour” accidents. In: Sarter, N.B., Amalberti, R. (eds.) Cognitive Engineering in the Aviation Domain, pp. 327–353. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richter, T., Maier, J.: Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: a two-step model of validation. Educ. Psychol. 52, 1–19 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations