Gamified Approach in the Context of Situational Assessment: A Comparison of Human Factors Methods

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 787)


Decision support tools are increasingly common in daily tasks, with a core component of enhancing user Situational Awareness required for an informed decision. With the goal of informing the design of automated reasoners or data fusion algorithms to be included in those tools, the authors developed the Reliability Game. This paper compares the Reliability Game to other Human Factor methods available in the context of Situational Awareness assessment. Although the Reliability Game shares many common elements with HF methods it also presents some unique features. Differently than those methods, the former focuses on the Situational Assessment process and on how source factors might influence human beliefs, which are considered as basic constructs building up Situational Awareness. Moreover, the gamified approach introduces an engaging component in the setup and the specific design of the method allows the collection of data expressing second-order uncertainty.


Human factors methods Situational awareness Situational assessment Reliability game 



This research was supported by NATO Allied Command Transformation (NATO-ACT). The authors wish to thank Cdr. Andrea Iacono for advice and feedback during the development of the game. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Dr. David Mandel for the fruitful technical discussions on the concept of source reliability.


  1. 1.
    Stikeleather, J.: Big data’s human component. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2012).
  2. 2.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering And Design. Ashgate Publishing Company, Brookfield (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endsley, R.M.: The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In: Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting, pp. 1388—1392. Human Factor Society, Santa Monica (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nemeth, C.P.: Human Factors Methods for Design: Making Systems Human-Centered. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall, D.L., Jordan, J.M.: Human-centered Information Fusion. Artech House, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen, J.: The nature of systems development. In: Human Factors Engineering: Engineering Summer Conferences. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pew, R.: Human skills and their utilization. In: Human Factors Engineering: Engineering Summer Conferences. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    de Rosa, F., Jousselme, A.-L.: A reliability game for source factors impact assessment. In: 2017 Conference on Decision Support and Risk Assessment for Operational Effectiveness (DeSRA). NATO STO CMRE – Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation, La Spezia (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Endsley, R.M.: Measurements of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 65–84 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endsley, M.R.: A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 157–168 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hogg, D.N., Folleso, K., Strand-Volden, F., Torralba, B.: Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control room. Ergonomics 38(11), 2394–2413 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hauss, Y., Gauss, B., Eyferth, K.: SALSA - a new approach to measure situational awareness in air traffic control. Focusing attention on aviation safety. In: 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeannott, E., Kelly, C., Thompson, D.: The development of situation awareness measures in ATM systems. Technical report, EATMP (2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durso, F.T., Hackworth, C.A., Truitt, T., Crutchfield, J., Manning, C.A.: Situation awareness as a predictor of performance in en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Q. 6, 1–20 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGuinness, B., Foy, L.: A subjective measure of SA: the crew awareness rating scale (CARS). In: Human Performance, Situational Awareness and Automation Conference, Savannah (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthews, M.D., Beal, S.A.: Assessing situation awareness in field training exercises. Research Report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waag, W.L., Houck, M.R.: Tools for assessing situational awareness in an operational fighter environment. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 65(5), A13–A19 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor, R.M.: Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In: Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478), pp. 3/1–3/17, Neuilly Sur Seine (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dennehy, K.: Cranfield - situation awareness scale user manual. Technical report, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedford (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthews, M.D., Pleban, R.J., Endsley, M.R., Strater, L.D.: Measures of infantry situation awareness for a virtual MOUT environment. In: Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation Conference (HPSAA II), Daytona, LEA (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Endsley, R.M.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Briñol, P., Petty, R.E.: Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20, 49–96 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kelman, H.C., Hovland, C.I.: Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 48, 327–335 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rhine, R.J., Severance, L.J.: Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16(2), 175–190 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., Leavitt, C.: The persuasive effect of source credibility: tests of cognitive response. J. Consum. Res. 4(4), 252–260 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Consum. Res. 11, 668–672 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., Eagly, A.H.: Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman, J.S., Bargh, J.A. (eds.) Unintended thought, pp. 212–252. Guilford Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., Heier, H.: Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 390–405 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hovland, C.I., Weiss, W.: The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin. Q. 15, 635–650 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Goldman, R.: Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41, 847–855 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kruglanski, A.W., Thompson, E.P.: Persuasion by a single route: a view from the unimodel. Psychol. Inq. 10, 83–110 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    DeBono, K.G., Harnish, R.J.: Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: a functional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55, 541–546 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heesacker, M.H., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Field dependence and attitude change: source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. J. Pers. 51, 653–666 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Priester, J.R., Petty, R.E.: Source attributions and persuasion: perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21(6), 637–654 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chaiken, S., Maheswaran, D.: Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66(3), 460–473 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Briñol, P., Petty, R.E., Tormala, Z.L.: The self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. J. Consum. Res. 30, 559–573 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Need for cognition and advertising: understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 1, 239–260 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Rosa, F., Jousselme, A.-L.: Critical review of uncertainty communication standards in support to maritime situational awareness. Technical report, NATO STO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation, La Spezia (2018)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jousselme, A.-L., Pallotta, G., Locke, J.: A risk game to study the impact of information quality on human threat assessment and decision making. Technical report CMRE-FR-2015-009, NATO STO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation, La Spezia (2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bakker, A.B.: Persuasive communication about AIDS prevention: need for cognition determines the impact of message format. AIDS Educ. Prev. 11(2), 150–162 (1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stephan, J., Brockner, J.: Spaced out in cyberspace?: evaluations of computer-based information. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37, 210–226 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NATO STO Centre for Maritime Research and ExperimentationLa SpeziaItaly
  2. 2.University of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations