Human Self-Assessment Process Theory: An Eight-Factor Model of Human Performance and Learning; and Everyman’s Causation

  • Darwin P. Hunt
  • Michelle R. Sams

Abstract

This chapter focuses and elaborates on an eight-factor model of the processes by which people make decisions and select responses. The model is part of a larger conceptual framework (called human self-assessment process theory) which describes how people might make self-assessments of the state of their own subsystems and how these self-assessments affect their decisions, and the selection and execution of responses. We think the topic, because of its potential use for making predictions and in understanding how and why people behave as they do, is deserving of more systematic consideration than it has received.

An intervening variable approach is employed to explore the development and the effects of associations:
  1. 1.

    Between responses and particular consequences (later events) — called response-consequence associations

     
  2. 2.

    Between perceived situations and later events — called situation-consequence associations

     
  3. 3.

    Between perceived situations and responses — called situation-response associations

     
These associations involve what may be called cause and effect relationships. The condition(s) which a person identifies as the cause(s) is affected by many factors such as (a) the person’s educational and experiential background, (b) the gains and costs related to errors of causal inference, (c) the conditions over which the person has control — called the principle of relativity of causes, (d) human biases exhibited when diagnostic conclusions based on past hypotheses-symptom data are more sure than is warranted, and (e) the necessity that an informational relation exist between two events before a person will form a cause-effect association between them; repeated observation of regularity between events is neither sufficient nor necessary for a person to infer a cause—effect relation.

Keywords

Mold Hunt Dition Shoe 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bobrow, D.G. (1975). Dimensions of representation. In D.G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Bolles, R.C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy and learning. Psychological Review, 79 (5), 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, G. & Ottoson, D. (1986). The perception of exertion in physical work. London: Macmil-lan.Google Scholar
  4. Chaplin, J. P. & Krawiec, T.S. (1968). Systems and theories of psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Collingwood, R.G. (1976). Causation. In M. Brand (Ed.), The nature of causation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  6. Crouse, R.W. (1980). The novelty of human self-assessment: Implications for learning and training. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.Google Scholar
  7. Ducasse, C.J. (1976). Causality: Critique of Hume’s analysis. In M. Brand (Ed.), The nature of causation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fernandez, J. (1982). Self-assessment and decreasing stimulus duration. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.Google Scholar
  10. Gentner D. & Stevens A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W. Jr. & Woodman, R.W. (1983). Organizational behavior ( 3rd ed. ). New York: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes, C.R. (1975). The relationship between self-assessment and response choice during learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.Google Scholar
  13. Hunt, D.P. (1976). The human self-assessment process: Study I. Its accuracy, effects on acquisition and a tentative model (An Interim Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Hunt, D. P. (1977). The human self-assessment process: Study II. The effects of the number of self-assessment categories on acquisition (An Interim Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Hunt, D.P. (1978). A human self-assessment process (A final report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. Hunt, D.P. (1981). A human self-assessment process (Tech. Rep. No. 466 ). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Hunt, D.P. ( 1982 a). Human self-assessment responding: A consideration of the motor component and of the speed and accuracy of self-assessment responding (An Interim Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Hunt, D.P. (1982b). Effects of human self-assessment responding on learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt, D. P. (1984). Human self-assessment and its implications for human training and performance. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Hunt, D.P. (1986). The ability of people to make self-assessments of the state of their own subsystems: Implications and the process. In G. Borg & D. Ottoson (Eds.), The perception of exertion in physical work. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Jagacinski, R.J. & Miller, R. A. (1978). Describing the human operator’s internal model of a dynamic system. Human Factors, 20, 425–433.Google Scholar
  22. Kelley, C.R. (1968). Manual and automatic control: A theory of manual control and its application to manual and to automatic systems. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, R.M. (1976). Attention and movement. In G.E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Rescorla, R.A. (1987). A Pavlovian analysis of goal-directed behavior. American Psychologist, 42, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sams, M. (1986). Effects of testing methods and self-assessment responding on observers and performers. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.Google Scholar
  26. Shurtleff, M. (1987). Training novice troubleshooters to use the half-split rule. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.Google Scholar
  27. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior. American Psychologist, 42, 780–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darwin P. Hunt
  • Michelle R. Sams

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations