IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v92y2007i8p1061-1075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Y.H.J.
  • Mosleh, A.

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of five papers describing the Information, Decision, and Action in Crew context (IDAC) operator response model for human reliability analysis. An example application of this modeling technique is also discussed in this series. The model has been developed to probabilistically predicts the responses of a nuclear power plant control room operating crew in accident conditions. The operator response spectrum includes cognitive, emotional, and physical activities during the course of an accident. This paper assesses the effects of the performance-influencing factors (PIFs) affecting the operators’ problem-solving responses including information pre-processing (I), diagnosis and decision making (D), and action execution (A). Literature support and justifications are provided for the assessment on the influences of PIFs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1061-1075.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:92:y:2007:i:8:p:1061-1075
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832006001244
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothstein, Howard G., 1986. "The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 83-92, February.
    2. Einhorn, Hj & Hogarth, Rm, 1981. "Behavioral Decision-Theory - Processes Of Judgment And Choice," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31.
    3. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    4. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    2. Christina Fang & Daniel Levinthal, 2009. "Near-Term Liability of Exploitation: Exploration and Exploitation in Multistage Problems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 538-551, June.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    5. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    6. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    7. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Christian Kaiser, 2007. "The effect of product variety on purchase probability," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 111-131, August.
    8. Carl Joachim Kock, 2005. "When the Market Misleads: Stock Prices, Firm Behavior, and Industry Evolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 637-660, December.
    9. Wüstemann, Jens, 2004. "Evaluation and Response to Risk in International Accounting and Audit Systems: Framework and German Experiences," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-20, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    10. Anna Grandori, 2010. "A rational heuristic model of economic decision making," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(4), pages 477-504, November.
    11. Stingl, Verena & Geraldi, Joana, 2021. "A research agenda for studying project decision-behaviour through the lenses of simple heuristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    13. Alex Mintz & Steven B. Redd & Arnold Vedlitz, 2006. "Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 757-776, October.
    14. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E., 2001. "Does Time Constraint on Users Negate the Efficacy of Decision Support Systems?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 226-249, July.
    15. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "On heuristic and linear models of judgment: Mapping the demand for knowledge," Economics Working Papers 974, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    16. Karaliopoulos, Merkouris & Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos & Lambrinos, Lambros, 2017. "Bounded rationality can make parking search more efficient: The power of lexicographic heuristics," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 28-50.
    17. Yulian Ding & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2012. "The influence of attribute cutoffs on consumers' choices of a functional food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(5), pages 745-769, December.
    18. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-320.
    19. Víctor Alberto Pena & Alina Gómez-Mejía, 2019. "Effect of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and optimism bias in stock market forecasts," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(2), pages 389-409, November.
    20. S. Iglesias-Parro & E.I. De la Fuente & A.R. Ortega, 2002. "The effect of context variables on cognitive effort in multiattribute binary choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 101-125, March.
    21. Weber, Elke U., 1989. "A Behavioral Approach To Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Implications And Lessons For Expected Utility Theory," 1989 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, April 9-12, 1989, Sanibel Island, Florida 271520, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:92:y:2007:i:8:p:1061-1075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.