Search results

In complex environments, the use of technology to enhance the capability of people is commonplace. In rapidly changing and often unpredictable environments, it is not enough that these human-automated “teams” perform well when events go as expected. Instead, the human operators and automated aids must be flexible, capable of responding to rare or unanticipated events. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the Framework of Automation Use (Dzindolet, Beck, Pierce, & Dawe, 2001) as it relates to adaptive automation. Specifically, our objectives are to: (1) examine a number of factors that determine how people can effectively integrate their activities with their machine partners in fluid environments and (2) consider the implications of these findings for future research.

This chapter focuses upon operators' automation usage decisions (AUDs), choices in which people have the option of relying on automation or employing a manual or less technologically advanced means of control. Misuse, the over-utilization of automation, and disuse, the under-utilization of automation, result from inappropriate AUDs. Three causes of misuse and disuse were identified. Operators may: (1) not recognize that both automated and manual alternatives are available (recognition errors), (2) inaccurately estimate the utilities of the automated and/or manual options (appraisal errors), or (3) knowingly select the alternative with the lowest expected outcome (action errors). A decision-making model was used to organize the literature, identify new areas of inquiry, and examine the effects of a number of variables known to affect AUDs. These included machine reliability and consistency, performance feedback, trust in automation, self-confidence in manual control, perceived utility, and the automation bias.

This article reviews the international literature of the last two decades on self‐injurious behaviour in prisons and jails and introduces the risk factors associated with this behaviour. Studies from a variety of countries investigated different samples (e.g. in jails or prisons; female or male inmates). We only chose those studies using a control group of inmates without self‐injurious behaviour. The findings on potential risk factors for self‐injurious behaviour are largely contradictory because of the differences in sample selection and dependent variables (deliberate self‐harm without suicidal intent vs. suicide attempts). We also discuss some methodological problems in predicting self‐injurious behaviour.

The purpose of this article is to outline ways in which the large body of empirical work on creativity can meaningfully inform negotiation. In doing so, two general streams of creativity research and their implications for negotiation theory and empirical analysis are considered. Negotiation pundits advise that negotiators should engage in creative problem-solving to craft integrative agreements, and it is widely believed by both negotiation theorists and practitioners that “out-of-the-box” thinking and creative idea generation are necessary for win–win negotiation. Although practitioners have strongly encouraged parties to engage in creative problem-solving, there are remarkably few empirical investigations of creative thinking, brainstorming and other idea-generation methods in negotiation.

First, creativity as a trait is considered and the relationship between individual differences in creativity and negotiation performance is examined. Then, creative thinking as a causal factor is examined and how it may influence the negotiation process and outcomes is suggested. Finally, three considerations for further integrating creativity and negotiation research are suggested: communication media, idea-generation strategies and morality and social motivation.

A literature review revealed four studies that have empirically tested the influence of trait creativity on negotiation performance. Even less research has manipulated creative thinking or training to analyze creativity as a causal factor of negotiation outcomes.

This research will benefit both creativity and negotiation scholars by suggesting the limited amount of work at their intersection yet the opportunities that exist for further research.