Promoting learning, memory, and transfer in a time-constrained, high hazard environment

Two methods of metacognitive reflection for promoting compliance with an aviation safety rule were tested in a transfer design. Two groups of pilots (n = 10) conducted a simulated flight entailing a search for a target on the ground. During this flight, only 35% of the pilots stayed above an altitude of 500 ft, the minimum allowed by relevant regulations. Following the flight, one group completed a self-explanation questionnaire, in which they explained their actions during the initial flight and what they would do in future flights. The other group completed a relapse-prevention questionnaire, in which they identified the circumstances leading to safety lapses and their future avoidance. A third group (n = 10) formed a rest control; they conducted a familiarization flight without a ground target or debriefing. One week later, all pilots conducted a series of test flights with the same or different ground targets as the initial flight. The self-explanation group showed 100% compliance when the ground target remained the same, but less so (<70%) when the ground target was different. The relapse-prevention group and control groups both showed low levels of compliance across all test flights (<30%). The results are discussed from theoretical and applied perspectives.     

Effects of individual differences in working memory on performance and trust with various degrees of automation

Previous studies showed performance benefits with correct automation, but performance costs when the automation was incorrect (i.e. provided an incorrect course of action), particularly as degrees of automation increased. Automation researchers have examined individual differences, but have not investigated the relationship between working memory and performance with various degrees of automation that is both correct and incorrect. In the current study, working memory ability interacted with automation reliability and degree of automation. Higher degrees of correct automation helped performance while higher degrees of incorrect automation worsened performance, especially for those with lower working memory. Lower working memory was also associated with more trust in automation. Results illustrate the interaction between degree of automation and individual differences in working memory on performance with automation that is correct and automation that fails.