Modeling Users of Crisis Training Environments by Integrating Psychological and Physiological Data

  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Rita D’Amico
  • Marco Pagani
  • Lorenza Tiberio
  • Riccardo De Benedictis
  • Giulio Bernardi
  • Amedeo Cesta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6704)

Abstract

This paper describes aspects of a training environment for crisis decision makers who, notoriously, operate in highly stressful and unpredictable situations. Training such decision makers is the goal of Pandora-Box, a system which is able to teach a class of trainees representing different authorities that coordinate their interventions in critical situations. This paper dwells on the selection and modeling of the relevant human features that are shown to have an influence in decision making under crisis. The chosen features are used to create a trainee model on the basis of which the system adjusts the training exercises with the ultimate goal of maximizing the effectiveness of training. Trainees models are built by merging physiological and psychological data, and are represented by means of a timeline-based approach, a representation derived from planning technology. The infrastructure built for the trainee modeling constitutes the basis to assess the influence of specific variables (e.g., personality traits, self efficacy, stress and anxiety) on the performance of crisis managers during the training.

Keywords

Cognitive Model Training Psychological and Physiological Data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, C., Pittinsky, T., Sommer, S., Zhu, W.: Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a crisis: The C-LEAD Scale. Technical report, HKS faculty research Working Paper Series (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wooten, L.P., James, E.H.: Linking crisis management and leadership competencies: The role of human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(3), 352–379 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoemberg, A.: Do crisis plans matter: A new perspective on leading during a crisis. Public Relations Quarterly 22, 640–657 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Funder, D.C.: The personality puzzle, 4th edn. Norton, NewYork (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R.: The NEO Personality Inventory (revised) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Northouse, G.: Leadership theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage publication, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bales, R.F.: Task roles and social roles in problem solving groups. In: Macoby, E.E., Newcomb, T.M. (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bandura, A.: Social foundations of thought and actions. A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salas, E., Driskell, J., Hughs, S.: The study of stress and human performance. In: Driskell, J., Salas, E. (eds.) Stress and Human Performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McQuiggan, S., Mott, B., Lester, J.C.: Modeling Self-Efficacy in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: An Inductive Approach. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 18, 81–123 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pittinsky, T., Hadley, C., Sommer, S.: Measuring the Efficacy of Leaders to Assess Information and Make Decisions in a Crisis: The C-LEAD Scale. Technical report, Center for Public Leadership (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klann, G.: Crisis Leadership. Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paglis, L., Green, S.: Leadership Self-Efficacy and Managers’ Motivations for Leading Change. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23, 215–235 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stajkovic, A., Luthans, F.: Self-efficacy and work related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124, 240–261 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dickerson, S.S., Kemeny, M.E.: Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin 130, 355–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muscettola, N.: HSTS: Integrating Planning and Scheduling. In: Zweben, M., Fox, M.S. (eds.) Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Rita D’Amico
    • 1
  • Marco Pagani
    • 1
  • Lorenza Tiberio
    • 1
  • Riccardo De Benedictis
    • 1
  • Giulio Bernardi
    • 1
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, ISTCRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations