Abstract
The main purpose of structural health monitoring (SHM) is to provide accurate and real-time information about the state of a structure, which can be used as objective inputs for decision-making regarding its management. However, SHM and decision-making occur at various stages. SHM assesses the state of a structure based on the acquisition and interpretation of data, which is usually provided by sensors. Conversely, decision-making helps us to identify the optimal management action to undertake. Generally, the research community recognizes people tend to use irrational methods for their interpretation of monitoring data, instead of rational algorithms such as Bayesian inference. People use heuristics as efficient rules to simplify complex problems and overcome the limits in rationality and computation of the human brain. Even though the results are typically satisfactory, they can differ from those derived from a rational process. Many heuristic behaviors have been studied and demonstrated, with applications in various fields such as psychology, cognitive science, economics, and finance, but not yet in SHM-based decision. SHM-based decision-making is particularly susceptible to the representativeness heuristic, where simplified rules for updating probabilities can distort the decision maker’s perception of risk. In this paper, we examine how representativeness affects the interpretation of data, providing a deeper understanding of the differences between a heuristic method affected by cognitive biases and the classical approach. Our study is conducted both theoretically through comparison with formal Bayesian methods as well as empirically through the application to a real-life case study about the evaluation of a bridge safety.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Ass. State Highway and Transportation Off. (1997). AASHTO guide for commonly recognized (CoRe) structural elements. AASHTO, Washington D.C.
Autonomous Province of Trento (2018) www.bms.provincia.tn.it/bms
Barberis N, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1998) A model of investor sentiment. J Financ Econ 49(3):307–343
Bolognani D, Verzobio A, Tonelli D, Cappello C, Glisic B, Zonta D, Quigley J (2018) Quantifying the benefit of structural health monitoring: what if the manager is not the owner? Struct Health Monit 17(6):1393–1409
Bolognani D, Verzobio A, Tonelli D, Cappello C, Zonta D, Glisic B (2017) An application of prospect theory to a SHM-based decision problem. In: Proceedings of SPIE, Portland
Bolstad WM (2010) Understanding computational Bayesian statistics. Wiley, NJ, USA
Bordalo P, Coffman K, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2016) Stereotypes. Quart J Econ 131(4):1753–1794
Cappello C, Zonta D, Glisic B (2016) Expected utility theory for monitoring-based decision-making. Proc IEEE 104(8):1647–1661
Edward W (1968) Conservativism in Human information processing. In: Kleinmuntz B (ed) Formal representation of human judgment. Wiley, New York, pp 17–52
Feigenbaum EA, Feldman J (1963) Computers and thought. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York
Gigerenzer G (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instructuion: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102(4):684–704
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482
Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press
Gong C, Frangopol DM (2020) Condition-based multiobjective maintenance decision making for highway bridges considering risk perceptions. J Struct Eng 146(5)
Grether DM (1980) Bayes rule as a descriptive model: the representativeness heuristic. Quart J Econ 95(3):537–557
Grether DM (1992) Testing Bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: some experimental evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 17(1):31–57
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3:430–454
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5(2):207–232
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80(4):237–251
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292
Melchers RE (1999) Structural reliability: analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester
Neumann JV, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Parmigiani G, Inoue L (2009) Decision theory: principles and approaches. Wiley, Chichester
Raiffa H, Schlaifer R (1961) Applied statistical decision theory. Clinton Press, Boston
Romanycia MH, Pelletier FJ (1985) What is a heuristic? Comput Intell 1(1):47–58
Sivia D, Skilling J (2006) Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tenenbaum JB, Griffiths T (2001) The rational basis of representativeness. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society. 23. Edinburgh: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society
Tonelli D, Verzobio A, Cappello C, Bolognani D, Zonta D, Bursi SO & Costa C (2017) Expected utility theory for monitoring-based decision support system. Stanford, USA, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring
Tonelli D, Verzobio A, Bolognani D, Cappello C, Glisic B, Zonta D, & Quigley J (2018) The conditional value of information of SHM: what if the manager is not the owner?. Proceedings of SPIE, Denver (USA)
Tonge FM (1960) Summary of a heuristic line balancing procedure. Manage Sci 7(1):21–42
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Ser 185:1124–1131
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90(4):293–315
Verzobio A, Bolognani D, Quigley J & Zonta D (2018) The consequences of Heuristic distortions on SHM-based decision problems. Manchester, UK, Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop of Structural Health Monitoring
Verzobio A, Bolognani, D, Zonta D & Quigley J (2019) Quantifying the benefit of structural health monitoring: can the value of information be negative?. Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford (USA)
Verzobio A, El-Awady A, Ponnambalam K, Quigley J & Zonta D (2020, in press): An elicitation process to quantify Bayesian networks for dam failure analysis. Can J Civ Eng. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0089
Zonta D, Glisic B, Adriaenssesns S (2014) Value of information: impact of monitoring on decision-making. Struct Control Health Monit 21:1043–1056
Zonta D, Zandonini R, Bortot F (2007) A reliability-based bridge management concept. Struct Infrastruct Eng 3(3):215–235
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Verzobio, A., Bolognani, D., Quigley, J., Zonta, D. (2021). Consequences of Heuristic Distortions on SHM-Based Decision. In: Rainieri, C., Fabbrocino, G., Caterino, N., Ceroni, F., Notarangelo, M.A. (eds) Civil Structural Health Monitoring. CSHM 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 156. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74258-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74258-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74257-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74258-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)