Decision paths in complex tasks

Abstract

Complex real world action and its prediction and control has escaped analysis by the classical methods of psychological research. The reason is that psychologists have no procedures to parse complex tasks into their constituents. Where such a division can be made, based say on expert judgment, there is no natural scale to measure the positive or negative values of the components. Even if we could assign numbers to task parts, we lack rules i.e., a theory, to combine them into a total task representation. We compare here two plausible theories for the amalgamation of the value of task components. Both of these theories require a numerical representation of motivation, for motivation is the primary variable that guides choice and action in well-learned tasks. We address this problem of motivational quantification and performance prediction by developing psychophysical scales of the desireability or aversiveness of task components based on utility scaling methods (Galanter 1990). We modify methods used originally to scale sensory magnitudes (Stevens and Galanter 1957), and that have been applied recently to the measure of task 'workload' by Gopher and Braune (1984). Our modification uses utility comparison scaling techniques which avoid the unnecessary assumptions made by Gopher and Braune. Formula for the utility of complex tasks based on the theoretical models are used to predict decision and choice of alternate paths to the same goal.