Foundations of Mental Model Research
Foundations of Mental Model Research
复制标题
心智模型研究基础
DOI：
10.1016/0005-1098(85)90102-5
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
N. Rockefeller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
George P. Richardson;D. Andersen;T. Maxwell;T. R. Stewart;N. Rockefeller
洛克菲勒学院正在进行的研究是在一个以计算机为基础的管理实验室中探索受试者管理福利改革的实施的能力。对这类研究设计的反思促使我们发展更坚实的理论基础来指导我们对动态决策心理模型的研究。我们认为心智模型是多方面的，包括专注于目的（目标）、手段（战略、战术、政策杠杆）和它们之间的联系（手段/目的模型）的可区分的子模型。这些区别，再加上布伦瑞克心理学对人类判断的看法，导致了一个丰富的综合理论，感知，规划。在复杂的动态反馈系统中学习。从这一理论中，我们得出的类可检验的研究假设，特别是在动态环境中的决策，“设计逻辑”和“运营商逻辑”的假设，有严重的影响系统动力学的研究和实践。经营者逻辑假设表明，系统干预集中在了解详细的系统结构将几乎没有影响，如果他们没有捕捉到易于消化的块的战略洞察力，管理者可以整合到相对简单的手段-目的协会。心理模型研究的困难是，个人的心理模型可能无法直接得出而不失真。问题的性质和重要性几十年来，旨在提高对政策动态的理解的建模实践，自然地使建模界目前关注心理模型和学习（参见，例如，学习建模，欧洲运筹学杂志特刊59.1（1992））。同样自然的是，系统动力学从业者对心理模型和学习的研究方法都是基于循环因果的。现场的反馈观点。然而，在这样的事业中有一点傲慢，因为1本文的准备部分得到了美国国家科学基金会决策，风险和管理科学计划的支持，资助号为SES-92 1 152 1。心理模型研究的基础第2页建模实践者侵入心理学家，教育研究人员和学习理论家的领域，并希望通过将他们的特殊思维模式应用于长期以来拥有广泛研究传统和文献的现象做出贡献。浏览一下巴肯（Bakken，1993）和坎普曼（Kampmann，1992）的论文参考书目，就会发现这里的学术研究所需要的广泛背景。正是在这种基于模型的研究动态决策中的心理模型的开始，我们发现我们已经打开了我们没有准备好回答的问题。研究小组的跨学科性质（两名受过管理培训的建模者、一名心理学家和一名受过公共行政培训的建模者，他们填补了其他人之间的一些空白）为我们的审议提供了便利。会议为讨论提供了便利。我们应该说。只是有时候：很多时候，我们的不同观点和遇到的困惑导致了曲折复杂的讨论，往往给我们的研究带来了两次飞跃，三次倒退的感觉。从这些讨论中出现了一些不熟悉的概念和原则，我们在这里提出来测试其他人的看法，最终目标是为未来基于模型的心理模型研究和动态决策学习的进展铺平道路。我们解决以下问题：心理模型是多方面的。包括（至少）三个主要部分：端部Brunswikean透镜模型-扩展和改进了模型的经典控制论概念、手段模型和手段/端部模型。“感知状态”的系统，移动系统动力学的连续视图更接近离散的人类决策行为。运营商逻辑和设计逻辑是决策者可能采用的根本不同的手段/目的模型，并且基于要管理的世界的非常不同的观点。心理模型不确定性原则;心理模型不是直接可及的或可观察的：试图引出心理模型会扭曲所引出的内容。在文件中开发的想法导致决策和学习的动态情况下，可以生成命题和指导研究的图片。本文最后提出了这些想法对未来动态决策中心智模型和学习研究的影响。心理模型研究的基础：反馈理论任何反馈思想家对人类决策的看法的核心是经典的控制论循环，涉及系统的状态，感知的状态，目标，计划的行动，最后是影响系统状态的行动，并关闭感知，计划和行动的循环。这个经典循环中的三个概念是心理结构：感知状态，目标。和计划的行动。第四种心理结构是隐含的：系统结构和功能的认知模型或“认知图”2，这引起了严格地说，认知图是系统结构和功能的认知模型的表示，而不是事物本身。我们的结论是，在一个动态的，有计划的行动设置的“心理模型”必须由（至少）这四个要素：意图，感知，系统结构和计划。图1显示了覆盖在心智模型视图上的经典控制论循环。
Ongoing research at the Rockefeller College is exploring the ability of subjects in a computerbased management laboratory to manage the implementation of welfareseform. Reflections on the design of such research have pushed us to develop a firmer theoretical foundation to guide our research on mental models in dynamic decision making. We posit that mental models are multifaceted, including distinguishable submodels focused on ends (goals), means (strategies, tactics, policy levers) and connections between them (the means/ends model). These distinctions, coupled with a view of human judgment from Brunswikean psychology, lead to a rich integrated theory of perception, planning. action, and learning in complex dynamic feedback systems. From that theory we derive classes of testable research hypotheses about decision making in dynamic environments in particular, ”design logic” and “operator logic” hypotheses that have serious implications for system dynamics research and practice. The operator logic hypothesis suggests that systems interventions focused on understanding detailed system structure will have little impact if they are not captured in easy-to-digest chunks of strategic insight that managers can integrate into relatively simple means-ends associations. Compounding the difficulties of mental model research is the likelihood that individuals’ mental models can not be directly elicited without distortion. The nature and importance of the problem Decades of modeling practice aimed at improving understandings of policy dynamics have led the modeling community naturally to a current focus on mental models and learning (see, e.g. Modelling for Learning, special issue of the European Journal of Operational Research 59.1 (1992)). It is also natural that the approaches system dynamics practitioners have taken to research on mental models and learning have been grounded in the circular causal. feedback perspective of the field. There is a touch of hubris in such undertakings, however, as 1 Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Decision, Risk, and Management Science Program) under grant no. SES-92 1 152 1. Foundations of Mental Model Research Page 2 modeling practitioners invade the domain of psychologists, education researchers and learning theorists and hope to make contributions by applying their special patterns of thought to phenomena long blessed with an extensive research tradition and literature. A glance at the bibliographies of the dissertations of Bakken (1993) and Kampmann (1992) shows the large background required for well grounded scholarship here. I t was in the beginnings of such model-based research on mental models in dynamic decision making that we found we had opened questions we were not well prepared to answer. Our deliberations were facilitated by the interdisciplinary nature of the research team (two management-trained modelers, one psychologist, and one public administration-trained modeler who bridged some of the gaps among the others). The discussions were facilitated. we should say. only sometimes: many times our diverse points of view and the puzzles we encountered led to tortuously intricate discussions that frequently gave our research the feeling of two leaps forward, three steps back. Several unfamiliar concepts and principles emerged from these deliberations, which we put forward here to test against others' perceptions, with the ultimate goal of smoothing the way for future progress in model-based research on mental models and learning in dynamic decision making. We address the following ideas: Mental models are multifaceted. comprising (at least) three main components: an ends The Brunswikean lens model-extends and improves the classic cybernetic concept of the model, a means model, and a mean/ends model. "perceived state" of the system, moving the system dynamicist's continuous view closer to discrete human decision-making behavior. Operator logic and des ign logic are fundamentally different means/ends models that decision-makers may employ and are grounded in very different views of the world to be managed. The mental model uncertainly principle; mental models are not directly accessible or observable: efforts to elicit mental models distort what is elicited. The ideas developed in the paper lead to a picture of decision making and learning in dynamic situations that can generate propositions and guide research. The paper concludes with the implications of these ideas for future research on mental models and learning in dynamic decision making. Foundations for mental model research: feedback theory At the heart of any feedback thinker's view of human decision making is the classic cybernetic loop involving the state of the system, the perceived state, goals, planned action, and, finally, action affecting the state of the system and closing the loop of perception, planning, and action. Three of the concepts in this classic loop are mental constructs: the perceived state, goals. and the planned action. A fourth mental construct is implicit: the cognitive model or "cognitive map"2 of the ways the system is structured and functions, which gives rise to Strictly speaking, a cognitive map is a representation of a cognitive model of system structure and function, not the thing itself, Foundations of Mental Model Research Page 3 selected plans of action. We conclude that a “mental model” in a dynamic, planned action setting must be composed of (at least) these four elements: intentions, perceptions, system structures, and plans. Figure 1 shows the classic cybernetic loop overlaid on this view of mental models.
非经验性思考
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
Philosopher
影响因子：
--
作者：
川瀬 雅也;米虫 正巳;村松 正隆;伊原木 大祐;Andrew OBERG
通讯作者：
Andrew OBERG