IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3325-d1067796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Presentation Frames of Visualization Information for Safety on Situational Awareness under a Three-Level User-Interface Design

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaofang Yuan

    (School of Management, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China
    Research Center for Human Factors and Management Ergonomics, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Jing Yan

    (School of Management, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China
    Research Center for Human Factors and Management Ergonomics, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Linhui Sun

    (School of Management, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China
    Research Center for Human Factors and Management Ergonomics, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Fangming Cheng

    (School of Safety Science and Engineering, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Zigu Guo

    (School of Management, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China
    Research Center for Human Factors and Management Ergonomics, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

  • Hongzhi Yu

    (School of Management, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China
    Research Center for Human Factors and Management Ergonomics, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an 710054, China)

Abstract

To explore the influence of the construction and presentation frames of visualization information for safety (VIS) on people’s situation awareness (SA), we designed a three-level user interface (UI) of VIS based on the three-stage SA theory, including perception (SA1), comprehension (SA2), and projection (SA3). Then, 166 subjects were recruited and divided into three groups to participate in the experiment, in which SA was measured by the situation-present-assessment method (SPAM) and situation-awareness-rating technique (SART), and eye-movement data were recorded. The results show that the level−3 UI design could effectively improve the subjects’ SA levels. Although the increase in VIS displayed caused by the higher UI level led to a decrease in the perception-stage score of SA, the level−3 UI fully considered the three stages of human information processing, and helped improve the SA of the subjects; the overall SA score measured using the SART method was not significant, but the result was consistent with the SPAM. There was a framing effect on the presentation of VIS, and subjects perceived different degrees of risk under different presentation frames; that is, less risk under the positive frame, more risk under the negative frame, and a higher level of SA under the positive frame compared with the negative frame. To some extent, the nearest-neighbor-index (NNI) algorithm could be utilized to quantify subjects’ eye-tracking fixation mode. While the frames were guided by the high-level interface and the positive presentation frame, the distribution of the subjects’ gaze points was more discrete; they could grasp the relevant information more comprehensively and had a relatively high level of SA. To some extent, this study can provide a reference for the design and optimization of the VIS presentation interface.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaofang Yuan & Jing Yan & Linhui Sun & Fangming Cheng & Zigu Guo & Hongzhi Yu, 2023. "The Influence of Presentation Frames of Visualization Information for Safety on Situational Awareness under a Three-Level User-Interface Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3325-:d:1067796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3325/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3325/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Crystal C. & Ariss, Lynn & Todorov, Alexander, 2007. "The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 277-290, July.
    2. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    3. Linhui Sun & Zigu Guo & Xiaofang Yuan & Xinping Wang & Chang Su & Jiali Jiang & Xun Li, 2022. "An Investigation of the Effects of Brain Fatigue on the Sustained Attention of Intelligent Coal Mine VDT Operators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Fagley, N. S. & Miller, Paul M., 1997. "Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 355-373, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    2. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:110-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Diacon, Stephen & Hasseldine, John, 2007. "Framing effects and risk perception: The effect of prior performance presentation format on investment fund choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 31-52, January.
    6. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    7. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    8. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:6:p:435-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Renata M. Heilman & Petko Kusev & Mircea Miclea & Joseph Teal & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Are Impulsive Decisions Always Irrational? An Experimental Investigation of Impulsive Decisions in the Domains of Gains and Losses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Avineri, Erel & Owen D. Waygood, E., 2013. "Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-38.
    12. Rahman, Arifur & Crouch, Geoffrey I. & Laing, Jennifer H., 2018. "Tourists' temporal booking decisions: A study of the effect of contextual framing," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 55-68.
    13. Jonathan Corbin & Todd McElroy & Cassie Black, 2010. "Memory reflected in our decisions: Higher working memory capacity predicts greater bias in risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 110-115, April.
    14. Monika Buetler & Michel André Maréchal, 2007. "Framing Effects in Political Decision Making: Evidence from a Natural Voting Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 1940, CESifo.
    15. Suzanne Bartholomae & D. Elizabeth Kiss & Jesse B. Jurgenson & Barbara O’Neill & Sheri Lokken Worthy & Jinhee Kim, 2019. "Framing the Human Capital Investment Decision: Examining Gender Bias in Student Loan Borrowing," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 132-145, March.
    16. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    17. Linda Thunström, 2020. "Thoughts and prayers – Do they crowd out charity donations?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 1-28, February.
    18. Mandel, David R., 2001. "Gain-Loss Framing and Choice: Separating Outcome Formulations from Descriptor Formulations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 56-76, May.
    19. Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy A., 2003. "Framing, gender and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, August.
    20. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    21. Aman, Hiroyuki & Motonishi, Taizo & Ogawa, Kazuhito & Omori, Kozo, 2024. "The effect of financial literacy on long-term recognition and short-term trade in mutual funds: Evidence from Japan," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PB), pages 762-783.
    22. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3325-:d:1067796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.