Humans as Information

Processors
Information systems are
designed, of course, to be used
by us humans. It's important,
therefore, to understand
generally how most of us
process and interpret
information.
INTRODUCTION

For many if not most systems, interfaces with human users

likely represent the most success-critical components. The
interface, to the user, is the system. Management
information and decision support systems require regular
interaction between the system and decision makers, its
users. The information system design, especially with
respect to its user interface, often dictates how a great
deal of the work of an organization will be performed, the
order of task performance, and the importance of individual
tasks. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the interface in
structuring, facilitating, and supporting the work of the
organization will affect the achievement of organizational
objectives. To understand good system design
characteristics, it is important to understand how humans
process information.
Two model frameworks, a general model and the Newell-
Simon model of the human as an information processor,
may be helpful in understanding the concept. Tentative
limits on human information processing capabilities and
the relationship between information and performance,
along with related concepts and research from other
fields, may provide additional insight.
HUMAN AS INFORMATION PROCESSOR - GENERIC
MODEL

A human as an information processor may be represented

by a simple model in which the senses (sight, hearing, etc.)
are receptors that pick up signals and transmit them to the
brain (processing unit with storage). After processing, the
person produces output responses (physical actions,
speech, etc.).
A human's ability to accept inputs and produce responses is
limited;
when the capacity is exceeded,
information overload may negatively affect response and
performance. 
A person often receives more input than s/he is capable of
accepting and processing, resulting in a need to manage
the quantity of input to prevent information overload. A
common way to do this is to use a filtering or selection
process to block some inputs. Typical filtering may be
based on the person's frame of reference (based on
experience and knowledge), normal decision procedures,
or stress in the decision situation. Deadlines, for example,
may be stressful and force a manager to focus on only the
most important decision inputs, filtering out lesser ones.
Frame of reference filtering occurs with both input and
processing; using experience often consists of using filters
that have worked well in the past. The brain, over time,
categorizes and patterns data, which becomes a part of
how the person develops understanding of an event or
situation. These patterns or frames of reference then help
reduce processing and input requirements. Effective use of
frames of reference accumulated over a long period of
time is an element of expertise.
Data inconsistent with a frame of reference are blocked
by the filtering process. In combination with human input
receptor limitations, this may lead to perceptual errors
(e.g., distortions, inferences, and omissions) which
reduce information by increasing uncertainty. Anyone
who has ever had a message misunderstood can relate
to this issue.
Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon (1972) developed a human
problem solving model. In effect, this particular model uses a
computer problem-solving analogy. The figure below compares the
Newell-Simon model of information processing with a general model
of a computer system.

The Newell-Simon Model of humans as information processors

The components of a human information processing
system are a processor, sensory input, motor output, and
three different memories: long-term memory (LTM), short-
term memory (STM), and external memory (EM). Humans
process information serially, only one task at a time.
Computers, on the other hand, may use either serial or
parallel (more than one task at a time) processing.
Operation Serial Design  Parallel Design

Data Data transferred a Data transferred a word at

transfer  bit at a time.  a time (e.g., 32 bits). 
Arithmetic One adder- One adder-comparator for
on one comparator. each set of bits.
data item  Operations on pairs Operations on all pairs of
of bits from right tobits simultaneously. 
left. 
Processing One processor. CPU consists of several
of several Processing of one small processors. Several
data item at a time.  items processed
items  concurrently. 
How can humans work on more than one task at a time,
as many apparently do? They probably accomplish it by
rapidly switching from one quick task to another. Humans
may also use pattern matching. Have you ever read a job
ad that said "Must be capable of multitasking." ?
In the Newell-Simon model, the long-term memory has
essentially unlimited capacity. Its content consists of
symbols and structures of chunks, or units of stored
information. Short-term memory is very small, capable of
holding only a few symbols, and is part of the processor.
Quick read and write times are characteristic of short term
memory. The computer analogy is RAM registers which
temporarily hold data. External memory involves external
media (notebook, chalkboard, etc.); it compensates for
limited short term memory and is fairly efficient to bridge
long and short term memory.
In the Newell-Simon model, the task environment is the
problem as it is presented; the problem space is the way a
particular problem solver defines the task. In other words,
confronted by a problem, the problem solver develops a
model to use in working on the problem, or a conceptual
"space" where problem solving takes place. Thus the
problem space, while necessarily related to the task
environment, is not identical to it.

Problem solving thus consists of developing a problem

space from the task environment and then performing
processing operations within the problem space until a
solution is found. The structure in the problem space, as
defined by the problem solver, includes some redundancy,
helping predict aspects of another part of the problem
space; this generally makes for a more efficient process.
As previously discussed, many decisions are made in
accordance with the descriptive (satisficing) model rather
than the normative (optimizing) model. Instead of always
using an objective or algorithmic reasoning process, many
decision makers utilize judgmental rules of thumb known as
heuristics which simplify the search process by eliminating
alternatives without explaining them. The use of heuristics
can be both efficient and effective if the decision maker has
sufficient experience and judgment. It is also true,
unfortunately, that heuristics are often used in ways that
result in poor decisions.
A related concept is that of bounded rationality. Because of
normal human limitations on rational thinking, we often
simplify a problem in order to be able to understand and deal
with it; even though our decisions with respect to the
simplified problem may be rational, it is not necessarily true
that the same decisions are rational with respect to the real
problem. In addition to human limitations on processing
capacities, bounded rationality also results from individual
differences in such factors as age, education, cultural
background, and attitude. One characteristic of a successful
problem solver is adequate ability to define problem space
(i.e., set boundaries).
Human limitations, especially as related to heuristics,
includes short term memory limitations, inability to detect
differences, and inability to deal with probabilistic data.
Miller (1956) suggested "the magical number seven, plus or
minus two" as describing the limitation on short-term
memory. His results and others indicate that humans can
generally hold only five to nine symbols or "chunks" of
information in short-term memory. These limits are
especially important with respect to human processing of
codes, quantities, and other single-symbol data. Graphic
information, "pre-chunked" as it is, can permit humans to
process more information at a time.
The tasks of those who use information often include error detection
(noticing differences between incorrect and correct data) and reacting to
variations in data. According to Weber's law, the difference noticeable by
most humans is a constant proportion (or percentage) of the physical
dimensions of a stimulus. In other words, as the dimensions change,
the amount of change required to be noticeable also changes (to stay a
constant percentage of the dimension). If a person notices a 1-pound
increase in a 5-pound weight, s/he will notice a 2-pound increase in a
10-pound weight. The difference required to distinguish among heavier
objects is larger, but the relative or proportional difference is the same.
Research results indicate that Weber's law holds true for processing
data. A variation from total revenues of $100,000 on budget of
$1,000,000 appears to have the same "noticeability" (10%) as a
variation in indirect costs of $4,700 on a budget of $47,000. An everyday
example is the lack of public acceptance of the Anthony dollar; although
many countries have similar-sized coins of differing denominations, its
size was just too close to that of a quarter for us to use it.
According to Wright (1980) and others, humans do not have
good intuition in assessing probabilities of various events.
Decision makers are often called upon to identify correlation
and causality; people often observe dependencies between
two variables and conclude erroneously that there is an
association when in fact there is not. A number of biases
may cause errors in estimating probabilities. These may be
based on availability (events easily remembered or imagined
are assigned higher probabilities), recency (recent results
given greater weight), and/or hindsight (people who are told
that an outcome has happened in the past give it a higher
probability than those without the information).
Concreteness and anchoring and adjustment are
examples of strategies or biases adopted by people to help
deal with their processing limitations. Concreteness means
that a decision maker tends to use information that is readily
available and only in the form in which it is presented, and
tends not to search stored data or manipulate data
presented. For example, suppose you supervise an
employee whose actual job performance is difficult to
objectively measure. What you do (concretely) know is that
the employee in question has an erratic attendance record,
has received a disciplinary warning, and was fired from a
previous job. Using concreteness, you are likely to give the
known factors greater weight than they deserve because
you have little information on more important aspects of the
person's work. Teachers write words on a chalkboard or
project images on a screen because doing so make them
more concrete to a class.
Anchoring and adjustment means that individuals often
make judgments by establishing an anchor point and
making adjustments from this point, thus reducing
information processing requirements. Though often used in
such activities as pricing and budgeting, it has the problems
of overemphasizing recent results or decisions (thus
underemphasizing new results or ideas) and overstating the
value of the anchor point, which may have been chosen
using inappropriate, or arbitrary criteria. Even if it was
appropriate when chosen, environmental conditions on
which it was based may have changed such that it is no
longer useful. If last year's advertising budget was based on
optimism and this year's is based on a percentage increase,
it is not necessarily true that last year's optimism should or
does still prevail.
COGNITION

An area of psychological research, human cognition, helps

explain how information systems can improve human
capabilities. Cognition refers to "the activities by which an
individual resolves differences between an internalized view
of the environment and what is actually perceived in that
same environment." (Zmud, 1979) Cognitive models are
representations of cognitive processes (e.g., the Newell-
Simon (1972) model, Festinger's (1957) Theory of Cognitive
Dissonance).
Cognitive style is a term used for the the process by
which humans organize and modify information as they
make decisions. McKinney and Keen (1974) suggested
two dimensions - information gathering (organization of
stimuli) and information evaluation (how information is
analyzed). Individuals ware classified on the information
gathering dimension along a continuum ranging form
perceptive (generalization is made from relationships
among data items) to receptive (specific knowledge is
developed from details in the data). Classification on the
information evaluation dimension is based on a
continuum ranging from systematic (analytic) to intuitive
(heuristic). A systematic decision maker uses structure
and deduces conclusions to solve problems, while an
intuitive decision maker uses trial and error or reacts to
new information.
Are you a visualizer or a verbalizer?

Since most information system designers are often systematic in their

approaches to decision making, managers who are also systematic
will find satisfaction using such a system. For a heuristic decision
maker, on the other hand, an effective information system must be
different, allowing for more alternatives, allow modification of
processing order, and offer options with respect to level of detail
presented and form of output. Since many individuals, however, are
both systematic and heuristic as well as adaptable, the importance of
this issue may not be great. A well-known humorous (though perhaps
factual) example is that women read maps and ask for directions
(systematic) while men drive until they find the right place, often
getting lost!
Neuropsychology suggests that biological differences in brain
hemisphere dominance may explain different approaches to problem
solving (e.g., Robey and Taggart, 1982), with the left side of the brain
used for rational or analytic processing and the right side for intuitive
or creative processing. While each of us should be good at both
types (assuming both halves of our brain are equally effective), we
each have a different set of experiences which lead us to prefer to
use one half of the brain over the other. We do, however, tend to
"use what we have," and therefore we should be able to adapt to an
information system that does not accommodate our processing
preference. But if a person performs better using one type of
processing, failure to provide an information system that allows the
person to use his or her strength may hinder organizational goal
achievement and/or result in inaccurate performance evaluation.
HCI: HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION RESEARCH

The relatively new and rapidly developing field of human-computer

interaction studies numerous aspects of hardware and software design as
they relate to the human-computer interface, especially in the workplace.
Some samples of research and academic programs at a number of
universities include those at Cornell, Uppsala (Sweden), Carnegie Mellon,
Binghamton, and Stanford. A brief history of the field may be examined
here (from Carnegie-Mellon). HCI, as it's called, has in addition to degree
programs its own journal, a number of institutes, numerous laboratories,
and library databases. HCI is much broader than the scope of this course,
but some aspects of it are quite relevant to the study of management
information systems and technology management.
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Humans have a psychological need for feedback to be

assured that output was received or that input was
accepted. System design considerations for system
feedback response include data entry speed and accuracy.
In addition, people seem to attach a psychological value
to unused data; it's very common for today's managers to
accumulate and store of a great deal of data that will never
be used. This can be uneconomical for several reasons.
Decision makers seem to have greater confidence when
they have "extra" information and to see a symbolic value to
having lots of information at their disposal (i.e., it symbolizes
rational decision making).
The previously mentioned problem of information overload
has been made worse by dramatic reductions in costs with
concurrent increases in processing speed, storage capacity,
and communications capability. Where possible, systems
should be designed to reduce the quantity of information
(e.g., by filtering and summarizing) to counteract managers'
natural inclination to prefer and to accumulate more
information when they can do so. Studies have shown that
managers given summarized information generally make
better and more consistent decisions, but tend to be less
confident in them.
Individual differences affect how decision makers use
systems as well as how satisfied they are with system
performance. Ideally, systems should be designed to
accommodate these differences. As an economic and
practical matter, however, individually tailored systems are
not always possible.
Differences  Relationship with Information Processing

Locus of control (internal- Internal locus of control:  more search activity than external (Lefcourt,
external)  1972; Phares, 1976). 
Dogmatism (low-high)  Low dogmatism: more search activity, more deliberation, and less
confidence in decisions (Lambert & Durand, 1977; Long & Ziller, 1965;
Taylor & Dunnette, 1974). 
Risk-taking propensity (low-high)High risk-taking propensity: more search activity than low  (Taylor &
Dunnette, 1974).
Extroversion-introversion  Extroverts: quicker retrieval from long-term memory, better short-term
retention, and less long-term retention than introverts (Eysenick, 1977). 
Tolerance for ambiguity (low- Lower tolerance for ambiguity: preference for concrete information,
high)  perception that more information will be valuable (Dermer, 1973). 
Intelligence (low-high)  High intelligence: faster information processing, faster decisions, better
information selection, better retention, better internal organization of
information (Taylor & Dunnette, 1974; Hunt & Lansman, 1975). 
Quantitative abilities (low-high)  High quantitative abilities: more use of short- term memory, less use of
long-term memory (Hunt & Lansman, 1975). 
Verbal abilities (low-high)  High verbal abilities: better short-term memory (Hunt, Frost, and
Lunnebourg, 1973). 
Experience in decision making  Experience: better information selection, less effective integration, greater
flexibility, and less confidence (Taylor & Dunnette, 1974). 
Task knowledge (low-high)  High task knowledge: less information search (Benbasat & Schroeder,
1978). 
Age  Older subjects: more information search, better information selection,
more flexibility, and slower decision making (Taylor, 1975; Taylor &
Dunnette, 1974; Eysenck, 1977). 
Management Level  High management level: quicker decisions (Taylor, 1975). 
IS DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

Filtering: Information systems should be designed to filter irrelevant

data and to provide increased filtering for stress decisions.
Systems: should attempt to override undesirable frame-of-reference
filters by reinforced display of relevant data.
Newell-Simon model: Information systems should assist in defining
problem space and in the search process for a solution. The information
format should attempt to expand the limits of bounded rationality.
Systems should utilize the user memory that is suited to the task.
Magical number 7 + 2: Codes for human use should not exceed five to
seven symbols or be divided into segments of five or less. Systems
should not have humans do significant, unaided processing. Graphics
may be used to present "chunks" of data in an efficient way.
Just noticeable differences: Systems should highlight significant
differences rather than assuming humans will notice them.
Humans as intuitive statisticians: The information system should
provide statistical analysis of data: sample variance, correlation,
probability estimates, etc. Decision algorithms should provide a
consistency check
Bias of various information sources: Data generation procedures
should be designed to assist in eliminating bias such as recency of
events.
Concreteness: The information needed should be presented in the form
needed. No added processing should be required.
Anchoring and adjustment: Information and decision systems should
be designed to assist in selecting a suitable anchor point and for
prompting adequate adjustments from it.
Cognitive style: Where possible, systems should allow selection of
alternatives for order of right brain-left brain processing and forms of
information presentation in order to accommodate different styles.
Feedback: Systems should provide feedback to indicate that data has
been received, processing is taking place, etc. Response times should
be such that throughput is meaningful and errors are minimized.
Value of unused data: Explains some of pressure for data with no
apparent utility. Suggests storage and retrieval strategies and terminal
access to increase availability without individual storage.
Information overload: Input should be kept below the overload point.
System use should not involve managing or processing amounts of
data beyond overload.
Individual differences: Those which are critical to system use should
be identified and differences explicitly accommodated, whenever
possible, through a flexible interface.
Processing timing: Managers need short bursts of information
processing to support their mode of operation.
Amount of information: Information systems should present
summarized data in a compressed decision-impelling format, but the
system should also allow browsing through the raw data.