October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

neglect, or perceive as unimportant, information critical to the analysis. Mental models contribute to a cognitive bias
called confirmation bias.
Wason (1960) defined the phenomenon of confirmation bias as people’s tendency to seek evidence in support of
their assumptions instead of searching for evidence that challenges their assumptions. When a person contemplates
concepts or verifies assumptions, a variety of biased tendencies have been described. A person may tend to treat
evidence supporting existing beliefs more favorably than is objectively appropriate. A person confronted with a body
of information may “see” exactly the effect that the person set out to find (Russo, Medvec, & Meloy, 1996). A
person may tend to pass along information that is congruent to their beliefs (Heath, 1996). In short, the problem is
that “decision-makers seek confirmatory evidence and do not search for disconfirming information” (Arnott, 2006, p.
60). The consequence of overweighting some evidence and underweighting other evidence is reaching a wrong
conclusion. Confirmation bias is observed to be an exceptionally problematic aspect of human reasoning (Nickerson,
1998). How then might the design of a DSS compensate for this cognitive bias?
Mental models and learning
Based on mental models and learning theory (e.g., Gagne, 1977; Norman 1982; Piaget 1954), Vandenbosch and
Higgins (1994) argue that mental models are closely connected to learning. Mental models direct the informationgathering
process and limit the process. Reflexively, the information gathered has the potential to change mental
models, confirm them, enhance them, change them, and reinforce them. Vandenbosch and Higgins (1994) state that
the gathered information impacts mental models through two different processes: mental-model maintenance and
mental-model building. Mental-model maintenance occurs when new information fits easily into existing mental
models. Mental-model building occurs when new information from newly perceived situations and environments
provokes a person to change existing mental models.
The connection between mental models and learning is amplified by Vandebosch and Higgins (1994) with their
comparison of mental models to theories found in the management discipline. First among these theories is Argyris
and Schön’s (1978) organizational learning theory of single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning
represents the learning that takes place when existing routines guide the problem-solving process. Double-loop
learning represents the challenging of existing routines and the need to restructure existing norms and assumptions.
These two ways of learning are similar to the learning that is explained by the use of mental models. In terms of
mental models, single-loop learning maps to mental-model maintenance, both of which pertain to the confirmation
and disconfirmation of new information when compared to an existing, stable theory. Double-loop learning maps to
mental-model building, both of which represent a potential change in foundations of how learning is achieved.
Vandenbosch and Higgins (1994) also draw parallels between mental models and another theory, March’s (1991)
theory of exploitation and exploration learning. Exploitation is the act of enhancing performance by improving
current practices. Exploration is the act of enhancing performance by introducing new practices. Exploitation
represents mental-model maintenance as one attempts to reinforce current mental models by adding new constructs
or building new links between existing constructs. Exploration represents the mental-model building process as one
attempts to reconstruct the model completely (March, 1991). These management theories, because they include both
the learning of individuals and the collective of individuals (i.e., the organization as a whole) may not be fully
applicable to the individual learning considered in this research. However, in as much as they are found to model
individual learning, these theories are useful because they are congruent with our understanding of the maintenance
and building of mental models.
Of the two approaches described, mental-model maintenance and mental-model building, the one more likely to
happen is mental-model maintenance (e.g., Quinn, 1980; Kiesler & Sproull, 1982; Grønhaug & Falkenberg, 1989).
Acceptance of mental-model maintenance as a form of learning is high because it can be routinely confirmed through
a person’s past experience. Vandenbosch and Higgins (1994) write how, in contrast, mental-model building implies
that decision makers face uncertainty. The theory of mental-model building has been tested through empirical
evidence. People tend to make decisions or take in part or all action based on their mental models. The mentalmodel-building
form of learning requires stimulus such as feedback from actions and information that contrasts with
current thinking. DSS could be designed to induce mental-model building by injecting a particular type of
information. Therefore, we attempt to identify the presence of mental-model building by introducing the stimulus of
113