I__. - International Military Testing Association

. .
. -.-- -.-I
to their decision-making behavior. Instead, in some parameters they show greater variance than
students do. Second, some military subjects reported after the tests that they used the commands
in accordance with their specific military education, and that use of such knowledge hinders a
successful control. In contrast to this, other subjects did learn the specific conditions implemented
in the fire system, and they did well. These data shed light on the different demands
of the fm system, depending on the specific knowledge used while controlling it. Further
investigations are needed to specify system demands and the strategies required to deal with
them successfully.
5. Conclusions
(1) There are individual differences in intellectual abilities that are not covered by the usual
intelligence tests. These differences may be of significance for personnel selection.
(2) There are strategic differences in system control that are related to performance; they are
reliable if the subjects are allowed to control a system in repeated trials.
(3) Simulated systems realize compIex demands that are standardized and replicable. Therefore,
systems offer great advantages over standardized group situations.
(4) Besides some evidence of the external validity of strategies and performance in system
control further theoretical and empirical work needs to be done to specify the demands of real
life situations and their correspondences with system demands.
(5) Far from being able to predict precisely what strategies in system control imply for behavior
in real life situations, I consider the reported approach to be worth further pursuit.
References
Brehmer, B. (1987). Development of mental models for decision in technological systems. In J. Rasmussen, K.
Duncan, & J. Leplat (Ed%), New Technology and Human Error (pp. 11 l-142). Chichester: Wiley.
Domer, D. (1986). Diagnostik der operativen Intelligenz. Diagnostica, 32,290-308.
Domer, D. & Kreuzig, H.W. (1983). Problemlosefahigkeit und Intelligenz. Psychologische Rundschuu, 34,
185-192.
Domer, D. & Reither, F. (1978). iiber das Problem&en in sehr komplexen Realititsbereichen. Zeitschrifr fiir
experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 25,527-551.
Funke, J. (1983). Einige Bemerkungen zu Problemen der Problemliiseforschung oder: 1st Testintelligenz doch ein
Pradiktor? Diagnostica, 29,283-302.
Kleinmuntz, D.N. (1985). Cognitive heuristics and feedback in a dynamic decision environment. Management
Science, 31,680-702.
Putz-Osterloh, W. (1981). Ijber die Beziehung zwischen Testintelligenz und Problemlbseerfolg. Zeitschrijifiir
Psychologie, 189,79-100.
Putz-Gsterloh, W. (1987). Gibt es Experten fiir komplexe Probleme? Zeitschriftflir Psychologie, 19.5,63-84.
Putz-Gsterloh, W. & Lemme, M. (1987). Knowledge and its intelligent application to problem solving. The
German Journal of Psychology, II, 286-303.
Strohschneider, S. (1986). Zur Stabilitit und Valid&t von Handeln in komplexen RealiBtsbereichen. Spruche &
Kognition, 5,4248.
367