When parents need not have children — Cognitive biases in information modeling

Abstract

Cognitive biases associated with human judgment and choice are widely studied, recognized, and documented in behavioral decision research. It is also well accepted that an understanding and acknowledgment of these biases are vital to mitigate their effects. However, research into cognitive biases in information modeling is virtually lacking. Lest one assumes that research on cognitive biases is irrelevant to the field, information modeling is a cognitively intensive activity and is, thus, highly susceptible to such biases. There is a pressing need then, to identify and understand these human biases in order to lessen their effects. This paper describes an experiment designed to investigate the use of syntactic and semantic information by modeling experts. The experimental results indicate that when interpreting information models, modeling experts tend to focus on the syntactic aspects of information and totally ignore the semantic information, even in situations where the semantic information is deafly more representative of the real world situation. These biases exhibited by modeling experts are explained using the learning paradigm in cognitive psychology.

Unified Modeling Language

“…Some of the more interesting results from Tables 1 and 2 (vi) In terms of the complication in selecting the right connection between object types (i.e., metric 9), class diagrams have the highest count -double that of use case, component and deployment diagrams, and over10 times more complicated than sequence and collaborations diagrams. This is in line with some studies that found users having difficulty in selecting a relationship type between objects/entities (e.g., Siau et al 1995Siau et al , 1996Siau et al , 1997. (vii)As for the complexity of a technique, table 2 shows that class diagrams are the most complex to use followed by component and statechart diagrams (i.e., metric 12).…”

Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis

“…Numerous laboratory experiments on comparing modelling methods have been conducted (e.g. Jarvenpaa & Machesky, 1989; Jih et al ., 1989; Batra et al ., 1990; Davis, 1990; Batra & Davis, 1992; Siau et al ., 1995; 1996; 1997; Marakas & Elam, 1998; Agarwal et al ., 2000; Kim et al ., 2000; Bodart et al ., 2001; Zendler et al ., 2001). In a laboratory experiment, the researcher assigns subjects to treatment and control conditions, manipulates the independent variables (e.g.…”

“…Every modelling method uses a small set of constructs (Siau et al ., 1996; 1997), which defines the vocabulary of the method. Constructs are concepts, ideas or images specifically conceived for a given modelling method for the purpose of organizing and representing knowledge of interest.…”

Applying Cognitive Theories to Evaluate Conceptual Models in Systems Analysis

“…As with the Gemino and Wand framework, CWA does not specify how the cognitive aspects interact with the various modeling techniques, but it does offer us another useful decomposition-decision activities, mental strategies, and cognitive resources. Siau, Wand, & Benbasat (1996) introduce an evaluation approach based on the Theory of Equivalence of Representations (TER) (Simon, 1978). This theory posits that different representations of information may be compared by examining their equivalence to each other in terms of the information they contain and the computational effort required to extract that information.…”