Carl Westin

130 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution (a) Scenario 1 (b) Scenario 2 (c) Scenario 3 (d) Scenario 4 Inc Inconsistent Cons Consistent = = = = = Consistency ratio Control preference (DS 1) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Inc 50.0% Cons 50.0% In front 43.8% QS 43.8% Behind 6.3% OM 6.3% Inc 37.5% Cons 62.5% In front 62.5% RG 6.3% PA 12.5% Inc 25.0% Cons 75.0% In front 43.8% Behind 31.3% RG 25.0% SM 12.5% Inc 18.8% Cons 81.3% In front 81.3% QS 81.3% F IGURE 6-6: Control problem sunburst charts showing consistency and agreement, Study 1. Percentages indicate proportion of participants ( N = 16). half the group consistently solved the conflict in Scenario 1. The problem-solving styles identified for Scenarios 2 and 3 only partly correspond with the expected so- lution (i.e., controlled aircraft in front of the intruder). For DS 2 in Scenario 2, there was some disagreement on whether to choose RG or PA as controlled aircraft. In Scenario 3, participants were found to consistently having the controlled aircraft go either in front or behind the intruder (DS 1). 6-5-3 Solution geometry analysis Figure 6-7 shows the solution distribution according to the solution geometry clas- sification for Scenario 1. Almost all solutions consisted of QS passing ahead of OM (DS 1). Further analysis showed that QS was instructed to go ahead of OM more often than the opposite (DS 2), with heading or combined instructions generally fa- vored (DS 3). Detailed solution distributions for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 are found in Appendix E. In Scenario 2, the most frequent solution consisted of PA passing ahead of RG (63.5%). PA was more often controlled ahead of RG (42.9%) than RG was controlled behind PA (20.6%). In Scenario 3, there was an overall preference for solving the conflict with RG passing ahead of SM (76.6%), either by controlling RG ahead (39.1%) or SM behind (37.5%). In Scenario 4, a strong homogeneity was found for DSs 1 and 2, with QS passing ahead of PA (93.8%), most often achieved by controlling QS (73.4%).