Carl Westin

132 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution (a) Scenario 1 (b) Scenario 2 (c) Scenario 3 (d) Scenario 4 Aircraft choice (DS 2) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Cons Cons Cons Cons Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Consistency ratio Consistency ratio Consistency ratio Consistency ratio Geometry preference (DS 1) Geometry preference (DS 1) Geometry preference (DS 1) Geometry preference (DS 1) Inc Inc Inc Inc Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inc 6.3% Cons 93.8% QS-OM 93.8% QS-OM QS OM QS ahead 43.8% OM behind 6.3% Inc 56.3% Cons 43.8% PA-RG 37.5% RG-PA 6.3% PA-RG RG-PA RG RG PA PA PA ahead 12.5% RG ahead 6.3% Inc 18.8% Cons 81.3% SM-RG 12.5% RG-SM 68.8% SM-RG RG-SM RG RG SM SM RG ahead 25.0% SM behind 12.5% Cons 100.0% QS-PA 100.0% QS-PA PA QS QS ahead 81.3% F IGURE 6-8: Solution geometry sunburst charts showing consistency and agreement, Study 1. Percentages indicate proportion of participants ( N = 16). styles as identified by the different classifications. None of the results, however, reached statistical significance, suggesting that intervention time did not influence how the conflict was solved. 6-5-5 Solution biases Table 6-3 provides an overview of consistency and agreement in relation to the ex- pected solution bias for each scenario and designed conflict. Overall, a widespread consistency in problem-solving style matching the detailed expected solution (in- cluding DS 3 resolution type, and DS 4 direction) was only found for Scenario 4. However, if only considering the first two DSs (1 and 2), a different patterns emerges. A high support for the expected solution, can then be found for all scenar- ios according to the solution geometry classification, except for Scenario 2. It was expected that the SSD would imply a particular solution for each asym- metrical conflict. Results indicates that this was not the case. Rather, participants seemed 1) less influenced by the SSD representation than expected, 2) less con- cerned with solution details (i.e., DSs 3 and 4), and 3) more concerned with the overall, spatial, relationship between aircraft (i.e., solution geometry).