Carl Westin

142 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution solutions were recorded for each designed conflict. Contrary to our expectations, consistency and agreement was overall not higher in Study 1 than in Study 2. Rather, the degree of agreement between controllers’ problem-solving styles in Study 1 and 2 indicates that agreement varied across conflict geometries. Consistent problem- solving styles varied considerably between scenarios in Study 1, with the exception for Scenario 4. Consistency was considerably higher in this scenario, in addition to nearly all controllers agreeing on the same problem-solving style. The underlying reason for this is difficult to determine. Perhaps it can be attributed to the shallower conflict angle compared to the larger angles used in the other scenarios. As such, it cannot be concluded that biased conflict geometries are solved more consistently, or agreed upon more frequently, than conflicts that are not biased. Since the Study 2 scenario was based on Scenario 1 in Study 1, a more detailed comparison between these two scenarios is appropriate. While Scenario 1 in Study 1 was biased, favoring QS to pass ahead of OM, the scenario in Study 2 did not favor a specific solution other than vectoring one aircraft behind the other. When comparing the solution parameter hierarchy, almost equally many were consistent according to DS 1. However, analyses of the more detailed DSs revealed two con- trasting problem-solving styles in Study 2, while controllers in Study 1 were more in agreement. Differences were also noted in aircraft choice preference, with Study 1 controllers preferring QS and Study 2 controllers preferring OM. However, more controllers consistently interacted with both aircraft in Study 2, in the generally preferred order of QS first and then OM. In terms of the control problem analysis, consistency was slightly higher in Study 2, compared to Study 1. In Study 1, there was a large preference to vector in front, while in Study 2, the preference was to vector behind. In terms of the solution geometry classification, controllers were considerably less consistent in Study 2 (when comparing the biased Scenario 1 in Study 1 with the unbiased similar conflict in Study 2). According to the control problem classification, however, consistency was higher in Study 2. 6-8-1 Consistency in conflict resolution Questionnaire data from Study 2 suggest that several controllers do not consider themselves consistent in conflict resolution. This was indeed reflected in simulation data from both studies, in which controllers’ consistency varied considerably. In relation to simulation data from both studies, however, the majority of con- trollers were found consistent according to at least one solution classification. The solution parameter hierarchy classification yielded the lowest proportion of consis- tent participants. Furthermore, this classification often yielded contrasting consis- tent problem-solving styles, again with the exception of Scenario 4 in Study 1.