PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 487

Politeness Effects in Directive Compliance:

Effects with Power and Social Distance
Christopher A. Miller, Tammy Ott, Peggy Wu, Vanessa Vakili
Smart Information Flow Technologies

We present a theory of perceived politeness and its sociological functions derived from the work of Brown
and Levinson (1987) and then extend that theory toward a cognitive model of politeness and its effects on
human decision making. We then report the results of an experiment in which participants directive
compliance behaviors and attitudes are examined under conditions varying the amount of politeness or
rudeness used and the power or familiarity relationship between the participant and the directive giver.
Results show significant impacts of politeness on a variety of directive compliance behaviors, and show
accuracy for predicting the relationship of Social Distance on perceived politeness and directive com-
pliance. Predictions about the role of Power relationships were generally not as effective.

INTRODUCTION
Politeness is seldom studied in the field of human factors.
This may be due to a historical focus on designed artifacts--
machines and equipmentwhich may be assumed to not par-
ticipate in social interaction dimensions normally reserved for
humans. Two trends make this assumption increasingly less
tenable: (1) machines themselves are getting more complex
and designers are increasingly seeking to give them human-
like qualities (e.g., Breazeal, 2002; Cassell, 2000), and (2)
there is increasing evidence that we frequently interact with
Copyright 2010 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. 10.1518/107118110X12829369603128
guages. Based on that corpus, they proposed that the cultu-
rally-universal function of politeness is to redress face threat.
That is, any action I take with regard to another human has
the potential to intrude on his or her autonomy of thought and
action. If I take the action baldlythat is, without any
form of mitigation, apology, or redressthen I may be im-
plying that I have the right or power to make that intrusion.
What we typically regard as politeness behaviorsthe use of
please, thank you, honorifics, etc.are redressive acts
that we use to offset the face threat inherent in interaction

complex machines using the same expectations and interpre-
tations that are afforded to other humans (Nass, et al., 1997).
Politeness plays a role in many issues central to human
factors: trust, team coordination, perceived workload, etc.
Indeed, the literature suggests that interaction style affects
team performance (McNeese, Salas & Endsley, 2001) and
that effect influences trust (Lee & See, 2004). Cockpit Re-
source Management (Weiner, Kanki & Helmreich, 1993),
which has revolutionized team interactions in aviation and
medicine can, in part, be regarded as both training operators
to be sensitive to personal style differences and, occasionally
reducing those differences through defined protocols for criti-
cal interactions. Finally, our own work (Parasuraman & Mil-
ler, 2004) suggests that politeness can make profound per-
formance differences in human-machine systems.
We have recently developed a functional model of po-
liteness emphasizing how and why actions are perceived as
polite, and how polite behaviors can alter social contexts.
This work stems from the sociolinguistic studies of Brown
and Levinson (1987) which will be described next, followed
by a description of our extensions to that model to predict
behaviors and attitudes associated with perceived politeness.
Finally, we present experimental results illustrating politeness
effects in perception of and compliance with directives.
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC MODEL OF POLITENESS
PERCEPTIONS AND FUNCTIONS
Brown and Levinson (1987) collected a large corpus of
instances of politeness usage from multiple cultures and lan-
whenever we dont wish to convey such a message.
Thus, the degree of face threat present is a critical deter-
miner of how an interaction will be perceivedand of how
much redress is required to offset it. Brown and Levinson
propose three factors as influencing face threat:
1. Power Difference that the Hearer has over the Speaker.
A less powerful individual will threaten face simply by
addressing a more powerful one. All other things be-
ing equal, if I am asking a favor of a peer, I can use
less redress than of a boss or supervisor.
2. Social Distance between the Hearer and Speaker. So-
cial distance is roughly the inverse of familiarity. Fa-
miliar individuals (co-workers, family members,
friends) are expected to address one another, thus fami-
liarity reduces face threat. I can ask a favor of a friend
using less redress than of a stranger.
3. Imposition of the request or topic. Some topics are
simply more imposing or face threatening than others.
All other things equal, if I am asking a small favor, I
can use less redress than if I am asking for a large one.
These factors drive face threat up and require more, or
more powerful, redressive acts to reduce it. Inherent in
Brown and Levinson is the assumption, which we have made
explicit and computational (Miller, et al, 2007; Miller, Wu &
Funk, 2008), that using enough redressive value to balance
face threat yields an assessment of nominal politeness in the
observerabout as much politeness as might be expected for
this situation. The use of more politeness than the observer
thought necessary yields an assessment of over-politeness,
while using less results in an assessment of rudeness.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010
Note that this model offers an explanation for an ob-
served property of politeness behaviors: that the same beha-
vior can be only nomimally polite in some contexts, far too
polite in others, and not polite enough in still others. In
Brown and Levinsons terms, this is because elements of the
context differ (as captured by the Power Difference, Social
Distance and Imposition terms) and, hence, demand that
more or less redress be used to balance the resulting threat.
Brown and Levinson take this one further step by indicat-
ing that perceptions of the face threat parameters can them-
selves be influenced by the amount of politeness used. If I use
less politeness than you thought was necessary for a given
interaction, you might perceive me as simply rude but you
might also seek to balance the equation by adjusting your
prior perception of the Power Difference, Social Distance or
Imposition of the context. You may have thought I was rude
because you thought the person I was addressing had power
over mebut my relative rudeness suggests that perhaps I
think I have power over him/her, or perhaps we are old
friends, or perhaps what we are talking about is not as impos-
ing as you assumed, etc.
POLITENESS AND DIRECTIVE COMPLIANCE
Building on the Brown and Levinson model described
above, we would like to project the effects of perceived polite-
ness on directive compliance and associated behaviors and
attitudes such as reaction time, memory, affect, trust, and
perceived workloadwhich we will collectively refer to as
directive compliance behaviors. Intuition and elements of the
existing literature led us (via a method described in more de-
tail in Miller & Smith, 2008) to the following predictions:
Trust and Affect: We hypothesize that both trust in a di-
rective giver and affect about the situation will improve
as the perceived politeness increases, while perceived
rudeness will decrease trust and affect. This will hold
true within a boundary of believable levels of politeness
and rudenessas politeness becomes unbelievable, more
attention is paid to interpretation and motives of the
speaker and trust and affect will decline. Relevant results
for the relationship between trust and affect are summa-
rized by Lee and See, (2004), by Norman (2002) for the
relationship between pleasure and affect and by Cialdini,
(1993) for the relationship between flattery and affect.
Reaction Time: Brown and Levinson themselves suggest
(pp. 95-96) that one context in which reduced redress is
permissible is when action is both urgent and in the
hearers interests. Perceived rudeness may thus result in
shorter reaction times because it suggests urgency, while
politeness conveys reduced urgency. This effect may be
highly sensitive: as more rudeness is used, net reaction
times might increase as the hearer spends more time
wondering why the speaker is behaving so rudely.
Compliance: We hypothesize a general (but not uni-
form) increase in overt compliance with perceived polite-
ness, at least within the believability window. This de-
488
rives from the likely increase in trust and positive affect
that comes with expected, pleasing and/or more than
nominally polite interactions. Intuitively, we certainly
behave as if politenesss will have this effecttraining
our children to say please when asking for something if
they want it-- and some specific experimental data are
provided in (Parasuraman and Miller, 2004) to support
the effectiveness of politeness. On the other hand, the
model itself suggests that the relationship is more com-
plex: I may choose to comply because I like you (a feel-
ing that will be enhanced by reduced social distance), be-
cause I fear you (which may be enhanced by increased
power), because I feel it is in my best interests to do so
(low Imposition to me) or because it costs me little to do
so (low Imposition overall). The use of redressive beha-
viors can steer the Hearer toward specific interpretations
based on prior assumed relationships and complex issues
of personality and motivation. Nevertheless, in the ab-
sence of such special cases, it seems reasonable to predict
that increased politeness should enhance compliance.
Perceived Workload and Memorability: A cognitive in-
terpretation of the Brown and Levinson model suggests
that deviation from expected (nominal) levels of polite-
ness provokes increased reasoning about the interaction
and its context. Thus, we would expect off-nominal in-
teractions to be associated with higher cognitive work-
load as the hearer tries to decipher possible hidden mes-
sages. Similarly, memorability (memory for the inte-
raction and its social context, rather than overall situa-
tion awareness) might be expected to improve under off-
nominal circumstances where the hearer spends addi-
tional time scrutinizing initial assumptions.
A TESTBED FOR POLITENESS EVALUATIONS
To begin testing the above hypotheses, we created a
testbed which enabled us to vary and control aspects of the
context which the models tell us are of interest. The result
was the Park Asset Management and Monitoring Interface
(PAMMI) testbed which built on the Tactical Tomahawk In-
terface for Monitoring and Retargeting (TTIMR-- Cummings
and Guerlain, 2004). Although TTIMR was created to study
UI impacts on users ability to control multiple unmanned
vehicles, we were interested in the use of the chat channel
interface as a means of both giving directives to users and of
controlling the contextual variables important to the interpre-
tation of perceived politeness in those directives.
PAMMI presented a map illustrating the planned and ac-
tual paths of multiple air and ground vehicles heading to dif-
ferent destinations in a National Park, notionally to fight a
forest fire. Additionally, a matrix of vehicles names (in rows)
and destination names (in columns) showed which vehicles
were heading to which destinations, along with their pro-
jected arrival times (in the tables cells). A timeline offered a
relational view of vehicle mission and arrival times to aid in
answering questions such as which vehicle will arrive next?
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010
Figure 1. PAMMI's Incoming Message screen.
and will vehicle A arrive before or after vehicle B? Finally,
a chat window gave summary records of incoming and out-
going messages, though a larger popup window presented
messages along with indications of who they came from.
Although the TTIMR testbed required participants to
control and direct vehicle movements, we eliminated this task
in favor of placing participants in the role of a dispatcher
who, through better access to information, simply observed
and reported on vehicle behaviors but did not influence them
directly. This was done so we could avoid having the poten-
tially unpredictable state of the simulated world provide un-
predictable variations in the imposition that a directive would
produce. A directive requesting or ordering information
available from the participants screens could be expected to
always produce about the same level of raw imposition.
Participants were told they would support a group of five
field agents who would periodically ask for information.
Directives for information arrived via dialog screen showing
the requestors icon and a text message (cf. Figure 1). Direc-
tives consisted of an information request which could be ran-
domly combined with politeness behaviors drawn from either
a polite, nominal or rude group as determined by our use of
the Brown and Levinson theory. Thus, for example, the in-
formation request the arrival time of UTRUCK 018?
could be combined with the polite prefix Could you please
let me know, the nominal prefix Tell me or the rude hypotheses about the effects of politeness on directive com-
prefix Stop being lazy and give me. All directives re-
quired short, one-word answers, and participants were en-
couraged to answer as briefly as possible.
The set of directives were held constant across our expe-
riments, but the set of directive givers (DGs) were varied. In
each experiment, 5 DGs were used and each occupied one
square in the Incoming Message display illustrated in Fig-
ure 1. Although the square occupied by each DG was varied
across participants, it was held constant for that DG within a
trial. When an incoming message was from a specific DG,
489
that DGs square was ungrayed and the message appeared
in the text box. Participants could read the message, close the
incoming message screen, return to the main interface to de-
termine the answer to the information request, and then select
an Outgoing Message screen to input their answer.
The information content of each directive was randomly
varied across DGs, but each of the 5 DGs was consistent in
their use of polite, rude or nominal directives: 2 were consis-
tently polite, 2 rude, and 1 nominal. In addition, we varied
the relationship of the participant to the DGs along power or
familiarity dimensions as will be described below. In order to
aid subjects in remembering which DG occupied which rela-
tionship, DGs were named and given icons which reinforced
both their individual identity and their role.
Icons and text were used to indicate the DGs( rather than
photos and voice or live video) to reduce age, sex, and cultur-
al associations, and so that the tone of voice would not inter-
fere with the designed level of politeness. This attenuated the
range of cues available for inferring relationships (e.g., power
and familiarity) but allowed us to control variability in those
interpretations. We suspect that such restricted interactions
also reduce the effects of perceived politenessthus making
this a conservative test of perceived politeness effects.
Incoming message events occurred once per minute and
trials lasted 45 minutes after a period of training. Of the 45
incoming message events, 25 were single directives (one
field agent making a request) and 20 were paired directives
(two field agents simultaneously issuing directives). Single
directives were used to measure reaction time; paired direc-
tives were used to present a forced choice and were our pri-
mary measure of compliance rates. Reaction times were also
collected for paired directives, but were confounded by partic-
ipants potentially differing reading and selection strategies.
Accuracy rates and memorability were also assessed for both
types of directives, and subjective ratings of affect, trust and
perceived workload were assessed in a posttest.
EXPERIMENTS WITH POLITENESS DIMENSIONS
We will report the results of two experiments testing our
pliance. Each of these experiments used the PAMMI testbed
described above, but each varied one of the dimensions
Brown and Levinson had said should influence perceptions of
face threat and, therefore, of perceived politeness.
Approach and Participants
In Experiment 1, we sought to explore the effects of vari-
ations in Power Difference on perceived politeness and on
compliance behaviors. In Experiment 2, we explored varia-
tions in Social Distance. In each, the general approach was
as outlined in the prior section with the following variations.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 490

To vary these social context dimensions, we Politeness Ratings Compliance Rates

introduced a back story during training and rein- Exp 1
forced it in icon design. In Experiment 1, to vary
Exp 1
Hi Pol Lo Pol Hi Pol Lo Pol
power relationships, participants were told about Hi Pow 8.00 3.11 Hi Pow 0.83 0.79
the organizational hierarchy: that, as a dispatcher, Lo Pow 7.67 2.58 Lo Pow 0.29 0.23
they were subordinate to park commanders, but
superior to park rangers. This relationship was Exp 2 Exp 2
reinforced by an organization chart showing these Hi Pol Lo Pol Hi Pol Lo Pol
relationships included in the training materials and Hi Fam (Lo SD) 8.60 4.35 Hi Fam (Lo SD) 0.78 0.42
posted prominently during the trial. Finally, a Lo Fam (Hi SD) 6.75 2.35 Lo Fam (Hi SD) 0.50 0.18
Table 1. Mean politeness ratings (left column) and compliance rates (right column) of DGs
number of stars (1-3) presented next to the DGs by power level (Exp 1) or Social Distance level (Exp 2) and by Politeness used.
icon (cf. Figure 1) indicated the rank of that DG.
Similar manipulations were used in Experiment 2 to convey umn of Table 1. Even when using the same redressive beha-
team membership to vary social distancefor example, par- viors, socially distant speakers (those from a different team
ticipants were given a physical badge which, through colors and park) were rated less polite than near ones: F(1,19)=8.4,
and animal icons (Team Bird), signified the same team affili- p<.01. No significant effect was observed for Power.
ation with some of the DGs (bird icons in dark green), close Objective Compliance Effects. Compliance results are
affiliation with another team from the same park (team presented as a proportion of times the DG could have been
mammalin light green) and more distant affiliation (Team complied with (in paired directive events) on the right col-
Insectin white) with others from another park. umn of Table 1. In Experiment 1, we observed a significant
Of the five DGs each participant interacted with, each main effect of Power Difference, F(1,18)=39.30, p<.001, with
always used the same name and icon, and messages from that High Power DGs being complied with more frequently than
DG always appeared in the same location in the grid. The Low ones, but no effect or interaction with Politeness. In
five DGs fell into the following categories: Experiment 2, by contrast, social distance and politeness were
Two were high on the context dimension: higher pow- both significant, F(1,19)= 15.22 and 23.27, respectively, both
er than the participant or high social distance (unfami- p<.001. Familiar (Low SD) DGs were complied with more
liar, from the outside team). than Unfamiliar (High SD) ones. Polite DGs were complied
o Of these, one consistently used high politeness and with more than rude DGs.
the other consistently used low (i.e., was rude). No main effects or interactions were significant for reac-
tion time for single directive events, though a trend seemed to
Two were low on the context dimension: lower power
exist. In both Experiments 1 and 2, participants were slower
or low social distance (familiar, from the same team).
to respond to polite DGs than rude oneswhich was as we
o Of these, one consistently used high politeness and the
predictedthough this effect was small (M=38.3 sec for po-
other consistently used low politeness.
lite directives, 37.9 sec for rude ones).
One was neutral on the context dimension (same power
Although participants could clearly remember which di-
or same park but different team).
rective giver been more or less polite, no other memorability
o This neutral DG always used nominal politeness levels.
effects were found for either experiment. Because these ef-
Participants were selected from two Midwestern U.S.
fects were assessed via a series of posttest questions about
universities. We recruited heavily from international stu-
which DG had asked for which piece of information, it seems
dents organizations (due to interest in cultural differences),
likely that these simply proved too difficult. Correct responses
but the largest block of participants remained U.S. citizens.
were near chance levels for all experiments and conditions.
19 participants completed the first experiment; 20 the second.
Subjective Compliance Effects. Subjective effects of po-
liteness on affect, trust and perceived workload all behaved
Results
similarly. Politeness improved reactions as follows:
Politeness Assessments. Post test questions showed that
Polite DGs were rated significantly more likable than
our intended manipulations of politeness were effective. Par-
rude ones: Experiment 1F(1,21)=29.79, p<.001; Expe-
ticipants noticed and remembered which characters had been
riment 2F(1,19)=26.08, p<.001.
intended to be polite, nominal or rude (M= 7.8, 6.2 and 3.1
respectively) and DGs intended to be polite were rated as sig- Participants said they would trust the advice of polite
nificantly more polite in both experiments: F(1,21)=22.65, DGs more than rude: Experiment 1F(1,21)=16.04,
p<.001; F(1,19)=34.91, p<.001. p<.001; Experiment 2F(1,19)=26.75, p<.001.
An implication of Brown and Levinson is that increased Participants also trusted the competence of polite DGs
power of the speaker (relative to a constant hearer and utter- more than rude ones: Experiment 1F(1,21)=4.51,
ance) should increase perceived politeness, while increased p<.05; Experiment 2F(1,19)=9.81, p<.01.
social distance should decrease it. This effect was born out Participants generally reported lower perceived workload
for Social Distance but not for Power Difference in our expe- with polite DGs than with rude ones: Experiment 1--
rimentsas indicated by the politeness ratings in the left col- F(1,21)=4.54, p<.05; Experiment 2-- no significant ef-
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010
fects on perceived workload were found, although the
same trend was present in the data.
Subjective effects also demonstrated our predicted out-
comes for Social Distance, but not for Power Difference.
Brown and Levinson predict that increased Power Difference
(of Hearer over Speaker) should increase perceived politeness
of a constant utterance, and we predicted decreased likability,
trust and increased workload from that. Increased Social Dis-
tance was predicted to operate in reverse. We observed:
A significant effect of Social Distance on likability rat-
ings in Experiment 2, F(1,19)=7.11, p<.05, such that fa-
miliar DGs were rated more likable than unfamiliar ones
regardless of politeness. By contrast, the prediction that
increased Power Difference should increase perceived po-
liteness and therefore likability was not born out.
A significant effect of Social Distance (F(1,19)=20.40,
p<.001) such that trust in the advice provided by unfami-
liar DGs was rated lower than that from familiar ones.
No significant effects were found for Power Difference.
A significant effect of Social Distance (F(1,19)=9.81,
p<.01) such that competence of unfamiliar DGs was
rated lower for familiar ones, regardless of politeness.
No significant effects were found for Power Difference.
Neither Power Difference nor Social Distance produced a
significant effect on perceived workload.
CONCLUSIONS
Our data demonstrates clearly that perceived politeness
affects whether a directive is complied with and how partici-
pants feel about the person issuing it. Generally, politeness
improved compliance ratesup to 34% in Experiment 2.
Politeness also significantly improved the affect, trust, and
perceived competence that participants had toward DGsand
decreased the workload they perceived in taking directives.
Compliance rates, reaction times (non-significant), af-
fect, trust and perceived workload were all improved by the
use of polite directives. Furthermore, Social Distance varia-
tions in relationships operated as predicted by Brown and
Levinsonwith familiarity enhancing perceived politeness
and its effects (except for workload and reaction time). By
contrast, no such effects were observed for Power Difference,
in spite of (our interpretation of) Brown and Levinsons pre-
dictions that increased power of Speaker relative to Hearer
should also enhance politeness effects. In one sense, this very
lack of effect is confirmatory evidence for the model. Our
hypothesis was that Power Difference should enhance per-
ceived politeness with associated effects on directive com-
pliance. The fact that we failed to observe a power difference
effect on perceived politeness would lead us to predict no ef-
fects on directive compliancewhich is what was observed.
As for the broader question of why Social Distance might
interact with politeness to affect directive compliance, while
Power Differences seem largely independent of politeness, we
can offer only initial suggestions. Our simple model implies
that, while perceived politeness may influence decision mak-
ing, there are certainly other attitudes, beliefs and goals
491
which do so as well. It may well be that compliance with
power figures is a strong enough goal (especially among col-
lege students) in its own right, that the politeness or rudeness
of those individuals makes little difference in compliance.
On the other hand, note that Power Difference had little im-
pact on perceived politeness. While powerful DGs were com-
plied with more than weaker ones, even if they were rude,
their rudeness did have a negative impact on how well they
were liked, trusted, how much workload participants per-
ceived and (non-significant) how quickly they were reacted
to. In short, this work clearly shows that politeness has im-
portant impacts on directive compliance behaviors and atti-
tudes, even though it only begins to articulate and sort out the
dimensions of those relationships. While our paradigm ex-
amined these effects in simulated human interactions, we
claim that politeness considerations are and should be increa-
singly important in human factors engineeringboth because
human team performance and cross cultural interactions are
increasingly a concern in human-technology interactions, and
because human-technology interactions are increasingly acti-
vating and influenced by human social behaviors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by an SBIR grant (# FA8650-06-C-
6635) from the Air Force Research Laboratory. We thank
Ms. Kellie Plummer and Dr. Rik Warren, our Contract Moni-
tors. We also acknowledge Curtis Hammond, Marie Kirsch,
Michael Wade, and Harry Funk for their contributions.
REFERENCES
Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge,UK; Cambridge Univ. Press.
Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and Practice. New York: Harper-
Collins.
Cummings, M. L. (2004). The need for command and control instant message
adaptive interfaces: Lessons learned from tactical tomahawk human-in-the-
loop simulations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 653-661.
Lee, J. D. & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in computer technology: Designing for
appropriate reliance. Human Factors. 46 (1), 50-80.
McNeese, M., Salas, E. & Endsley, M. (2001). New Trends in Cooperative
Activities. Santa Monica, CA; HFES.
Miller, C., Wu, P., Funk, H., Johnson, L. & Viljalmsson, H. (2007). A compu-
tational approach to etiquette and politeness: An etiquette engine for
cultural interaction training. In Proceedings of BRIMS07 (pp. 189-198).
Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.
Miller, C. and Smith, K. (2008). Culture, Politeness and Directive Compliance:
Does Saying Please Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the NATO
RTO Symposium HFM-142 on Adaptability in Coalition Teamwork. Co-
penhagen, April 21-23, 2008.
Miller, C., Wu, P. & Funk, H. (2008). A Computational Approach to Etiquette:
Operationalizing Brown and Levinsons Politeness Model. IEEE Intelli-
gent Systems, 23(4), 28-35.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E., & Fogg, B. (1997). Computers are
social actors: A review of current research. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human
Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Cambridge University
Press, New York NY. 137-162.
Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better. Interac-
tions Magazine, 9 (4). 36-42.
Parasuraman, R. & Miller, C. (2004). Trust and Etiquette in High-Criticality
Automated Systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.
Weiner, E., Kanki, B., & Helmreich, R. (1993). Cockpit resource manage-
ment. San Diego: Academic Press.