Citation

Chmiel N, Totterdell P, Folkard S. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1995; 9(7): S39–S53.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/acp.2350090705

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper considers the relationship between levels of control and stressors put forward by Broadbent in Decision and Stress. Broadbent speculated that a lower level of control could be maintained in an optimal state by the activity of an upper level such that performance outcomes remained constant. The upper level, however, could become fatigued, allowing any inefficiency of the lower to be reflected in performance. He thought that lower inefficiency was a function of sleep deprivation, among other stressors. To illustrate the ideas put forward by Broadbent, preliminary results from an extended study of the effects of varying amounts of sleep deprivation and length of work day on an adaptive control task are presented, with the aim of exploring the value and limitation of the levels approach. The adaptive control task used is one developed by Broadbent to explore levels of control. The paper considers how levels of control could relate to behavioural outcomes of 'performance level' and 'work rate' under conditions of sleep loss and fatigue, and discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of so doing. We conclude that the levels of control approach offers a potentially rich interpretive framework for the effects of stressors on performance, but that attempting to relate particular performance indices to particular levels is a less fruitful diagnostic endeavour.

Language: en