PS200 Unit 10 Applied Cognition Project Example

Six Changes at One Console: A PS200 Unit 10 Applied Cognition Project for a 911 Call Center

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS200: Introduction to Cognitive Psychology

Unit 10 Applied Cognition Project

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The call center, its staff, its error figures and the pilot are composite; the studies cited are real.

The Problem

The center recorded 41 address errors last year that were caught after the call had been entered, most of them on calls involving distressed callers or poor connections, and most in the hours between midnight and six in the morning. Each error delays a response by the time it takes to notice and correct it. The project asks which cognitive processes those errors involve and what changes could reduce them.

Why the Errors Cluster

The center's error log shows three patterns that the course explains. Most errors involve house numbers and street names rather than descriptions of what happened, which matches the finding that words without surrounding context are the hardest to hear. Most occur when another line is ringing or a dispatcher is talking on the radio nearby, which points to divided attention. And most occur between midnight and six, when sleep loss erodes sustained attention. No single change can address all three, which is why the project proposes six, each aimed at a specific process.

Change One: Read Back Every Address in Chunks

Perception fills gaps with expectations (Warren, 1970), and words without context, such as house numbers and street names, are the hardest to hear accurately (Miller et al., 1951). The call-taker will read back every address, grouping the house number into chunks, forty-one twenty-seven rather than four-one-two-seven, and spell street names with the spelling alphabet when there is any doubt. Grounding the address explicitly turns a private perception into shared understanding (Clark & Brennan, 1991).

Change Two: Type Before the Next Question

Working memory is limited, especially when two tasks compete for the phonological loop (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The call-taker will type the address before asking for the caller's name or callback number, so the address never has to be held across another verbal task.

Each change removes one moment where a call-taker's memory or attention has to carry more than it can.

Change Three: Quiet the Console During Address Capture

Sudden onsets capture attention, and attention committed elsewhere misses even obvious events (Simons & Chabris, 1999). While the address field is active, nonurgent indicators will dim, and only alerts tied to the current call will appear, placed next to the field being typed rather than in a corner of the map.

Change Four: Open Questions Before Options

Question wording can change what witnesses remember (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). For descriptions of people and vehicles, call-takers will ask an open question first and record the caller's own words before offering choices, and will hold thanks until the call ends rather than affirming individual details.

Change Five: Retrieval-Based Protocol Training

Testing strengthens memory more than rereading (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), and spacing improves retention (Cepeda et al., 2006). Protocol training will use recall from blank cards at a console with recorded call audio, with reviews spaced over weeks.

Change Six: Protected Early-Morning Breaks

Sleep loss degrades sustained attention more than most abilities (Lim & Dinges, 2010). Overnight schedules will protect a fifteen-minute break for each call-taker between three and five in the morning, and quiet stretches will be staffed in pairs.

What Call-Takers Said

Before drafting the changes, the project asked six call-takers on two shifts which ones they thought would help and which would slow them down. All six supported typing the address first, and five supported dimming alerts during address capture. Three worried that reading back every address would add time on calls where the caller is clear; the project responds by allowing a brief confirmation, yes, Folsom Avenue, forty-one twenty-seven, rather than a full repetition. Including their concerns makes it more likely the changes will be followed on a busy night.

Measuring Whether It Works

The center will run the changes for six months on two of its four shifts, comparing those shifts with the other two. It will track address errors caught after entry, the time from call answer to address entry, and call-takers' ratings of workload. If read-back adds more than a few seconds without reducing errors, the center will reconsider it. Comparing shifts rather than months reduces the chance that a seasonal change in call volume is mistaken for an effect of the changes.

Cost

None of the six changes requires new equipment. Dimming alerts needs a configuration change in the console software, and the training change uses existing recordings. The main cost is time: a few seconds per call for read-back and about two hours per call-taker to switch to the new training method.

Limitations

The changes rest on laboratory findings that may not transfer fully to a noisy call center, and the error count is small enough that six months may not show a clear difference. The project treats the pilot as a test of the research's practical value rather than a guarantee of it.

References

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). American Psychological Association.

Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018883

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3

Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(5), 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062491

Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059-1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059

Warren, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392-393. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3917.392