Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice

of Navigation Direction

M. Dinah Charlota Lerik

1

, T. Dicky Hastjarjo

2

, Rini Dharmastiti

3

1

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Public Health, University of Nusa Cendana, Kupang,, Indonesia

2

Faculty of Psychology, University of Gadjah Mada,Yogyakarta,, Indonesia

3

Ergonomics Laboratory, Department of Engineering and Industry, Faculty of Engineering,University of Gadjah Mada,

Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Situation Awareness, Sense of Direction, Map and Verbal Direction.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sense of direction, map or verbal direction and

gender on situation awareness. One hundred and sixty five (165) students, consisting of 120 females and 45

males, participated in the study. Their ages between 18-19 years old. One-way anova was used to analyse

data. It was found that the choice of direction (map, verbal or both combination) had influence on situation

awareness level 1 and 3. However, sense of direction did not affect situation awareness. Participant gender

was found to influence the level 3 situation awareness but not of level 1 and 2. Women showed higher

situation awareness of level 3 than men.

1 INTRODUCTION

Every day people are adventurous in this world,

either on foot or using a vehicle, walking through

familiar routes or in unfamiliar areas. Some people

enter a new spatial location with anxiety about being

misdirected or lost, some people are even happy and

trying to find experiences to find a new location with

the help of directions such as maps and verbal

instructions, and some others instead just enjoy the

sensation of environmental spatial awareness and

body orientation in the environment.

Sense of Direction is operationalized as the

ability to position themselves and self-orientation in

the environment (Hegarty, Richardson, Montello,

Lovelace, & Subiah, 2002), and there is predictive

evidence from the use of self-report measurement of

sense direction in this psychological construct.

Previous research has shown that sense of direction

self-report is positively correlated with smoothness

in: (1) distance estimation (r = 0.00-0.480, n = 24-

286; Hegarty et al. 2002; Ishikawa & Montello,

2006); (2) direction estimation under various

conditions (r = 0.36-0.45, n = 22-25; Hegarty et al.,

2002; Ishikawa & Montello, 2006; Montello & Pick,

1993); (3) giving, following and remembering

directions (Hund & Padgit, 2010); (4) managing

orientation accuracy in complex environments (r =

0.51-0.82, n = 12-31; Sholl, Kenny, & DellaPorta,

2006); and perhaps most importantly, (5) accuracy

of finding locations (Hund & Padgit, 2010; Kato &

Tekeuchi, 2003).

This study examines the correlation between

sense of direction and choice of directions with

situation awareness. Situation awareness is defined

as the perception of environmental elements in the

volume of time and space, the arrangement of

meaning and the projected status of these elements

in the near future (Endsley, 1988). This definition is

similar to the definition of "spatial awareness"

explained by Klippel, Hirtle, & Davies (2010),

which states that situation awareness is part of

survey knowledge and is defined as the ability to

plan new routes, shortcuts, and detours in an

environment. This ability requires directional

sensitivity as defined by Kozlowski & Bryant (1977)

as awareness of location or orientation, especially

where a person knows where he is while he moves

around an environment.

Situation awareness is a theoretical concept and

measurement paradigm that arises from applied

research in individuals with certain expertise (eg air

traffic control officers) who are tasked with

managing constant vigilance in dynamic complex

environments (Endsley, 1995; Endsley, Roth,

352

Lerik, M., Hastjarjo, T. and Dharmastiti, R.

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction.

DOI: 10.5220/0009820503520362

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Psychology (ICPsy 2019), pages 352-362

ISBN: 978-989-758-448-0

Copyright

c

Ridpath, & Neill, 2003). Although there are a

number of methods proposed to measure situation

awareness, one of the most popular is the Situation

Awareness Global Assessment Technique

(SAGAT), which involves simulations of "freezing"

and the submission of different types of questions

relating to current conditions and the near future. A

level 1 situation awareness check is proposed to

measure perceptions of elements of an environment

in a time and space framework, a level 2 situation

awareness check is proposed to measure an

integrated "meaning" understanding in the

environment, and a level 3 situation awareness

check is proposed to measure projections for the

near future then (Endsley, 1995; Endsley et al.,

2003). Measurement of this situation awareness is

generally applied for study conditions on dynamic

object tracking (eg Pylyshyn & Strom, 1988) and

static visual working memory (Luck & Vogel, 1997;

Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2001; Fougnie, Asplund,

& Marois, 2010).

Situation awareness measurements are designed

around the domain of special expertise, for example

in the air traffic controls officers, military

commands and other controlled tasks. Situation

awareness measurements are often designed to

evaluate technology as well as humans to determine

whether the system supports the user's ability to

understand different levels and situations. However,

situation awareness measurement can also be used to

measure individual achievement, as was done in this

research (Endsley et al., 2003). This makes this

research perhaps the first research that measures the

general awareness of an individual's situation in

terms of direction sensitivity, and choice of

directions in navigation.

This study is designed to test the situation

awareness measurement procedures with

hypotheses: (1) there are differences in situation

awareness in terms of sense of direction, (2) there

are differences in situation awareness in terms of

individual direction choices, (3) there are differences

in situation awareness in terms of gender.

2 RESEARCH METHOD

2.1 Participants

Participants were invited to the participants of basic

psychology courses of the psychology Faculty of a

State University in Yogyakarta totaling 165 people,

120 female and 45 male. Ages between 18-19 years

old.

2.2 Measurement

2.2.1 Situation Awareness Test

Situation awareness tests are found in The

Psychological Experiment Building Language Test

Battery Version 0.14 (Mueller, 2010). A complete

source of this situation awareness test can be

downloaded at http://pebl.sf.net, the version used in

this research is a version that has been translated into

Indonesian. This situation awareness test has been

used to measure the attention load caused by heat

stress and places of dynamic attention (Mueller,

Simpkins, Price, Weber, & McClellan, 2011), and

has been shown to detect cognitive weakness due to

these pressures. This situation awareness test has

also been used to detect cognitive weakness for

obsessive-compulsive patients (Tumkaya et al.

2013).

Situation awareness tests are designed to

measure the same basic factors as the Situation

Awareness Global Assessment Technique (Endsley

& Garland, 2000). This situation awareness test

takes the form of a dynamic visual footprint.

Participants were asked to monitor the location,

identity and movement of a set of target animal

images, consisting of 5 animals that move around a

quadrilateral area. The target animal image consists

of three insects (a fly, a spider and an ant) and two

lizards (one yellow and one blue-green). The motion

simulation is this: for each insect target, a

destination location is uniformly sampled in space,

and for each lizard, an insect target is determined.

For each circle of the simulation (screen display),

each target's is uniformly determined in space, and

for each lizard, a target is chosen. At each round of

the simulation (screen display), each target goal is

determined by uniform sampling from the direction

of 12.5 degrees on each side of the direction from

the target of the destination. Each target move with a

uniform distance from the target for its destination

(at a speed of 100pixels / s). This scheme gives the

impression of a biological movement that leads to

general goals but with some deviations.

Furthermore, each lizard moves towards an insect,

while each insect moves to the target location

without being influenced by other targets. Whenever

a predator lizard comes in a small threshold for a

target insect, (1) the insect is eaten, (2) a new

location and destination is chosen for the insect, and

(3) a new insect target is chosen for the lizard.

Between the dynamics of the simulation, the target

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction

353

screen was changed and one interruption of the three

situation awareness interruptions was given.This

situation awareness test takes the form of a dynamic

visual footprint. Participants were asked to monitor

the location, identity and movement of a set of target

animal images, consisting of 5 animals that move

around a quadrilateral area. The target animal image

consists of three insects (a fly, a spider and an ant)

and two lizards (one yellow and one blue-green).

The motion simulation is like this: for each insect

target, a destination location is uniformly sampled in

space, and for each lizard, an insect target is

determined. For each circle in the simulation (screen

display), each target's target is uniformly determined

in space, and for each lizard, an insect target is

chosen. At each round of the simulation (screen

display), each target goal is determined by uniform

sampling from the direction of 12.5 degrees on each

side of the direction from the target to the

destination. Each target moves with a uniform

distance from the target to its destination (at a speed

of 100pixels / s). This scheme gives the impression

of a biological movement that leads to general goals

but with some deviations. Furthermore, each lizard

moves towards an insect, while each insect moves to

the target location without being influenced by other

targets. Whenever a predator lizard comes in a small

threshold for a target insect, (1) the insect is eaten,

(2) a new location and destination is chosen for the

insect, and (3) a new insect target is chosen for the

lizard. Between the dynamics of the simulation, the

target screen was changed and one interruption of

the three situation awareness interruptions was

given.

A level 2 situation awareness interrupts

participants to click on the location of the five

targets. A small red circle is placed at the location of

the click, and there is no chance of not clicking.

Level 2 situation awareness interruptions ask

participants to identify the type of target.

Interruptions in a location are given (which is the

actual location of one of the targets), and five target

images are displayed below the quadrilateral area.

Participants are asked to click on the target's identity

at the location of the interruption. Two interruptions

were given for each trial. This type of interruption

requires the integration of knowledge about the

target's identity with the location, which involves

concurrent attention to the animal that is chasing and

being chased after the screen.Finally, a level 3

situation awareness interrupts participants to identify

the direction of the head of a specific target that is

moving, and click on target spot on the screen to

position the animal's head direction. Participants are

free to adjust the direction of the target head by

clicking, after that click the button that says "ok".

Instructions are given on the screen for the test. The

following instructions are given before each block's

task and the interrupt picture for each block.

1. Exercise Block





Figure 1: Instructions.

Figure 2: Interruptions 1.



Figure 3: Instructions 2.

ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology

354

Figure 4: Interruptions 2.

Figure 5: Instructions 3.



Figure 3: Interruptions 3.

 Test Block Instructions

Interrupt 1: now, you will do a long block of

the first type of interruption. In this trial, you

only need to monitor the location of the

animals. Click the mouse to start.

Interrupt 2: now, you will do a long block of

the second type of interruption. In this trial you

will identify the types of animals at the location

of the interruption. Click the mouse to start.

Interrupt 3: now, you will do a long block of

the third type of interruption. In this trial you

will identify the direction of the animal's head.

Click the mouse to start.

 Mixed Block Instructions

Finally, you will work on a block where one of

the three interruptions will appear. Click the

mouse to start. Thank, you can proceed with

the next test.

2. Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale

This scales of 15 items a Likert scales adapted to

the self-report scale of environmental spatial

ability (Hegarty et al., 2002). Each item is a self-

report statement from several aspects of

environmental spatial cognition; participants

responded by circling numbers from 1 (strongly

agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). These scale items

contain half positive statements and half negative

statements. One example of a positive item is "I

am very good at assessing distance"; and an

example of a negative item is "I have trouble

with direction". Positive item scoring is reversed

and the highest score indicates better sense of

direction. The total number of 15 item scores

were used for analysis. Internal reliability of this

test is 0.88.

The directions selection questionnaire contains

one item with a statement that says " When I get

lost in a new location, I will look for directions

that are compelling":

Map : never 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 Always

Verbal instructions : never 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 Always

The choice of directions is determined based

on the choice of the highest number scoring

between maps or verbal instructions. If the

subject circles the same number, the choice of

subject directions is called both map and verbal

instructions.

 Procedure

Participants are invited to participate in

research in basic psychology classes.

Participants who register then are given a

schedule to follow the implementation of data

collection of a computer laboratory. First the

participants fill out and sign informed consent.

After that the participants carried out the

situation awareness task contained in The

Psychology Experiment Building Language

(PEBL) Test Battery software, version 0.14

(Mueler, 2010). Then the participants filled out

the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction scale that

had been adapted to Indonesian and the

directions selection questionnaire.

Researchers see hierarchy of situation

awareness as a way to examine different types

of information about a situation. In our

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction

355

implementation, level 1 situation awareness

interruptions only recover location objects;

situation 2 level awareness interruptions

provide a location (and do not involve retrieval

of information) and only require a

reassignment. Level 3 situation awareness

interruptions do not ask for identity and

position, only ask for the direction of the target

animal's head.

The process of situation awareness task

performance takes place through a number of

blocks. First, three short training blocks are

given; one block for each level of situation

awareness interruption. Then, three pure block

tests are given, one block test for each situation

awareness level (sequential from levels 1-3),

with 15 trials per block. Finally, one mixed

block was given, containing 15 trials from each

interruption, for a total of 45 trials in the block.

In the mixed block, participants are not aware

of the next level of situation interruption

awareness requested (Level 1, level 2 or level

3). Thus, data onto mixed blocks used in

analysis and participants are free to direct

attention compared to pure block tests where

participants' attention is only directed towards

one goal (Endsley et al., 2003). The situation

awareness performance lasts 22.5 minutes.

Participants are permitted to rest between

blocks

 Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS, version 15.0

for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Level 1, level 2, and level 3 situation

awareness scores were compared to the group

average with categorized direction sensitivity

scores, choice of directions and gender using

ONE-WAY ANOVA or also called one-way

variant analysis.

3 RESULT

The results of the analysis of research data onto the

form of a statistical summary of the three choices of

directions in navigation are listed in table 1 below.

For example, a description of level 1 situation

awareness, participants who choose maps as

directions are a mean of 0.4879 with a minimum of

0.30 and a maximum of 0.87. Level of confidence

95% or a significance of 5%, the mean awareness of

the situation are at 0.4594 to 0.5163. And so on.

Table 1: The Situation Awareness Description is Viewed

from the Choice of Directions (Descriptive).

The assumption test results of ANOVA in table 2

show that the results of the Levene Test calculate

situation awareness levels 1.2, and 3 with a

probability of 0.338; 0.570; 0.121> 0.05, then all

three variances is the same. The assumption of

variance similarity with the ANOVA Test has been

fulfilled.

Table 2: Test the Situation Awareness Data Assumptions

Based on the Choice of Directions.

Levene

statistic

Df 1 Df2 Sig.

Situation

awareness level 1

1,091 2 161 0,338

Situation

awareness level 2

0,563 2 161 0,570

Situation

awareness level 3

2,141 2 161 0,121

The results of the analysis of the variance in the

one-way situation awareness in terms of the choice

of directions are shown in table 3 below. Level 1

situation awareness, based on F arithmetic 3,743,

degrees of freedom 3 and a significance level of 5%,

the F values in the table obtained 2.66. F counts

3.743 with a probability of 0.012 <0.05. The

conclusion of the mean level 1 situation awareness

in the three groups of direction choices is indeed

different. Level 2 situation awareness with an F

counts1.952, a degree of freedom 3 and a

significance level of 5%, the F values in the table

obtained 2.66. F counts 1.952 > F table 2.66. So, F

counts with a probability of 0.123> 0.05. Conclusion

level 2 situation awareness in the three groups of

direction choices there is no difference. Situation

awareness level 3, based on F counts 4,640, degrees

of freedom 3 and a significance level of 5%, the F

59 .4879 .10918 .01421 .4594 .5163 .30 .87

62 .5394 .11763 .01494 .5095 .5693 .30 .80

43 .4762 .12092 .01844 .4389 .5134 .28 .76

1 .3500 . . . . .35 .35

165 .5033 .11841 .00922 .4851 .5215 .28 .87

59 .3175 .10820 .01409 .2893 .3457 .13 .63

62 .2957 .12679 .01610 .2635 .3279 .03 .63

43 .3481 .12179 .01857 .3106 .3856 .10 .57

1 .4330 . . . . .43 .43

165 .3180 .12010 .00935 .2995 .3364 .03 .63

59 66.7119 17.64208 2.29680 62.1143 71.3094 34.00 119.00

62 76.8710 17.07888 2.16902 72.5337 81.2082 33.00 110.00

43 65.3023 21.05383 3.21068 58.8229 71.7817 31.00 116.00

1 56.0000 . . . . 56.00 56.00

165 70.0970 18.99462 1.47873 67.1772 73.0168 31.00 119.00

peta

petunjuk verbal

Peta dan Petunju

k

6

Total

peta

petunjuk verbal

Peta dan Petunju

k

6

Total

peta

petunjuk verbal

Peta dan Petunju

k

6

Total

Kesadaran

S

Kesadaran s

i

Kesadaran s

i

N Mean

t

d. DeviatioStd. Error

L

ower Bou

n

U

pper Bou

n

%

Confidence Interval

Mean

Minimum

M

aximu

m

ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology

356

values in the table obtained 2.66. F counts 4.640

with a probability of 0.04 <0.05. In conclusion there

is a difference in the mean level 3 situation

awareness in the three groups of direction choices.

Table 3: ANOVA.

Sum of

s

q

uares

df Mean

s

q

uare

F Sig.

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

.150 3 .050 37

43

0.1

2

Within

g

rou

p

s

2.150 16

1

.013

Total 2.300 16

4

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

0.83 3 0.28 19

52

.12

3

Within

groups

2.283 16

1

0.14

Total 2.366 16

4

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

4708.30

9

3 1569.

436

46

40

.00

4

Within

g

rou

p

s

54462.1

39

16

1

338.2

74

Total 59170.4

48

16

4

T tests results from comparing the choice of

higher directions in level 1 awareness, in table 4

below. In the group that choose the map, the mean

0.4879 and the group that chose the verbal

instructions, the mean 0.5394. The results of one-

tailed t test for independent samples of table 5, seen

0.014 / 2 = 0.007 <0.005, there is a significant

difference, the choice of map directions higher than

verbal instruction.

Table 4: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Peta 59 .4879 .1091

8

.01421

Petunjuk

verbal

62 .5394 .1176

3

.01494

Table 5: Independent Sample T-Test between Map and

Verbal Instruction.

T-test results to compare the higher direction

choices of level 1 situation awareness, in table 6

below. In the group that chose verbal instructions,

mean 0.5394 and groups that chose map and verbal

instructions, mean 0.4762. The results of the one-

tailed t test of independent samples of table 7, seen

0.009 / 2 = 0.0045 < 0.005, there is a significant

difference between the choice of map directions and

verbal instructions. Verbal instructions mean 0.5394

are higher than map directions and verbal Instruction

mean of 0.4762.

Table 6: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Petunjuk

verbal

62 .5394 .1176

3

.01494

Peta dan

petunjuk

verbal

43 .4762 .1209

2

.01844

Table 7: Independent Samples Test.

T-test results to compare the higher direction

choices of level 1 situation awareness, in table 7

below. In the group that chooses map directions, the

mean is 0.4879 and the group that chooses map

instructions and is verbal, the mean is 0.4762. The

results of the one-tailed t test of independent

samples of table 8, seen 0.610 / 2 = 0.305 > 0.005,

there is no difference between the choice of map

directions and map directions and verbal.

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction

357

Table 8: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Petunjuk

verbal

59 .4879 .1091

8

.01421

Peta dan

petunjuk

verbal

43 .4762 .1209

2

.01844

Table 9: Independent Samples Test.

T tests results from comparing the choice of

directions higher in level 3 awareness, in table 10

below. In the group that chose maps, the mean

66.7119 and the group that chose verbal cues, mean

76.8710. The results of one-tailed t test for

independent samples of table 11, seen 0.001 < 0.005,

map directions higher than verbal instruction.

Table 10: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Peta 59 66.71

19

17.64

208

2.2968

0

Petunjuk

verbal

43 76.87

10

17.08

888

2.1690

2

Table 11: Independent Samples Test.

T tests results from comparing the choice of

directions higher in level 3 situation awareness, in

table 12 below. In the group that chose verbal

instructions, mean 76.8710 and group that chose

verbal and map directions, mean 65.3023. The

results of one-tailed t test for independent samples of

table 13, seen 0.002 / 2 = 0.001 < 0.005, there is a

significant differences, verbal instruction higher than

map direction.

Table 12: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Petunjuk

verbal

62 76.87

10

17.07

888

2.1690

2

Peta dan

petunjuk

verbal

43 65.30

23

21.05

383

3.2106

8

Table 13: Independent Samples Test.

T tests results from comparing the choice of

directions higher in level 3 situation awareness, in

table 14 below. In the group that chose map

directions, mean 66.7119 and groups that chose map

and verbal directions, mean 65.3023. The results of

the one-tailed t test of independent samples of table

15, seen 0.714 / 2 = 0.357 > 0.005, there was no

significant difference between the choices of verbal

instruction and map and verbal instruction.

Table 14: Group Statistical T-Test.

Petunjuk

arah

N Mean Std.

deviati

on

Std.

Error

Mean

Kesad

aran

situasi

Peta 59 66.71

19

17.64

208

2.2968

0

Peta dan

petunjuk

verbal

43 76.87

10

17.08

888

2.1690

2

Table 15: Independent Samples Test.

2.181 .143 .511 100 .610 .01172

0

2291

0

3373

0

5717

.503 5.009 .616 .01172

0

2328

0

3457

0

5801

Equal varia

n

Equal varia

n

Kesada

r

F Sig.

e

's Test for E

q

of Variances

t df . (2-tai

l

a

n Differ

e

t

d. Err

o

i

fferen

c

LowerUpper

o

nfidence Int

e

t

he Differenc

e

t-test for Equality of Means

.018 .893 .218 119 .002 15910

5

655

0

938

0

883

.216 .197 .002 15910

5

911

1

489

0

332

Equal var

i

Equal var

i

Kesa

d

F Sig.

s

Test for

E

f Varianc

e

t df (2-ta

i

n

Diffe

r

d

. Er

r

f

fere

n

L

owe

r

U

ppe

r

n

fidence I

n

e

Differen

c

t-test for Equality of Means

3.676 .058 3.100 103 .002

1

.56864

7

3127

1

6855

9

6873

2.986

7

7.911 .004

1

.56864

8

7467

8

5462

2

8266

Equal varian

c

Equal varian

c

Kesada

r

F Sig.

e

's Test for E

q

of Variances

t df

g

. (2-tail

a

n Differ

e

t

d. Err

o

i

fferen

c

Lower Upper

o

nfidence Int

e

t

he Differenc

e

t-test for Equality of Means

2.961 .088 .367 100 .714 1.40954

3

.83964

6

.20820

9

.02727

.357 80.685 .722 1.40954

3

.94763

6

.44547

9

.26454

Equal variances

Kesadara

n

F Sig.

e

ne's Test for Eq

u

of Variances

t df

g

. (2-tail

e

an Differe

n

S

td. Erro

r

D

ifferenc

e

Lower Upper

C

onfidence Inter

v

the Difference

t-test for Equality of Means

ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology

358

The results of the analysis of research data onto

the form of a summary of direction sensitivity

statistics in navigation are in table 16 below.

Suppose a description of level 1 situation awareness,

participants who have a good sense of direction are

the mean 0.4939 with a minimum of 0.30 and a

maximum of 0.87. Level of confidence 95% or a

significance of 5%, situation awareness at 0.4406 to

0.5472 and so on.

Table 16: Descriptive.

The assumption test results of ANOVA in table

17 show that the Lavene Test results to calculate

situation awareness levels 1,2, and 3 with a

probability of 0.566; 0.961; 2,012 > 0.05 then all

three variances are the same. So the assumption of

variance similarity the ANOVA Test has been

fulfilled.

Table 17: Assumptions Data Test.

Lavene

statisti

k

Df

1

Df2 Sig.

Situation

awareness Level

1

0,566 2 161 .569

Situation

Awareness Level

2

0,961 2 161 .385

Situation

awareness Level

3

2,012 2 161 .137

The results of the analysis of the variance

between one-way situation awareness in sense of

direction are shown in table 18 below. Level 1

situation awareness, based on an F count of 0.106, a

degree of freedom 2 and a significance level of 5%,

the F values of the table is 3.05. F counts 0.106 < F

table 3.05 with a probability of 0.899 > 0.05. The

conclusion of the mean situation awareness level 1

in the three groups of direction sensitivity was no

difference. Situation awareness level 2 with an F

counts of 0.179, a degree of freedom 2 and a

significance level of 5%, the F values in the table is

3.05. So, F counts with a probability of 0.836> 0.05.

Conclusion situation awareness level 2 in the three

groups sense of direction there is no difference.

Situation awareness level 3, based on an F counts of

0.690, a degree of freedom and level of significance

5%, the F values in the table is 3.05. So, F counts

0.690 < F table 3.05 with probability 0.503 > 0.05.

The conclusion of the mean Situation awareness

level 3 in the three groups of sense of direction no

difference.

Table 18: One Way Anova.

Sum of

s

q

uares

df Mean

s

q

uare

F Sig.

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

.003 2 .002 .1

06

.89

9

Within

g

rou

p

s

2.297 16

2

.014

Total 2.300 16

4

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

.005 2 .003 .1

79

.83

6

Within

g

rou

p

s

2.360 16

2

.015

Total 2.366 16

4

Kesa

dara

n

situa

si

Betwee

n

groups

499.795 2 249.8

98

.6

90

.50

3

Within

groups

58670.6

53

16

2

362.1

65

Total 59170.4

48

16

4

The results of the analysis of research data onto

the form of a statistical summary of the sexes are in

table 19 below. Description of situation 1 level

awareness, female participants with a mean of

0.5094 with a minimum of 0.32 and a maximum of

0.80. With a confidence level of 95% or a

significance of 5%, mean the situation awareness

level 1 female participants were at 0.4888 to 0.5301.

23 .4939 .12319 .02569 .4406 .5472 .30 .87

122 .5057 .12049 .01091 .4841 .5273 .28 .80

20 .4997 .10410 .02328 .4509 .5484 .34 .78

165 .5033 .11841 .00922 .4851 .5215 .28 .87

23 .3086 .13459 .02806 .2504 .3668 .13 .60

122 .3213 .11459 .01037 .3008 .3418 .03 .63

20 .3083 .14011 .03133 .2428 .3739 .10 .60

165 .3180 .12010 .00935 .2995 .3364 .03 .63

23

6

7.9130

1

7.19385

3

.58517 60.4779 75.3482 34.00 119.00

122

6

9.7951

1

9.66410

1

.78030 66.2705 73.3197 31.00 116.00

20

7

4.4500

1

6.82565

3

.76233 66.5754 82.3246 38.00 103.00

165

7

0.0970

1

8.99462

1

.47873 67.1772 73.0168 31.00 119.00

baik

seda

n

b

uru

k

Tota

l

baik

seda

n

b

uru

k

Tota

l

baik

seda

n

b

uru

k

Tota

l

Kesadaran

N Mean d. Deviati

o

S

td. Erro

r

o

wer Bou

n

p

per Bou

n

Confidence Interv

a

Mean

M

inimu

m

M

aximu

m

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction

359

Description of Situation awareness level 1, male

participants with a mean of 0.4871 with a minimum

of 0.28 and a maximum of 0.87. Level of

confidence 95% or a significance of 5%, the mean

situation awareness level 1 male participants were

at 0.4484 to 0.5259.

Table 19: Descriptive.

The assumption test results from ANOVA in

table 20 show that the Levene Test results to

calculate situation awareness levels 1,2, and 3 with a

probability of 0.299; 0.500; 0.242 > 0.05 then both

variances are the same. So the assumption of

variance similarity in the ANOVA Test has been

fulfilled.

Table 20: Assumption Test.

Levene

statistic

Df 1 Df2 Sig.

Situation

awareness level 1

1,084 1 163 0,299

Situation

awareness level 2

0,457 1 163 0,500

Situation

awareness level 3

1,376 1 163 0,242

The results of the analysis of variance in one

path of situation awareness by sex in table 21 below.

Situation awareness level 1, based on the F counts

1.161, degrees of freedom 1 and a significance level

of 5%, the F values in the table obtained the number

3.90. F calculates 1.161> F table 3.90 with a

probability of 0.283 > 0.05. The conclusion of the

mean level 1 situation awareness in the two sexes is

no difference. Level 2 situation awareness with an F

count of 0,000, a degree of freedom 1 and a

significance level of 5%, the F value in the table is

3.90. F calculate with a probability of 0.989 > 0.05.

Conclusion situation awareness level 2 in the two

sexes there is no difference. Situation awareness

level 3 on F counts of 9,365, degrees of freedom 1

and a level of 5%, the F value of the table is 3.90. F

calculated 9,365 > F table 3.90 with a probability of

0.003 < 0.05. There are significant differences in

Situation awareness level 3 between the sexes. This

difference is supported by the data onto table 19, the

mean of women 72.8000 is higher than the mean of

men 62.8889.

Table 21: One Way Anova.

4 DISCUSSION

The situation awareness tasks to involve

interruptions in the middle of a screen for the

computer screen, where participants are asked to

recall or reproduce different types of information.

Situation awareness level 1 interruptions only

require identification of the target location (ignoring

identity), this is interpreted by the author as an initial

perception of the sense media. Situation awareness

level2 interruptions require identification of targets

of specific locations, this is interpreted by the

authors as integrating and understanding

information, pattern recognition and the ability to

distinguish relevant and irrelevant information

(Soliman, 2010; Wright, Taekman, & Endsley,

2004). Interference level 3 situation awareness is

interpreted by the authors as anticipation and

projection of conditions in the near future then based

on current condition information to make decisions

and actions. Furthermore, situation awareness tasks

include one task test blocks where only one

information is the focus and multiple task test

blocks, where level 1, level 2 and level 3 situation

awareness information needs to be managed during

the trials (this data is analyzed).

The results of the analysis of situation awareness

in terms of directions provide evidence of

differences in situation awareness level 1 and level

3. Situation awareness level 1 as a level of

perception is related to landmark knowledge that

becomes a stimulus from the environment for

individuals to identify the location of a building,

120 .5094 .11418 .01042 .4888 .5301 .32 .80

45 .4871 .12898 .01923 .4484 .5259 .28 .87

165 .5033 .11841 .00922 .4851 .5215 .28 .87

120 .3180 .12113 .01106 .2961 .3399 .03 .63

45 .3178 .11868 .01769 .2821 .3534 .03 .60

165 .3180 .12010 .00935 .2995 .3364 .03 .63

120

7

2.8000

1

8.02594

1

.64554 69.5417 76.0583 33.00 119.00

45

6

2.8889

1

9.82219

2

.95492 56.9336 68.8441 31.00 109.00

165

7

0.0970

1

8.99462

1

.47873 67.1772 73.0168 31.00 119.00

p

erem

p

laki-la

k

Total

p

erem

p

laki-la

k

Total

p

erem

p

laki-la

k

Total

Kesadaran

N Mean

d

. Deviati

o

S

td. Erro

r

o

wer Bou

n

p

per Bou

n

Confidence Interv

a

Mean

M

inimu

m

M

aximu

m

.016 1 .016 1.161 .283

2.283 163 .014

2.300 164

.000 1 .000 .000 .989

2.366 163 .015

2.366 164

3214.804 1 3214.804 9.365 .003

55955.644 163 343.286

59170.448 164

Between Group

Within Groups

Total

Between Group

Within Groups

Total

Between Group

Within Groups

Total

Kesadaran Situa

s

Kesadaran situa

s

Kesadaran situa

s

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology

360

signs or other environmental property. This level of

perception of situation awareness is influenced by

the choice of individuals that prefer to use visual

directions also in the form of a map, verbal

instructions and both choices (Brunye & Taylor,

2008; Meilinger & Knauff, 2008; Lerik, Hastjarjo, &

Dharmastiti, 2016 ). These three choices of

directions when compared were found to be the

highest choice of verbal instructions, this is

supported by the results of the study of Brunye &

Taylor (2008) which states that when individuals get

verbal instructions to follow a route to a location,

verbal instructions form mental spatial models or

commonly known as cognitive maps.

Situation awareness level 3 as a level of

anticipation or prediction of conditions in the near

future then also gets influence from directions that

utilize the choice of map directions, verbal cues and

both. This is supported by Hirtle, et al. (2010) that

states situation awareness as spatial awareness is

part of survey knowledge that provides opportunities

for individuals to plan new routes, shortcuts, and

detours. Situation awareness level 2 which is an

integration of the environmental situation was found

not to be influenced by the choice of map directions,

verbal instructions or both. The cause of this

situation is not yet known, further research needs to

be done.

The analysis shows that situation awareness is

not influenced by individual sense of direction. This

may occur because self-sensitivity reports as

individual potential are associated with the

performance of navigation tasks in previous research

(Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa, &

Lovelace, 2006; Hund & Nazarczuk, 2009; Labate,

Pazzaglia, & Hegarty, 2014 ). In contrast to this

research that links the sense of direction witth the

situation awareness virtually. Therefore, further

research is needed.

Situation awareness level 3 based on gender

found differences. These results are consistent with

the situation awareness theory which states that

situation awareness is a hierarchical level where

level 3 includes level 2 and level 1, and level 2

includes level 1 (Endsley, 1995).

5 CONCLUSION

The choice of directions in the form of maps, verbal

instructions and choice of map directions and verbal

instructions when navigation affects individual

differences in situation awareness at level 1 and

level 3. The choice of directions turns out to be

found no difference in individual level 2 situation

awareness. There was no apparent difference in

direction sensitivity in individuals in situation 1, 2 or

3 level awareness. Gender was significantly different

in level 3 situation awareness, women were higher

than men.

Further research that looks at sense of direction

and choice of directions is very important to do by

linking the scale of self-reports to the performance

of behaviors in the real environment. Experimental

research is needed to measure situation awareness

variables related to route knowledge in an effort to

find a location.

REFERENCES

Brunyé, T. T., & Taylor, H. A. (2008). Extended

experience benefits spatial mental model development

with route but not survey descriptions. Acta

psychologica, 127(2), 340-354.

Endsley, M. R. (1988, May). Situation awareness global

assessment technique (SAGAT). In Aerospace and

Electronics Conference, 1988. NAECON 1988.,

Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National (pp. 789-795).

IEEE.

Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation

awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The

Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society, 37(1), 32-64.

Endsley, M. R., & Garland, D. J. (2000). Theoretical

underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical

review. Situation awareness analysis and

measurement, 3-32.

Endsley, J. J., Roth, J. A., Ridpath, J., & Neill, J. (2003).

Maternal antibody blocks humoral but not T cell

responses to BVDV. Biologicals, 31(2), 123-125.

Fougnie, D., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2010). What

are the units of storage in visual working memory?.

Journal of vision, 10(12), 27-27.

Giudice, N. A., Bakdash, J. Z., & Legge, G. E. (2007).

Wayfinding with words: spatial learning and

navigation using dynamically updated verbal

descriptions. Psychological research, 71(3), 347-358.

Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R., Richardson,A.E.,

Lovelace,K., & Subhiah, I. (2002). Development of a

self-report measure of environmental spatial ability.

Inteligence,30,425-447.

Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E.,

Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities

at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-

test performance and spatial-layout learning.

Intelligence, 34(2), 151-176.

Hund, A. M., & Nazarczuk, S. N. (2009). The effects of

sense of direction and training experience on

wayfinding efficiency. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 29(1), 151-159.

Situation Awareness Viewed from Sense of Direction and Choice of Navigation Direction

361

Hund, A.M., & Padgitt, A.J. (2010). Direction giving and

following in the service of wayfinding in a complex

indoor environment. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 30,553-564.

Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial

knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the

environment: Individual differences in the

development of metric knowledge and the integ-ration

of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology,

52, 93–129.

Kato, Y., & Takeuchi, Y. (2003). Individual differences in

wayfinding strategies. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 23(2), 171-188.

Klippel, A., Hirtle, S., & Davies, C. (2010). You-are-here

maps: Creating spatial awareness through map-like

representations. Spatial Cognition & Computation,

10(2-3), 83-93.

Kozlowski,L.T.,& Bryant,K.J.(1977). Sense of

Direction,spatial orientation, and cognitif maps.

Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human

Perseption and Performance,3(4), 590-598.

Labate, E., Pazzaglia, F., & Hegarty, M. (2014). What

working memory subcomponents are needed in the

acquisition of survey knowledge? Evidence from

direction estimation and shortcut tasks. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 37, 73-79.

Lerik,M.D.C., Hastjarjo,T.D.,& Dharmastiti,Rini.

(2016,April). Mencari lokasi baru: meminta petunjuk

verbal atau peta (studi pendahuluan). Proceeding

seminar nasional mesin dan industri (SNMI-X) 2016.

Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual

working memory for features and conjunctions.

Nature, 390(6657), 279-281.

Meilinger, T.,& Knauff,M. (2008). Ask for direction or

use a map : A field experiment on spatial orientation

and wayfinding in an urban environment. Journal of

Spatial Science, 53 (2), 13-24.

Montello, D.R., & Pick,H.L.(1993). Integrating

knowledge of vertically aligned large-scale space.

Environment and Behaviour , 25, 457-484.

Mueller, S.T.(2010). The Psychology Experiment

Building Language,Version 0,14.Software

downloaded from (http://pebl.sourceforge.net).

Mueller, S. T., Simpkins, B., Price, O. T., Weber, P., &

McClellan, G. E. (2011). Cognitive performance

degradation with the T3 methodology (pp. 579-588).

Final Technical Report. Applied Research Associates

Inc., Arlington.

Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking

multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel

tracking mechanism. Spatial vision, 3(3), 179-197.

Sholl, M.J., Kenny,R.J., & DellaPorta,K.A., (2006).

Allocentric-heading recall and its relation to self-

reported sense-of-direction. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 32

(3),516-533.

Soliman,A.M. (2010). Exploring the central executive in

situation awareness. Psychological Report, 106, 105-

118.

Tumkaya, S., Karadag, F., Mueller, S. T., Ugurlu, T. T.,

Oguzhanoglu, N. K., Ozdel, O., & Bayraktutan, M.

(2013). Situation awareness in obsessive-compulsive

disorder. Psychiatry research, 209(3), 579-588.

Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001).

Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual

working memory. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,

27(1), 92.

Wright, M.C., Taekman, J.M., & Endsley,M.R., (2004).

Objective measures of situation awareness in a

simulated medical environment. Quality and Safety in

Health Care Suppl,1 , 565-571.

ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology

362