The Bruno & Abrahão (2012) study revealed that increased cognitive demand has an asymmetric effect on different types of errors. While a higher volume of decisions led to more "false positive" errors (mistaking safe events for threats), it did not cause a corresponding increase in "false negative" errors (missing genuine threats). This distinction is crucial in contexts like banking, where overlooking a real threat is significantly more costly than investigating a false alarm.

Google

A 2012 study by Bruno & Abrahão provides an example of human factors research, examining how decision volume impacts the accuracy of information security operators. The study, which analyzed 45,000 decisions at a Brazilian bank, found that increased cognitive load from making more daily decisions led to a higher rate of "false positive" errors, where operators mistakenly identified safe events as security threats.

Research on Cognitive Load and Decision Accuracy in Security Operations

Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020, April 22). Psychology (2nd ed.). OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

OpenStax Psychology (2nd ed.) Textbook

Asymmetric Effect of Cognitive Load on Error Types

The 2013 Target data breach illustrates a real-world failure in human factors. Security personnel reportedly received signals of the security intrusion but did not interpret them correctly. This failure in human perception and decision-making allowed the breach to continue for two weeks, demonstrating the severe consequences that can arise from the types of cognitive challenges studied in human factors psychology.

Learn Before

Related