With the swift entry of artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday life, human-product interactions are becoming increasingly complex. We suggest an ecosystem-minded, humanity-centered design approach to better understand this complexity. Simultaneously with the development of interaction types, discussions and developments on theories of mental models are crucial to understanding and improving the nature of these interactions. In this paper, we address the gap in mental model theories and extend Norman's conceptual model at three dialogue levels: dialogue in language, mind, and use.

This study deals with the role of mental models in the coordination of team activities during design problem-solving. The work centers on the sharedness of mental models in a design team setting, mainly on the interaction between an architect and two clients. A major goal is to gain insight into how modifications in mental models affect coordination, and how sharedness develops through the process. Our focus is to explore, through a case study, the individual contributions of the architect and the clients to coordination of the work process, and how sharedness of the development of the team mental model evolves in the early stage of concept generation. Our claim is that work teams develop a certain degree of sharedness of the mental models of individual team members during information exchange. This team mental model can be insufficient or even wrong, but as long as the team members feel agreement in the team, they coordinate their work on that basis. Thus, sharedness of mental models is believed to be a powerful team asset, especially when it is reached in the earlier phases of the design process. Our findings suggest that in order to attain sharedness among design team members, design activities related to the task mental model should be encouraged, specifically the generation of new ideas and the analysis of solutions. Implications for practice and education are suggested.

System dynamics models are typically used to simulate the behaviour of the problem system under discussion environment, to help understand and solve complex problems. Group model building is a social process for including client groups in the system dynamics modelling process. Recent evidence suggests group model building is useful in supporting durable group decisions by supporting the mental models of participants to become more aligned. There have been several mechanisms proposed to explain these effects. This paper creates a combined model that links the five best-supported mechanisms. The combined model suggests five core conditions of group model building that contributes to its success: completing a structured task, producing a tangible artefact, representing system complexity, the portrayal of causal links, and easy modification or transformation of the artefact by participants. Practitioners are encouraged to use group decision approaches that integrate these conditions.

Weed management remains a high priority for organic farmers, whose fields generally have higher weed density and species diversity than those of their conventional counterparts. We explored whether variability in farmer knowledge and perceptions of weeds and weed management practices were predictive of variability in on-farm weed seedbanks on 23 organic farms in northern New England. We interviewed farmers and transcribed and coded interviews to quantify their emphasis on concepts regarding knowledge of ecological weed management, the perceived risks and benefits of weeds, and the perceived risks and benefits of weed management practices. To characterize on-farm weed seedbanks, we collected soil samples from five fields at each farm (115 fields total) and measured germinable weed seed density. Mean weed seed density per farm ranged from 2,775 seeds m−2 to 24,678 seeds m−2 to a soil depth of 10 cm. Farmers most often reported hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species (Digitaria spp.) as their most problematic weeds. The proportion of the sum of these two most problematic weeds in each farm's seedbank ranged from 1 to 73% of total weed seed density. Farmer knowledge and perceptions were predictive of total seed density, species richness, and proportion of hairy galinsoga and crabgrass species. Low seed densities were associated with farmers who most often discussed risks of weeds, benefits of critical weed-free management practices, and learning from their own experience. These farmers also exhibited greater knowledge of managing the weed seedbank and greater understanding of the importance of a long-term strategy. Targeted education focusing on this set of knowledge and beliefs could potentially lead to improved application and success of ecological weed management in the future, thus decreasing labor costs and time necessary for farmers to manage weeds.

Experts have long sought to understand the factors that underlie farmer decision making for weed management. The majority of this interest has been in relation to the weak adoption of integrated management approaches and more recently, herbicide resistance strategies. In order to increase adoption in these contexts there is a need to understand better the underlying drivers for weed management decisions. The objective of the research reported here was to probe farmers' understanding of weed management to establish a baseline understanding of these key drivers. Thirty Ohio farmers participated in an in-depth interview where they were asked to reflect on how weeds are introduced and spread, what risks and benefits weeds pose, and what management strategies farmers are familiar with and which they prefer. Their responses were mapped, coded, and analyzed for dominant beliefs and major decision-making influences. The results indicate that farmers largely attribute the introduction and movement of weeds to factors outside their control (e.g., the environment, plant characteristics). They frequently cite diverse and integrated management, but their focus is on control as opposed to prevention. In general, they tend to receive messages about integrated and preventive approaches, but do not always put them into practice because of underlying beliefs about the inevitability of new weed introductions and spread.

We examined the comprehension of different types of conditionals. We measured the reading time of sentences primed by different types of conditionals (Experiments 1 and 2). We found that the participants read not-p and not-q faster when it was primed by the conditional form p if q and they were slower to read p and q when it was primed by the conditional form p only if q. This effect disappeared in the second experiment, where the order of the elements was reversed (q and p and not-q and not-p). These results suggest that the conditional form p if q elicits an initial representation “from p to q” with two possibilities, while the conditional form p only if q elicits a reverse representation with only one possibility. The third experiment showed that there were effects of the order only for the conditional if p then q, which confirms the reverse representation hypothesis. We discuss the implications of these results for different theories of conditional comprehension.