01 Dec 2005
-
Humans make decisions by setting their own threshold of trust and distrust
Pronouncements by politicians, assurances by car salesmen, tapping out your credit card details over the internet: how we deal with these is all down to a question of trust.
For a commander in the battle field, the confidence placed in information can become a matter of life and death so understanding how the element of trust influences decisions could be crucial. Now, for the first time, scientists at the ATC have found a way to measure the effects of trust on battlefield decision making. This could soon be an important ingredient in BAE System’s technology for Network Enabled Capability.
It’s an old cliché that the first casualty in war is the truth, but as the 21st century battlefield relies increasingly on networks of intelligence from diverse sources, the degree of trust that can be placed in any piece of information becomes a burning issue. Modern battlefield information systems take their input from remote sensors, automatic and human surveillance embracing communication networks that are truly global. The possibility of deliberate misinformation and sabotage by enemies is an ever present threat. However sophisticated or prone the information network, most decisions come down to an individual’s or a team’s judgement of the reliability of their sources.
Experts in ‘human factors’ (the study of how people interact with machines and systems) are realising that the way people respond to information can be understood and even measured by borrowing theories used for the analysis of electronic signals with noisy backgrounds.
Just like digital electronics, humans make decisions by setting their own thresholds of trust and distrust (signal and noise). A project at the ATC is breaking new ground in the understanding of how people’s behaviour determines where that threshold is set and why, as individuals or as teams, they sometimes get it wrong.
“A new field of trust behaviour analysis is emerging” says Barry McGuinness, human factors specialist at the ATC. “An individual’s level of trust can come down to personality traits – a trusting nature or not – or could be dictated by emotion if they are nervous about the consequences of a wrong decision. We also need to understand how differences arise when the same people act in teams. Groups will often make different, riskier decisions to individuals when faced with the same information because of perceived dilution of responsibility” he says.
To test the theories, Barry and his team have set up a series of experiments inviting 20 army majors from the Defence Academy at Shrivenham, all with battlefield HQ experience to participate in simulated exercises. In these trials, sponsored by the US Department of Defence Command Control Research Programme, the military subjects were given individual tasks to create a ‘picture’ of enemy movements in an imaginary battlezone. This involves plotting positions and routes based on a continuous stream of intelligence. In some cases the subjects were given no background and could accept or reject the information based purely on its origin and context. In other cases, the subjects were given a full briefing on the enemy’s known order of battle and map location. During the exercises, occasional, non specific warnings of breaches in network security were also given.
Using data from these experiments and personality profiles of the participants, the ATC are able to map the responses onto a model of trust based on signal detection theory. Results so far have shown surprising levels of subjectivity in the ‘trust’ response of individuals to information depending on the nature of the source. It seems that bad information is more likely to be trusted when little or no information on the enemy is given.
Trials with individual military personnel have been completed and exercises with teams will take place in the next few months. Once the work is completed in April 2006, the results could help shape new selection and training processes for military controllers. The work could also prompt changes in the design and methods of use of information networks and systems and as such is expected to be of benefit to BAE Systems’ network-centric programmes.
