A Personality-Based Command Decision-Maker: Results and Recommendations

Rick McKenzie Jean CatanzaroECE Department VMASCOld Dominion University Old Dominion Universityfmckenzi@ece.odu.edu jcata001@odu.edu

Mikel Petty VMASC Old Dominion University

mpetty@odu.edu

Human Behavior Representation (HBR)

Different humans behave differently in the same situation, depending on their personalities.

Doctrinal training: Necessary but not sufficient.

Realistic training should capture the unpredictable factor of human emotion.

Such realism better prepares the warfighter for true encounters on the battlefield.

Trait-based HBR Investigate Paradigm for Realistic Human

Behaviors in Simulations Create psychological profiles of military

commanders using personality traits Determine how these personality traits influence

Decision-making Behavioral effects on the battlefield

Develop Framework for Decision-Making that allows comparisons of automated human behavior models with real commanders

UN Humanitarian Relief Scenario

1.00 99

Supply depot

2.10 20

5.10 20

3.15 10

4.15 18

6.20 35

7.10 10

9.25 10

9.05 10

10.00 99

Refugee camp

7 6 .00 99

2 15 .10 10

8 12 .05 5

10 20 .05 6

14 11 .02 5

13 17 .02 1016 13 .05 10

15 11 .05 20

9 .00 99

6 17 .10 10

4 10 .08 10

3 12 .05 15

1 20 .05 10

5 8 .05 1012 22 .02 5

11 12 .05 2016 8 .02 5

Vertex #pminecapacity

Edge #timepminecapacity

Personality Traits The HBM framework allows the

specification of a commander’s personality profile Currently uses a set of traits described in

Banks and Stytz (1999). Stability, Anxiety, Anger, Acquiescence,

Independence, Humor, Charisma, Knowledge Other traits may be substituted or added

Traits and Weights Relationship

Proportional vs Inverse Proportional High Anxiety = Increased Prob. of Panic High Knowledge = Decreased Reaction

Time Battlefield Effects

Reaction Time Delay Accuracy and Effectiveness Panic Reactions Obedience to Orders

Trait-based HBM Display

Baseline Heuristic Search Algorithms Minimum Time Cost (MTC) A* Search Least Damage Least % Damage Least Damage & MTC Least % Damage & MTC Scope: Local vs Global

STRESSMORALE

MTC A* Algorithm vs Least Damage & MTC

e(n)MTC = c(n)MTC + h’(n)MTC

22 ba

AP

i

AP

iNE

NEMTCLD

timee

timee

iDiD

DDnc

00

.

.

)(#)(#

##)(

AP

itime

timeAP

idamage

damage

h

h

h

hnh

00

'

'

'

')('

c(n)MTC = e.time h’(n)MTC= d’ / Kspeed

Where Kspeed is the average speed of truck movementd’ = distance formula

0' damagehspeed

ttime Kdh '' cos.

Graph Sensitivity

Performance and Order of algorithms depend upon the road network encountered.

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

LD LPD MTC LD & MTC LPD & MTC Interactive

Critical Time: 2500

Graph OH1

Graph OH6

Road Network Graph – OH1

Road Network Graph – OH6

OH6 - Equal Probability Graph

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time

Perfo

rman

ce V

alue LD

LPDMTCLD-MTC

LPD-MTC

OH1 - Modified Probability Test Graph

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Time

Perfo

rman

ce V

alue LD

LPD

MTCLD-MTC

LPD-MTC

Knowledge EffectivenessAnxiety 1/Effectiveness

Good Commander

LowAnxiety

HighKnowledge

Rules Affecting Behavior

Knowledge EffectivenessAnxiety 1/Effectiveness

HighAnxiety

LowKnowledge

Bad Commander

Performance Values Good Commander

0.17 0.12 0.15

Bad Commander 0.07 0.09 0.08

Graph used for both was OH6 - Equal Probability N[ {cidi + ci (1 - di )( s/ai )} ] / N i = 1

N = The number of trucks.s = A constant; the time limit for trucks to arrive at refugee camp.di = 1 if truck i arrives within the critical time limit, 0 if it is late.ci = 1 if truck i arrives at the refugee camp vertex, 0 if it is disabled.ai = The arrival time of truck i at the refugee camp vertex.

Goal Develop and validate framework for modeling

human behavior by comparing the performance of trait-based automated commanders with human commanders of similar personality profiles.

Human Commanders OCEAN + Locus of Control + Cognitive Ability NEO Test and Others

Further Experimentation & Analysis Optimum Weights Quantify error

Future Work

Salient ‘Military’ Traits Observers have recognized only a few

traits as being likely salient traits in a military character.e.g., Bond (1996) recognized the need for

achievement as salient to military character.Pew & Mavor (1998) identify risk-taking and innovativeness as others.

Ideally we hope traits such as the above are encompassed within the

Big 5.

Openness

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Extroversion

Agreeableness

Locus of Ctrl

Personality Traits

worrying, nervous, emotional, insecure, inadequate, hypochondriac.

sociable, active, talkative, optimistic, fun-loving, affectionate.

organized, reliable, hard-working, self-disciplined, honest, clean

curious, broad interests, creative, original, imaginative, untraditional

good-natured, trusting, helpful, forgiving, gullible, straightforward.

a person’s perception of whether events are primarily within their control or are a function of chance and uncontrollable factors.

Cognitive Ability Research has come to a general

conclusion that personality alone is not a good predictor of behavior. (e.g., Janis & Mann, 1977; Bryn & Kelley, 1981).

Recognized that IQ or Cognitive ability plays an important role in how the personality traits interact with situational factors.

Openness

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Extroversion

Agreeableness

Locus of Ctrl

IQ

Cognitive Ability

Experience & Training

Personality Traits Environmental Modifiers

Individual Modifiers

Morale

Fatigue

Alertness

Situational Factors

C3 Structure

Perception or Degree of Uncertainty

METT-T

Filters through Filters through

Filters through

Low Quality

Decision

Decision making Behavior

High Quality

Decision

Or

Results in

Future Work – Background Research once focused mostly on situational

variables but now recognizes personality variables (e.g., Mischel, 1968).

No tools exist for assessing traits specific to military personnel (Pew & Mavor, 1998, p. 253).

Personality may play a role in a person’s ability to acknowledge a threat, recognize its credibility and seriousness and act appropriately.

More Background Janis (1989) suggests that, in particular,

conscientiousness, lack of openness and neuroticism lead to defective simplistic approaches to vital problems requiring high-quality decision making.

Agreeableness and extraversion are hypothesized to be the less useful of predictors.

Agreeableness may relate to encouraging consensus or a following of fellow decision-makers. (p. 209)

Extraversion might relate to the type of charismatic leadership necessary for setting norms (p. 209)

Traits of Focus (cf. Janis, 1989)

Openness Conscientiousness Neuroticism

Openness Implies... Persons low in O (Low O’s) have a lack of imagination, an

inability to think and act independently and a preference for routine.

Each military situation often has unique parameters. Low O’s will use existing strategies and rules of thumb at the sacrifice of applying strategy unique to the situation.

High O’s are able to ‘think outside the box’ when necessary, are more self-reliant and yet will seek out information to tailor the solution to the unique parameters of the problem.

Conscientiousness Implies...

Persons low in C (Low C’s) will be disorganized (may include careless execution of assigned duties, and will have a low degree of self-discipline.

Low C’s will be inattentive to cues that would otherwise serve as useful warnings to others. They will fail to follow-up on early warning signs of potential threat.

In the event that a Low C does recognize a problem as important, s/he is more likely to prioritize their personal motives over the organizations.

Persons high in C will take heed of warnings and integrate them into strategy more readily and thus act more appropriately.

Neuroticism Implies... Persons high in neuroticism (High N’s) can be

characterized as having low stress tolerance along with feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Their low stress level may dispose them to have high anxiety levels and thus a lack of attention.

High N’s will be more likely to adopt a coping strategy of defensive avoidance or hypervigilance (Janis, p. 223) If this is coupled with pre-existing pessimism about the likelihood of finding a satisfactory solution, the defectiveness of strategy is compounded that much more.

Locus of Control Implies... External locus of control people have a perceived lack of

control over outcomes and may see change as something to be feared rather than welcomed.

Internals trust in their ability to influence their environment through their effort and skill.

Internals are thus more likely to be proactive, they will recognize the components they have influence over and actively take charge of the decision.

Persons with external locus of control may feel vulnerable, helpless and have an increased level of anxiety, each of which will detract from the effectiveness of their actions.