Predictors of Shoot–Don’t Shoot Decision-Making Performance

Abstract

Soldiers are required to perform basic combat tasks, such as move, shoot, and communicate, and to make decisions under many environmental stressors, including continuous operations and information-processing tasks driven by C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and other types of information systems. Knowledge requires information processing, and increased processing is usually the root cause of increased error. Friend-or-foe decision-making research has primarily focused on the types of equipment being used and task difficulty levels to examine shoot-don't shoot errors; however, newer theoretical approaches may enhance cognitive performance research and models focused on decision-making performance. Higher explanatory power and better prediction models may be created using multitheoretical individual factors derived from transactional-stress and informationprocessing theories. The purpose of this study was to examine multitheoretical individual factor effects of emotional and cognitive predictor variables under dual-task simulated shoot-don't shoot target scenarios. A quantitative repeated-measures approach was used with a convenience sample of 12 U.S. Army soldiers ages 18 to 34 years.

Analysis of In-Game Communication as an Indicator of Recognition Primed Decision Making in Elite Australian Rules Football Umpires

“…Specifically, the study of OiS performance allows researchers to understand decision making in a dynamic environment characterized by physical, cognitive, emotive, and temporal stressors (Neville & Salmon, 2016). These same characteristics are present in safety-critical domains—for example, firefighting (Klein, Calderwood, & Clinton-Cirocco, 2010) and military operations (Fiore, Ross, & Jentsch, 2012; Scribner, 2016). Furthermore, naturalistic research in sport, including the study of OiS, provides data on the way that individuals, teams, and systems conduct tasks, meet goals, and make decisions (Kermarrec & Bossard, 2014; Klein, 1998; Macquet, 2009; Macquet & Fleurance, 2007; Orasanu & Connolly, 1993).…”

Flying Off the Handle: Affective Influences on Decision Making and Action Tendencies in Real-World Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Scenarios

“…Study of performance shaping in aircraft maintenance engineering has shown that various factors can provoke unsafe behaviors in decisions (Hobbs, 2008). Affect is one such factor that has been researched in complex cognitive work in various real-world settings (e.g., Bowman & Rogers, 2016; Scribner, 2015) and may provide a window into the context surrounding decisions (Mosier & Fischer, 2010b) of the aircraft maintenance engineer. Varying in duration, cause, and consequence (Mosier & Fischer, 2010b), affect is a form of mental processing that reflects our internal subjective states and includes emotion, mood, and motivation (Cohen, Pham, & Andrade, 2006; Knutson, Katovich, & Suri, 2014).…”

Toward Predicting Human Performance Outcomes From Wearable Technologies: A Computational Modeling Approach

“…We chose to restrict our analysis to executive function tasks eliciting inhibitory control, for two primary reasons. First, inhibitory control is a crucial executive function that has been extensively linked to brain networks and highly relevant performance outcomes such as making shoot/don't-shoot decisions in law enforcement and military contexts (Biggs et al, 2015;Scribner, 2016;Biggs, 2021). Second, inhibitory control processes are effectively isolated from simple reaction time both behaviorally and neuroanatomically, with largely independent functional brain networks responsible for their performance (Seeley et al, 2007;Elton and Gao, 2014).…”