The Human Factors of Fratricide

Laura A. Rafferty, Neville A. Stanton

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781317028383
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Industrial Engineering
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Fratricide has been defined as firing on your own forces, when mistaking them for enemy forces, which results in injury or death. Rates of fratricide incidence have been steadily increasing and the complexity of the contemporary operating environment may lead to a continuation of this trend. Although the majority of research into fratricide has focused on the development of technological decision aids, recent explorations highlight the need to emphasise the social aspects within a socio-technical framework. This book presents and validates, via the use of case studies, a model of teamwork and decision-making factors that are associated with incidents of fratricide. In summary, it offers a review and evaluation of contemporary theoretical perspectives on teamwork and fratricide, as well as a range of accident analysis approaches. A novel theory of fratricide is then presented followed by a new methodology for assessing fratricide. Naturalistic case studies of teams are undertaken in the military domain. These studies illustrate the approach and offer early validation evidence. In closing, the book presents a series of principles designed to reduce the likelihood of fratricide in the future.

Chapter 1

Fratricide, Expectations, Situation Awareness and Teamwork

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to propose foundations for a theory of fratricide causality based on a review of the existing literature. Core suppositions are drawn from current research into fratricide, each of which is explored in relation to prominent work within the wider Human Factors literature. Literature is drawn from multiple sources, including academic journals and texts, government and research reports, and conference papers. Insights gained from wider academia are utilised to develop a model of fratricide causality, and the model’s relationship to previous fratricide research is discussed.

Fratricide from a Human Factors Perspective

Recent research by Kogler (2003), Jamieson and Wang (2007), Dean and Handley (2006), Gadsen and Outteridge (2006), US Congress (1993) Masys (2006) and Wilson et al. (2007) has highlighted the importance of exploring fratricide from a systems perspective hypothesising that multiple causal factors interact in nonlinear ways to cause an incident of fratricide.

The Importance of Expectations

Although this book focuses on the systemic evaluation of fratricide, research into the individual decision-making processes involved in fratricide has identified a number of interesting conclusions. Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux (2007) and Dean and Handley (2006) provide in-depth reviews of the individual decisionmaking process involved in shoot, no-shoot decisions. Both researchers draw out the importance of expectations and confirmatory bias in the decision-making process (Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux 2007, Dean and Handley 2006), arguing that expectation impacts on the way in which individuals interpret the situation they are in, and the way they attend to and integrate information. Dean and Handley (2006) present the Integrative Combat Identification Entity Relationship Model (INCIDER) model depicting the human decision-maker involved in incidents of fratricide. The model states that the decision-maker will go through a:

comprehension process by which the decision maker compares his expectation with the sensory input (i.e. compares his previous SA with new sensory input to derive a revised SA). (Dean and Handley 2006: 17)

The INCIDER model also represents myriad impacts upon the decision-maker, ranging from personality factors to weather conditions, thereby emphasising the complexity of the problem of fratricide (Dean and Handley 2006).

Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux (2007) focus on the manner in which decision-makers combine and assign importance to information, claiming that a core aspect of fratricide prevention is ensuring that information is correctly received and integrated. The importance attached to appropriate information integration is replicated across the fratricide domain (Bolstad, Endsley and Cuevas 2009). Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux suggest that ‘not all information is of equal value’ and propose that people use their previous experience to determine the value of information (2007: 30). Building upon the role of expectations, the research explores the confirmatory bias and its impact upon incidents of fratricide. Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux define confirmatory bias:

[W]hen people have a strong opinion or belief about the state of the world, they are more likely to seek evidence or cues that confirm this belief. Evidence in contrast to their opinion is perceived as an outlier that should be ignored. (2007: 33)

For an in-depth review of the confirmatory bias and its impact upon fratricide the reader is also referred to Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux (2007).

Greitzer and Andrews (2009) continue the emphasis on the importance of expectations to fratricide incidents, suggesting that the impact of such expectations is heightened in situations of acute stress. Their research discusses numerous studies which have shown that stress can lead to tunnel vision, causing individuals to focus their attention on certain cues to the detriment of other cues. Greitzer and Andrews (2009) argue that expectancy can cause:

selective perception as well as biased decisions or responses to situations in the form of other cognitive biases like confirmation bias (the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions) or irrational escalation (the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past). (Greitzer and Andrews 2009: 180)

Greitzer and Andrews suggest that the importance of such cognitive biases is undeniable, since these cognitive biases can lead soldiers to ‘start looking for reasons to fire instead of reasons not fire’ (2009: 183), suggesting that in-depth exploration is needed to understand the impact of expectations on fratricide.

Teamwork

Research into the individual processes involved in fratricide has provided a number of interesting insights. However, the focus of this research is on the systemic aspects of fratricide in line with current academic as well as government guidance, for example the US Congress (1993) emphasised the need to view the problem as an extended process situated across systemic levels. According to Greitzer and Andrews ‘combat ID and maintaining situation awareness (SA) in general, are highly distributed, collective tasks’ (2009: 229).

Research by Wilson et al. (2007) explores the wider issues associated with fratricide incidents, developing a model of fratricide representing the military system as a whole including organisational, technological and task factors. The focus of the model developed by Wilson et al. (2007) is on the teamwork aspects associated with fratricide, but the model also illustrates the roles of other organisational factors in these incidents. Whereas the previous discussions (Dean and Handley 2006, Famewo, Matthews and Lamoureux 2007) focused on how information was utilised in decision-making, Wilson and his colleagues also explore in their research how that information is gained and the team processes involved in information transfer. Their model of fratricide causation explains fratricide with respect to breakdowns in shared cognition; specifically the teamwork processes of communication, cooperation and coordination.

The taxonomy used by Wilson et al. (2007) has now been extended to identify the possible ways in which these factors could break down. Rather than simply ask team members whether they engage in closed loop communication, the framework is extended to ask the question: If not, why not? Possible reasons for breakdowns in communication are presented in order to guide the analyst in exploring the wider causality of the breakdown (Wilson, Salas and Andrews 2009). The framework used by Wilson et al. has also been extended beyond an error identification tool to provide possible training strategies to mitigate teamwork breakdowns. Wilson, Salas and Andrews (2009) have mapped the core breakdowns associated with communication, coordination and cooperation onto prominent training strategies from the Human Factors domain. In this manner Wilson, Salas and Andrews (2009) have provided a methodology to identify specific problems in teams involved in fratricide and identify appropriate training mechanisms which focus on these breakdowns.

The value of the exploration of fratricide carried out by Wilson et al. (2007) is highlighted in the research of Zobarich, Lamoureux and Bruyn-Martin (2007). Zobarich and his colleagues utilised the taxonomy devised by Wilson et al. to identify appropriate behavioural markers that should be measured and conducted a task analysis to identify when these behaviours should be measured. The research developed a method to measure team performance based upon these behavioural markers, together with a five-point scale to rate each marker during team performance. The research of Wilson et al. and Zobarich et al. provides a clear foundation for measuring the factors involved in fratricide. However, current research has emphasised the need to explore the interactions between these causal factors. This questions the utility of taxonomic approaches.

Interactions

Masys (2006) provides an interesting exploration of the problem of fratricide, and wider accident aetiology, focusing on the non-linear interactions among components in complex systems. He approaches fratricide utilising a dual perspective of actor–network theory and complexity theory to explore the social and technical aspects involved in such incidents and the interactions and relationships between these (Masys 2006). Masys (2006) argues that fratricide analysis should not focus on human error proposing that fratricide occurs in a complex system:

viewed as a network construct of heterogeneous elements relationally interconnected via aligned and opposing interests. (Masys 2006: 377)

In light of this, exploration of fratricide should focus on the emergence and relationships within the military system. Masys views these relationships as ‘complex interactions such that inputs and outputs are not proportional’, and suggests that due to this, research should focus on ‘emergence, non-linearity and co-evolution’ (Masys 2006: 377).

Research by Gadsen and Outteridge (2006) and Gadsen et al. (2008) continues the emphasis on the interaction between causal factors and the need to explore fratricide from a systemic perspective. Their research argues that the causality behind fratricide incidents consists of multiple errors across multiple levels of the system, rather than the solider firing the weapon alone. Following from this multi-causality argument, their research highlights the need to explore fratricide incidents with respect to the wider system in which they took place and emphasises that ‘the relationships between the factors must be addressed’ (Gadsen and Outteridge 2006: 14). In addition to this, their research highlights the cognitive processes involved in fratricide and, in particular, the role of expectations (in line with research by Dean and Handley 2006 and Famewo et al. 2007), suggesting that expectations impact on the way in which people search for, perceive and integrate information (Gadsen and Outteridge 2006, Gadsen et al. 2008).

In order to investigate fratricide causality Gadsen et al. (2008) explored a series of case studies of real-life incidents of fratricide, utilising the Fratricide Causal Analysis Scheme. This categorisation consists of 12 groupings: command and control; procedures; equipment/technology; Situation Awareness; misidentification; physical/physiological factors; pre-deployment preparation; teamwork; environmental factors; communications/information; platform configuration; and cognitive factors (Gadsen et al. 2008). The research concluded that breakdowns in the communications/information category were the most prevalent causal factor in the case studies of fratricide explored (Gadsen et al. 2008).

Suppositions

From the previous research into fratricide a number of key suppositions can be identified:

1. Fratricide is complex, multi-causal and is the result of problems at multiple levels of the military system.

2. Further research is needed into the interactions between causal factors.

3. Expectations are important to fratricide and to Situation Awareness (SA).

4. Situation Awareness is an important factor of fratricide causality.

5. Teamwork is an important factor of fratricide causality.

From this initial review of the fratricide literature it is clear that fratricide is a problem emerging from within the military system as a whole and is the outcome of numerous interconnected causal factors, including expectations, SA and teamwork. The next part of this chapter provides an exploration of each supposition within the wider literature in an attempt to identify currently available models that may enable an investigation of the complex causality associated with incidents of fratricide.

Wider Literature

Complex, Multi-Causal, Multiple Levels and Interactions

The first two propositions represent the underlying theoretical assumptions of general systems theory. Von Bertalanffy proposed ‘a new scientific doctrine of wholeness’ (1950: 142) called general systems theory, arguing that systems should be explored based upon the proposition that ‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ (142). General systems theory defines a system as ‘a complex of interacting elements’ (143) proposing that each of these elements will behave differently when explored in isolation from how it would behave within the system as a whole. Each element’s behaviour is dependent upon the interaction of all elements within the system. Von Bertalanffy asserts that studying elements in isolation is insufficient:

You cannot sum up the behaviour of the whole from the isolated parts, and you have to take into account the relations between the various subordinated systems and the systems that are subordinated to them in order to understand the behaviour of the parts. (Von Bertalanffy 1950: 148)

Heylighen and Joslyn (1992) describe general systems theory as a theory which argues against reductionism and emphasises holism, positing that elements within a system are constantly interacting, evolving and producing emergent properties. It has been proposed that accidents can be viewed as an aberrant emergent property arising as a result of constant interaction and evolution within such systems (Qureshi 2007).

The systems perspective is becoming an increasingly popular theoretical stance supported by researchers such as Hollnagel (1993) and Hancock (1997) and it is being applied to numerous domains including SA (Stanton, Stewart et al. 2006, Salmon, Stanton, Walker, Baber, Jenkins, McMaster and Young 2008); Situation Awareness and anaesthesia (Fioratou et al. 2010); Command and Control interface design (Jenkins et al. 2008) and human error identification (Stanton and Baber 1996).

The systems approach is purported to be particularly fitting to the exploration of the fratricide incidents, as is discussed in the fratricide literat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Fratricide, Expectations, Situation Awareness and Teamwork
• 2 Application of the F3 Model to a Case Study of Fratricide
• 3 FEAST: Fratricide Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork
• 4 It’s Good to Talk: Exploration of the Communications Surrounding Shoot, No Shoot Decisions
• 5 The Communication-masking Effect: Why it’s Not Always Good to Talk
• 6 Is it Better to Be Connected?
• 7 Comparison of Populated Models
• 8 Conclusions and Recommendations
• References and Bibliography
• Index