Applying Psychology in VDC Construction Management

Webinar in Collaboration with NTNU25th August 2020

Prof. Jacqueline Wheatcroft CPsychol PhDUniversity of Gloucestershire 

“There is no saying ‘no’ to the future…..”Chairman, Sequoia Capital – May 2014

Professor Jacqueline Wheatcroftjmwheatcroft@glos.ac.uk

Broadly speaking, in the enhancement of evidence, information and intelligence with a focus on questioning and procedural techniques – particularly in applied and critical contexts.

Research which examined the efficacy of pre‐trial witness  familiarisation to cross‐examination strategies used in court by considering  how accurate responses could be increased and how errors could be  reduced.  Research in the area led to involvement in questioning trainingprogramme in England for barristers and judges (2016; 2019). 

Research which focused on military decision making and development of a Toolkit ® Unmanned aerial systems and pilots – implications for training. Interview Protocol (LIP®); an evidence‐based memory enhancement technique used by security 

services and the police. Training United Nations Experts (for the UK Government) for use in contexts where criticality and uncertainty are important. 

Interests for Construction Industry (worked with Sujesh  and a family background in construction) 

Prof. Jacqueline WheatcroftSome Research Collaborations

Chair of British psychological Society Division of Forensic Psychology Training UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office Interview Expert

Draws on important aspects of the environment. One of the key elements is the person and this is informed by Psychological Sciences. It is undervalued and an often hidden aspect.

Interdisciplinary team work is a complex process where different disciplines come together to share expertise, knowledge and skills to solve applied problems. So, we all need to understand each other to make applications work in the applied context.

Multi and Interdisciplinary Working

“No matter how expert people are at coping with familiar problems their performance will begin to approximate to that of novices once their repertoire of rules has been 

exhausted by the demands of a novel situation” (1990; p. 58)

James Reason

Decision InertiaHow? Why?

Decision aids developed solely to deal with human error (Power et al.)

Social-CognitionWe see what we want to see or what

we understand

Dissonance We are motivated to not feel badaffects confidence > uncertainty

Interpersonal CircumplexOur basic personality leads us to

interact in different ways and approach the world in ways that

feel comfortable to us

Heuristics and BiasesWe change information to fit with

our knowledge

Environment: Questions and feedback

We will give way to pressure and/or make poor decisions

in certain circumstances

Some Psychological Perspectives 

The introduction of automated decision aids into human decision‐making environments is likely to have an important impact on the decision‐making context. 

Although introduced with the expressed goal of reducing human error, remarkably few evaluation studies of whether automated decision aids in fact lead to an overall reduction in error rates have been conducted. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the introduction of automated decision aids does not unilaterally lead to a reduction in human error, but instead can create opportunities for simply a different class of errors.

Information integration in complex high‐technology settings are challenging and the costs of making errors can be of huge magnitude. 

System‐Human Interaction: Why Important?

Psychometric assessments (personality)Supervise UAS cargo flightAccuracy of decisions made to (low, medium, high danger categories)Considers also Automated, Manual controlTime latency to decisionConfidence in decision madeOutcomes have implications for training and public perceptions of UASs

Image by Martin & Revollier, CC

EXAMPLE: UASs: Pilots & VGPs Wheatcroft, J.M., Jump, M., Breckell, A.L., & Adams‐White, J. (2017). Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Supervisors’ Accuracy and Confidence of Decisions: Professional Pilots or Video Game Players? Cogent Psychology (Cognitive Science & Neuroscience), 4(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1327628

Interact UAV GroupACCURACY & DECISION DANGER

Overall Accuracy Low Decision Danger

Medium Decision Danger

HighDecision Danger

Control 13.47 (3.83)

4.27 (1.83)

5.20 (1.15)

4.13 (1.69)

Video Game Players 14.80 (2.15)

5.40 (.83)

5.20 (.862)

4.13 (1.55)

Private Pilots 15.20 (3.41)

5.27 (1.44)

5.60 (1.24)

4.33 (1.80)

Professional Pilots 15.67 (2.50)

5.47 (1.13)

5.33 (.72)

4.67 (1.40)

TOTAL 14.78(3.08)

5.10 *(1.41)

5.33*(1.00)

4.32*(1.59)

Standard deviations are shown in parenthesis; * p<.05

Reports on the suitability of potential unmanned aerial systems supervisors. 

The findings give ground to the idea that video game players are on a par with professional pilots as a resource.

As danger increased confidence and accuracy relationship decreased – so more confident but less accurate.

Decisions were affected by those who were less able to deal with uncertainty.

More conscientious someone was the more confident they were in their decisions.

UASs Outcomes

Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence

Crown Copyright Dstl 2014

Ship SystemsAdams‐White, J.A., Wheatcroft, J.M., & Jump, M. (2018). Measuring decision accuracy and confidence of mock air defence operators. Special Issue of the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Naturalistic decision making under uncertainty: Theoretical and methodological developments. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.01.005

U

EXAMPLE: Measuring the meta and cognitive abilities of Air Defence operators (Human Factors)

A ship’s Ops room is the focal point of the ship with significant amounts of incoming information from various data sources that must be processed and attended to by personnel in order to make decisions.

Air defence personnel are an integral part to any warship making complex and cognitively demanding decisions under extreme conditions.

(HMS Cardiff, 1982; USS Navy Aegis Cruiser, 1988)

of Air Defence Operators

Metacognition

• Metacognition: An awareness of one’s performance and ability and willingness to reflect on ones thinking process (Parker & Stone, 2014).

• Decision Confidence: Assessments in confidence can guide current and future decisions (Kepecs & Mainen, 2012).

• Confidence-Accuracy Relation: What we want is for people to be most confident in their accurate decisions (Wheatcroft et al., various publications).

(HMS Cardiff, 1982; USS Navy Aegis Cruiser, 1988)

Psychometric testsCognitive misers and take the least cognitive effort routePeople work less collectively than individuallyDiffusion of responsibility and social loafingConformity (public and private acceptance) and obedience (authority)

Errors of ‘commission’ (follow system even though evidence may suggest the system is not making the best recommendation)

Errors of ‘omission’ (do not take action in the face of problems from other indicators because the system has not alerted them to do anything differently)

Decision Aids lead to decision‐makers doing ‘as it directs’ and a failure to scrutinise and put in the effort required to seek out alternatives

Psychology and Investigating Ship’s Ops Room Decision‐Making

Experimental Design:

• Computer generated Air Defence Peace Enforcement developed with Subject Matter Experts

• Decision Criticality: High, Medium, Low X Task Stress: High, Medium, Low)

• Measures: Confidence, Accuracy, W-S C-A, Various Psychometrics, Workload and Awareness

Method

Textbox

BorderTimer

Airlane

No fly Zone

Coastline

17

EXAMPLE: Collaboration with Special Counsel (South Australia)Wheatcroft, J.M., Caruso, D. & Krumrey-Quinn, J. (2015). Rethinking Leading: The directive, non-directive divide. Criminal Law Review, 5, 340-346.

• The paper set out the body of empirical research which shows familiarisation can be helpful; though argues that justice systems should develop to best practices for elicitation of accurate evidence and not leave it to witnesses to combat the system’s shortcomings.

WE CALLED FOR A PROHIBITION (a ban) on DIRECTIVE LEADING QUESTIONS which

contributed to 20 Principles Training for Barristers and Judges in England & Wales

Collaboration with other disciplines is critical to understanding the whole rather than just the ‘sum of its parts’.

Psychology contributes human understandings and scientific methods of assessment and measurement in order to compare systems, projects, the human interface and professional behavioural standards and procedures.

Psychology can identify the factors important in decision making in applied contexts and develop training tools and Toolkit®saligned to the discipline.

We can all work together now – let’s not wait – as there is no saying ‘no’ to the future and the future involves us all! 

Conclusion