Immediacy,Trust,and Remote Command and Control

Abstract

In this article, I discuss an experiment that tests the prediction of social impact theory that immediacy matters and the claim that trust partially mediates its impact in command and control settings. Active-duty soldiers completed oral commands more quickly when collocated with an unfamiliar leader than when that leader was sheltered at a remote location. A questionnaire on trust in the leader revealed greater levels of trust in the collocated condition. The best-fit linear regression function reveals a significant positive association between self-reported levels of trust and response time. Additional regressions reveal that trust mediates the influence of immediacy on the speed with which soldiers executed direct orders. These findings support arguments against plans proposed by both the U.S. and Swedish armed forces that would extract platoon leaders from the field and replace them with remote command and control of the dismounted infantry.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelson

(1961). Human decisions in command and control centers. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 89, 726–731.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Berg

Dickhaut

McCabe

(1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.

Brehmer

(1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica, 81, 211–241.

Brehmer

Sundin

(2000). Command and control in network-centric warfare. In Sundin

Friman

(Eds.), ROLF 2010—The way ahead and the first step: Försvarshögskolans acta C6 (pp. 45–56). Stockholm: Swedish National Defense College.

Friman

(2000). Decision making in a ROLF staff environment. In Sundin

Friman

(Eds.), ROLF 2010—The way ahead and the first step: Försvarshögskolans acta C6 (pp. 67–74). Stockholm: Swedish National Defense College.

Hébert

(2003). Psychological science and the transformation of the military. American Psychological Society Observer, 1. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1360.

Hoffman

McCabe

K. A.

Smith

V. L.

(1998). Behavioral foundations of reciprocity: Experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36, 335–352.

Jones

G. R.

George

J. M.

(1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546.

10.

Latané

(1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.

11.

Latané

Liu

J. H.

Nowak

Bonevento

Zheng

(1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795–805.

12.

Marshall

S. L. A.

(1947). Men against fire. New York: William Morrow.

13.

McAllister

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

14.

Meyerson

Weick

K. E.

Kramer

R. M.

(1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Orne

M. T.

(1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

16.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

17.

Sedikides

Jackson

J. M.

(1990). The social impact theory: A field test of source strength, source immediacy and number of targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 273–281.