Abstract
Intelligence community experts face challenges communicating the results of analysis products to policy makers. Given the high-stakes nature of intelligence analyses, the consequences of misinformation may be dire, potentially leading to costly, ill-informed policies or lasting damage to national security. Much is known regarding how to effectively communicate complex analysis products to policy makers possessing different sources of expertise. Fuzzy-Trace Theory, an empirically validated psychological account of how decision makers derive meaning from complex stimuli, emphasizes the importance of communicating the essential bottom-line of an analysis (“gist”), in parallel with precise details (“verbatim”). Verbatim details can be prone to misinterpretation when presented out of context. Several examples from intelligence analyses and laboratory studies are discussed, with implications for integrating knowledge from multiple sources of expertise, communicating complex technical information to nontechnical recipients, and identifying and training effective communicators. Collaboration between the academic and intelligence communities would facilitate new insights and scientifically grounded implementation of findings.
SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. David Broniatowski (George Washington University) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. During his presentation, Dr. Broniatowski discussed intelligence analysis, stressed the importance of informing decision makers, and provided policy recommendations in his presentation. He stated that providing decision makers with more details (verbatim) is not enough; communicators should express the gist of an analysis product, that is, its meaning in context. Dr. Broniatowksi proceeded to discuss Fuzzy-Trace Theory, which explains why analysis products can be prone to misunderstanding, with dire consequences. He explained that policy decisions are more informed by gist representation as opposed to verbatim details; therefore, experts should represent the gist of the analysis and not just the verbatim—which could be misunderstood. Dr. Broniatowski then stated that gists must be elicited from experts, and these gists may differ if they are informed by different sources of expertise (including “lay” cultural expertise). If experts differ, an overarching gist must be extracted to for a more thorough understanding. Furthermore, he explained that a more precise analysis will be more compelling if it is linked to a categorical gist. To conclude, Dr. Broniatowski stated that the IC should support its good communicators through further development and by training them to become skilled gist communicators.
David A. Broniatowski
Associate Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
My research interests include social media data analytics, engineering system architecture, decision under risk, and online misinformation.