SONIC BOOMS AND SLEEP: AFFECT CHANGE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

I. Introduction.

The National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences has reported that in order
to better understand the effects of sonic booms
on humans, research in a number of different
areas is urgently needed.* It was indicated that
it is particularly important to know more about
the responses of sleeping individuals to sonic
booms, since any interruption, or change in depth
of sleep (as measured by the electroencephalo-
graph) caused by booms might have a consider-
able detrimental effect on some, if not most,
individuals. It was also felt that such effects
would be most pronounced for middle-aged or
elderly persons. Of particular concern was the
determination of the extent to which sonic booms
occurring during sleep result in behavioral
changes, psychological distress, or excessive
fatigue.

The focus of the present study was on the
measurement of psychological distress resulting
from sonic booms occurring during sleep. The
Composite Mood Adjective Checklist (CMACL),*
a measure of mood states, was employed as the
index of such distress. It is an 80-item inventory
which provides an overall index of degree of
positive affect, as well as scores for 15 individual
mood factors such as anxiety, aggression, friend-
liness, and so on. The CMACL is suitable for
the repeated administrations required in such a
project, and has been shown to be sensitive to
changes in mood resulting from sleep depriva-
tion.

It was the purpose of this study, then, to de-
termine to what extent CMACL scores are in-
fluenced by exposure to simulated sonic booms
during sleep, and to measure this effect in terms
of the age group, i.e., young-adult, middle-aged,
or elderly, to which an individual belongs. A
second purpose was to determine to what extent

The assistance of Blair Fennell, Cynthia Mitchell,
Karen Lewis, RuthAnn Parvin, and Georgetta West is
gratefully acknowledged.

the effects of repeated sonic-boom exposure dur-
ing sleep are cumulative with respect to affective
states. It was felt that initially, any disruption
might be “subclinical,” but that the effects might
summate across sessions to then become observ-
able after several evenings of sonic-boom expo-
sure,

Il. Method.

A. Subjects. There were eight paid subjects
in each of the following three age groups: young-
adults (21 to 26 years old), middle-aged (40 to
45 years old), and elderly (60 to 72 years old).
The subjects were in good health and had no
deficit in auditory functioning in the lower fre-
quency ranges. Of the young-adult group, five
were students and three held full-time jobs. In
the middle-aged group, seven were fully em-
ployed and one was a student. In the elderly
group, only one was employed full-time and the
remaining seven were retirees.

B. Procedure. The project,? of which this
study was a part, measured physiological states,
and complex performance, in addition to the
assessment of mood states as herein described.
Two subjects at a time spent 21 consecutive
nights in a sleeping room equipped for sonic-
boom simulation and electrophysiological moni-
toring. Both subjects in each pair were from
the same age group. All subjects arrived for
each session at 2000 hours, went to bed at 2200
hours, and were awakened at 0620 hours. Before
retiring, both mood and performance measures
were taken prior to attachment of electrodes for
recording during sleep. In the mornings, elec-
trodes were removed, and the mood and per-
formance measures were repeated. For the first
five nights (Phase I), subjects were permitted
to adapt to the sleeping quarters and no booms
were presented. On nights 6 through 17 (Phase
II), the subjects were exposed to hourly sonic
booms starting at 2300 hours and continuing until
0600 hours the following morning. If either
subject was awake at the time of a scheduled
boom, the boom was delayed up to 10 minutes if



APPENDIX

Significant results (.05 level or better) from analyses of variance for
overall index and each of the 15 mood factors of the Composite Mood Adjec-
tive Checklist.

A. Overall Index: Age—Phase—Time of Assessment ANOVA.
1, Age—F (2,21) =3.51, p<.05 (no significant differences between means
according to multiple comparison tests*)
2, Phase—F’ (2,42) =15.68, p<.001
Phase I> (p<.05) Phase II>(p<.05) Phase IIIT
38. Age X Phase—F’ (4,42) =14.40, p<.001
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F (2,42) =40.48, p<.001
Phase I>(p<.01) Phase II>(p<.01) Phase III
Middle-aged—non-significant (N.S.)
Elderly—N.S.
4. Phase X Time of Assessment—F (2,42) =8.84, p<.05
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Phase I—N.S.
Phase II—N.S.
Phase ITI—F (1,63) =2.22, p<.05 (Morning> Evening)

B. Overall Index: Age—Days within Phase I—Time of Assessment ANOVA.

1. Age X Days—F (8,84) =2.46, p<.05
Simple effects across Days.
Young-adult—F (4,84) =2.65, p<.05

Days 1, 2,3, 5> (p<.05) Day 4
Days 1,5> (p<.05) Day 3
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—F (4,84) =3.05, p<.05
Days 2, 3, 4, 5>(p<.05) Day 1

C. Overall Index: Age—Days within Phase IJ—Time of Assessment ANOVA.

1. Age—F (2,21) =3.78, p<.05
No significant differences between means according to multiple com-
parison. tests.

2, Age X Time of Assessment—F (2,21) =4.43, p<.05
No significant simple effects.
D. Overall Index: Age—Days within Phase III—Time of Assessment
ANOVA.

1. Age—F (2,21) =6.41, p<.01
Elderly>(p<.01) Middle-aged= Young-adult

2. Time of Assessment—F’ (1,21) =7.80, p<.01 (Morning>Evening)

6


TasLE 2.—Mean Overall-Index Scores for the Young-
Adult, Middle-Aged, and Elderly Groups on Each Day
of Phase I (Pre-Boom)

TABLE 3.—Mean Mood Factor Scores for Young-Adult,
Middle-Aged, and Elderly Subjects During Each
Experimental Phase

Group Dayi Day2 Day3 Day4 Day 5
Young-adult 7.22 7.12 6.97 6.79 7.19
Middle-aged 6.79 6.92 7.03 7.00 7.10
Elderly 7.09 «7.44 «7.88 = 7,507.50

decreasing positive affect across phases on nine
factors (p<.05 or better). For the middle-aged
group, there was relatively little change in mood
across phases on 10 of the factors; a decrease in
positive affect on the three factors Friendly,
Nonchalance, and Social Affection (p<.05 or
better) ; and a reduction in negative feelings on
the two factors of Sleepy (p<.01) and Fatigue
(p<.05). As with the middle-aged group, the
elderly group showed no change in affect across
phases on most of the factors; however, on the
four factors which did indicate change, only
Vigor showed a decrease in positive affect
(p<.01). Scores for the elderly group on the
Sleepy, Anxiety, and Dizzy factors all shifted
in the direction of increasing positive affect
across phases (p<.05 or better).

There were five factors which had general age
effects in addition to those described in the inter-
actions with Phase and with Time of Assessment.
On four of the factors, Concentration, Friendly,
Nonchalance, and Social Affection, the elderly
group had more positive affect scores (p<.05 or
better) than either the young-adult or the middle-
aged groups (Table 3). The young-adult and
middle-aged groups differed from each other
only on the Nonchalance factor with the middle-
aged group having the higher mean score
(p<.05). The only factor on which the elderly
group had a score indicating a higher degree of
negative affect was on the Dizzy factor, but the
difference was significant only between the elderly
and young-adult groups (p<.05).

There were general differences between eve-
ning and morning mood assessments on only two
factors, Surgency and Depression (Table 4).
With respect to Surgency, subjects generally had
higher scores in the evening than in the morning
(p<.05). Scores for the Depression factor also
were higher in the evening than morning
(p<.01). This difference between assessments
on the Depression factor was a result of the
response tendencies of the young-adult group

Phase Phase Phase
I Ir It

(Pre- (Boom) (Post-

Mood Factor Group Boom) Boom)
Young-adult 57.61 63.64 71.75
AACL** Middle-aged 58,56 64,17 62,38
(Zuckerman) Elderly 52,07 48,76 50. 53
Young-adult 7,99 7.92 8.17
Agression Middle-aged 7.75 8.14 7.70
Elderly 7.37 7.18 7.70
Young-adult 10,55 11,41 12,59
Anxiety® Middle-aged 11.47 12,13 11.86
Elderly 12.67 10.93 11.01
Young-adult 1.65 1.49 1.66
Anxious Middle-aged 2, 44 3.11 3.30
Elderly 2,42 2.33 2.50
Young-adult 39.31 34.77 30. 53
Concentration” Middle-aged 40.84 39.23 38.27
Elderly 60.44 59.44 58,22
Young-adult 25.06 25.98 30.67
Depression® Middle-aged 22,91 23,14 22,23
Elderly 24,15 21,20 21.59
Young-adult 3.55 3.52 4,20
Distrust Middle-aged 4.77 4.35 4,47
Elderly 4.88 4.85 4.67
Young-adult 4.21 4.18 5.84
Dizzy” Middle-aged 4,93 4,61 4,84
Elderly 7.60 6.61 6.64
Young-adult 17.74 17.47 20.86
Fatigue® Middle-aged 22.49 20.95 18.75
Elderly 25.83 23,18 23.53
Young-adult 13.74 12.30 10.14
Friendly” Middle-aged 16,04 13.07 14.00
Elderly 20.42 20,24 20.05
Young-adult 6.90 6.15 5.76
Nonchalance* Middle-aged 8,91 6.54 7.05
Elderly 10.87 11.85 11,64
Young-adult 8.48 7.07 9.00
Sleepy”® Middle-aged 11.66 9.63. 7.31
Elderly 13.85 11.71 11.00
Young-adult 18,16 16,58 13.92
Social Middle-aged 18.12 15.87 16.86
Affection” — Elderly 26.45 27.10 27.62
Young-adult 23,66 19.95 15.92
Surgoncy”® Middle-aged 21.85 19.95 21,22
Elderly 26.62 25.35 23.77
Young-adult 15.16 13,42 10.91
Vigor”® Middle-aged 14.32 14.01 18.97
Elderly 17.85 17.07 15.89

© Age effect was significant
? Phase effect was significant
© Age by Phase interaction was significant



necessary. Each boom had an intensity of .1 psf
measured inside the sleeping room and 1 psf
measured in the pressure chamber adjacent to
the sleeping room. The rise time of the boom,
as recorded in the sleeping quarters, was 12 msec
and had a duration of approximately 284 msecs.
The last four nights of the sequence were desig-
nated recovery sessions (Phase III) during
which no booms were presented. During the day,
subjects went about their normal activities.

The CMACL was administered each night and
morning of the study. The CMACL scales have
been more completely described elsewhere*°;
however, briefly it consists of 80 adjectives (¢.g.,
happy, angry, apprehensive, etc.) which are rated
from “not at all” to “definitely” applicable on a
nine-point scale. For the overall index of affect
on each administration, all adjectives indicating
positive feelings are given scores according to
increasing ratings of applicability while negative-
affect adjectives are scored inversely. Each
protocol was also scored for the 15 individual
factors listed by Malmstrom.®

Ill. Results.

A. Overall Index. The mean overall index
was highest (most positive degree of affect) dur-
ing Phase I, and then declined across Phases IT
and III (Table 1). Each consecutive phase had
a significantly lower mean overall index than the
preceding phase (p<.05).* This decline was
primarily associated with affect change in the
young-adult group, as ‘the affect level of the
middle-aged and elderly groups was fairly con-
stant across phases. This differential effect as
‘a function of age was reflected in the significant
Age by Phase interaction (p<.001); in the
analysis of simple effects, only the youngest
group showed a significant decline in affect level
(p<.001). It should also be noted that the
elderly group tended to have higher scores than
the other two age groups throughout the experi-
ment (p<.05); however, the differences between
the elderly and young-adult groups were signifi-
cant (p<.05) only during Phases IT and ITI,
and between the elderly and middle-aged groups
only during Phase II (p<.05). There were no
significant differences between the young-adult,
and middle-aged groups within any experimental
phase.

* Detailed results of all statistical analyses are pre
sented in the appendix.

Tasup 1.—Mean Overall-Index Scores for Young-Adult,
Middle-Aged, and Elderly Subjects for Evening and
Morning Assessments During Each Experimental Phase

Phase Phase Phase
I ca pian

Time of  (Pre- (Boom) (Post-

Group ‘Assessment Boom) Boom)
Evening 7.00 6.83 6.26
Young-adult — Morning 7.08 6.82 6.54
Overall 7.06 6.82 6.40
Evening 7.04 6.79 6,84
Middle-aged © Morning 6.90 6.82 6.98
Overall 6.97 6.80 6.88
Evening 7.45 7.63 7.47
Elderly Morning 7.39 7.46 7.44
Overall 742 7.88 7.45

There was a tendency for the relative degree
of positive affect between evening and morning
assessments to vary as a function of phases
(p<.05). This result was primarily due to sub-
jects in the young-adult and middle-aged groups
reporting significantly (p<.05) more positive
affect in the morning than in the evening during
Phase IIT (Table 1).

There were relatively few findings of signifi-
cance with respect to trends in the overall index
across days within each experimental phase.
Only Phase I contained a significant finding re-
lating to Days; there was a modest Age by Days
interaction (p<.05). For rung adults, there
was a general declining trend across Days 1
through 4, then there was a substantial increase
(p<.05) in positive affect on Day 5 relative to
Day 4 (Table 2). There was no trend for affect
change in the middle-aged group, while the over-
all index on Day 1 from the elderly group was
significantly lower than the remaining days
(p<.05). No other significant results relating
to days within phases were noted.

B. Mood Factors. Six mood factors showed
a general declining trend in positive affect across
experimental phases (p<.05 or better), while
only one factor, Sleepy, indicated an improve-
ment (p<.01) in mood as the experiment pro-
gressed (Table 3). Moreover, only on the Con-
centration factor was the change in scores from
phase to phase consistent across age groups.
There was a significant Age by Phase interaction
on the remaining six factors, as well as on five
additional factors (p<.05 or better). As de-
tailed in Table 3, the young-adult group showed


factor. The significant decline in Sleepy scores
from Phase I to Phases II and III is inconsistent
with negative boom effects. It seems likely that
this finding was a result of the subjects adapting
their sleeping pattern to the new surroundings,
strange beds, and experimental procedures which
they encountered upon entering the experiment.

The finding that the elderly group generally
reported a more positive degree of affect than
the other two groups may be related to the
“Hawthorne” effect’ often noted in industry.
The older participants in this study were mostly
retired, and no longer involved in a day-to-day
occupational activity. Thus, they may have
lacked the activity, attention, and social contact
which are usually associated with employment.
Participation in the experiment may have met
some of these needs, and so resulted in an overall
increase in positive feelings for these individuals.

The evening-morning difference in affect ob-
tained for the young-adult and middle-aged
groups during Phase III was unexpected. Pre-
vious research has indicated that subjects usually
report more pleasant moods in the evenings than

in mornings.” In this case it may be that the
reactions of the subjects in these groups to par-
ticipation in the experiment may have changed
substantially as the experiment progressed. Thus,
as subjects approached the conclusion of the ex-
periment, they may have had some negative re-
actions to the regimentation, the reduction and/or
restriction in activities, and the inconveniences
(eg., electrode attachment) associated with the
experiment. Coming to the experiment in the
evening then meant return to these conditions,
while upon arising in the morning they could
look forward to being away from the experiment
during the day; hence, their more positive feel-
ings in the morning during Phase III.

In sum, there was no evidence in this study to
support the notion that low-intensity simulated
sonic booms (1.0 psf “outdoor” measurement)
occurring during sleep will adversely influence
the affect states of individuals exposed to such
stimuli, The minimal intensity and frequency
of booms required to produce negative effects on
moods remains to be determined.



TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

1. Report No, 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. ]
FAA-AM-72- 24
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
June 1972

SONIC BOOMS AND SLEEP: AFFECT CHANGE

6. Performing Organization Code

AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

7. Kathorls) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Roger C. Smith, Ph.D.
Gary L. Hutto, B.A.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
P. O. Box 25082 V1. Contract or Grant No.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name ond Address

Office of Aviation Medicine OAM Report
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, D. C, 20591

15. Supplementary Notes

This research was conducted under Tasks No. AM-B-70-PSY-24, AM-B-71-PSY-24,
AM-A-71-PSY-20, and AM-A-72-PSY-34.

16. Abstract

This study concerned the measurement of mood changes resulting from simulated
sonic booms occurring during sleep. Subjects from three age groups (21 to 26,
40 to 45, and 60 to 72 years old) spent 21 consecutive nights in a sleeping

room equipped for sonic-boom simulation. During the sixth through seventeenth
nights, simulated sonic booms of 1.0 psf "outdoors" overpressure level (.1 psf

measured inside the sleeping rooms) were presented hourly throughout each night.

As the measure of mood, the subjects completed a composite mood adjective
checklist in the evening before retiring and in the morning after waking on
each of the 21 days. No change in moods attributable to the occurrence of
simulated sonic booms was found. Substantial effects relating to the age of
subjects, irrespective of boom presentations, were obtained. It was concluded
that simulated sonic booms of such low intensity were unlikely to have adverse
consequences on the mood states of most individuals.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Stetement
Sonic Booms Availability is unlimited. Document may
Moods be released to the National Technical
Sleep Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
Age 22151, for sale to the public.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Di. No. of Pages | 22, Price
Unclassified Unclassified i $3.00

Form DOT F 1700.7 (s-69)



Young-adult—F (2,42) =10.28, p<.001

Phase III>(p<.05) Phase II>(p<.05) Phase I
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.

3. Age X Time of Assessment—F' (2,21) =10.49, p<.001
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.

Young-adult—F’ (2,42) =34.78, p<.001 (Evening>Morning)
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.

K. Distrust: No significant effects.
L. Dizzy

1. Age—F (2,21) =3.61, p<.05
Elderly =Middle-aged
Middle-aged= Young-adult
Elderly>(p<.05) Young-adult
2, Age X Phase—F' (4,42) =3.46, p<.05
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F (2,42) =4.78, p<.05
Phase III> (p<.05) Phase II=Phase I
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—F (2,42) =3.42, p<.05
Phase I> (p<.05) Phase II=Phase III

M. Fatigue

1, Age X Phase—F (4,42) =3.43, p<.05
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F’ (2,42) =8.28, p<.05
Phase IIL> (p<.05) Phase I=Phase IT
Middle-aged—F’ (2,42) =3.26, p<.08
Phase I=Phase II>(p<.05) Phase IIT
Elderly—N.S.

N. Friendly

1. Age—F’ (2,21) =9.48, p<.01
Elderly>(p<.01) Middle-aged= Young-adult
2, Phase—F (2,42) =15.21, p<.001
Phase I> (p<.01) Phase II=Phase HIT
3. Age X Phase—F (4,42) =5.38, p<.01
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F’ (2,42) =15.14, p<.001
Phase I> (p<.01) Phase II>(p<.01) Phase TIT
Middle-aged—F (2,42) =10.66, p<.001
Phase I>(p<.01) Phase III>(p<.05) Phase IT
Elderly—N.S.

4, Age X Time of Assessment—F' (2,21) =7.00, p<.01
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Young-adult—F’ (1,21) =9.48, p<.01 (Morning> Evening)
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.


3, Age X Time of Assessment—F (2,21) =4.78, p<.05
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Young-adult—F (1,21) =6.89, p<.01 (Morning>Evening)
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.

E. AACL (Zuckerman) Factor: Age—Phase—Time of Assessment
ANOVA.**

1. Phase—F (2,42) =8.40, p<.001
Phase II=Phase III> (p<.05) Phase I
2, Age X Phase—F (4,42) =7.97, p<.001
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—/’ (2,42) =18.85, p<.01
Phase III>(p<.01) Phase II>(p<.01) Phase III
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.

F. Aggression: No significant effects.
G. Anxiety

1. Age X Phase—F (4,22) =8.17, p<.001
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F (2,42) =5.28, p<.01
Phase III>(p<.05) Phase II> (p<.05) Phase I
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—F (2,42) =4.95, p<.05
Phase I>(p<.05) Phase IIT=Phase II

H. Anxious

1. Phase X Time of Assessment—F (2,42) =7.48, p<.01
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Phase I—F (1,63) =6.87, p<.01 (Morning>Evening)
Phase II—N.S.
Phase ITI—N.S.

I. Concentration

1. Age—F (2,21) =10.02, p<.001
Elderly>(p<.01) Middle-aged=Young-adult
9, Phase—F (2,42) =6.85, p<.01
Phase I= Phase IT
Phase I[=Phase IIT
Phase I>(p<.01) Phase IIT

8. Phase X Time of Assessment—F (2,42) =4.05, p<.05
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Phase I—F' (1,63) =6.87, p<.01
Phase II—N.S.
Phase III—N.S.

J. Depression
4. Time of Assessment—F (1,21) =15.43, p<.001 (Evening>Morning)

2. Age X Phase—F (4,42) =5.89, p<.01
Simple effects across Phases.



only, as analysis of the significant Age by Time
of Assessment interaction for this factor (p<.01)
indicated that the middle-aged and elderly groups
showed no difference between evening and morn-
ing scores on the Depression factor. The young-
adult group was also found to have higher scores
on the Friendly factor in the evenings than the
mornings (p<.01), while the elderly group had
higher scores in the mornings than in the eve-
nings on the Dizzy factor (p<.05).

Taste 4.—Evening and Morning Mean Ratings for
Selected Mood Factors During Each Experimental
Phase

Phase Phase Phase
Mood Factor ‘Time I Ir ir

(Pre- (Boom) (Post-

Boom) Boom)
Anxious? Evening 2.43 2.26 2.39
Morning 1,99 2.36 2,57
Concentration’ Evening 48.05 44.55 41,72
Morning 45.68 44.41 42,96
Depression” Evening 24,62 23,58 25.79
Morning 23,46 23,30 28, 88
Friendly” Evening 17.02 15.27 14.84
Morning 16.44 15.14 15,11
Social Affection’ Evening 21.36 19.95 19.00
Morning 20.47 19.74 19.94
Surgency* Evening 25.07 22.15 20.11
Morning 23,02 21.35 20.49

@ Time of Assessment effect was significant

° Phase by Time of Assessment interaction was signi-
ficant

During Phase I, scores tended to be more posi-
tive for the evening than morning assessments
on the Concentration (p<.05) and Social Affec-
tion factors (p<.05). In contrast, scores on the
Anxious factor (Table 4) tended to indicate
more negative affect for the evening than the
morning assessments (p<.01). During Phase IT,
there were no differences between evening and
morning scores on any of the factors; however,
in Phase III, the mean score on the Friendly
factor was higher in the morning than in the
evening (p<.05) as was also true for ratings on
the Social Affection factor (p<.05).

IV. Discussion.

The findings clearly indicate that the low-
intensity sonic booms used in this study had
negligible effects upon sleep quality as reflected

in affect states. The results from both the overall
index and the 15 mood factors were consistent
in every respect with this conclusion. If the
sonic booms had been detrimental to sleep, affect
indicators during Phase II should have shown
a change toward less positive or more negative
feelings relative to Phase I. This should then
have been followed by a return to pre-boom
affect levels during Phase III. The only group
to show even a possible trend in this direction
was the middle-aged group; however, the changes
in affect across phases were not statistically
significant. The elderly group had a pattern
which was the inverse of the expected; however,
like the middle-aged group, the changes were not
significant. The young-adult group did have
significantly reduced levels of positive affect
during Phase II, but there was also a further
reduction during Phase III. This suggests that
it was not the occurrence of booms during Phase
II which led to reduced positive affect in the
young-adult group, but rather other character-
istics of the experimental situation. This par-
ticular finding is consistent with the research of
Datel, Gieseking, Engle, and Dougher* on moods
in young military recruits, who found that evi-
dence of dysphoria tended to increase as the
recruits progressed through the first few weeks
of basic training. Thus, it appears that young
men react with increased negative affect to sit-
uations which are confining or restricting such
as is the case with basic military training and
with the present experiment.

The lack of significant effects associated with
boom presentation is consistent with the findings
from other aspects of the larger study of sonic-
poom effects of which this survey was a part.
For example, Chiles and West* found that per-
formance levels in a complex multiple task per-
formance battery were not influenced by sonic-
boom presentation during sleep. Analyses of
sleep profiles (BOC, EMG, and EEG records)
indicated that while there was evidence of some
slight responsiveness to the occurrence of booms,
there were no significant changes in time spent
in any sleep stage from non-boom to boom nights.”
The results are also generally consistent with the
findings from an exploratory study of the rela-
tionship of noise-disturbed sleep to post-sleep
behavior.*

Further evidence that the sonic booms had
little effect on sleep was provided by the Sleepy




ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The present study was conducted as a part of a larger experiment di-
rected by Drs. W. E. Collins and P. F. Iampietro. Their complete coopera-
tion is gratefully acknowledged.





5. Phase X Time of Assessment—F (2,42) =3.73, p<.05
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Phase I—N.S.
Phase II—N.S.
Phase III—F (1,63) =6.00, p<.05 (Morning> Evening)

O. Nonchalance

1. Age—F (2,21) =5.76, p<.05
Elderly>(p<.05) Middle-aged = Young-adult
2, Age X Phase—F (4,42) =3.81, p<.05
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—N.S.
Middle-aged—F (2,42) =6.35, p<.05
Phase III>(p<.05) Phase II=Phase I
Elderly—NS. ,

P. Sleepy
1. Phase—F (2,42) =7.54, p<.01
Phase I> (p<.01) Phase II=Phase III

2, Age X Phase—F (4,42) =3.24, p<.05
No significant simple effects.

Q. Social Affection
1. Age—F’ (2,21) =9.56, p<.01
Elderly > (p<.05) Middle-aged = Young-adult
2, Phase—F (2,42) =4.27, p<.05
Phase I>(p<.05) Phase II= Phase IIT

3. Age X Phase—F (4,42) =5.77, p<.01
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—F’ (2,42) =11.68, p<.001
Phase I>(p<.01) Phase II>(p<.01) Phase IIT
Middle-aged—F’ (2,42) =8.25, p<.05
Phase I>(p<.05) Phase III= Phase IT
Elderly—N.S.

4, Age X Time of Assessment—F (2,21) =3.76, p<.05
No significant simple effects.

5. Phase X Time of Assessment—F (2,42) — 3.88, p<.05
Simple effects across Time of Assessment.
Phase I—F (1,63) =4.63, p<.05 (Evening>Morning)
Phase II—N.S.
Phase ITI—F (1,63=5.12, p<.05 (Morning>Evening)

R. Surgency
1. Phase—F’ (2,42) =18.26, p<.001
Phase I>(p<.01) Phase II>(p<.05) Phase IIT

2, Age X Phase—F' (4,42) =5.21, p<.01
Simple effects across Phases.
Young-adult—P (2,42) =21.48, p<.001
Phase I> (p<.01) Phase II> (p<.01) Phase III
Middle-aged—N.S.
Elderly—N.S.