Technical Paper 363

REALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ARMY

Paul R. Bleda

ENGAGEMENT SIMULATION TECHNICAL AREA

1

~

‘ 

~~~

[

~ 1 

3

~~j

U. S. Army

Kesearch Inft~

tute for the Behaviora’ and Social Sciences

May 1979

Approvi d for public relsu.; distrIbut~

Ofl unllmlt.d.

.

~~~~ 

‘

~~~~ 

,

L __ 

__ — __~

_______

~~~:~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -

~~~~~~~~
— — —. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -,--., ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

•

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of thus report has been made by ARI. Please eddress correspondence

Concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences .

A TTN. PEAl- P . 5001 Eisenhowe r Avenue . Alexandria . Virginia 22333.

FINAL. DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it us no longer ne d.d. Please do not return it to

thi U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

~~~~ The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position.

unless so designated by Other authorized documents .

L - .

•

~~ -

———5-— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a..~~

. ~. —é- A -

~ ~~~~~__ •5.~

. ~~~~~~~~~~
- ---~~~~~~~ - —~~

----

~~~~~~~~ -______________ 

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (*~

,w beta Entered) . -

~ READ INSTRUCTION S i

~

EPORT DOCUMENTATION ‘

~ “~~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM - I

~

. REPORT NUMBE R 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3- RECIPIENT ’S CATALOG NUMBER

/ Technical P ap,~~~ ~63

4 T ~ t

~~~~~ d SubtHJ.A 5. TYPE OF REPORT S PERIOO COVEREO

- ~~ ~EALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER ATTITUDES TOWARD -- THE ARMY ~ 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. ASjTHOR(.) . 

- 

-•-- B. CQt~TRACT OR GRANT NUMBER( s)

Paul R. ,-Bleda I :

‘ j / -- Il ~~

. \~~1 I

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TASIC

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences ~ 2Q763731A773

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ‘

~~- RI!DR T~~~ AXJ

Program Manager , Tactical Engagement Sin Systems May 1979 /

Training Device Directorate , Training Spt Center~ 34. NUMBER OF PAGES

Fort Eustis, VA 23604 18 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAM E S ADORESS (SI different free, Cantr oUing OWc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

/

/ 

/ ~

. ~ - ISa. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE ——

16. DISTIll BUTION STATEMENT (of this Ripoef)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited .

77. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract snt.r.d In Block 20, if diff.r.nt from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES

79. KEY WORDS (Continu. on reveres aid. if n.c.aaery m.d id.nUfy by block number)

REALTRAIN Morale

Conventional training ARTEPS

Job satisfaction Military work role

~~ .~~otivation

20. J

~

USTR ACT ~~~~~~~ ,.veree IV d Identity by block mm,b.r)

~

“) Although the Army is concerned primarily with improving the combat readiness of its units, there is a growing orientation toward enhancing the job

motivation and satisfaction of soldiers. To improve the psychological rewards

that are derived from training, the Army Research Institute has developed a

family of techniques for simulating battlefield conditions. These techniques

are known collectively as Engagement Simulation (ES). The squad and platoon

level application of ES is referred to as REALTRAIN. REALTRAIN can be—

(Continued~

~~~~‘

, !

~

473 EDST)ON OF 7 NOV CC IS oBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WPe,n Beta Enf.rm~

// •“ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — _- -- ,

— —~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .1
-- - - ~ ‘

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -— - - -- :

~~~ ~~~~~~~ ‘

~~7 ‘

~~~~

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(RIIm. Data b lared)

Item 20 (Continued)

- distinguished from more conventional training along a number of dimensions

including the degree of operating constraints in the exercises , type of

casualty assessment , nature of evaluative feedback, and sequence of train—

ing procedures.

A paper—and—pencil instrument was constructed to measure various dimensions of job—related motivation and satisfaction . This instrument was

administered to soldiers either before or after their participation in

combined—arms exercises. This instrument was used in two separate field

investigations. One study examined the impact of REALTRAIN alone on motivation/sa’tisfaction responses, and the other compared the relative impact

of both REALTRAIN and conventional training.

The results indicated that along six of the nine motivation/satisfaction

dimensions, responses were more positive following participation in REALTRAIN

than before its implementation . Along the remaining three dimensions , no

change was observed in the before and after measures of motivation/satisfaction. However, for the conventional exercises, no change was seen in the

before and after responses of participants along five of the six motivation/

satisfaction dimensions. Along the remaining dimension , a decline occurred

in the satisfaction level evidenced by participants in the conventional

training.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(97u.n Date Enter,d)

+

I

- - ‘ - ‘- — ..,~~~~~~~~~ . __.~~~ aA.., - —-- -~---— - —-
—_ ,~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Technical Paper 363

REALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ARMY

Paul R. Bleda

Angelo Mirabella, Team Chief

Submitted by: Frank J. Harris, Chief

ENGAGEMENT SIMULATION TECHNICAL AREA

Approved By:

Frank J. Harris, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH L.ABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria. Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

May 1979

Army Project Number Motivation and

2Q162717A767 Training

Approw.d for pubhc rsle.ss; distribution unlimIted.

_

~.__-, -p,.

— ~~~~~ ~

_-i

~ ~~~ -i_i — i— _ —~~~~~~— —~~~~~~~~~
~~- _ i ~~~ ’ ~~~~ ~U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and mi’itary agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

~~~~~~~~~~~ — —_ - -~~~~-~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—-~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~_
______ - - -

FOREWORD

The research reported here is part of a broader program on combat

unit training being conducted by the Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). Since 1972, ARI has conducted

research on the development and evaluation of new training techniques ,

particularly crew training and tactical training in the unit context.

The Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC ) has identified small

unit tactical engagement simulation training as its highest behavioral

science research priority. ARI developed a tactical engagement simulation method known as REALTRAIN which provides extremely realistic

and motivating training for small combat-arms units. Simple but effective casualty assessment techniques are used in REALTRAIN to conduct engagement simulation training up to the reinforced platoon level.

This report documents the results of the analysis of data collected during the conduct of REALTRAIN exercises as implemented by a

TRADOC Mobile Training Team (MTT) during the period from 3 November

1975 to 5 March 1976. The data were obtained from infantry and armor

battalions at four divisional training sites throughout the U.S. Army ,

Europe (USAREUR). The results were obtained from an investigation of

squads involved in both REALTRAIN and conventional exercises.

The program is responsive to the requirements of Army Project

2Q763731A773 and the Program Manager for Tactical Engagement Simulation Systems of the Training Device Directorate , Training Support Center TRADOC at Fort Eustis , Va. (formerly of the Combat Arms Training

Board at FOL L Benning, Ga.).

J SEPH Z R

hnical Director

i

I

— - _____ ___
_____________________ _____________

REALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ARMY

BRIEF

Although the Army is concerned primarily with improving the combat readiness of its units, there is a growing orientation toward enhancing the job motivatibn and satisfaction of soldiers. To improve

p the psychological rewards derived from training , the Army Research Institute (ARI) has developed a family of techniques for simulating battlefield conditions . These techniques are known collectively as Engagement Simulation (ES). The squad and platoon level application of

ES is referred to as REALTRAIN. REALTRAIN can be distinguished from

more conventional training along a number of dimensions including the

degree of operating constraints built into the exercises , type of

casualty assessment , nature of evaluative feedback , and sequence of

training procedures.

A paper—and—pencil test, constructed to measure various dimensions

of job-related motivation and satisfaction , was administered to soldiers either before or after their participation in combined—arms exercises. This test was used in two separate field investigations .

One study examined the impact of REALTRAIN alone on motivation/satis~

-

faction responses , and the other compared the relative impact of both

REALTRAIN and conventional training.

The results indicated that along six of the nine motivation!

satisfaction dimensions used in the first investigation , responses

were more positive following participation in REALTRAIN than before

its implementation. Along the remaining three dimensions, no change

was observed in the before and after measures of motivation/satisfaction. However, for the conventional exercises, no change was seen in

the before and after responses of participants along five of the six

motivation/satisfaction dimensions used in the Second investigatiqn.

Along the one remaining dimension , a decline occurred in the satisfaction level evidenced by the participants in the conventional training.

For the REALTRAIN groups involved in the second experiment, motivation/

satisfaction responses were enhanced along four of the six dimensions,

and there were no changes in the remaining two.

______ __________________________________ _________________________________________________
- ~~~~~~~ -~~~~~

- 

- -

r

REALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ARMY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

REALTRAIN i.

SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS TO COMBAT TRAINING 2

Motivation/Satisfaction Instrument 4

Combined Arms Units 7

Rifle Squads 9

CONCLUSION S 10

REFERENCES 13

DISTRIBUTION 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparisons between REALTRAIN and conventional

training 3

2. Description of subjective dimensions 5

3. Significant changes due to REALTRAIN 8

4. Significant changes due to exercises 11
___ —

REALTRAIN IMPROVES SOLDIER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ARMY

INTRODUCTION

Although the Army is concerned primarily with improving the combat readiness of its units, there is a growing orientation toward enhancing the job satisfaction of soldiers . This heightened interest

stems from the Army ’s need to compete with other military and civilian

organizations to obtain recruits for the all—volunteer Army . Moreover ,

because of the high costs associated with the recruitment and training

of new personnel , the Army is striving to retain soldiers who have acquired particular job skills.

A variety of incentives have been introduced to increase the enlisted person ’s motivation to pursue a career in the Army . Most of

these involve such external benefits as increased pay and improved

living quarters. Unfortunately, these inducements have not had the

intended effect of changing the perceptions of soldiers regarding the

“quality” of Army life. The findings reported in this paper suggest

that the emphasis should be shifted from external incentives to those

that are intrinsic to the performance of normal military functions.

Thus, instead of providing tangible inducements to work, the Army should

stress work that provides.its own rewards. -

In 1971, the Army ’s Chief of Staff (CSA) formally recognized the

importance of intrinsic incentives in such activities as combat training. Specifically , the Board for Dynamic Training was established to

recommend “how to make training in units more exciting and meaningful

to participants. ” One key finding of this effort was that Army training was not regarded as dynamic in the sense of providing a stimulating

learning experience for participants . Furthermore , most training did

not enhance the job—related satisfaction of soldiers; that is, it did

not encourage soldiers to learn and grow to their fullest potential

through the exposure to activities that exercised their talents and

skills.

REALTRAIN

To remedy deficiencies in combat training, a family of techniques

has been devised to simulate battlefield conditions and provide a realistic training environment. These techniques are known collectively

as Engagement Simulation (ES) and were developed by ARI in association

with the Combined Arms Training Board (CATB) and TRADOC. The squad

and platoon level application of ES for combined—arms teams is referred

to as REALTR)tIN. Because a detailed explanation of REALTRAIN already

1
- —~~~~ 

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

has been provided in Infantry magazine ,

1 this report will focus primarily on REALTRAIN’ s distinctiveness from more conventional training

and its intrinsic motivational qualities.

REALTRAIN can be distinguished from conventional training along

a number of dimensions (see Table 1). REALTRAIN involves two-sided

free—play engagements that are conducted without external interference

but with limitations on time and territory . Casualties are determined

during engagements by a specified set of rules. These rules are enforced with each squad/crew by controllers who communicate with each

other over a ~.- -

~

ntrol net. They verify the number of times combahants

using scopes are able to identify numbers displayed on an opponent ’s

.

t helmet (or vehicle) while simulating fire on that opponent. Immediately after each exercise , an After Action Review (AAR) is conducted

in which all of the participants discuss the circumstances surrounding

each casualty. An opportunity to correct mistakes is provided by having participants perform similar exercises in subsequent training

periods.

REALTRAIN seems to provide a number of psychological rewards that

are expected to increase soldier job satisfaction . The immediate and

objective appraisal of casualties allows each performer to determine

his contribution to his unit ’s effectiveness and to the ultimate outcome of each engagement. The members of each unit can experience the

“thrill of victory” or “agony of defeat” that results from actual performance , rather than from a preplanned scenario. Moreover , soldiers

can gain peer approval or benefit from constructive criticisms during

the AAR . Finally, participants are motivated to improve their performance in successive exercises and to change from losers to w inners.

The competitive, game-like nature of REALTRAIN enhances the iniolvement of participants while developing behaviors that are crucial for

survival in an actual combat situation .

SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS TO COMBAT TRAINING

A critical test of the psychological benefits of REALTRAIN would

be ability to boost troop morale. This appears to be the case according to anecdotal evidence obtained from observers in the field and

personal interviews with participants. When engaging in REALTRAIN ,

soldiers reveal a keen sense of involvement in the exercises. For example , a platoon sergeant participating in a lengthy series of

REALTRAIN exercises in Germany remarked with pride that “They (his

troops) want to stay another month. Since we began training , I’ ve

:LMderson J. & Sherwood, E. REALTRAIN. Infantry, 1975 (no. 1), 20-3.

2

— ~~~~~~ .

- ~~~~~ ~~ - -- ‘- - J-~~~~~~~ r_p - -—
Table 1

Comparisons Between REALTRAIN and Conven tional Training

Dimensions REALTRAIN Conventional

Exercise Free—play engagements Sequence of prearranged

type between opposing forces scenarios with a fixed

P under only time and ter- schedule of OPFOR activiritorial constraints , ties and planned execution

of combat tasks by tested

unit.

Casualty Objective determination Casualties assessed by

assessment of weapons effects includ- subjective judgments of a

ing indirect fire using limited number of umpires.

devices (e.g., scopes,

simulators , net control

radio system) monitored

by controllers. Immediate feedback for “kills.”

Signatures of various in—

dividual and crew—served

weapons are simulated .

Evaluative After Action Review con- Evaluative -‘ ritique of the

feedback ducted after each exer— tested unit by evaluation

cise which involves a team after completion of

group discussion about all the exercises.

the circumstances that

surround actions and

“kills” inflicted.

Training i’

~

epetitions of two-sided One trial performance of

procedure free—play exercises of a series of specified

increasingly greater dif- training tasks.

ficulty with time set

aside for remedial tactical training.

3

--- ---- ---.-- - - - —--5—----- ~--- .-—---—-.- —-- -—— --- - -—-— —___— — •~—_-_-- -—S---S —- - -—~~~—---- - —--—- ----~---~ ---~ --—----—.- ---- -,~~ - -5-.- ~~~~_ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~ -

~ —:~~

—--- 

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~‘

~~‘~ ‘‘‘.‘.1’’ ‘

~~~

had a total of three sick calls and those were due to the flu

epidemic. “2

Since anecdotal evidence generally is unsystematic and qualitative

in nature , an assessment of the subjective reactions of participants

through controlled field research was necessary. Two such investigations were conducted , one with small combined—arms teams in Europe and

the other with rifle squads in the United States. In the first field

test , comparisons were made between soldiers who were in REALTRAIN

for only 1 week and those involved for 3 consecutive weeks. In the

second experiment, soldiers engaged in REALTRAIN for 3 days were corn—

pared to those performing conventional exercises for the same period.

In both cases , each participant separately responded to a paper—and—

pencil test. This test included items that reflected attitudes toward

the exercises as well as military life in general .

Motivation/Satisfaction Instrument

The initial version of the test included 42 attitude statements

that reflected nine separate dimensions of job—related motivation and

satisfaction (see Table 2). Each respondent indicated his own reaction to each of the statements by checking a position on a 6-point

scale which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).

Because the instrument was completed both before and after the training exercises were conducted , it was necessary to modify the wording

of 13 items that pertained directly to the exercises (i.e., Dimensions

1—4 in Table 2). The future tense was used for the items on the “before” form as in “I expect that the training exercises that I am about

to begin will be similar to an actual combat situation, ” whereas the

past tense was used oi-i the “after ” form.

Responses to t

~ e “before ” items indicate motivation, since they

reflect expectations about the qualities of and potential benefits to

be derived from the forthcoming exercises. Thus, motivation is conceptualized according to established industrial psychological principles. That is, motivation is viewed as the product of the worker ’s

belief that his efforts will result in an effective performance , and

his anticipation that desired outcomes will follow such a performance .

In contrast , responses to the “after ” items represent the participant’s

perceptions of the personal benefits that he derived from the session

and , consequently, reveal his satisfaction with the training.

2

Rcot , R. T., Epstein , K. I., Steinheiser , F. H., Hayes , .3. F., Wood ,

S. E., Sulzen , R. H., Burgess , G. G., Mirabella, A., Erwin , D. E., &

Johnson , E. Initial Validation of REALTRAIN with Army Combat Units in

Europe. ARI Research Report 1191 , October 1976.

4

5- —— — —— ~~ — —
* ~~~~~~~~~~ ~-~ -- ‘-5-— ~ -____________________________________________________

~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~----

Table 2

Description of Subjective Dimensions

Title of Number

dimension of items Description

1. Psychological 3 Deals with participant perceptions

Fidelity about the similarity of the exercises to actual combat conditions

— I and the impact of the training on

awareness of both the physical dangers and discomforts of combat.

2. Self—Improvement 2 Relates to the respondent’s beliefs

about the exercise as improving his

combat abilities and as being worthwhile to him.

3. Leader Self- 6 Reflects leader perceptions of the

Improvement impact of the exercises on their actions toward subordinates in terms

of keeping them informed , explaining

what actions are needed and why , accepting responsibility for their

men ’s mistakes , willingness to provide special training, and awareness

of subordinate ’s capabilities.

4. Training Programs 2 Pertains to the extent to which participants believe that making the

exercise a regular part of their

training program would increase

their desire and that of others to

reenlist.

5. Military Work 7 Pertains to the soldier’s orientation

Role toward his assigned duties in the

Army with regard to enjoyment of

dail~ activities, working conditions,

relevance and quality of previous

training , importance of Army job,

sense of accomplishment from daily

duties, and overall satisfaction

with military service .

5

4

— 

- - 

- 

A. -

~~ - - — - — - - -- _ ‘

~

I’— 

th.
- ‘—--5 — -5- -.- -5--- — ---_. 

-

Table 2 (Continued)

Title of Number

dimension of items Description

6. Career Intentions 2 Concerned with the soldier ’s commitment to military service as an

acceptable way of life as reflected

in his stated intentions to reenlist

and pursue a career in the Army

organization.

7. Perceived 7 Corresponds to the subordinate’s

Leadership judgment of the behaviors evidenced

by his immediate superior such as the

latter’s level of technical competence, willingness to keep his men

informed , flexibility, acceptance of

responsibility , awareness of men ’s

capabilities , and willingness to

explain what needs to be done and

why it is necessary .

8. Esprit de Corps 7 Reflects the commitment soldiers express toward other unit members in

terms of their professional competence, teamwork , helpfulness, cooperativeness, trustworthiness , and

likeability .

9. Unit Conduct 6 Identified with the extent to which

each man views other unit members as

maintaining proper military bearing

with regard to needing direct supervision to get the job done right,

displaying disorderly conduct off

post, doing just enough work to get

by, failing to show up on time, and

doing poor quality work.

6

-~~~~ . 

j

-— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
____ - -

The Motivation/Satisfaction Instrument also included 29 other

items designed to assess five dimensions of military job satisfaction

(i.e., Dimensions 5-7) and unit cohesiveness (Dimensions 8-9). These

items focused on the feelings and perceptions of soldiers about Army

life in general rather than the immediate training sessions. All

items except those measuring unit conduct were presented in the form

of positive statements such as “My supervisor is tactically able to

perform his combat duties well. ” The six items concerning unit conduct were phrased in a negative forma t such as “Members of my unit

do poor quality work.”

Combined Arms Units

To determine if REALTRAIN enhanced job-related satisfaction , a

research effort was coordinated with the implementation of REALTRAIN

in USAREUR by a TRADOC Mobile Training Team (MTC). This effort was

supported by the Unit Training and Evaluation Systems Technical Area

(UTES) of ARI. Scientists in UTES examined the performance effectiveness and job satisfaction of each of 24 platoons that participated in

1—week sessions of REALTRAIN and 8 platoons engaged in 3-week sessions.

The engagements consisted of standard Army missions (e.g., attack , defense, and meeting engagement) involving opposing forces of comparable

strength. Changes in the soldier’s attitudes were assessed by administering the Motivation/Satisfaction Instrument to half of the members of each platoon before the exercises began and to the remainder

after completion of the training.

Members of platoons engaging in REALTRAIN for 1 week were found

to be similar in every respect to those who trained for 3 weeks with

regard to responses along the motivation/satisfaction dimensions.

Consequently , the responses of personnel in both types of training

sessions were combined in all subsequent analyses. Statistical comparisons between the “before” and “af ter ” measures revealed a con—

sistent pattern for the four exercise—specific dimensions. Participation in REALTRAIN was found to improve significantly soldier responses

along the Psychological Fidelity , Training Programs, Self-Improvement,

and Leader Improvement dimensions. Thus, both leaders and subordinates

held more positive attitudes toward the realism of the training environment, pursuing a career in the Army , and their own self-improvement

after experiencing REALTRAIN.

Participation in REALTRAIN also had a favorable effect on certain

facets of general job satisfaction in the Army . Specifically, the

orientation of enlisted men toward their work role in the Army and

their career intentions became significantly more positive after

REALTRAIN. However , no significant changes concerning their satisfaction with leadership or perceptions of esprit de corps and unit

conduct were seen. In short, REALTRAIN training had a significant

positive impact on six of the nine motivation/satisfaction dimensions

and no influence on the remaining three (see Table 3).

7
--. ~ -- - - --

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

.— - - 

- __ — - - -

Table 3

Significant Changes Due to REALTRAIN

Motivation/satisfaction Significant

dimension changea

1. Psychological Fidelity +

2. Self-Improvement +

3. Leader Self-Improvement +

4. Training Programs +

5. Military Work Role +

6. Career Intentions +

7. Leadership none

8. Esprit de Corps none

9. Unit Conduct none

a

posjtive sign (-f) indicates that the “after” score was more favorable

than the “before” one. None indicates that there was no statistically

significant difference between the “before” and “after” scores.

Because the 1- and 3—week groups were the same in terms of responsiveness, the beneficial training effects on morale seemed relatively

immediate and then leveled off with extended exposure . As wquld be expected, the strongest training effects were reflected in responses to

those items that focused specifically on the perceived influence of

the exercises. Perhaps even more interesting was the finding that general job satisfaction and intentions to pursue a career in the Army

were favorably enhanced by the training. This finding suggests that

the enriching experience engendered by the REALTRAIN exercises generalized to feelings about the Army .

It can be argued that any type of training in the field will enhance the job—related satisfaction/motivation associated with those

exercises. This possibility was tested by comparing the attitudes of

soldiers before and after their participation in both REALTRAIN and

conventional training. Such attitudinal data were collected as part

8

- -

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —-5—-.— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - A
—---- -

~~~~~

5-

~~~~~ 

-.__ -

~~s_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~ _._

of a field validation of REALTRAIN conducted under the direction of

the ARI field unit at Fort Ord , Calif., with 18 infantry rifle squads.

Rifle Squads

A slightly modified version of the motivation/satisfaction instrument was used in this field test. First, only 27 items were included

on the instrument to assess six , rather than nine , dimensions. By

reducing the number of items and dimensions, the administration time

was reduced from about 25 to 15 minutes, and several minor ambiguities

and redundancies were eliminatçd. Also, responses were made along a

5-point scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (5).

Evaluations of the motivation/satisfaction related to the training of rifle squads were made in the context of a four-phase training

and performance exercise.3 In the pretraining phase, units were

matched on combat—related performance and were alternately assigned

to REALTRAIN or conventional training. During this stage, all members

of the 18 squads completed the motivation/satisfaction instrument.

Half of the squads then engaged in REALTRAIN training for 3 days, and

the remainder performed conventional exercises. The final two phases

involved performance tests in which the REALTRAIN and conventionally

trained units separately fought a specially trained opposition force

(this phase was identical to the pretraining one) and then confronted

each other in a series of shootouts. Following the training , but prior

to the last performance phase, the “after” form of the instrument was

administered .

The results showed that REALTRAIN significantly improved soldier

attitudes toward the training. In particular , respondents were more

favorable on the Attitudes Toward the Exercises dimension after engaging in REALTRAIN than before . This dimension was comparable to a

composite of the Psychological Fidelity, Self-Improvement, and Training Programs dimensions previously discussed. Moreover , Leader SelfImprovement responses were higher after REALTRAIN than before. Exposure to REALTRAIN also resulted in greater satisfaction with the

Military Work Role responses after the training exercise was performed

F~d a heightened sense of esprit de corps. However , no significant

difference was observed between the pretraining and posttraining indicators of either satisfaction with leadership or career intentions.

3

Banks, .3. H., Hardy , G. D., Scott, T. D., Kress, G., & Wcrd , L. E.

REALTRAIN Validation for Rifle Squads: Mission Accomplished. ARI

Research Report 1192 , October 1977.

9

— — I

~~ -. ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ________ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —
- -‘--a---- —‘- .—, w—~~ -

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~-m —~—.~ ---- ~~~—..--- — — - —— --— ————-----— -

~~~~~

Participation in the conventional exercises, however, had a significant effect on only one of the six motivation/satisfaction dimensions, i.e., Leader Improvement. Furthermore , leaders actually had

a lower opinion of their own improvement after training than they had

initially expected. This result is in striking contrast to the finding that REALTRAIN training markedly enhanced leader perceptions of

their own improvement. It also is remarkable that conventional training did not positively influence any of the work-related responses

that were improved by exposure to REALTRAIN. A summary of the relative impact of REALTRAIN and conventional training on each of the

motivation/satisfaction dimensions is summarized in Table 4.

The REALTRAIN findings of the rifle squads field test are consistent with those of the USAREUR test with combined-arms units; i.e.,

participation in REALTRAIN had a favorable impact on attitudes of

soldiers toward various facets of their work roles in the Army. This

finding was particularly true with regard to their impressions about

the benefits to be derived from the REALTRAIN exercises. Moreover ,

these positive impressions appeared to generalize and contribute more

to favorable attitudes about Army life. In contrast, conventional

exercises did not improve the motivation and satisfaction of soldiers

with respect to either the training exercises or the Army in general.

CONCLUSIONS

REALTRAIN has fulfilled the recommendation of the Board for Dynamic Training by providing a stimulating learning experience that enhances the job satisfaction of participants. Furthermore , REALTRAIN

may help to solve the staffing problems of interest to Army planners

and managers by improving the soldier ’s orientation toward a career

in the Army . According to many soldiers, incorporating REALTRAIN exercises into the regular Army training program would increase the desire to reenlist and pursue a career in the Army.

The success of REALTRAIN in developing favorable attitudes among

soldiers underscores the need for more intrinsically rewarding training programs in the Army. The benefits that may be derived from using

training exercises having intrinsic rewards include a greater motivation to work, more job satisfaction, and a more positive orientation

toward the Army in general. These benefits could translate , in turn,

to lower rates of personnel turnover and delinquency. Consequently ,

an all—volunteer combat force could be maintained more efficiently

during peacetime if training programs included more challenging and

realistic combat duties. Thus, by implementing techniques such as

REALTRAIN the Army could fulfill the expectations of its recruits and

trainees as well as expanding their commitment to the goals of the

modern Army.

10

p-

~~—--—- --_~

_

~~~~~~~ _~~~ - - i

~~~~~~~ ~~~~ - ~~~~~ •
—~~~ - ~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~——-- ——~~~ --- —~~-- -

~~~~~~~ --

Table 4

Significant Changes Due to Exercises

Motivation/satisfaction Significant changea

dimension REALTRAIN Conventional

1. Attitudes Toward Exercises + none

• 1 2. Leader Self-Improvement + -

3. Military Work Role + none

4. Career Intentions none none

5. Leadership none none

6. Esprit de Corps + none

a

A positive sign (+) indicates that the “after” score was more favorable than the “before” one. A negative sign (-) indicates that the

“after” score was less favorable than the “before” one. None indicates that there was no statistical difference between the “before”

and “after” scores.

11 

—~

IL _ 

-

—-5- —5--—- 

— ~~~.__._ ~~~~ •,øI_ ._-_ -___~~~ - -

~~4 -~-•l——— ~~~~~~~~~ _______ 

~
5

~ 

— —~~~~~~~~-

•••-.-•--

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ r’

~ -

~~ 

————- - . ~~~~ - —- .. - -.

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ —.5 ---’-- .

~~~~_ _ __

REFERENCES

Ashour, A. S. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: An

Evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973,

• 10, 336—356.

Bishop, D. W. Relations Between Task and Interpersonal Success and

Group Member Adjustment. (Technical Report No. 18). Urbana,

Ill.: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory , 1964.

Downey, R. G., Duffy, P. 3., & Shiflett, S. Criterion Performance

Measures of Leadership and Unit Effectiveness in Small Combat

Units. (Research Memorandum 75-9). Arlington, Va.: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

August 1975.

Duffy, P. J., Downey, R. G., & Shiflett, S. Construct Validity of

Leadership Effectiveness Measures. Paper presented at APA annual convention, San Francisco, 1977.

Fiedler, F. E. A Method of Objective Quantification of Certain CounterTransference Attitudes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1951, 7,

101—107.

Fiedler, F. E. A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,

Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, 1964, 149—190.

Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York:

McGraw—Hill, 1967.

Fiedler , F. E. Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of

Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Findings. ~~~~~~~~~~

chological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 128—148.

Fiedler, F. E. Personality , Motivational Systems, and Behavior of

High and Low LPC Persons. Human Relations, 1972, 25, 391-412.

Fiedler , F. E., & Chemers, M . M . Leadership and Effective Management.

Glenville, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1974.

Fjedler, F. E., Chemers, M . M., & Mahar , L. Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concep .~ New York: Wiley, 1976.

Fishbein , M., Landy, E., & Hatch , G. A Consideration of Two Assumptions Underlying Fiedler ’s Contingency Model for Prediction of

Leadership Effectiveness. American Journal of Psychology, 1969,

82, 457—473.

Fishbein, M ., Landy, E., & Hatch, G. Some Determinants of an Individual’s Esteem for His Least Preferred Coworker: An Attitudinal

Analysis. Human Relations, 1970, 22, 173—188.

13

- 5- • - 5 - - _-•---•-- ..—_------5_- - £s~~~s ~~~~~~ - .1 — i

~~

. - -

~~~~~- ...
- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— ——- 

~~~~~~‘ - 5 - 5 -~~~~~ ’L- T-~~ -.--.~

—- -• -- 

5-_ - — —‘-s—. — .—-—-

~~

Fiske, D. W. Consistency of the Factorial Structures of Personality

Ratings From Different Sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1949, 44 , 329—344.

Foa , U., Mitchell, T. R., & Fiedler , F. E. Differentiation Matching.

Behavioral Science, 1971, 16, 130—142.

Fox, W. M. Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations for LPC

Scales: Instrument Refinement. Academy of Management Journal,

L976, 19, 450—461.

Fox, W. M., Hill, W. A., & Guertin , W. H. Dimensional Analysis of the

Least Preferred Coworker Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1973, 57, 192—194.

Graen , G., Alvarez , K. M., Orris, .3. B., & Martella, J. A. Contingency

Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential

Results. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 285—296.

Gruenfeld , L. W., & Arbuthnot, J. Field Independence , Achievement

Values, and the Evaluation of a Competency Related Dimension on

the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Measure. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 1968, 27, 991—1002.

House, R. .3. A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 2, 321—339 .

Kerr, S. Discussant Comments (to paper by Chemers and Rice). In

.3. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.). Contingency Approaches to

Leadership . Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University

Press, 1974.

Lawler , E. E., III. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey,

Calif.: Brooks/Cole , 1973.

Levy, L. H., & Dugan, R. D. A Constant Error Approach to the Study of

Dimensions of Social Perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1960, 61, 21—24.

Mitchell , T. R. Leader Complexity and Leadership Style. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 166—173.

Myers, A. E. Team Competition, Success, and the Adjustment of Group

Members. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65,

325—332.

Norman , W. T. Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes:

Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66,

574—583.

14

_ ___ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ - - • - -

Norman , W. T., & Goldberg , L. R. Raters, Ratees, and Randomness in

Personality Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 681—691.

Passini , F. T., & Norman, W. T. A Universal Conception of Personality

Structure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966 ,

4, 44—49.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, 3. R. Behavior in Organizations. New York : McGraw—Hill , 1975.

Posthuma, A. B. Normative Data on the Least-Preferred Co—Worker Scale

(LPC ) and the Group Atmosphere Questionnaire (GA). (Technical

Report 70-8). Seattle : Organizational Research, Department of

Psychology, University of Washington, 1970. (AD 714248)

Rice , R. W. Psychometric Properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred

Coworker (LPC) Scale. Academy of Management Review, 1977.

Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak , A. Structural Representations of Implicit

Personality Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1972.

Schneider , D. J. Implicit Personality Theory : A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79 , 294—309 .

Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr , S. Theories and Measures of Leadership :

A Critical Appraisal . In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership Theory: The Cutting Edge. Carbondale , Ill.: Southern

Illinois University Press, 1978.

Shiflett, S. C. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness:

Some Implications of Its Statistical and Methodological Properties. Behavioral Science, 1973 , 18, 429—440.

Shiflett, S. C. Stereotyping and Esteem for One ’s Least Preferred

Coworker. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 55—65.

Stinson , J. E., & Tracy, L. Some Disturbing Characteristics of the

LPC Score . Personnel Psychology, 1974 , 27 , 477—485.

Stogdill, R. M . Handbook of Leadership . New York: Free Press , 1974.

Stogdill , R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). Leader Behavior : Its Description and Measurement. (Research Monograph No. 88). Columbu s, • Ohio : Ohio State University , 1957.

15

• ~~~~~~~~—- 

5- - - - ‘--5- - ~~

-

.

~~~~ ~~. - ~~~ .4 -
— z

~’~~ r~

-

~ - ‘-‘-r~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~ —~

-

~

- :

~~~~~~~~- -~~ 

• ‘

~~~ ~~~~~~ 

- 

~~~~~~

Tupes, E. C. Relationship Between Behavior Trait RatLigs by Peers

and Later Officer Performance of USAF Officer Candidate School

Graduates. (Research Report AFPTRC—TN—57—l25 ) . Lackland Air

Force Base , Tex. : Personnel Laboratory , Air Force Personnel

and Training Research Center , 1957.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. Recurrent Personality Factors Based

on Trait Ratings. (Research Report ASD—TR—6l-97) . Lackland Air

Force Base, Tex.: Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems

Division , Air Force Systems Command , 1961.

Yukl, G. Leader LPC Scores: Attitude Dimension and Behavioral Correlates. Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 207—212.

Yukl, G. Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6 , 4 14—440.

16

_______ _____ 

A __ 

~~~ 

: - ~

-

~~A
r U~~~~J

~~ ~~~~~ ---~~~~~

5-

~~~ 

.- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DISTRIBUTION

ARI U tiliiiitii,~ List

4 OASD (M&RA ) 2 HOUSACOEC , Ft Ord , ATTN: Library

7 HODA )DAM I-CSZ) 1 HOUSACOEC . Ft O~l, ATTN: AlEC - EX - -E Hum Fai-to,s

I-IODA (DAPE PBRI • 2 (JSAEEC , Ft Beniamin Harriso n , A TTN: Li ii u;i iy

1 IlOIJA IDAMA AR ) I USAPACDC , Ft Beiij

~ mi ut Harrison , AT EN- ATCP -HR

1 HODA (DAPI HRE-PO) 1 USA Comm—El ect Seli, Ft Moninoull, , ATTN ATSN -E A

1 HODA (SGRD-IQ) 1 USAEC, FtMonmouth ,ATTN :AMS EL-CT HOP

I HUDA (DAMI-DOT-CI 1 USAEC . Ft Monmouth , ATTN: AMSEL -PA P

1 HODA (DAPC - PMZ-A l 1 USAEC, Ft Mo nmouth , ATTN: AMSEL - Sl—CB

I HODA (DACH- PPZ-A ) 1 USAEC . Ft Monmouth. ATTN. C, Fern 0ev Br

I HODA (DAPE-HRE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen , ATTN AMX$Y - P

t HQDA (DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edyewood Arsenal , Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA 131 H

I HODA (DAPE-DW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN: ATSL—TEM - - C

- • 1 HODA (DAPE- HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab . Aberdecit , ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HODA (OAPE-CPSI 1 USA Combat Arms Trig Bd . Ft Benri inq, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HQOA (OAFD-MFAI 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit . Ft Benninq , ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS- P) 1 USA Infantry Bd. Ft Benning . A’fl ’N: STEBC - TE-- - T

1 HODA (DAPC - PAS-A) 1 USASMA . Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSS - LRC

1 HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Del Sch , Ft Blis s , ATTN: ATSA CTD ME

I IIOOA )DAM() ROB) 1 USA Air Oct Sd , , Ft Bliss , ATTN : Tech Liii

I IIOI)A (l)ASG) 1 USA Air Del Bd • Ft Bliss , ATTN : FILES

I HUDA (DA1 O-Pil 1 USA Air Del Bd , Ft Bliss , ATTN: STEBO --P0

I Cliii ’l , Consu lt Div (DA-OTSGI , Adelphi . MD 1 USA Cmd & General StI Collej,e . Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: Liii

1 Mu Ass t . Hum Res , OODR&F., OAD )E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Sd College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATSW—SE -

1 ff 0 USARAL . APO Seati l. ’ . ATTN: A RAGP-R I USA Cmd & General Sit CollegE , Ft Lea,inr w,.rIlu, ATTN ; Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATIN: AFKA-O I TI 1 ttSA Combined A . irus Cnt hr Dcv Act , Ft Leav ,’,iwotth , ATTN: DepCrli

2 HO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Art , Ft Leavenworth. ATm: ccs

I Dii , Army Sit Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Comb ined Arms Cnsbt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenwo rth . ATTN : ATCASA

I Oh- Chief iii Sr i , Stu dies Ofc 1 USA Combin ed Arms Cmht Des Act . Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO —E

I t icl l’ER , ATTN CPS/OCP 1 USA Ciiin liin,-ii Ar m s CrnbI Des Ai r , I Leav r’ iiwoi lh , ATTN: ATCACC --Cl

[hi Army Liii , Pe,itaqom i , ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAFCOM . Night Vision Laf, , Ft Ridv iii, , ATTN: AMSEL—NV —-SD

1 The Army Lii, . Pentagon , ATTN: ANRAI. 3 USA Compu ter Sy s Cmd , Ft Belvoi r , ATTN Tech Library

1 Ok , As it Sect of the Army (R&D ) 1 USAMERDC . Ft Belvoir , ATTN: SISFB -1)0

I Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 US’s Eng Sch , Ft Belvoi r , ATTN: Library

I USASA , Art ii ullon . ATTN- IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL TO—S

I USA Ascii Oh:, Durham , ATTN: Lif e Sciences Dir I LISA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoir . ATTN : STINFO Center

2 (ISARIEM , N,-i I d., ATTN: SGRD-UE CA 1 USA To pogr aphic Lab , Ft Belvo ir , ATTN: EEL GSL

I LISAI [Cli (;l .iy ioi . , Al IN :;il 1C M() A ‘ I IKA Iii l i’ l(iip’n r’-Cli & Sd’, ii Hii.v:li iu. ,i . AF TN CTD MS

I USAIMA . Ft Bragg , Al [ft A1SU-CTO-OM I USA Intelligence CIt A Scii, Ft Hu.e~

huic,, A [TN: ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Brag g, ATTN : Marituat Lib 1 USA intel lige nce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huach uca , ATTN ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Cu & Sch , Ft McClellan , ATTN: Liii 1 USA Intellige nce Cir & Sch , Ft Huach i’

~a. ATTN ATSI - TFX --GS

1 US WAC Cit & Sch , Ft McClellan , ATTN: Tug Dir I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sets , Ft Huachiica . ATTN : ATSI —CTS-OR

1 USA Ouartermast er Sets . Ft Lee , ATTN: ATSM-TE I USA Intelligence Ctr & Scb , Ft Huachuca , ATTN ATSI—CTD Dl’

1 Inte lligence Material Des Ofc , EWL . Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ct, & Sd, , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CT D--CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO -EA 1 USA Intelligence Cti & Sch. Ft Huachuca . ATTN : DAS/SRD

I USA Chaplaiii Cir & S-li . Ii Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC -TE-RD 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachiic.i , ATTN ATS I—TEM

1 USAISCH . Fr Eustis , ATTN: Educ Ai lv itor 1 USA Intelligence Ct, & Sets . Ft Huachuca , ATTft Library

I USA War College. Carlisle Baiiacks , ATTN: Lib 1 CDR . HO Ft Huachuc ui , ATTN: Tech Ret Div

7 WRAIR , Ni’iu ruu i r cyrtu ,r riy Di, 2 COB , USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN : STEEP MT—S

1 DLI , SDA . Mrc.Ierey 1 HO, TCATA . ATTN: Tech Library

1 USA Concept Anal Aqey , Bethesda, ATTN : MOCA - MR 1 HO. TCATA . ATTN: AT CAT-OP-a , Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy . Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sheridan. ATTN: USARCPM-P

1 USA Arc l c Test Ctr , APO Seattle . A 1’TN: STEAC-PL -Ml I Senior Army Ads,. USAFAGOO/TAC , Elgin AF Aux FId No. 9

1 USA Arc li c Test Ct,, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL-TS 1 HO, USARPAC. DCSPER . APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE-SE

1 LISA Armament Cmd , Redstone Arsenal , ATIN: ATSK .TEM 1 Stimto n Lib • Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houtto n

1 USA Armament Crnd , Rock Itl~ nd. ATT N~ AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst ., ATTN: Dean-MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City. ATTN: Library 1 HO, USMC, Commandant . ATTN : Code MTMT

1 FAA NAFEC , Atlantic City , ATTN: Human Engr Br 1 HO. USMC , Commandant . ATTN Code MPI-20-28

1 FAA Aeronautical Ct, , Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy , New London. ATTN: Admission

2 USA FId Arty Sch, Ft Sill , ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy. New London . ATTN: L Irary

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox . ATTN: Librar y 1 USCG Training Cii , NY . AT1’N: CO

I lISA Armor Sctr, Ft Knos . ATIN: ATSB -Dl-F 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN: Ert uc Sec Ole

I USA Atri um,, Sch , ft Kni,ic . ATTN ATSB-DT TP 1 USCG. Psycho l Am Si . DC. ATTN OP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sets . Ft Kin. e . ATTN: ATSB-CD -AD I HO Mid Range Br , MC Oct . Ouanturo. ATTN P&S Div

17 

-
~~~~~~~~~~

5-

~~~~~~

’ 

~~~~~~~~~ “ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

I US Marine Corps Liaiso n Ole , AMC, Alexandria, ATTN AMCGS - - 1 1 [1. 1 & C,vil Inst of Envi mo Med .c,um e , Canada

1 USATRADO C, Ft Mono.,, A TIN- ATRO ED 1 AIR CRESS . Kensington . ATTN l,ito Sys Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Miiiiroe , ATTN ATPH AD 1 M ul i saerpsy kolog,s k Tienest e , Copenhagen

1 USATRADOC , F r Mon roe , ATTN ATTS FA I Military Attache . French Embassy. ATTN: Doe Sec

1 USA Forces Cmii , Ft Mc Pliei so m, , ATTN I ,t ,maiy 1 Meilec,ir Ch ef , C. E.R .P A. - Arsenal , To ulo i,/Naval F. ance

2 LISA Aviatioir Tes t Bii, Ft Riicki ’i , ATTN- ST FBG - P0 1 Pun Scientific Oft . Apli l Hum Engr Rtcl. Div . Mi unis t .y

I LISA Agcy I., Avi .itiomm Sali’Iy. F I Rocker , Al TN - Liliramy ..l Detente , New Delhi

I USA Agcy b r Aviation Safety, Ft Bucker , ATT N Ethi c Advi sor 1 Pert Rsch Ole Lul, rary, AKA , Israel Defense Fomtmtt

I USA Aviation Sets , Ft Huck m, r , ATTN’ P0 Drawer o 1 Mini steri s van Defi ’ns ie , DOOPIKL Afd Socuaal

1 HOUSA Av.alto n S~rs C,nil St Louis . ATTN: AMSAV -ZOR Psycho log isclse Zaken , The Hague , Netherlands

7 LISA Av,,iti..iu S-p. Tr ’.t AiI , Fdw ~iids A R , ATTN SAy rE - T

I USA Aim [let S-li , F r I3l~ ’. A1TN : ATSA TFM

1 tISA A.. M..l. ility H’., I. A I),’v LaIn , Mnf lebl [lii , A 1TN: SAVOL AS

I LI SA Av ijli., i n Sch . Ret Tin9 MgI , Ft Rocker , ATTN ATST — T—RTM

I USA Aviation Sets , CO. F r Bucker . ATTN : ATST—D--A

1 HO, I)ARCOM . Alexandria . ATTN AMXCD -TI

1 HO, OARCOM , Al ev and ria . ATTN COB

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point . ATTN: Ole of Mill Ldms lit r

1 l.lS Mihita.y Ar,vlenny . West Point , ATTN: MAOR

I USA Stancla.uhiialnon Op. UK , FPO NY , ATT N MASE --GC

1 Ole of Naval Rsch , Ai li nn ujl on . , ATTN: Code 452

3 Ole of Naval Asc ii. Arling loi n , ATTN: Code 458

I Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arl ington , ATTN: Coiie 450

1 Ole ill Naval Rsch , A~li mnq to n , ATTN ConIc 441

1 Nav al Ae..isl ic Med Ret Lab . Pensacola , ATTN Acous Scli Div

I N.nv.il Aeri,si’.’ Mcii RN Lal, , Pei,sac olu , ATTN : Code 151

I N,,val Aeruislie Med Rn’s Lab , Pensacola . ATTN : Cone 15

1 Ch.m ’I of NavPm’ns , ATTN. Pert- OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nj v Oceaii ogr at i ls. c , DC , ATTN: Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Cn’nliir of Naval Anial . ATTN: Doe Ctr -

1 Nav Au rSy sCorn , ATT N AIR -5313C

I Nuts BuMed , ATTN: /1 3

I NavHellcop temSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (Fl) Williams AEB

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB , OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZI Brooks AFB

1 AFHR L )DO3N) Lackland AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSD)

I HQUSAF (OPXXAI

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL )HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AF Inst of Ti’ch , WPAFB , OH, ATTN: ENE/S L

1 ATC IXPTDI Randol ph AFB

I LI SAF Aenn, Merf Liii, Bro ..ks AFB (SUL 41. ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR INLI , Arlington

I A F Log Cmii , McCIm’II ,i in AFB . ATTN ALC/DPCR B

I Air Force Academy, 10, ATTN : DepI of Bel Sen

5 NavPers & 0ev Ctr , San Diego

‘2 Navy Med Neurop syc hialric Rcc h Unit , San Diego

1 N

~v Electronic Lxii, San Dnenlo . ATTN: Res Lab

1 Na, TnimgCi’n , San Diego . ATTN Coile 9000--Lift

1 Nav Post GraSclm . Moo tr ’ ,.’y, ATTN Code 55Aa

1 I’4.,vP .nst Gra5ch , Monterey. ATTN Code 2124

I t’I.i v rm rsg EquipC lr , Orl ando , ATT N Tech Lib

1 US Dept ol Labor , DC, ATTN Manpower Mm,n

1 US Dept of Justic e , DC, ATTN : Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 N.mt Clearing House for MH- Info , Rockv ill e

1 Denver Federal Cit . ( akewood . ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych . Army Hq, Russell Ofcs , Canberra

1 Sc,enlif ic Advs r , Mnl Bd, Army Hq, Russell Ole,, Canberra

I Mu and Air Attache , Austrian Embassy

1 C m’nit me dir Recherct,e Des Facteurt , Humaine dv Ia Def ense

Natinmtale , Brm,stels

2 Car...ntian Jo,n,t Staff Washniiijlon

1 C/Air Staff . Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Pert Std Anal Br

3 Cl,nel , Canadian Del Rcc h Staff , ATTN: C/CRDS)WI

4 R. iush fl ,f Stall . l3nit ,sl i Fnnl.assy , Washington

18

- - — . “~~

5-5- ___ .__i___ ____~ ,

~~~, ~~~~~ ____,,_~ _ .. - .L..S , ~~~~~ 

~

,

, — -‘—-5-—- 5-- ——’ ,.

~~ .sai