Technical Paper 308 1

IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL

COMBINED ARMS EXERCISES ON

PARTICIPANT MORALE

Paul R. Bleda and John Hayes

~

;

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

~~LLJ

) I

I Si . - OCT 31 ~~~~~~~~ L

~

l _Ji

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

August 1978

Approved for public release , distribution unlimited.

- -. -- ________________________________ 

~~~~~~~.
U. S . ARMY R ES EARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE E3 EHAVIORA

~ AN D SOCIAL SCI E NC E S

A held Operating A gency under the Jurisdict ion of the

Deputy C hief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L . HAUSEI(

JOSEPH ZEII)NER Colonel . US Army

Tech nical Director (I)csignate ) Commander

N 01? CE S

DISTRIBIJTI ON Primary distribution of this report has been made by AR? Please address correspondence

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

ATTN PERI P 5001 Eisenhowe , Avenue . Alexandria , Virginia 72333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed when it IS no longer needed. Please do not return it to the U S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

.

~

jQJj The lindings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position ,

unless so designated by other author,ied documents.

L _ ___ __ __ _-~~~~
— . 

—

~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~

-. 

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

Unclassified

SE CUR ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (t+~iin D.t. Entered)

/ D~~DADT IIsi c JTA’rlA ~1 O A (

~~ READ ENSTRUC TIONS

~~ 

~#r~ U ~~‘J~~~URI~~ fl U ~~ U ~~~~ ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

- ... .___ .__..

——-.-.—-.-.f2. ~QyT AC~~~~~QIi

~~~ ~~ . RECiPIENT ’S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical ~aper 30M 3’ jt/~ / ‘

~ I S~ / / ., ,‘

~~ / - 

~~. TYPE OF REPORT a PERIOD COVERED

IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL. COMBINED

ARMS EXERCISES ON PARTICIPANT MORALE . --

L . 

— 

- ~ PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 5. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER( s)

Paul R.}Bleda a~d John F .gHayes --

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS .r ” ¶0. PROGRAM ELEMENT , PROj ECT , T ASK -

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behaviora~-

~ AREA6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences I -

5001 Eisenhower Avenue 2076272?p,754 I

Alexandria , VA 22333 ____:___.__

I I . CONTROLLINGOFF ICE NAME AND ADDRESS /

“ 12. REPPRT..DAX& .-.-

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel AugIast 1978

Washington, DC 20310 ‘ . .

‘

‘ 

~~~ . 

~~LiMBERO~~ bAGES

20

14. MO?1~

FORING AGENCY NAME 6 AD ORESS(II dUi.r.n l Iron, CantrolIin

.A Of/icC) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of g Al . report)

:— P 

~ 

Unclassified

IS.. DECLASSIFICAT ION/OOWN GRAOING

SCHEDULE

15. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thu Repor t)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract mitered In Block 20 . if dIfferent from Repor t)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverie nide if n.c.aaa’y aid identIfy by block number)

REALTRAIN Conventional Training

Motivation Combined Arms Training

Job Satisfaction Career Intentions

Quality of Army life Military Work Role

20 ABSTRACT (ContInue on revere. aid. If necessary and identify by block number)

.

~~~~ This research examined the immediate impact on the morale of combat

units stationed in Germany of two types of combined arms exercises. Armor

and infantry personnel undergoing 1 week of either platoon-level REALTRAIN

(n = 22 platoons) or conventional field exercises within a battalion Army

Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) (N = 9 companies) were administered

an instrument designed to assess nine specific morale components . These

components reflected respondents ’ motivation before and satisfaction after

DD ~~~ ~473 EDITION OF t NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

Unclassified SECURI TY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (II~ien flat. Entered)

I ~~~~~~~~~~ /

~ /

7

1(1 “

.

.

h. _ .. . .~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
- 

~~~~~~~ Unclassified

SCCU~ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOC (W9.n Date tni .r.d)

20~~ the exercises, as well as their general job satisfaction and unit

cohesiveness in the Army . The results indicated that higher levels of

exercise—specific satisfaction were evidenced after completion of REAL—

TRAIN than expectod before, whereas the reverse was found for more conventional exercises. A similar pattern of findings emerged for certain

job-satisfaction dimensions, but the pattern was not as pronounced as

that related to the exercises . In sum , REALTRAIN had a significant

positive impact on six (p < .05) of the nine morale components and no

effect on three , while the conventional exercises had a positive influence on only one component and a negative effect on six (p < .10).

t

Unclassified

SEC URITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEI’Wtiefl Data Entered)

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .i . i

~~~—-- .--- -..-— -

~~

- - 

—~~~~~~~~~

Technical Paper 308

IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL

COMBINED ARMS EXERCISES ON

PARTICIPANT MORALE

Paul R. Bleda and John Hayes

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING & SKILL EVALUATION TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by:

Milton S. Katz E. Ralph Dusek, Director

Technical Area Chief INDI VIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (DESIGNATE)

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

August 1978

Army Project Number Career EffectIveness

20762722A764 In the Modern Army

Appeased foe public release ; distributio n unlimited.

i i

4 _______________________ — ~~~~ —— — — —. ~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ - . - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A RI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military 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 brief ing or Disposition Form.

L . . . - ±_

:111
—---

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

----

~

--— -- -—----- ---- 

~

- -.

FOREWORD ____________________________________________________

Since 1972 the Army Res earch Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI) has conducted research on increasing soldier

effec tiveness through appropriate motivation and training . Results

of ARI research on motivation and morale has produced results of interest to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel . ARI research on

training has developed and evaluated new techniques which are implemented by the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The training techniques encompass both individual skill development and coordination of tactical behavior in crews and Army un its. TRADOC has

identified small—unit tactical engagement simulation training as its

highest behavioral-science research priority . The REALTRAIN method

of tactical engagement simulation developed by ARI provides realistic ,

motivating training for small combat—arms units as large as reinforced

platoons .

This report uses an ARI—developed measure to compare the morale

of troops using REALTRAIN with that of troops in standard Army field

exercises. It provides a quantitative confirmation of soldiers U enthusiasm for REALTRAIN. Data were collected during the REALTRAIN

evaluation (described in ARI Research Report 1191) and field exercises

in the U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) during 3 November 1975 to 5 March

1976. Work was done under Army Project 2Q762722A764 (FY 77), Training

and Education , with the aid of the ARI Field Unit in USAREUR. Special

support was provided by the TRADOC Mobile Training Team that implemented the REALTRAIN exercises : MAJ L. M . Jackson , Armor School ;

MAJ R. N. Leary, Infantry School; MAJ D. M . Hooper , Artillery School;

MAJ L. E. Word , ARI , who also helped plan this research; CPT A. A.

Severino , Combat Arms Training Board (CATB); CPT G. W. Heckman , Infantry School ; and SGT B . A. Lamb, CATB . Both LTC J. L. Madden , former

TRADOC Program Manager for Engagement Simulation, and LTC G. J.

Stapleton , Manager , provided welcome support and encouragement .

EPH ZEIDNER

Technical Director (Designate)

----- -

~

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

IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL COMBINED ARMS EXERCISES ON

PARTICIPANT MORALE

BRIEF

Requirement :

The research was undertaken to measure formally the reported effects on soldiers ’ morale of taking part in REALTRAIN engagement simulation field exercises versus taking part in standard Army field training

exercises.

Procedure :

An Army Research Institute team accompanied the Mobile Training Team

implementing the RE ALTRAIN exercises, wh ich were conducted for 3 weeks

at each of four divisional training areas in U.S. Army, Europe (USARUER)

from November 1975 to March 1976. Participants were 542 armor and infantry personnel in 22 platoons ; 395 cadre personnel served as controllers. Troops in nine battalions also were assessed during formal Army

Training and Evaluation Programs (ARTEP) in April-May 1976.

Participants (n = 1,200) filled out a questionnaire designed to

measure various facets of job-related motivation and satisfaction. Half

the members of each unit filled out the instrument before the training

exercise r the other half afterward. REALTRAIN participants were expected

to express greater satisfaction with REALTRAIN and with the Army af ter

the exercise than they had anticipated . ARTEP participants were expected

to be less satisfied after the exercise than before .

Findings :

The responses of participants strongly supported the pred ictions .

Overall , REALTRAIN had a significant positive impact on six of the nine

different morale components and no effect on three . The conventional

exercises had a positive influence on only one component and a negative

effect on six . 

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

_

Utilization of Findings:

The success of REALTRAIN in developing favorable attitudes among

soldiers underscores the advantages of more intrinsically rewarding

training prograi~ in the Army . The possible benefits in using training exercises that have intrinsic rewards include a greater motivation

to work , more job satisfaction , and a more positive orientation toward

the Army in general.

The instrument used to measure satisfaction has been used in

several later research projects.

____ —. -— —rn~~~-~~--~~~~~~~~ —~~~~ - _____
IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL COMBINED ARMS EXERCISES ON

PARTICIPANT MORALE

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Dimensions of Morale 1

Combined Arms Tactical Exercises 2

METHOD 5

Design 5

Sample 6

Morale Instrument 6

RESULTS 7

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 12

REFERENCES 17

DISTRIBUTION 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of REPILTRAIN and ARTEP combined

arms tactical training 3

2. Description of morale dimensions 8

3. Analysis of variance for combat conditions

fac tor scores 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mean motivation/satisfaction exercise—specific

responses before and after combat units ’

participation in different types of combined

arms exercises 10

2. Mean job—satisfaction responses before and

after combat units ’ participation in different

types of combined arms exercises 13

1
- - -

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

___

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure 3. Mean unit-cohesiveness responses before and

after combat units ’ participation in different

types of combined arms exercises 14

—. -

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -— . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
____

IMPACT OF REALTRAIN AND CONVENTIONAL COMBINED ARMS

EXE RCISES ON PARTICIPANT MORALE

INTRODUCTION

Military and industrial researchers have expended much effort to

form the construct of morale , delineate its determinants , and specify

its indicators (e.g., Campbell . & Pritchard , 1975) . Morale is emphasized due to its presumed influence on behaviors detrimental to organizational effectiveness such as personnel turnover and delinquency

(Bauer , Stout , & Holz , 1976) . This work extends previous research in

the military area (Holz & Segal , 1975) by assessing the impact of an

engagement-simulation training program on the morale of combat personnel. The findings have direct implications for Army managers who

seek to establish and maintain high levels of morale and combat readiness in units by using REALTRAIN instead of more conventional forms of

combined arms training.

Dimensions of Morale

Motowidlo and Borman (1977) have defined morale as “a psycholog ical state which is shared by members of a group and which consists of

general feelings of satisfaction with conditions impacting the group

and strong motivation to accomplish group objectives. . . .“ According to this definition , morale may be conceptualized along the dimensions of (a) motivation , (b) satisfaction , and (C) unit cohesiveness.

These general dimensions may be differentiated further depending on the

particular circumstances in which morale is assessed . (a) Motivation

plays an important role in determining morale in that activities must

foster a sense of purpose and meaningfulness in participants . (b) High

morale also implies that individuals derive some degree of satisfaction

from the pursuit and achievement of work—group goals. (c) Morale in a

military organization depends on a unit’s cohesiveness. Cohesiveness

is enhanced by the member ’ s sense of sharing a common , meaningful purpose (Shils & Janowitz , 1948) . The foregoing definition does not include such traditional conceptions of wartime morale as exultation of

j~atriotic ideals and perseverance in the face of adversity .

The constructs of motivation and satisfaction can be framed in

terms of expectancy theory (Porter & Lawler , 1968) . Expectancy formulations assume that motivation is a multiplicative function of the

performers ’ beliefs about the probability that their efforts will result in effective performances and that desirable outcomes will follow

such performances. For combat personnel undergoing combined arms exercises , several classes of potentially valued outcomes may motivate behavior. Intrinsic rewards , such as a sense of achievement and responsibility, may be derived from reaching specific mission objectives or

1
from attaining a high level of combat readiness. Social benefits , such

as status , attention , and praise, are received when effective performance is recognized publicly . To the extent that participants perceive

such positive outcomes as being present during an exer cise , they will

evidence satisfaction with the training program. Both motivation and

satisfaction are tied closely to the notion of valued outcomes . In

particular , motivation reflects the affect anticipated for achieving

certain work goals while satisfaction denotes the affect actually experienced once such outcomes are obtained .

Combined Arms Tactical Exercises

REALTRAIN. The Army currently is implementing at the squad and

platoon levels the REALTRAIN combat engagement-simulation technique

(Root et al., 1976). REALTRAIN for combined arms training may be distinguished from more conventional training by the following characteristics: (a) a free-play form of maneuvers , (b) an objective method of

casualty assessment , (c) an After-Action Review , and (d) a repetition

of training exercises (see Table 1)

In REALTRAIN, no subordinates are ever more than two command levels

away from the originator of their mission—related duties. The relatively few command levels through which orders pass reduce the likelihood of information distortion and increase the probability that all

participants will have an overall perspective of mission objectives.

Within proscribed territorial and time constraints , participants pursue their respective missions without external interference. Casualties are determined during the meeting engagements when a controller

with a squad/crew receives or transmits information via radio that a

number , either on the helmet of a soldier or on a vehiclc , has been

sighted (through a telescope) by a member of the opposing force . The

circumstances surrounding each casualty are evaluated ifter each exercise through an extensive group discussion among all participants.

Finally, similar exercises are repeated during ensuing tr3ining to

give participants the opportunity to correct previous mistakes.

At a superficial level , REALTRAIN appears to have certain features

that may increase participant expectations that their efforts will result in effective performance and that such performance will lead to

recognition as being combat ready (valued outcome) . (a) Successes and

failures within the free-play exercises reflect the actual performance

of units rather than a predetermined part of a scenario. (b) The imniediate and objective appraisal of casualties may indicate the extent to

which each performer contributes to his unit’s effectiveness and the

degree to which each unit influences the outcome of meeting engagements .

(c) During the After—Action Review , positive and negative peer comments

can be directed toward unit members who perform well or poorly, respectively. (d) The repetitive nature of the various exercises would seem

2 

---- -—.~~~~~~ - —.

~~-—~~~~- - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~ - ---~~ .--.
41-4 0)

I (I) 1-~~~O 1-’ I 00 - ‘.4 to I (1-4 -I CO C 0)0 8 w o 0 1-4 ~~~~~4 I.

I S O COO 1-1 5 51.4 4.) - r r 4 0)4- 4 0)

o )O

- ’:S 4.) C .

--I 0 O ~~

0 4 - J 5~~~ 

0~~

O) U) 

I 4.) (fl (~~~0) .-l U) .—4 ) 5 ,5 (0,t~ (

0 : (0 ,5

..-4 4.) 

C

4

~4 0 )~~~ >.~~~ 

4) 4.) 

44.4 (0

CU ‘-4 ‘ C O 

. QW (0 44-1 

Q 4.J

IS ‘C’C 4 - 15 0

o O

~

W 0)0) 

‘

C’C 0 .-I

--4 

0) 

5 , - 45 4 

0)

0) 10 5 0 5 4.) W~~~~~O c—i S S 1-i ’C rU W •r-1 ..-4 5 0 J •,-l (05 0) 1--i IV r-1 4 E E ~~‘ 4.) ~~~~~~~ C 10.5 04 ~~~•‘.I - -iwe 0 ) 0 ~ r .4.( C ,5 ’.4 O S-i 10 C 0 ,)x: S-1 u) ’C .O 4.) -‘4 4.4 04 •

1-i --1 0 04 5 

0) 10 1.1 8 0) I-i (0 5 ‘0 )10w ‘C 0 > , 0 0) W ’ C 1-4 0 ‘4-1 0) .

~ L1~4 

.00 (0 0.0)

4.) ,-4 Cfl OXU

)

(fl CO 

0) .5 .‘4 (U 0 )5 - ‘-4 0) 10 0) >0)0) ~~ 0. ,-.1 41-4 C) r-1 .50 Q) 4.4 .’.4 4) .,.f 4.) ~~~~~ 5 (0 () -,-4 C) 4-) 4 .45 4 ) 1 0 -’4 ~~~~ ~-4 C)

4-> 0 0.t .—l 5(0-’-4 4.) 

~—

l 0) 1-~~

W C) .4 . ‘4(0 0) ~~~ (0 1 0 8 0) 5 0 -’.i 4)04 (0 4) .4.4 4.) 5,5 .’4 .Q 5 0)~~ 0 —4 4.) (1)

0 ‘.-4 4J 

D~

4-’ 4-’ E C’CS-i (0 -.-1 ,--4 C0 IS 01 5(0 W—l0 O 1050 ~~~5oW 5 4-

4 (13 4) EQ (l)~~~~~( 0 C.) (-) - r ~~4-1 C~4 5 4--~~ 4-> 0 0

(13 I U)

510 4-4 1 - 41 I 

I ’ d ‘U (0 -.-4 -.-4 0) (3) 0) •r-4 ~~~ 0

)

IS C S-i -4’.~4~~~ ‘0) I 5 4-’ ‘0)

‘C 

4) 00 U) ~~~~~~~~~~~ 0)5 0 0 0)

(3) 5 0 4

4-> 5 0)1-4

0 1-4 : E

--l 1--l -’4 ‘U C 0) Qi --4 0 • 4) 1-1 • C -~ 1 .-1 -‘4

C 0 1-4 04 .’.l C (13 -‘4 ,5 C) 4-4 

C

,-4 0 

.

~~ 0) 1-I (U~~~~~O C 

‘ r-l 0 C 

I C) 5 0) 0) 0 0-1-i —f ‘4 4.1~~ -4 0

0) 0 (0 0)4) 

~~~ C 0—4 ~~~-4 W .

~~~~5

‘-I p. 0 0)’ 0) 0) 4-) 5 ,>4 4.~~~~

O : 

4.)

L l - 4 0 w> r 5: C) ,QC (U ~~ 4-1 0) PC Q -.-4 5 ,Q 5 0 ) 1 0, - I 4-i E-4 0 0)01 C0’ ‘C c!) ‘-4 0 H .0 CW’ d’CCC C .rIC, _ 4

(1) 3) 

0) 

O ’UCWO -.-l 

O 0O, ~ U)

‘C 0. > WE 

—I (U1 - Q i’C 0S-i .-4 : 

C

>, 0) 4-i --I .1) 4-4 0 (

0 1-4 01 (1) 

0

E-s -4 C4J t O O 

~~

4 JW(0 ~~~

X C0)~ 0) C W- ’ ~~~~~~ 0) 0 )0 ) 5 5 4-

>

Z C E

~~i 

- ‘-40)kC 0) 

•-4 

0 •-4 

- ‘-4 4-4 H 0 0 ) -f ECOO . C S-i ~~ .Cw’C 4.)

0 1-45 4-> E0 W 0 -.-4 5 0) 4.) ( 0 0 0) IT) (0. )4 ~~~~1 0’C 5 . 04 (0 4J ,5 ,-I~~ -. (3)Q 0) O ’d (3)

‘-I 51-4 • W O

~~ 5E (0 C 041-~~~0) 1-4

O4~~~ 

0 )0)))) ‘C S E I SO .0 0 1-4

5 1-45 C ‘0) 4-) O -’-4 4J 4-) ’C “-IWOS--4 0)

‘ C O >ICC 0)1-4CC 0) 

-‘ 4-> 54C(0 

~~~~>

, C — I IU5-d ~~~.5 ~~~‘ dW 0 4--i 0)~ 4-> -‘.4 (0 4-4 (0.1~

> ‘— 4 

(

~ -.-4 4J C W 4-4 

~~~~

(0 CC 

C .-I

O ((1 04C 1-4 4.) (13 5 I C0)5 C 0 10 )4) 0C0)O0) ~~0) S.4~~~, W0C W I U) (05 0)OC W -l-> Q. -’4 -’-I -l-) W ’- I> C 00)

C SE 

0 )54 5 •r, C .)

O ’CCcU 4-)0)~~~4 (0’C OW O 0)’ -’-I 1 - 400 . Q W 010Ci) -r-4 4-1 4) 0 4) 5 5 1-1 C (13 (13 ~~~ 4-l 0 O q-l co S-l r0 ’U i~t ( 0 ~~~~~C (U (1) 4-4

1-4 0 C) 

0 (4) (0 0)’ -‘-I ~“i .0 C C) 4) ‘C -‘-I 54 H 0) C (1) (0 0) -‘4

U) 0) 5 4.) 4-4 (0 4-I C 04 CC 1-40 ) 5 0 0) ‘0 0) 0) 4.1 1-4 ((3 .’.4 ~-4 U-f 0~~~~ > S 0 (1) -‘-4 0)5 ‘C U-I C .4-) (0 0)

‘-4 0) C 0) 00) IT) 0 0

WE 10 1-i C 5 

-

~

4 O

I 8 5 0)))) i-I 

4) 1-4

‘Cl 4.) 04(0 (0 

0 0 4 I 0 10 ~~ (0 C) Z E-i 3

L - 

_
to permit participants to improve their performances by increasing

their efforts to avoid previous errors . According to the proponents

of REALTRAIN (Root et al., 1976), these features heighten the personal

involvement of participants and their perceptions of the meaningfulness of the activities.

Conventional Field-Training Exercises, Conventional field-training

exercises were conducted in the testing phase of an ARTEP (Army Training

and Evaluation Program) for combined arms . The formal testing phase

involves the multiechelon evaluation of Armor and Infantry battalions .

The evaluation seeks to determine the combat readiness of each unit by

assessing its proficiency in terms of a systematic series of combat—

related tasks including meeting engagements under simulated combat conditions , The particular field exercises used in the present ARTEP

retained some characteristics of conventional training and evaluation ,

including (a) a fixed schedule of evaluator-determined activities , (b)

a subjective method of casualty assessment, (c) a critique following

completion of the testing phase, and (d) single exposure to the specified training tasks (see Table 1)

During the ARTEP testing phase , specific commands emanating from

the battalion headquarters staff were sent through the established chain

of command to individual soldiers . While the headquarters staff planned

and coordinated missions , the line troops maintained an around-the—clock

security watch and used much of their time for routine tasks. During

any meeting engagements with aggressor forces , casualties and overall

unit effectiveness were determined by a small team of evaluators who

observed the proceedings from a suitable vantage point. Evaluations

of unit performance were conveyed to batallion commanders at the end

of the testing phase through critiques given by the evaluating force .

Intuitively , certain facets of the conventional ARTEP field exercises would seem to lower the personal involvement of combat units and

the soldiers ’ perception of the meaningfulness of their activities . In

particular , the line troops may lack an overall perspective of each mission objective because the orders conveyed to lower levels of command

are unlikely to incorporate the rationale underlying the staff’s deci—

sionmaking process . Motivation may be reduced by the performance of

routine tasks for extended periods between exercise—specific duties.

Motivation to perform effec tively during the ac tual maneuvers may be

depressed further by the lack of objective or immediate feedback regarding the number of casualties inflicted and incurred . Thus , line

troops may perceive as meaningless many activities performed before

and during conventional ARTEP exercises. If performers consider their

activities meaningless , their satisfaction with various facets of the

exercises will be diminished .

4

L _______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-
___________________ -

The impac t of REALTRAIN and more conventional training exercises

on motivation and satisfaction may be examined in terms of the change

in pre- and postexercise soldier responses. Relevant theory (Porter &

Lawler , 1968) and anecdotal evidence (Root et al ., 1976) predict that

postexercise examinees will evidence higher levels of satisfaction with

REALTRAIN than preexercise examinees had expected , whereas the reverse

will be found for conventional exercises. The rationale underlying

these hypotheses is that compared to what soldiers have come to expect

from field exercises , REALTRAIN will enhance expectations that a soldier ’s effor ts will result in an effec tive performance and that such

a performance would be recognized by others as combat readiness, In

contrast, the command level and conventional features of ARTEP exercises

were assumed to result in decreased expectations .

In addition to examining the exercise-specific motivation and satisfaction morale components , this research also assessed the impact of

different exercises on general job satisfaction and unit cohesiveness

in the Army . In accordance with previous research (Bleda, 1976), any

pleasant or unpleasant experience engendered by the exercises was predicted to condition the feelings and perceptions of participants toward

their total military experience . Participation in REALTRAIN was expected

to influence positively soldiers ’ evaluations of various facets of their

military life , and undergoing conventional ARTEP training was predicted

to have a negative effect. Thus , items were included on the morale instrument to measure general military job satisfaction and unit cohesiveness as well as items to assess the motivation and satisfaction specific

to the exercises .

METHOD

Design

The overall design of the research was a 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial

with two between groups factors and one repeated measure factor . The

two between factors were the type of combined arms exercise ( REALTRAIN

or conventional) and the type of combat unit (Armor or Infantry) . Half

of the members of each participating mili tary unit we re chosen randomly

and assessed with regard to their morale before the exercises , and the

rest were administered the instrument after the session. Means for each

such half-unit were computed and used as scores . Thus, the unit of

analysis was the specific platoon or company to which respondents were

asrigned , not the individual soldier . The primary dependent measures

consisted of the motivation /satisfaction indexes specific to the exercises and items that referred to the soldier ’s general military

experience.

5

~

——. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . 

-

~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ——~~~~~~~~~~~ -- —~~ —
Sample

Morale was assessed for about 1,200 combat personnel involved in

one iteration (5—7 days) of either REALTRAIN (n = 22 platoons) or conventional ARTEP exercises (n = 9 companies) . The REALTRAIN units were

divided equally between Armor and Infantry platoons , and f ive Armor and

four Infantry companies participated in the ARTEP testing . Preexisting

Armor and Infantry units were assigned to either REALTRAIN or the ARTEP

by Army administrators but without any known systematic bias . REALTRAIN

sessions were held at four different training sites during the fall and

winter , and the ARTEP was held at a single loca tion during the following

spring (1975—76) .

Morale Instrument

The “before” form of the morale instrument was administered when

participants arrived in the field ; the “after” form was given with in

1 or 2 days following the exercises . The only difference between the

two forms was the grammatical format of the 15 items that pertained

specifically to the exercises. On the “bef ore ” form , these items were

worded in the future tense, such as , “I expect that the training exercise that I am about to begin will be similar to an actual combat situation.” Identical items were presented on the “after” form in the past

tense , “ I think that the exer’ises that I have just completed were similar to an actual combat situation,” Responses to the “bef ore ” items

reflected expectations about the nature of and the benefits to be derived from the forthcoming exercises (motivation) , and these to the

“after” items measured what participants believed they had derived from

the session (satisfaction) . These exercise-specific items were designed

to assess four intuitively different dimensions of motivation/satisfaction,

including Combat Conditions , Training Programs, Self Improvement , and

Leadership Improvement .

The morale instrument included 35 other items desig’ied to assess

five different dimensions of military job satisfaction ar.d unit cohes iveness . These five general morale dimens ions had been identified and

validated in an earlier study of 1,500 military personnel using nonmetric

scaling techniques (Bauer et al., 1976). With regard to item reliability ,

modera te to high levels of internal consistency had been shown previously

for these dimensions (alpha coefficients ranged from •70 to .92). The

discriminant validity of these dimensions also had been shown using military personnel who were known to vary in terms of their morale. Specifically , the responses of enlisted men from elite Units were more favorable

than those from nonelite units , and those from prisoners were least

favorable.

6
=

The four exercise-specific dimensions of motivation/satisfaction

and the five previously identified dimensions of job satisfaction and

unit cohesiveness are described more completely in Table 2. All items

used to assess these nine morale dimens ions were presented as positive

statements , such as , “My supervisor is tactically able to perform his

combat duties well ,” except for the negatively phrased Unit Con~

1uct

items, such as, “Members of my unit often do poor quality work .” Responses to each item could be made along a 6-point scale ranging from

1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) . Only participants who

held positions of authority (e.g., squad leader , platoon sergeant , and

such) completed the Leadership Improvement items .

RESULTS

A factor analysis verified the four newly and intuitively conceived

exercise—specific dimensions and the previously identified dimensions.

A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation provided

confirmation of all the morale dimensions shown in Table 2. That is ,

a 9—factor solution emerged (with eigenvalues exceeding unity) that

accounted for 39% of the variance in response to the 50 morale items

(collapsed across research conditions) . All but 6 of the items had

factor loadings of .5 or above, and these 44 items were used to compute

a factor score along each dimension for each respondent . Factors scores

were computed by totaling each subject’s responses to those items that

loaded high on a factor. Mean factor scores for units were then computed by summing acrc~ s unit members who had been selected for the

preexercise survey and then dividing by the number of respondents in

that unit.

Mean motivation/satisfaction scores for each exercise—specific

factor are shown in Figure 1. Separate 2 x 2 x 2 unweighted-means anal—

• yses of variance with one repeated measure were performed for each motivation/satisfaction factor score . The unit of analysis in this repeated

measure design was not the individual respondent (since each soldier was

assessed only once) but rather the specific combat unit to which respondents were assigned. These analyses indicated a signi ficant main effect

due to the type of exercise on all motivation/satisfaction factors

(p < .05 in all cases) . That is, units involved in REALTRAIN as compared to conventional ARTEP exercises evidenced higher scores along each

of the following dimensions : (a) Combat Conditions (3.93 versus 3.37),

(b) Training Programs (3.58 versus 2.67), (c) Self Improvement (4.28

versus 3.17), and (d) Leadership Improvement (4.74 versus 4.25). Table

3 shows an analysis of variance for the Combat Conditions factor ANCVA

was performed on scores along each factor.

7 

- -

--- _ - - -— _ ---- -

- . . _ .

_ -

.- . --- 

- 

. _ .--
Table 2

Description of Morale Dimensions

Dimension and factor ~escri~>tion

EXERCISE-SPECIFIC MOTIVATION/SATISFACTION

Combat conditions (3 items) Deals wi th participant perceptions

about the similarity of the exercises

to actual combat conditions and the

impact of the training on awareness

of both the physical dangers and

discomforts of combat duty .

Training Programs (2 items) 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.

Self-Improvement (2 items) Related to respondents ’ beliefs

about the exercise as improving

their combat abilities and being

worthwhile to them.

L adership Improvement (6 items) Reflects leader perceptions of the

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 subordinate ’s mistakes ,

willingness to provide special

training , and awareness of subordinate capabilities .

JOB SATISFACTION

Military Work Role (7 items) Pertains to soldiers ’ orientations

toward their assigned duties in the

Army wi th regard to en joymen t of

da ily activities , working conditions,

relevance and quality of previous

training , importance of Army job ,

sense of accomplishment from daily

du ties , and overall satisfac tion

with military service.

8

- - .—~~~~~ “

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

•

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

-
— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- - -~~~~~- --~~~~~~- -

~

Table 2 (continued)

Description of Morale Dimensions

Dimension and factor Description

Career Intentions (2 items) Concerned with soldiers ’ commit—

ments to military service as an

acceptable way of life as reflected

in their stated intentions to re--

enlist and to pursue a career in

the Army organization .

Leadership (9 items) Corresponds to subordinates ’ judgments of the behaviors evidenced

by their immediate superior such

as the latter ’s level of techn ical

competence , willingness to keep

subordinates informed, flexibility ,

acceptance of responsibility , awareness of subordinate ’s capabilities ,

and willingness to explain what

needs to be done and why it is

necessary .

UNIT COHESIVENESS

Esprit de Corps (7 items) Reflects the commitment soldiers

express toward other unit members

in terms of their professional competence , teamwork, helpfulness,

cooperativeness , trustwor thiness ,

and likeability .

Unit Conduct (6 items) Identified with the extent to which

each soldier views other unit members as maintaining proper military

behavior with regard to needing

direct supervision to get the job

done right , displaying disorderly

conduct of f post, doing jus t enough

work to get by, failing to show up

on time , and doing poor quality

work .

L . ~~~~~~~~~. _ _
-~~~~~~~~ -

_ —.--—~~ -—-- .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ - - ---- ~ -- - - -. - _

~~~- - ~~ - -—

5 [ (+ .45) ~~~ * * R[ALTR A IN

Combat ~~ 

L 

~ 

ARTE P

Condition s I * *

3);

-

~~ I

4 -

Training 3 - I co~I *** Progra ms

2

SelfImpr ovem ent ( 54)4 * *

3 . 

~~

-.

6 -

Leaders hip (+ .73)

~ *

Improvem ent

~~~~~ 

**

4 * 4 *

~~ _j P<.O1

Before After

Figure 1. Mean motivation/satisfaction exercise-specific

responses before and after combat units ’

participation in differi nt types of combined

arms exercises .

10
Table 3

Analysis of Variance for Combat Conditions Factor Scores

Source df MS F

4~etween groups

Type of exercise (A) 1 13.52 45.83**

Type of combat unit (B) 1 .63 2.13

A x B 1 .33 1.11

Error 27 .30

Wi thin groups

Time of morale

assessment (C) 1 .07 <1

A x C 1 3.36 26.l8**

BxC 1 .00 <1

AxB X C 1 .04 <1

Error 27 .13

< .01.

A significant interaction between the type of exercise and the

time of morale assessment (pre- or postexercise) qualified the main

effects due to the type of exercise in the following cases: Combat

Conditions (F(l , 27) = 26.18, p < .001), Training Programs (F(l, 27) =

15.26 , p < .00 1), and Self Improvement (F(l, 27) = 16.12, p < .001)

Subbequent analyses of simple main effects revealed that postexercise

REALTRAIN responses were higher than preexercise responses for every

factor score (p < .05 in all cases) . On the other hand , units undergoing conventional ARTEP exercises evidenced lowered postexercise responses in terms of Combat Conditions , Tra ining Programs , and Self

Improvement (p < .05 in each case) . The leaders ’ evalu itions of their

own improvement did not differ significantly as a consequence of the

conventional ARTEP exercises (F < 1) . The results indicate that the

immediate impact of REALTRAIN was to heighten motivation/satisfaction

responses with regard to the exercises while the effect of conven tional

ARTEP exercises was to depress satisfaction responses .

The mean unit scores for each job—satisfaction dimension are shown

in Figure 2. For the scores along each factor a 2 x 2 x 2 unweightedmeans analysis of variance was performed . The interaction between type

of exercise and pre- or postexercise morale assessment was significant

in the case of Military Work Role (F(l, 27) = 10.89 , p < .005) ,

11
marginally significant for Leadership (F(l , 27) = 3.62 , p < .08), and

nonsignificant for Career Intentions (F(l , 27) = 2.70, p < .05) . Analyses of simple main effects revealed that REALTRAIN heightened satis—

f~iction responses for both Military Work Role (p < .005) and Career

Intentions (p < .02) but not for Leadership (F < 1). In contrast , ARTEP

units evidenced to a marginally significant extent lower postexercise

job-satisfaction responses with regard to Military Work Role (p < .08)

and Leadership (p < .07) - (Significance levels of .10 were considered

appropriate in these tests because of the very small number of units

(n = 9 comj’~in ies) analyzed.)

Mean unit scores for the Esprit de Corps and Unit Conduct factors

are given in Figure 3. Unweighted-means analyses of variance revealed

that the interaction between type of exercise and pre- or postexercise

r~

orale assessment was significant for Esprit de Corps responses (F(l, 27)

= 4.52 , p < .05) but nonsignificant for Unit Conduct ratings (p < .05)

Subsequent analyses indicated no difference between before and after

measures of Esprit de Corps for RE ALTRAIN units (F < 1) but revealed

that participation in conventional ARTEP exercises lowered postexercise

scores (F(1 , 7) = 15.68, p < .01). For Unit Conduct responses , only a

main effect due to the exercise type was obtained (F(l, 27) = 4.89,

p < .05), with higher scores for ARTEP as compared to REALTRAIN units

(3.38 versus 3.06). Thus , REALTRAIN did not influence unit cohesiven ess , and conventional ARTEP exercises lowered feelings of Esprit de

Carps and heightened Unit Conduct.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The findings pertaining to the exercise—specific morale components

provided strong support for the hypotheses that REALTRAIN acts to boost

morale , and conventional ARTEP exercises depress it. For example, REALTRAIN was evaluated postexercis~ as more closely approximating actual

combat conditions than preexercise exaininees had expected , whereas the

reverse was found for units undergoing conventional ARTEP exercises .

The greater perceived realism of REALTRAIN presumably resulted from its

free—play nature and the objective assessment of weapons ’ effects. Conversely, ARTEP ’S prearranged scenarios and subjective determination of

ca0ualties detracted from even the limited degree of realism that had

been anticipated . The repetitive nature of REALTRAIN and the lessons

U :ived via the After—Action Reviews probably resulted in soldiers perceiving their combat readiness and leadership abilities as being im—

proved more than they had expected. The perceived impact on reenlistinent intentions of making REALTRAIN a regular part of training programs

was: higher than expected for REALTRAIN participants and lower than

cx~’ected for ARTEP units . The motivation to reenlist , contingent on

rt~;ularly undergoing one type of exercise , presumably was a direct

function of the favorableness of the experience engendered by the

exercise type .

12

------—-~~~~~~-—-

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

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

- 

_____ REALTRAIN

Militar y 

~ - (+ 33) 44 ——— ARTEP

Work Role

(- .2o~~~

4 .

Career ~~ 

- 

(+ ,3 9)* *

Intentions

2 (- .14)

5 -

(+ .o1)

Lea dership 4 - :---- ~‘

3 (~~35)* _______________ P< .05

Before After

Figure 2. Mean job—satisfaction responses before and

after combat units ’ participation in

different types of combined arms

exercises.

13

I’
~~~~~~~

--—- ----

5 - ____R E ALTRA IN

— ——A RTEP

Esprit de Corp 4 - 

.— 

‘- .v u I

—4

3 - ( 3 7)* *~~~~~

” .

I I

5 -

Unit Conduct 4 -

(- .07) 

3. s-— —. ** _________ 

p .

Before After

Figure 3. Mean unit-cohesiveness responses before and

after combat units’ participation in different

types of combined arms exercises.

14

L - - - ____ _______
Even before the exercises , combat units appeared to hold higher

expectations regarding the essential quality and benefits to be derived

from participation in RE ALTRAIN as compared to the conventional ARTEP

exercises. These higher prior expectations for REALTRAIN , along all of

the exercise—specific dimensions of morale , most likely were related to

t ue images of these two field—exercise types held by military personnel

in combat units. The postexercise satisfaction responses indicated

that REALTRAIN more than fulfilled its heiqhtened expectations; the

conventional ARTEP exercises failed to meet even its relatively low

expectations .

The pattern of findings for the three military job—satisfaction

dimensions paralleled to some extent the exercise—specific pattern ,

although job—satisfaction effects were not as pronounced as exercisespecific effects . In particular , REALTRAIN tended to heighten satisfaction with one ’s Military Work Role and Career Intentions ; the conventional exercises tended to depress satisfaction with Military Work

Role and evaluations of Leadership. The relatively smaller impact of

the two exercise types on military job-satisfaction responses as compared to the exercise-specific responses probably stems from the different frame of reference induced by each set of dimensions . In contrast to the exercise—specific items , the job—satisfaction items

measured respondents ’ general feelings about their military experiences ,

including the exercises. The results for job satisfaction , nonetheless ,

indicate that even 1-week sessions of either exercise type immediately

affect how soldiers feel about and perceive their life in the Army .

REALTRAIN’s favorable impact on satisfaction with Military Work

Role and Career Intentions may be due to the opportunity this exercise

affords combat units to apply previous training under realistic conditions . Participants probably derived feelings of achievement , competence , and responsibility from being allowed to perform their designated

duties , and these positive feelings generalized to their perceptions of

military life. For ARTEP participants , postexercise satisfaction with

Military Work Role and evaluations of leader attributes were less favorable than preexercise measures. Because the ARTEP exercises were conducted at the battalion level , information loss and distortion in the

communication or orders to lower levels of command were relatively

highly probable. Moreover , the delay in assignments reaching these

lower levels may have made the assignments appear out of synchronizatior with changing conditions. Such communication—related problems may

have adversely affected soldier perceptions of their immediate superiors .

The conventional ARTEP exercises had mixed impacts on unit cohesiveness in that they lowered feelings of Esprit de Corps and heiqhtened

per-;e; Lions of Unit Conduct. The unfavorable influence of thes~ exercises on ~rofessional commitment among unit members (Esprit de Corps)

may have resulted from the extended periods of inactivity that the line

troops experienced . Headquarters staff and support personnel typically

15

_____________________ ____
are active throughout the entire ARThP testing phase , but line troops

tend to remain idle or engage in menial tasks during much of the exercise. The perceived conduct of unit members may have improved because

all participants were kept on 24--hour duty assignment and all personnel

were under the constant surveillance of evaluators during the ARTEP .

In contrast , the REALTRAIN exercises were conducted during the normal

workday approximating 8 hours of duty .

Although the immediate impact of the conventional battalion-level

ARTEP exercises was to depress participant motivation and satisfaction

along certain dimensions , it cannot be concluded that the testing of

lower echelons would have the same adverse effects . Very different results might have been found for platoon as compared to battalion—level

ARTEP testing , due to the higher probability that performers would

remain active throughout the entire session. Also , the psychological

fidelity imposed by the ARTEP testing may vary according to the role

played by the performer. While the line troops may not have viewed

the circumstances surrounding the exercises as approximating actual

combat conditions , the necessary requisites for realism may have existed

for he~ Iquarters staff and support elements. Thus , the extent to which

the present findings are representative of all personnel involved in the

exercises , or merely of certain personnel , is unknown .

At least two recommendations can be made to Army policymakers with

regard to the implementation of combined arms exercises . First , REALTRAIN instead of conventional training could be made a formal part of

the ARTEP structure for testing squads and platoons . The rates of

casualties inflicted and sustained would give evaluators a relatively

objective basis for determining the combat readiness of tested units .

Second , in cases where it is uneconomical or not organizationally feasible to implement the complete REALTRAIN program , one or more of its essential features (e.g., the objective assessment of weapons ’ effects)

could be incorporated into ARTEP testing. Such improvements in the

realism of combined arms ARTEP testing might enhance the psychological

fidelity of the combat environment for participants , especially for line

troops -

16

_ ~~~~~~- - -

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

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

~~~~~~~~

REFERENCES

Bauer, R. G. , Stout , R. L., & i-Iolz , R . F. Developing a Conceptual and

Predictive Model of Discipline in the U.S. Army (Research Problem

Review 76-5) . Alexandria , Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute ,

September 1976.

Bleda , P. R. Conditioning and Discrimination of Affect and Attraction .

Journal of Personality and Social Psy~hology, 1976, 34(6), 1106-

1113.

Campbell , J. P., & Pritchard , R. D. Motivation Theory in Industrial and

Organizational Psychology . In M . D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology . Chicago : Rand McNally,

1975.

Holz , R. F., & Segal , 0. R. The Impact of a Combat Training System on

Personnel Resources in the U.S. Army . (Paper presented at the

meeting of the 2d NATO Special Panel Program on Systems Science

Conference.) Brussels , Belgium ; September 1975.

Motowidlo , S. J., & Borman , W. C. Behaviorally Anchored Scales for

Measuring Morale in Military Units . Journal of Applied Psychology,

1977, 62(2), 177—183.

Porter , W . L ., & Lawler , E. E. Managerial Attitudes and Performance.

Homewood , Ill.: Dorsey , Irwin , 1968.

Root, R. T., Epstein , K. I., Steinheiser , F. H., Hayes , J. F., Wood ,

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

& Johnson , E., III. Initial Validation of REALTRAIN with Army

Combat Units in Europe (ARI Research Report 1191) . Alexandria ,

Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute , October 1976. (NTIS No.

AD A034 610)

Shils , E. A., & Janowitz , M. Cohesion and Disintegration of the

Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1948, 12 ,

280—315.

17

_____
- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DISTRIBUT ION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASO (M&RA I 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord , ATTN: Libr ary

2 HODA (DAMI-CSZI 1 HOUSACDEC , Ft Ord , ATTN: ATEC—EX — E —Hum Facto rs

1 I-b OA (DA PE-PBR 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjam in Harrison . ATTN: Libr ary

1 HODA (DAMA-A RI 1 USAPACOC, Ft Benjamin Harrison . ATTN ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE-HRE-PO) I USA Comm-Elect SeN Ft Monmosi th, ATTNI ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SGRD-lDl 1 USAEC . Ft Monmou th , ATTN AMSEL -CT-- HDP

1 HODA IDAMI-DOT-CI 1 USAEC . Ft Montoosith , ATT N AMSEL —PA—P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC . Ft Monmouth . ATTN: AM S EL—Sl — CB

1 HQDA )DACH.PPZ-Al 1 USAEC , Ft Monmout h , ATT N C , Fad Dee Br

1 HODA (DAPE -HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agey, Aberdeen . ATTN AMXSV—P

I HODA IDAPF-MPO-C ) I EdgeWOOd Arsenal . Aberdeen . ATTN: SAREA- RL-H

I HODA (DAPE-OW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch , Aberdeen A TTN- ATSL --TEM ---C

1 HQDA (DAPE-HRL ) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab . Aberdeen , ATT N: Library/Dir

1 HQDA (DAPE-cPSl 1 USA Combat Arms Tog Sd , Ft Benning ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD.MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rs c h Unit , Ft Benri iri it . ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS -P) 1 USA Infantry Sd , Ft Benn ing. ATTN STEBC’ —TE—T

1 HODA (DAPC-PAS.Al 1 USASMA , Ft Bliss . ATTN. ATSS -LRC

1 HQDA (DUSA.OR) I USA Ar Def Sch , Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA -CTD-ME

1 HODA )DAMO.RORI 1 USA Ai r Dat Sch , Ft Bliss , ATTN: Tech L ib

I HODA IDASG) 1 USA Au Del Bd . Ft Bliss ATT N FILES

1 1-IODA (DAb -P b) 1 USA Air Oct Sd , Ft Bliss , ATTN. STEBD—PO

I Chief , Consu lt Div (OA.OTSG), Acleiphi . MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leav enwo rth , ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Atst. Hum Res , ODDR&E , OAD (E&LS ) 1 USA Cmd & General $tf College , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATSW — SE— L

I HQ USARPSL . APO Seattle , ATTN ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stt College , Ft Leavenwo rth, ATT N Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN AFKA -OI-TI 1 USA Combined Arm s Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: OepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston I USA Comb ined Arms Cmbt Dee Act , Ft Leavenworth . ATTN CCS

1 Di,, Ar my Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Crnbt Dev Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : ATCASA

1 Of c Chief of Stt . Studies Of c 1 USA Comb ined Arms Crnbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenwo rt h , ATTN ATCACO—E

1 DCSPER , ATTN CPS/OCP I USA Comb ined Arms Cmht Den Act . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATCACC- Cl

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon . ATTN: RSB Chief t USAECOM. Nigh’ Vision Lab , Ft S&’bvoii . ATTN AMSEL— NV —SO

1 The Army Lib , Pentagon , ATTN ANRAL 3 USA Com puter Sys Cmd , Ft Belvoir , A’fl ’N: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMEROC , Ft Belvo ir . ATTNI STSFB—OQ

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belv o ir , A TTN: Library

I (JSASA . Arlington , ATTN IARD-T I USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoi r , ATTN ETL-TO—S

1 USA Rsch Ofc , Durham , ATTN Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab . Ft Belvo ir . ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE.CA I USA Topog raphic Lab . Ft Belvoir . ATTN ETL—GSL

I USATTC , Ft Clayton . ATTN: STETC-MO.A I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, A’ITN: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuc a, ATTN ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, A1TN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sd ’ . Fr H’iach uca . ATTN A’T’Sl—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch , Ft McClellan , ATTN: Lib I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachu ca , ATT N ATSI-TEX —GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch , Ft McClellan , ATTN Tog Dir 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch . Ft I-f iaachuca . ATTN ATSI CTS OR

1 USA Quartermaster Sch , Ft Lee , ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intel li gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca A TTN ATS I — CTO— DT

1 Intelli gence Material Des Otc , EWL , Ft Holabird I USA Intel ligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca . ATTN’ AT SI— CTD—C S

1 USA SE Signa l Sch , Ft Gordon , ATTN I ATSO.EA 1 USA Int el ligence Cur & Sch , Ft Huachuca . ATTN DAS’SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch , Ft Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC.TE-RD 1 USA Intellig ence Ct r & Sch . Ft Hu,uch iii a ATTN ATS I—TEM

1 USATSCH , Ft Eusti s , ATTN Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch Ft Huachu ’ a AT TN Library

1 USA War Colleg e, Carlisle Barracks , ATTN: Lib 1 CDR . HO Ft Huachuca , ATT N T,i.P’ Ref I’tiv

2 WRAI R . Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR . USA Electronic Prey Grd ATT N ST EEi

~ MT-- S

1 DLI . SOA . Montere y I CDR , Proj ect MASSTER . AllIs Tern ruIn Ce’t~r

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATTN : MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER . USATRADOC , LtLI

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy . Bethetda , ATTN I MOCA-MR I Research Institute , HOMASSTER Ft I’ ‘ I

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATTN MOCA.JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd . Ft SN-u- l a” A TTIs USARCPM -P

1 USA Artic Test Ct r , APO Seattle , ATTN STEAC-MO.ASL 1 Senior Army Ad’a. , USAFAGOD IAC t iqir ’ AF Au. Fld No 9

1 USA Artic Test Ctr , APO Seattle , ATTN AMSTE-PL.TS I HO USARPAC . DCSPER API’ SF 96558 ATTN GPPF-SF

I USA Arma ment Cmd , Redstone Arsenal , ATTN : ATSK .TEM 1 Stimson Lib . Academy iii Heal~h S~r ences It San’ ‘lotistor,

1 iSA Armament Cmd , Rock Island . ATTN AMSAR-TDC I Marine Corps Iny t. , ATTN Dean -MCI

1 FA A - NAFEC , Atla ntic City . ATTN Library 1 HOUSMC , Commandant . ATT N rode MTMT St

I F AA-N AFEC , At lantic City. AITN: Hum Engr Br 1 HOUSMC . Cnrrr mar rila nt A” T. il . o,re MPI -70

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr , Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-440 2 USCG Academy, New London . A TTN: Admi ss ’or ’

2 USA FId Arty Sch , Ft Sill , ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New Lonr lon , ATTN Library

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knos , ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr . NV , ATTN CO

I USA Armor Sch , Ft Knos , ATTN: ATSB -Ol- E 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN Educ Svc Ofc

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB .DT-TP 1 USCG, Psychol Rurs Br , DC, ATTN GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN ATS B-CD-AD I HO Mid—Rang e Br , MC Dr-t , Ouantic o . ATTN: P&S Div

19
_____________________________________ ‘

~

1

I US Mlirine Corps Liaisiorr Ole , AMC, Alexandria , ATTN: AMCGS—F 1 Dat & Civi) In s t of Envir o Medicine . Canada

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe , ATTN~ ATRO- -ED 1 AIR CRE SS, Kens i ngton, A’I’TN: Into Sys Br

6 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN : ATPR-AD 1 Militaerpaykobogi ,k Tj.nsste, Copehegen

1 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATTS—EA I Milit ary Attache, French Embassy, ATIN: Doc Sec

I USA Forces Cmd , Ft McPhers on . ATTN: Library I Medecin Chef . C.E.R.P.A.—Ar senal , Tou lon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rucker . ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off , A991 Hums En~ Rich Div . Miniilry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker . ATTN: Library of Defense , New Delhi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker , ATTN: Educ Advi sor 1 Pars Rich Ofc Library, AKA , Israe l Defense Forces

I USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rucker , ATTN: P0 Drawer 0 1 Min uster us van Deteutsie , 000P/KL At d Sociaal

I HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd , St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV ’—ZDR Paychologi whe Zaken, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA AvIatIo n Sys Teyt Act,. Edwards AFB . ATTN: SAVTE—T

I USA A)r Dat SeN. Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSATEM

1 USA Air Mobility Rich & Dev Lab , Moff ett FId, ATTN : SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation SeN. Ret Tng Mgt , Ft Rucke r , ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO, Ft Bucker , ATIP4: ATST—D—A

1 HO, DARCOM . Alexandria . ATTN: AMXCD—TL

1 HO, DARCOM . Alexandria , ATTN: CUR

I US Military Acadesny, West Point . ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK , FPO NY , ATTN : MASE—GC

1 Of c of Naval INch , Arlington , ATTN : Code 452

3 Oft of Naval Rich, Arlington , ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlingto n, ATTN: Code 450

1 Otc of Naval Rich, Arlington , ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab . Pensacola , ATTN: Acou s SeN Div

I Nasal Aerospc Med Res Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code 151

1 Nava l Aerospc Med Ret Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code L5

I Chief ~f NasPets, ATTN : Pert-OR

1 NAVA IRSTA , Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nan Oceanographic , DC, A’rTN: Code 6251 , Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal , ATTI4: Doe Ctr

1 NavAirS ysCom, ATTN: A IR—5313C

I Nay BuMed , ATTN: 713

1 NavHelicopterSu b.Squa 2. FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (Fl) William AFB

1 AFHRL )TT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFB , OH

2 AFHRL )DOJZ) Brooks AFB

I AFHRL (00 (N) Lscltbarid APS

I HOUSAF (INYSO)

1 I4QUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB ,OH

2 AF Inst of Tech , WPAFB . OH, ATTN: ENE/SL

1 ATC (XPTD) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMeci Lib . Br~~ ks AF8 (SUL—4), ATTN: DOC SEC 1 AFOS R (NL), Ar lington

I AF Log Cmd , Mcclellan AFB. ATTN : ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO~ ATTN~ Dept of Sal Sen

5 NavPers & Dxv d r . San Diego

2 Navy Med Neurop sychiatric Rsch Unit , San Diego

1 Has Electronic Lab , San Diego , ATTN: Ret Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000—Lib

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code 55Aa

1 NavPostGraSch , Mon terey , ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrngEquipCtr . Orlando , ATTN: Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor . DC. ATTN: Manpower Admin

1 US Dept of Justice , DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

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

1 Nat Clearing House for MH— Info , Rockville

Denver Federal Ctr , Lakewood , A’fl’N: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

I Scientific Advsr, Mit Ed, Army (‘itt. Russell Otca, Canberra

1 Mi l and Air Attache , Austria N Embassy

1 Centre de Recherche Des Facteurs , Humaine de Ia Defense

Nationa le . Brusse ls

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washingto n

I C/Air Staff, Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Pert Std An .I Br

3 Chief , Canadian Def Rich Staff , ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 British Oaf Staff , British Embassy , Washington

20