Technical Paper 324 E L A 

INVESTIGATION OF THE STRENGTH OF

~'ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GRAPHIC SYMBOLOGY

AND MILITARY INFORMATION

0Philip Bersh

Temple University

and

Franklin L. Moses and Richard E. Malsano

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

4%.. BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

-:)

C= DO

FEB 7 197

U. S. Army L)L

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved for public release; distribution unlimitpd.
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 Armny

Techinical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract to the Department of the Army

Temple University

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN. PERI.P, 5001 Eisenhavar Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333,

FINAL DISPOSITION,: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Plam do not return It to the U. 5, Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

bLM The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorited documents,
Unclassified

SI RITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)

READ INSTRUCIIONS PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM REPO' _.' 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER Technical ape, 724/

4. TITLE(dubtUi.) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED 7NvEsT1GATf-6N OF THEPSTRENGTH OFASSOCIATION/

fETWEEN gRAPHIC _SYMBOLOGY AND MILITARY

IFORMATION, 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

K 7. 1 AHiLer Tn Ui ty 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*5 iph Brsh, Tem le University; . ... .. 79

Franklin L./Moses and DAAG 29-76-D-0010

/ Richard/MaisanoArmy Research Institute

i R'GANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 0"PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and So- 6,U' BERS

cial Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, 2Q161102B74F.

Va. 22333, and Temple University, Philadelphia, P- 7 :- I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS g12-REPOR . /

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel September 1978 1

Department of the Army - NU 0PAGES

Washington, D.C. 20310 44 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

( Unclassified

-7 71 jSCHEDULE -15. DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRADING _

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if neceesay and Identify by block number)

Symbols; Military Symbology; Natural Language; Graphics; Automated Displays;

Tactical Operations System (TOS); Computer Graphics

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on revere aide If neceesry and identify by block ntmber)

This investigation sought to determine the strength of associations of simple

codes or geometrical shapes with military concepts. Symbols were chosen for

easy generation on computer displays or for ease of manual reproduction.

Each of 114 enlisted men ranked battlefield information categories (e.g., Unit

Level, Danger, and Firepower) in the order of their strength of association

with different sets of symbols, with numbers of each set varying in a single

DORMN7 1473 DO EDITION I OF t NOV ~a 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified U s

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ( 1e Entered

-Zm-
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE('emm, Data Entered)

20.

characteristic. In a related task, these persons were asked to rank order

military branch or duty designations and tactical function terms by how well

they were suggested by both geometrical symbols and miscellaneous "stick"

symbols. A second group of 137 enlisted persons had the reverse task of

ranking symbols against one another for their strength of association with

military concepts. Both groups of participants had only limited prior exposure to military symbology.

Results suggest that "natural" associations can be found between graphic codes

or symbols and military concepts. Results were categorized as high, medium,

minimal, and insignificant associations, based on the statistical significance

of differences among ranks and on the degree of reflexive associations between

symbols and concepts) About half of the primary matches between tactical

cltnc iS -s-mbls fell into high- and moderate-association categories.

These matches included the currently used link between numerosity and Unit

Level (e.g., company and division) as well as the link of color with Danger and

of square with Service Support. The remaining association results, including

the currently used associations of an ellipse with Armor, X with Infantry, and

of color for Friend/Enemy, fell into the minimal- or insignificant-association

categories.> 'The data gathered identify symbol characteristics for consideration in modifying current symbology. Natural codes or symbols based on such a

consensus should be easily learned and interpreted. /

--

e t. AVAIL UC/ JALM

QN

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(f'hen Date Ptmred)

.A SOM
Technical Paper 324

INVESTIGATION OF THE STRENGTH OF

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GRAPHIC SYMBOLOGY

AND MILITARY INFORMATION

Philip Bersh

Temple University

and

Franklin L. Moses and Richard E. Malsano

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by: Edgar M. Johnson A.H. Blrnbaum, Acting Director

Technical Area Chief ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeldner

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

September 1978

Army Project Numbers Taotioal Operations &

20161102B74F Displiys

2072722A785

Approwd for public reless.: distribution unilmited.

#'71 N U,%
ARI 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 briefing or Disposition Form.

ii

AN

:;74j

Ai

I
m -- 0

FOREWORD

The Battlefield Information Systems Technical Area is concerned with

the future battlefield demahds for increasing the man-machine capability

of acquiring, transmitting, processing, disseminating, and utilizing information. The research focuses on the problems of interfacing and interacting within command and control centers. There is concern with such

areas as topographic products and procedures, tactical symbology, useroriented systems, information management, staff operations and procedures,

and sensor systems integration and utilization.

Of special interest are human factors problems in developing and

validating new symbology concepts for effective display of tactically

significant information. There is a need for an ADP-copatible symbology

that can communicate the status of the battlefield and its activity rapidly and easily. This present research developed a methodology and determined a basis for a more effective military symbology by taking advantage of natural associations that often exist between concepts and the

symbols or codes used to represent them (e.g., red = Danger). This ef- j fort represents one phase in the exploration of improved ways to transmit

information to users and provides part of the necessary technological -I

base required for effective design of the user-systems interface. J

Research in the area of symbolic representation of the tactical environment 

area 

and 2Q76374A774 

are responsive 

is conducted 

and 

to 

to 

both 

general 

special 

in-house 

requirements 

requirements 

and contractually. 

of 

of 

Army 

the U.S. 

Projects 

Army 

Efforts 

Combined

2Q762722A765

in this V

Arms Combat Development Activity, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., and the U.S.

Army Intelligence Center and School, Fort Huachuca, Ariz. This specific

effort was conducted under Army Project 2Q161102B74F as basic research

responding to the above requirements.

J OP I ZEID]ER

,echnical Director

4
f0

INVESTIGATION OF THE STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GRAPHIC SYMBOLOGY

AND MILITARY INFORMATION

BRIEF

Requirement:

To investigate the existence of "natural" associations between

graphic symbology and military concepts.

Procedure:

Each of 114 enlisted men ranked battlefield information categories

(e.g., Unit Level, Danger, and Firepower) in the order of their strength

of association with different sets of symbols, with members of each set

varying in a single characteristic. In related tasks, these persons

were asked to rank order military branch or duty designations and tactical function terms by how well they were suggested by both geometrical

symbols and miscellaneous "stick" symbols. A second group of 137 enlisted men had the reverse task of ranking symbols against one another for

their strength of association with military concepts. The participants,

from the 3rd Infantry (The Old Guard), had only limited prior exposure to

military symbology. Results were categorized as high, medium, minimal,

and insignificant associations, based on the statistical significance of

differences among ranks and on the degree of reflexive associations between symbols and concepts.

Findings:

Results suggest that "natural" associations can be found between

- graphic codes or symbols and military concepts. About half of the primary matches between tactical concepts and symbols fell into the highand moderate-association categories. High associations are those that

show little or no ambiguity about which symbol and concept belong to-

_ gether. The three high-association categories were (1) the currently

used link between numerosity (number of lines) and Unit Level (e.g., company, division), (2) the link of color with Danger, and (3) the link of

a square with Service Support. All moderate associations had at least

some ambiguity. A noteworthy cluster of four symbols was associated

with the Maneuver Unit concept. These same four symbols were also associated with 8 out of 10 other military branch or duty designations. = The other half of the association results, including the currently used

associations of an ellipse for Armor, an X for Infantry, and of color

for Friend/Enemy, fell into the minimal- or insignificant-association

categories.

--- - -- --
Utilization of Findings:

The data gathered identify symbol characteristics that should be

considered when modifying the current symbology system. Such natural

codes or symbols would have a built-in advantage for the display of mi-litary concepts because they presumably could be learned and interpreted

more readily.

This ranking technique for matcning symbols and concepts appears to

be a suitable method to assess traditional symbology systems and new

symbology ideas.

J

NAl

- --- --
INVESTIGATION OF THE STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION. BETWEEN GRAPHIC SYMBOLOGY

AND MILITARY INFORMATION

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................... 1

pBACKGROUND . . . . ........ . . . . .. I

ME Ols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RationaleD............................ 5

RationaleforConcepts ............. ..... 5

Task Organization 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......... 6

High-Association Strength. ................ . 7

Moderate-Association . . ................ 10

Minimal- or Insignificant-Association Strength 11 441

CONCLUSIONS ... aa..aaaaa*a***aa******a 1

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

- APPENDIX A. SYMBOLS, CONCEPTS, AND INSTRUCTION

SFORMS A & B .................... 15

B. MEAN RANKS, PERCENTAGES OF "BEST" RANKS,

AND SIGNIFICANCE RESULTS ........ .... . 31

DISTRIBUTION .. ... .... ....... .. .. 41

;S7,,

v+

,- -
- __ =~-_0

LIST OF TABLES Paige

Table 1. Salient perceived concept-symbol

associations ........................ 8

2. Minimral cre insignificant perceived

co:et-symbol associations .. .............. 9

B-1. Rank order of associations between

information categories and each

symbol set. ............. .. .. .. .... 32-

B-2. Rank order of associations between

branch designations and each

geometric form. ..................... 33

B-3. Rank order of associations between

branch designations and each 4

miscellaneous symbol . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34

B-4. Rank order of associations between

general function terms and each

geometric form . *.*.**. .... . . . 35

B-5. Rank order of associations between

general function terms and each

miscellaneous symbol . ... . .. . . ... .. 36

B-6. Rank order of associations between

symbol sets and each information

category . . . .. . . . . . ... . .* . . . 37

B-7.* Rank order of associations between

geometric forms and each branch

designation .. ...................... 38

B-8. Rank order of associations between

miscellaneous symbols and each

- branch designation .. . . . . . . . . 39

B-S. Rank order of associations between

geometric forms and each general

funcntero .er. ... .. .. ......... 40

B-10. Rank order of associations between

miscellaneous symbols and each

general funcntionm m.. . ... . .. . .. . 41

_ _ - _ _ _iF
LIST OF FIGURES Page I

Figure A-1. Symbol sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 1

A-2. Geometric forms .. . . . . .. . ... . 16

A-3. Miscellaneous "stick" symbols........ . . . 17

t

I I7-
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GRAPHIC

SYMBOLOGY AND MILITARY INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The advent of automated data processing (ADP) systems has greatly

increased the amount and rate of information that can be shown to a commander. However, many of the advantages of ADP and computer-generated

displays will be lost unless efficient gr;.;hic codes and symbology are

developed. Military symbols can be improved both to allow broader uses

and to permit more informative tactical displays. Current symbol details often have low recognition value, and even basic information can

quickly clutter a display.

For example, consider the coding complexity possible with tactical

symbols. A symbol may contain information about the next higher echelon,

the unit designsation, and other details that supplerri-ft the basic unit

size, type, and location. Tbs- o details quickly c.:- -te a cluttered display and may obscure the insi- :- iion that is most in;:;rtant for the commander. Many of the details even require a manual for interpretation.

Despite such details, the main communication to a usez concerns the identity and location of a unit. Information concerning mission capability

and effectiveness is not explicitly communicated. In general, there is

a need for a symb.,.ogy system that is easily communicated, reveals the

status of the battiefield and its activity readily, and permits infor- '

- mative automated displays.

The graphic codes and symbols now used have evolved through history.

Department of the Army Field Manual 21-30, "Military Symbols," (1965)

shows codes and symbols selected for their supposed iconic representation--such symbols as X to suggest thq crossed rifles of the Infantry

insignia and CZ to represent the track of armored v!:hicles. Such an ap- I

proach is based upon the reasonable assumption thac codes and symbols

with implicit associations already existing or easily formed will be im- A

mediately recognizable or readily learned. Dissatisfaction with conventional symbology has particularly sparked interest for considering symbology in terms of clarity, simplicity, consistency, and adequacy for

computer generation. Unfortunately, there is little or no empirical evidence available for accepting any new approaches or fcr retaining conventional symbology.

The present investigation explored tendencies to associate simple

* graphic codes or symbols with concepts. Common cultural influences often

lead to the formation of more or less stereotypical associations between

information and visual stimuli or stimulus patterns. The word "natural"

can be used to describe such associations. For example, to most American motorists, green means go and red means stop. Most adults would associate a meniscus L with the moon and with nighttime, while a circle

with lines emanating from its circumference - would be associated with
the sun and with daytime. When associations are natural in this way, a

graphic code or symbol will evoke its information associate with high

probability.

On the other hand, when an association is not natural, a graphic

code or symbol will evoke information with low probability or not at

all. A perqon's cultural background might hamper the learning and retaining of arbitrary associations. Cultural differences might also lead

to different associations with the same visual material.

Both conveyance of information and natural associations are integral parts of the principle of Stimulus-Response (S-R) Compatibility.

S-R Compatibility refers to human expectancies about what stimulus and

response patterns belong together. It can be broken down into spatial,

movement, and conceptual associaLions. This study is concerned with

compatible conceptual associations stemming from two sources, intrinsic

and culturally influenced associations. Intrinsic associations are those

that do not have to be learned and are ready-made but often unrecognized.

For example, a right-handed person wantq controls on the right side.

Culturally influenced associations, the category that the present research tested, are illustrated by the U.S. Army assignment of blue to

Friend and red to Enemy (FM 21-30) and the equivalent Russian assignment

of red to Friend in the reverse relationship of hue to information (Soviet

Armed Forces Military Symbols, 1970).

BACKGROUNDDespite wide use of graphic codes and symbols, there is little research on how well symbols are associated with their intended meanings.

One common way of choosing symbols for given applications is to select

those that take advantage of already existing- associations (Van Cott &

Kinkade, 1972; McCormick, 1976). It is assumed that pictorial symbols,

such as realistic silhouettes, will strongly suggest the objects or A

events to be symbolized. Mead and Modley (1968) labeled such symbols Jig

"image related," pointing out that their usefulness may diminish with

time, particularly if the symbolized objects become technoiogically obsolete or changed for reasons of fashion. "Concept-related" symbols

(e.g., a right-turn arrow.), on the other hand, are likely to remain effective indefinitely. Furthermore, properly chosen concept-related symbols are as readily and perhaps even more universally understood than

image-related symbols. Both image-related and concept-related symbols

have played a major role in efforts to develop universal graphic languages (Modley, 1966; Mead & Modley, 1968) or international road signs

(McCormick, 1976).

The fact that a symbol is pictorial by no means guarantees its connection with an intended associate. Kolers (1969) has emphasized the U

grossly exaggerated status of claims for the "immediacy" or "directness"

of what he calls "pictograms." Indeed, the information conveyed by any

2

517A

Lg

+--+ -N
symbol depends on a viewer's experience and knowledge, as determined to

a considerable degree by the culture of his or her society.

Even a symbol as apparently clear in its meaning as a directional

arrow may be interpreted in nondirectional terms because of cultural influences (Kolers, 1969). Kolers has, in fact, asserted that the SapirWhorfian hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), currently applied only to the critical

role of cultural differences in the interpretation of verbal material,

should also be applied to pictorial material. The hypothesis states

that language defines thinking and transmits culture among people. Thus,

language may define our view of the world and set bounds on our behavior.

It follows from this premise that as culture and language change, our view

of the world changes. For example, English-speaking peoples have at most

four or five ways to describe and communicate the idea of snow, while Eskimos have about 22 one-word definitions for this concept because of the

central position it holds in their culture. Thus, there is reason to suggest that cultural "preparedness" affects human association in a manner

analogous to the influence of genetic "preparedness" upon the formation A

of associations in animals (Seligman, 1970).

Such considerations strongly indicate the advisability of testing I

gre n.ic codes and symbols for the associations they evoke before selecting them to display information to any group of users. Existing studies i

have explored information processing with the aid of graphic displays

(e.g., Ringel et al., 1966) or have compared different types of graphic

codes and symbols with each other (Smith & Thomas, 1964) and with alpha- '_

numeric symbols (Hitt, 1961). However, limited research has tested the

information value of graphic symbology, particularly with military information. In one effort, Wheatley (1977) tested the salience of complex

graphic symnbols by using three different dimensions for conveying the

impression of hostility. The dimensions were shape (spikedness), color, --

and numerals, each in seven ascending levels of hostility. After being

told how each dimension was used to express hostility, participants werc

I asked to indicate which member of complex symbol pairs expressed the

greater hostility. In fact, the symbol pairs had been constructed to be

equal by varying the levels of the three dimensions. The results showed z -

that shape and color were superior to numerals for affecting hostility

perception. Though the difference was small, shape was used more often

than color. Wheatley noted that participants usually concentrated on a

single dimension in their judgments rather than trying to evaluate all

three.

In another approach to symbology research, Berry and Horowitz (1961)

asked participants to draw symbols and diagrams to represent their interpretation of 30 topographic features. Over half the participants drew

approximately the standard symbols for only 11 of the 30 features, inventing nonstandard symbols for the rest. Many of the new self-created J __

symbols for the remaining 19 features were the same or similar. An ave- -

rage of 63% of the participants independently drew identical or similar -

symbols for four features. For nine other features, more participants

independently drew an identical or similar new symbol than the standard

3
symbol. The authors concluded that standard symbols were ineffective in

representing topographic information for the unskilled participants and

inadequate for even the skilled participants. in addition, the authors

noted that participants who agreed on an independent interpretation drew 3

the symbols as viewed from ground level. The results reflected wide differences among participants, some of whom may have found the task of

drawing symbols for unfamiliar topographic terms too demanding. In this

present research, both information and graphic symbology were explicitly

provided to participants.

METHOD

Participants

Two separate groups of enlisted men E2 to E5 in grade participated.

There were 114 persons in one group and 137 in the other group. Both

groups were from the 3rd Infantry (The Old Guard), an honor guard unit

stationed at Fort Myer, Va. They had only limited prior exposure to military symbology.

Task

Each participant was given a booklet containing three types of

graphic symbology and three types of verbal material (Appendix A). The

booklet for the first group showed a different graphic symbol or set of

symbols at the top of each page followed by a number of different verbal

concepts. Participants were asked to rank order the verbal concepts according to how well they were represented by the symbol shown. Participants in the second group were given the reverse task. Booklets for thesecond group showed one verbal concept per page followed by a number of

symbol types to be rank ordered according to how well they represented a

given concept. A ranking approach was used to provide data on the relative strength of the associations.

Symbols

The research symbology consisted of (a) seven symbol sets (e.g.,

circles, lines, and bars), with the members of each set varying in a

single characteristic; (b) eight geometric forms; and (c) a miscellaneous

group of eight "stick" symbols, some of which were segments of the geometric forms. The changing feature of each symbol set was designed to

-- Irepresent a dimension of stimulus variation that is indicated by labels

in Appendix A.

4

_ __ _ _ _
Rationale for Symbols

Symbol characteristics either (a) represented a variety of easily

reproducible changing features (e.g., color, size, and gray scale) or

(b) included basic geometric forms (e.g., circle, square, and trapezoid)

and plain stick figures (e.g., line, arrow, and angle) that could be used

for building symbols. The material was kept simple so that each symbol

might be generated readily by computer or easily reproduced manually with

crayon or grease pencil.

Concepts

The verbal concepts included (a) information categories (e.g., Danger, Importance, and Friend/Enemy), some of them abstract; (b) iilitary

branch or duty designations (e.g., Armor, Engineer, and Aviation); and

(c) general military function terms (e.g., Combat Support, Fire Support,

and Maneuver Unit). The information categories were defined, and the

definitions and supplementary terms also made clear that they represented

dimensions along which information might vary. For example, accuracy

varied from "doubtful" to "certain." Two of the information categories,

Friend/Enemy and Range, were represented as dichotomous. Range, for example, distinguished only between forces inside and outside of the striking range of enemy weapons. Participants were told to use only the first

and last members of each symbol set in providing their ranking on these

two categories. The general military function terms also were defined,

and examples of the types of military unit performing each function were

included in the definitions (see Appendix A). Symbol sets were presented

only with the information categories, whereas the geometric forms and miscellaneous symbols were used with both the branch designations and general function terms.

Rationale for Concepts

The tested military concepts or cattc ries were chosen primarily by

sampling the commonality of requirements from the U.S. Army Intelligence

Center and School (Fort Huachuca, Ariz.) and the U.S. Army Combined Arms

Combat Development Activity (Fort Leavenworth, Kans.). The information

categories were selected Iecause they constitute types of information potentially valuable for display, particularly to higher echelon commanders.

With the exception of Friend/Enemy and possibly Range, such information

is not currently displayed. Military branch designations represented the

standard content of existing displays. Finally, general military function terms were included on the assumption that a higher echelon commander

might want a display that would provide the disposition of enemy forces

1The term "branch" is used to designate branch or duty performance functions as defined in Appendix C of FM21-30. ! -5

I-:
in terms of their generic combat functions--a display that might facilitate decisionmaking on the commitment of the commander's own forces. Dis- k

plays that provide only specific branch and unit designations often tend

to be confusing because of the clutter involved. I

Task Organization

Each booklet was divided into two parts, Form A and Form B (see Appendix A). In the Form A booklet, each page of Part I presented one symbol set together with eight information categories; each page of Part II

presented an individual symbol together with nine branch designations or

three general function terms. The verbal material was arranged in four

different orders to guard against the tendency to rank in a manner dependent upon the order in which the items were listed. In the Form B booklet, each page of Part I presented one information category. Because the

seven symbol sets to be rank ordered included colors, the symbol sets were

Irinted on a detachable page to reduce the printing cost. Each page of

Part IT presented a branch designation or general function term together

with the eight geometric forms or the eight miscellaneous symbols. Four

orders of the geometric forms and the miscellaneous symbols were employed.

Partizipants were given both oral and printed instructions (see Appendix A for the printed instructions). The oral instructions were -designed to insure that participants understood the proper way to use the

machine-scored answer sheets. Participants were informed that the exercise was not a test of their knowledge of military symbology, that there

was no "correct" way to rank the items, and that they should treat each

page independently. Finally, the oral instructions emphasized that immediate impressions were desired. No time limit was set. Participants

recuired from 20 to 75 minutes to complete the exercises.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data analyses of these test results suggest that natural and consistent associations of graphic symbols with verbal concepts can be found

that are relevant to the Army's needs. Overall differences in mean rank

were analyzed with Friedman's non-parametric analysis of variance (Siegel,

1956), and each significant set of rankings was further analyzed with the

a posteriori Nemenyi test (Kirk, 1969) of pair-wise comparisons. In addi-

- tion, the percentage of participants who ranked items as "best" was calculated. Mean ranks, percentages of "best" rankings, and significance

results were-tabulated (Appendix B) and used in further aggregations of

results.

The associations discovered by this research were based on two separate groups of rankings of graphic symbology features and verbal concepts.

The second group's task, which placed the seven symbol sets in direct competition for their strength of association with a verbal concept, identified one type of preference. The first group's task, however, allowed for

'-- - - , -J
~I

a check on associations by requiring the ranking of various word concepts

with respect to each symbol type. Both kinds of rankings are necessary

to decide about the "best" symbol code, particularly in the case of ties.

Four indicators were developed to define the "best" symbol-concept

associations for the tested items. The criteria were (a) a statistically

best mean rank (i.e., a rank significantly different from that of another possible association), (b) a mean rank significantly better than

that of other possible associations, (c) a first-place ranking by the

greatest number of participants, and (d) fulfillment of either (a) or

(b) and of (c) for both the order in which symbol types were ranked with

each concept and the order in which word concepts were ranked with each

symbol type (i.e., a two-way association).

Three associations of high strength were supported by all four criteria, and numerous associations of moderate strength were partially supported (see Table 1). Some of the associations with minimal or insignificant support are shown in Table 2. The associations shown are not K recommendations for implementation but are illustrations of the principal

trends found in the appended tables of results (see Appendix B).

High-Association Strength

Ideally, a given graphic code or symbol should represent only one

concept or item of information. It would be confusing if the same code

or symbol represented different concepts or items of information on the

same display. Therefore concept-symbol associations having relatively _

little ambiguity are considered strongest. For example, the association

of numerosity (i.e., number of lines) with Unit Level was particularly

strong and clearly supported the current military coding scheme for designating units. In addition to the correlation of numerosity with Unit

Level, the relationships of color with Danger and square with Service Support were quite good. However, most of the present research results con- 1

tained some level of ambiguity. Some of the primary associations in the = data were stronger than others; this was the basis for organizing Tables

l and 2.

Care must be taken to consider these data highlights within their

proper context. For example, although color was the statistically best I s

association for Danger and Danger ranked high as an associate for color, !

there are other relevant aspects of the data. Consider that color often

was chosen to represent the concepts of Friend/Enemy, Accuracy, and Im- I'

portance (see Appendix B). Conversely, a color symbol evoked the concepts of Concentration and Importance as containing statistically significant associations. Color seemed to symbolize a broader concept than

Danger; perhaps it could be labeled "Threat." These associations are

understandable, given the role of red as a warning and green as a signal

of safety in our society. In addition, these data suggest that color is

a powerful way to symbolize battlefield information other than Friend/

Enemy, its principal current use. Such multiple relationships show that

.7I

4

-, =-'-
0

04

0

.

0 Ai 00 Vi

0' . ' H [' O\ I- Lt\ 0 t- Q lz CU C: 0 ' ~ C ~ C

u0

z 1D 00 0 0 0 01 4 4- 03 .41 ca U ca

-40 

-4 to 0 

$4 p~ S14 -4 -4 

4 

0 ) 

1. -4 0 0 

0 

0 

w 

41 0 

0 

0 

0d 

00 -4 

-4

a) U 1

o .1c 0 td u to CO 4 0 0v > 4 u E N 0 0 0 a, V4 -4 to C0 $4 14 4 -4 S$d 00 5. 00 0 00 w) C) 04 N c < E4 Q 04

0

* .-4V

04 cc0C

9in

z I

0 -'o

. U

00 0 

4J

00

ra 0

$41

0 H 41 41

ci ~~~ 41to-I4r 0 04 

944 0. 0 0 2&

-H 0.

0 4 .4U 04 4 

U 00 0 0@ 0 

01 m -A0 m k~0 c -,44 0i1 4J ~ ~~~ -.4 00 001" : N -

u 0) 0 ) :3 () 0 ) r. 00 00 u 0 --

be COi -A 0

UOTIV-DOSSV U0TV0DSSV alWeaP0I

tl2T8
0

0- 0r N 0W

-- tc'% tc\ tCN Cu rrC\ ~ C ~ cU

0

I

14 -14 m

o o

Lo 0 K CU tcs

3-o (D 0 14 0 bo0

o 00 COU0r

ub H H c 34HH ' H Cu1 to0.

050

f_4 -4

V-4 0

E-1 'I - $~'

to E-4 4 . 0 02

0

P. 4 0

c41 0$

03241

00

01 -% 0 

-40

034.3

4)J 0

40 m 0. ci=

-444

C iC 41 0 4.

0 r 4 ic cC 0 v

0 0 :3 Z. 0 .0 14 cc

Cl 41 34 030 i r. $4 > 0 -0 r. -4 0P co 0 40. 4 s

oo[I~os 03TU.E 0 0 0 00.IVI 0 -

~z $4 U 0 -4S0 $4 l 4 '4 4 3) II f: j9
the primary concept-symbol association is no more than a starting point

for selecting symbols for tactical display.

Clearly, codes or symbols can have associations of some strength with

more than one .oncept ot item of information. As the primary association

weakens, other reasonable alternatives emerge. The high association of

Service Support with square shows a tendency in this direction. Notice

that Service Support is a statistically best associate for square. However, only 19% of the participants chose the opposite association of

square for the concept of Service Support. In fact, a sizable portion of

the participants liked circle and trapezoid almost as well (see Appendix

B). The primary association with square was defined as the first-placerank of that symbol combined with the strong reverse association. Would

a circle symbol be as good as a square symbol to represent Service Support? The current data suggest that it probably would be, but future

data may provide compelling reasons for using one over the other.

Moderate Association Strength

The second set of data (Table 1) is characterized by two subgroupings: (a) single associations that were statistically different from all

other possible associations, and (b) groups of similarly ranked associations that had a statistically significant difference from associations

with lower ranks. The categories can be somewhat misleading. For example,

Service Support is shown under moderate associations as being the best

associate for circle. This information must be tempered by the relationship of Service Support with square discussed earlier. Table I implies

a weaker association between circle and Service Support by showing only

a one-way association, but the data show only a minimal difference between square and circle as symbols for Service Support.

A more clearcut moderate association exists between Fire Support and

the plus symbol. When participants chose a concept for the plus symbol,

they may have thought of the cross-hairs used in targeting. Yet, the

complementary association was not pronounced.

Symbols associated with the Maneuver Unit function seem to provide

a basis for clustering a number of military branch designations. Maneuver Unit had its best association both with parallelogram and with angle. 13

It also ranked first for arrow and triangle. All of these symbols except

parallelogram connote movement and direction. In addition, their shapes

are related to one another. In the case of the parallelogram symbol, the match with Maneuver Unit seems to fit the pattern, considering that

this symbol has a good association with Mechanized Infantry and ranks D

near the top with Armor (see Appendix B). Perhaps the shape of a parallelogram suggests a tank. In general, the data revealed that these four

symbols--parallelogram, angle, arrow and triangle--rank at the top for

almost all military branches in this research. Two moderately strong

associations occurred between Aviation and Angle and between Mech Infantry and parallelogram. With those exceptions, the clustering of symbols

10

'I - - 2
for most branches makes the choice of associations between a particular

symbol and a specific branch difficult.

Signal and Engineer, the only combat support branches included, did

not follow the pattern of branch-symbol associations. For the Signal

branch, participants preferred zigzag, somewhat like the current branch

symbol, or diamond. The Engineer branch had a reasonable association

with parallelogram, but the better match was with a bracket, a symbol related to the "E" currently used.

Minimal or Insignificant Association Strength

na _ As Table 2 shows, there were a number of weak associations between

symbols and concepts, including the current symbols of ellipse for Armor,

X for Infantry, and color for Friend/Enemy. Because all participants

were infantrymen, the choice of angle rather than X as a symbol for Infantry was particularly unexpected. Although the sample was small, these

results emphasize the value of testing the strength of symbol-information

associations now being used.

Half of the research results fall into the minimal- or insignificantassociation category. This partially occurred because many of the symbols

(e.g., color, circle, triangle, and angle) were highly preferred for more

than one concept. In addition, the simplicity of the symbols used was

probably a contributing factor. For some concepts (e.g., Firepower, Field

Artillery, and Cavalry), no symbol ranked high enough for a clear primary

association. This lack of association obviously limits research that attempts to explore relations between graphic symbols and concepts. Because

k a symbol is often chosen on a commbn-sense basis, there is no guarantee

that a match between a given concept and any one symbol will be found.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present investigation, no special effort was made to select

symbols for their iconic character. Instead, selection encompassed a variety of simnple codes and symbols and a representative list of military

concepts whose associations should- be considered in modifying the current

system. The salient associations found probably will be learned and interpreted easily by potential users. A limitation of the ranking approach

is that results can be interpreted only within the range of symbols and

concepts tested. For example, the outcome of symbol-concept rankings indicated that color has the strongest association with Danger; the conclusion, however, was limited by the choices available. Therefore, the introduction of new symbols and new items of information or other changes

in the symbol or concept set would require a new evaluation.

There are more sophisticated ways to determine association strength

than by the ranking procedures used here. More complex approaches, such

as a paired-comparisons procedure (Thurstone, 1927), would have provided

11

-N_ --
more refined measurement at the cost of increased time and perhaps number

of required participants. Instead, the ranking approach was used to reveal

the existence of strong (stereotyped) associations for a variety of symbols

and items of information. The ranking method certainly appears suitable

for preliminary comparisons of, the association value of military concepts

with proposed and current symbology or with alternative proposed codes or

symbols. The resulting data provide suggestions for symbol character- I

istics that should be considered in modifying the current symbology system.

NU

i_2 JNI

12

-Z-

- IN
REFERENCES

Berry, H. A.. amd Horowitz, P. Interpretation of Topographic Displays by

Untrained Personnel. Aeronutronic Division of Ford Motor Company,

March 1961.

Channon, J. The Enemy Sitmap: An Attack on Graphic Gobbledygook. U.S.

Army Training Development, Fort Leavenworth, Kans. December 1975.

Department of the Army Field Manual N~o. 21-30, Military Symbols, June

1975.

Hitt, W. D. An Evaluation of Five Different Coding Methods. Human Factors, 1961, 3, 120-130.

Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield: Techniques of Tactical Intelligence Analysis. U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School, Fort

Huachuca, Ariz., March 1976. (Draft) 1

Kirk, R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences.

Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1969.

Kolers, P. A. Some Formal Characteristics of Pictogcams. American Scientist, 1969, 57, 348-363.

McCormick, E. J. Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 4th ed. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

Mead, M., and Modley, R. Communication Among All Peopie, Everywhere.

Natural History, 1968, 77(7), 56-63.

Modley, R. Graphic Symbols for World-Wide Communication. In G. Kepes

(Ed.), Sign, Image, Symbol. New York: Braziller, 1966.

Ringel, S., et al. Human Factors Research in a Command Information Processing System. Army Research Institute, Research Report 1145, March

1966. (AD 635-313)

Seligman, M. E. P. On the Generality of the Laws of Learning. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 406-418.

Siegel, S. Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Smith, S. L., and Thomas, D. W. Color Versus Shape Coding in Information

Displays. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 137-146.

Soviet Armed Forces Military Symbols. U.S. Department of Defense Intel- -

ligence Agency, AP-220-3-18-70-INT, October 1970. (For official use

only)

13

- I
Th'irstone, L. L. A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological-Review,

1927, 34, 273-286.

Van Cott, H. P., and-Kinkade, R. G. Human-Eiigineering Guide-to-Eq~uipment

Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

Wheatley, Elizabeth. An Experiment on Coding Preference for Display

Symbols. Ergonomics, 1977, 20(5), 543-552.

Whorf, Benjamin L. Language, Thought, and Reality-Selected Writings.

John B. Carroll, (Ed.), Canibridget MIT Press, 1956.

14
APPENDIX A

SYMBOLS, CONCEPTS, AND INSTRUCTION FORM A & B

AOO

SIZE

GRAY SCALE

C WIDTH-I

0 RED SORANGE YELWGENBLUE

COLOR Test Form Printed in Color

E ................ __________

BROKEN/SOLID

F

EMPTY/FILLED

NUMEROSITY

Figure A-1. Symbol sets.

15

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __------------_
E A I

CIRCLE

DIAMONDI

F

B /J

TRAPEZOID 

PARALLELOGRAM

= SGARE

y D H

RECTANGLE ELLIPSE

I

Figure A-2. Geometric forms.

16

-It-4
A L

ARC

BRACKET

B F

AN GLEX

LINE

ARROW

ZIGZAGCRS

Figure A-3. miscellaneous "stick" sym~bols.

17
°0

INFORMATION CATEGORIES

A. IMPORTANCE: Importance is the degree to which information requires attention -.d is critical to a situation.

Related ideas: tiivial-vital; insignificantsignificant; irrelevant-relevant; unnecessarynecessary.

B. ACCURACY: Accuracy is the degree to which information is known

to be true or correct.

Related ideas: doubtful-probable-certain; unconfirmedconfirmed; unreliable-reliable; tentative-firm.

C. FIREPOWER: Firepower is the sum total of the destructive potential

of all the weapons of a unit.

Related ideas: individual destruction-mass destruction;

low-medium-high capability to inflict damage and

casualties.

D. DANGER: Danger is the degree to which information or a

situation indicates a potential for damage, injury

or destruction.

Related ideas: safe-dangerous; no risk-extreme peril.

E. UNIT LEVEL: Unit Level is the organizational level of a military

unit.

Related ideas: Company-Division-Army; low level

unit-high level unit.

F. FRIEND/ENEMY: Consider only the left and right ends of the picture

group. Friend/Enemy is the difference between friendly

versus enemy forces.

Related ideas: we-they; our side-their side.

G. RANGE: Consider only the left and right ends of the picture

group. Range refers to whether our forces are outside

or within striking distance of enemy weapons.

Related ideas: out of reach-within reach; cannot be

hit-can be hit.

H. CONCENTRATION: Concentration is the degree to which units, weapons,

or vehicles congregate or cluster in a local area.

Related ideas: scattered-concentrated;

dispersed-massed; few-many in a local area.

18
-_ _ _-- - _

MILITARY BRANCH DESIGNATIONS

A. INFANTRY

B. ARMOR

C. FIELD ARTILLERY

D. MECHANIZED INFANTRY

E. SIGNAL

F. ENGINEER

G. AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY

H. CAVALRY

I* AVIATION

GENERAL MILITARY FUNCTION TERMS

A. SERVICE SUPPORT UNIT: Service Support Units are organizations or 0

activities such as maintenance, supply, and

field hospital that do not participate in

combat directly but are used to provide support for maneuver and fire support units.

B. MANEUVER UNIT: Maneuver Units are organizations such as armor

or infantry used to attack, defend, and so iiforth. 1

C. FIRE SUPPORT UNIT: Fire Support Units are organizations such as

field artillery and air defense artillery used

to place supporting fires on targets and to

help insure the success of any particular

maneuver.

-LL

19 -

=U

4 -
FORM A

INSTRUCTIONS

The Army Research Institute (ARI) is in the process of conducting

research on the improvement of military symbology used to describe tactical battlefield situations. We wish to have help from military personnel

to find out what features the symbology should have. The project that

you are participating in is designed to show us how military ideas and

simple pictures relate to one another. A basic non-military example shows

what we mean: the idea of daytime-nighttime is easily related to pictures of the sun and moon. We are interested in finding out what sort of

pictures or symbols may be paired with military information.

No special training is required for the task--only your everyday

past experience. You will not be graded or evaluated in any way. In

fact, your name is not requested and should not be written on either the

booklet or the answer sheets. She front of each booklet has its own

three-digit identifying number in the upper right corner. Find Columns

77-79 on each of your answer sheets. Black out the numbered space

corresponding to the first digit of your booklet identifier in Column

77, the second digit in Column 78 and the third digit in Column 79.

Notice that each of your five answer sheets has a number printed above

Column 80. They should be numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

Black out the corresponding numbered space in Column 80 of each answer

sheet.

There are two parts of this exercise for you to complete:

PART I

On each page of Part I of the booklet, you will find one group of

simple pictures and eight separate ideas. Each idea is labeled, and

the label is followed by a definition of the idea. In addition, related

words or phrases are provided to help you understand the meaning of the

idea. Note that the picture group on the page changes from left to

right in one of its features. Your task is to decide which idea is best U

represented by the picture group with its changing feature, which idea

is second best, third best, and so on for all the ideas. We are not trying to find out if you know current military usage. We are looking for

your own preferences. M

20

4 __-_
The following example shows a picture group and defines three ideas.

EXAMPLE

~NSii

Put the ideas in the order that best represents your feelings about the

degree to which they are suggested or implied by the picture group and

its changing feature.

A. WORK: Work is the amount of effort involved in doing

a task.

Related ideas: easy-hard; simple-difficult;

"no sweat"-strenuous.

B. ALTITUDE: Altitude is the distance above ground. I

Related ideas: low-high; ground-sky.

C. CHILD-ADULT: Consider only the left and right ends of the

picture group. Child-Adult refers to the difference between youth and age.

Related ideas: youfig-old; immature-mature.

The ideas are of two generally different types in the example as they

will be in your task. Child-Adult emphasizes only the extremes of an

idea; Work and Altitude have more levels of meaning. We have begun

doing the example for you and have decided that idea B (altitude) is the

idea most directly suggested or implied by the picture series. It has

been marked on the sample form below. Notice that the space corresponding

to "1" (first best) has been blackened under column B. Given that B is

already selected, then in what order would you choose the remaining two

ideas? Please make your choices and blacken the appropriate places on

the sample form. Remember, there are no correct answers--only your

honest judgments. Corrections can be made by completely erasing a mark.

Two ideas on the same page should never be given the same preference

number.

21

'am
Page 0

A B C

00 0 4

•~ 5.05o0050

060,6o06 o6,

o600"80 .8o

090 *9 go9

2 2 3

I Be very careful to mark the items correctly on the special answer

~forms. Each of the page numbers from the booklet appears in sequence above a section of the form. Letters identify the ideas on each booklet

~page. Mark your selected order for ideas in the correct lettered columns.

~It is important to note that the lists of ideas are arranged differently

from page to page. Make sure that you do not stray to a wrong page number or column letter and that you give different rank orders to each

item on a booklet page.

Please take special care in assigning the first four ranks to the listed ideas, but do r best to rank all of the remaining ideas also.

Sdifficulty, Start ranking your preference from the best to the worst. If you have perhaps choosing the est one or two and then the worst one

* or two would be helpful. It is important, however, to assign a rank to every item on a page. You will not be timed for this exercise. We ask

you, insofar as possible, to base your rankings on your first impressions

~of group the with degree its to changing which the feature. ideas are Use suggested your booklet or implied as a scratch by the picture pad if

| you like.

( I, please Any questions? Raise your hand! When you have finished with Part continue to Part II. There are instructions for you to read

+ at that time.

~PLEASE--RECORD YOUR PREFERENCES ON THE SPECIAL ANSWER SHEETS

1

!I

!I

Im

4-

+I

ohr 22 j

grou fatur. wih is Ue chngig yur boklt a a srath pd i
FORM A

PART II

Instructions for Part II are similar to those for Part I. On each

page of Part II of the booklet, you will find a single picture followed

either by: (1) a list of labels which represent military branch designations (pages 8-23); or (2) a list of terms which indicate the function

that a combat unit may perform (pages 24-39). In the first set of

tasks, you have to decide which branch designation is best represented

by the picture, which is second best, third best, and so on. In the

second set of tasks, you have to decide the best order for relating unit

functions to the picture. Function terms have been defined for you and

examples are given of the military units which typically perform each

function. Remember, we are not trying to find out if you know current

military symbols. We are looking for your own preferences.

Note that the lists are arranged differently from page to page.

After ranking a branch designation or function term with respect to its

representation by a picture, black out the corresponding numbered space

on the answer form in the same manner as described for Part I. Make

sure that you do not stray to a wrong page number or column letter and

that you give different rank orders to each item on a booklet page. Two

ideas on the same page should never be given the same preference number.

Please take special care in assigning the first four ranks to the

branch designations, but do your best te rank all of the remaining

branch designations also.- If you hava difftcalty, perhaps choosing the

best one or two and then the worst one or two.w:uld be helpful. It is

important, however, to assign a rank to every _tem on a page. You will

not be timed for this exercise. We ask you, i-ofar as possible, to

base your rankings on your first impreesions of the degree to which the

branch designations or function terms are suggested or implied by the

picture. You may continue to use the booklet as a scratch pad if you

like. Any questions? Raise your hand to alert us to any problems either

now or during Part II. Start Part II when you are ready.

PLEASE--RECORD YOUR PREFERENCES ON THE SPECIAL ANSWER SHEETS

5H

1z

IN

23
Do not assign the same preference order to more than one item. Put the

following branch designations in the order that best represents your

feelings about the degree to which the branch designations are suggested

or implied by the picture:

A. INFANTRY

B. ARMGR

C. FIELD ARTILLERY

Do MECHANIZED INFANTRY

E. SIGNAL

F. ENGINEER

G. AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY

H. CAVALRY

I. AVIATION

(Example of Form A, Part II of the research)

4t 24

I,'
FORM B

INSTRUCTIONS

The Army Research Institute (ARI) is in the process of conducting

research on the improvement of military symbology used to describe

tactical battlefield situations. We wish to have help from military

personnel project that to find out what features the symbology should have. The you are participating in is designed to show us how military

ideas and simple pictures relate to one another. A basic nonmilitary

example shows what we mean: the idea of daytime-nighttime is easily related to pictures of the sun and moon. We are interested in finding

out what sort of pictures or symbols may be paired with military information.

No special training is required for the task--only your everyday -

past experience. You will not be graded or evaluated in any way. In

fact, your name is not requested and should not be written on either the

booklet or the answer sheets. The front of each booklet has its own

three-digit identifying number in the upper right corner. Find Columns

77-79 on each of your answer sheets. Black out the numbered space

corresponding to the first digit of your booklet identifier in Column

77, the second digit in Column 78 and the third digit in Column 79.

Notice that each of your five answer sheets has a number printed above

Column 80. They should be numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Black out the corresponding numbered space in Column 80 of each answer

sheet.

There are two parts of this exercise for you to complete.

Part I

On each page of Part I of the booklet, you will find the label for

an idea. The label is followed by a definition on the idea. In addition,

related words or phrases are provided to help you understand the meaning of the idea. Each booklet also includes a page which contains seven

picture groups. Note that each picture group changes from left to right in one of its features. Your task is to decide which picture group

with its changing feature best represents the idea, which is second best,

third best, and so on for all the picture groups. We are not trying to

find out if you know current military usage. We are looking for your own

preferences.

25

'75
The following example defines an idea and then shows three picture

groups.

ALTITUDE: Altitude is the distance above ground

Related ideas: low-high; ground-sky.

Put the picture groups (each with its changing feature) in the

order that best represents your feelings about the degree to which they

suggest or imply the idea.

oAQQQQQ

I I °

J1

0 S0 00 is 0 00@@@

L

We have begun doing the example for you and have decided that

picture group B most directly suggests or implies the idea of altitude.

It has been marked on the sample form below. Notice that the space

ccrresponding to "I" (first best) has been blackened under Column B.

Given that B is already selected, then in what order would you choose

the remaining two picture groups? Please make your choices and blacken

the appropriate places on the sample form. The example showed you one

of two types of ideas which you will find in your task. Altitude has

several levels of meaning. In contrast, some ideas such as Friend-Enemy

emphasize only the extreme of an idea. Remember, there are no correct

answers--only your honest judgments. Corrections can be made by completely

erasing a mark. Two pictures should never be given the same preference number in indicating the degree to which they suggest or imply the idea zj I on the page.

26
Page 0

A Bl C00 00 00* 0

, 2 . 2. * 2.

4,a040 le 4 4

•~ 9* 0"9o . 90

3 2 3

SBe very careful to mark the items correctly on the special answerI

~forms. Each of the page numbers in the booklet appears in sequence

= above a section Of the form. Letters identify the seven picture groups.

: Mark your selected Order for the picture groups in the correct lettered i

" columns. Make sure that you do not stray to a wrong page number or Column

letter and that you give different preference numbers to each picture

Please take special care in assigning the first four ranks to the

picture groups, "bot do your best to rank all of the remaining picture

i groups also. Start ranking your preferences from the best to the worst.

! ._ If yOU have difficulty, perhaps choosing the best one Or two and then

the worst one Or two would be helpful. It is important, however, to

i }assign a rank to every picture for each separate idea. You~ will not be

timed for this exercise. We ask you, insofar as possible, to base your

rankings on your first impressions Of the degree to which the picture

groups, each with its changing feature, suggest or imply the idea.

i _ Use your booklet as a scratch pad if you like.

Any questions? Raise your hand! When you are ready to proceed

~with Part I, carefully separate the next page with the seven picture

%~groups from your booklet's staple. Make sure you do not tear any of the -

pictures! You are to use the page tO make your judgmnts for each idea

in Part I of the booklet.

i" When you have finished with Part I, please continue to Part II.

~There are instructions for you to read at that time.

~~PLEASE--RECORD YOUR PREFERENCES O0' THE SPECIAL ANSWER SHEETS i

7

9 9 90 I

,i3
FORM B

Part II

Instructions for Part II are similar to those for Part I. On each

page of Part II of the booklet, you will find a label for a military

branch designation (pages 9-26) or a term indicating the function that a

combat unit may perform (pages 27-32). Each page of Part II also

includes a series of eight simple pictures. You will see that there are

only two different picture series which are used. In the first set of

tasks, you have to decide which picture best represents the branch

designation, which is second best, third best, and so on. In the second

set of tasks, you have to decide the best order for relating the pictures

to the unit function. Function terms have been defined for you and

examples are given of the military units which typically perform each

function. Remember, we are not trying to find out if you know current

military symbols. We are looking for your own preference.

Note that the pictures are arranged differently from page to page.

After ranking a picture with respect to its representation of a branch

designation or function term, blacken the corresponding numbered space

on the answer form in the same manner as described for Part I. Make sure

that you do not stray to a wrong page number or column letter and that

you give different rank orders to each picture on a booklet page. Two

pictures on the same page should never be given the same preference

number.

Please take special care in assigning the first four ranks to the

pictures, but do yaur !est to rank all of the remaining pictures also.

If you have difficulty, perhaps choosing the best one or two and then the

worst one or two would be helpful. It is important, however, to assign

a rank to every picture on a page. You will not be timed for this exercise.

We ask you, insofar as possible, to base your rankings on your first impressions of the degree to which the pictures suggest or imply the .branch

designations or function terms. You may continue to use the booklet as

a scratch pad if you like. Any questions? Raise your hand to alert us

to any problems either now or during Part II. Start Part II when you

are ready.

PLEASE--RECORD YOUR PREFERENCES ON THE SPECIAL ANSWER SHEETS

228

4L
ARMOR

Do not assign the same preference order to more than one picture. Put

the following pictures in th order that best represents your feelings

about the degree to which they suggest or imply the branch designation.

- 4 0

AJ

LIII z am

Bc

D- D H

(Example of Form B, Part II of the research) -

29

- -
APPENDIX B

MEAN RANKS, PERCENTAGES OF "BEST" RANKS, AND SIGNIFICANCE RESULTS

The overall results are summarized in Tables B-i to B-10. Tables

B-i to B-5, based upon the Form A booklet, list the information categories, branch designations, or general function terms in the order in

which they were ranked for association with each symbol set or ind±'vidual

symbol. The mean rank of each item is presented below the item. In

addition, the percentage of subjects assigning the rank of "1" to the

three best items (Tables B-i to B-3) or to the best item (Tables B-4 to

B-5) is indicated in parentheses below the mean rank for those items.

Tables B-6 to B-10, based upon Form B, list the symbol sets, geometric

forms, or miscellaneous symbols in the order in which they were ranked

for association with each information category, branch designation, or

genera] function term. The mean rank for each symbol set or individual

symbol is provided below the symbol, and again the percentage of subjects

assigning the rank of "I" to the three best items (Tables B-6 to B-8) or

to the best item (Tables B-9 to B-10) appears in parentheses below those

items. Each column of a table thus represents the outcome for ranking

items on a particular page of each of the two booklets.

The distributions of ranks for the items on each page were subjected

to a Friedman non-parametric two-way analysis of variance (Siegel, 1956).

Levels of significance are indicated by asterisks adjacent to tne column

heading. All but 8 of the 71 analyses were significant at the .01 level

or better. Pair-wise comparisons among the items on a page were made by

means of the a posteriori non-parametric Nemenyi test (Kirk, 1969).

Since primary interest was in the best item, a bracket is drawn in each

column to encompass those items which fail to differ significantly (at

the .05 level) from the best item. The narrower the group of items embraced by the bracket, the stronger and more selective presumably is the

association between them and the column head. Conversely, the broader

the group of items joined by the bracket, the weaker and less selective

is their association with the column head. A bracket restricted to the

best item indicates that its association with the column head is unique

and significantly stronger than that for any other item in the column

list. It should also be noted that even when a unique association between the column head and the best item is not evident, the mean rank of

the latter may be significantly less than that of some items in the col

umn (i.e., those not embraced by the bracket) whose mean rank does not

differ significantly from the mean rank of the second best item. Additional evidence bearing upon the strength of association is provided by

the percentage of subjects who assigned the rank of "" to the best time.

This percentage may be co1pared to the chance percentage for a particular

set of ranks. These tables were the basis for the highlights in Tables

I and 2 of the main text of this report.

31

e- -- ~ - -e
-10 0 coL A

44 00 %0 a, 1

0 ~ 14 14 Id -

L4 c Wsn N t,4 

V0 0

H 4

-4

to '.O 0 VD E P cc 0 0 47) m 11 V0 A

414

oto1 II %0 v 2A InN- . c v 0 v v4 0 14

'-4 -1

0) 0

00ta

41 4., -

0) a 0 to 

to $4 0 a, N VI L7 1 CD O m4 4 no u M- 0 V L

0 0

0 H )I 44

0

00

0 14

4.) t- 64 v 

LO' dp 0E dP dp 4.) IV 0 o CD m 0 0nc N VJ N t w 4 0 0 C

0 . 0 * 4 i 1MA 44 -4 N40 -

4 4) %0 m .4d 0 0i 0 0 14 U

*. 1 tu.14* 

4 O . A 

M 0

to 4) *-2 AM

0 12,

32M

-~~~~~~~~ 

52.s~~ 

-- - -- - - ~
-A4 r1 4.) 4C1 4 ) o to N.- *" j 14 -C-1 $4440 .44C r- 1 4 t& 4.) 14 c : C 4 4 C 0- 1t

M 4O 141l 014~ 0In N 41 C N N IN 0n 0 41d w H . 4 rI . w In % - *. 1 H ~ $4 en 0n A -4 In n -4 In = I) r in toin -.4 In > ) 4 -- (. - 4 H 14 u V) 4c

4.d)

r fa 0

0 nr %t 0 V 0 4N I C 9 D 1r

0. ul H f

V0

0 w 1114 r_ -. 41 00 14 O N.4 V In 04d ki M O ~ {0. d) 0I rz 400 144 M 4l U n fu~ 0 4) D*f -I 14 r- to -0 0 0 14r

C I (A 4 c4-ID 0 t 4c V 0 4 In H W v

do* mr 044 CO 4 0N 0% v O

0A C; 04 .4 04--C -0 W4- 4

0w JlN N* 0"r M Cr 1CI-0N 0 >.4 0

to4 0) C4 O 4)I 1 .1 n ..g I 14 0 n CD

,41 I n In N Az .) j4 0 c01 444 -4 04

E)4I 41 NN O'"In 416'W Co 0 4 0 14 N eq 10W tC CC~ N_ m n 5 - 'A n > U1 0L

0 0

to 14

toU 04 14 . $~~~- 4 04 V. r_-cw14 09 0 i O-. 4 $4 44N UMC ai 9 n 41 N .-I V $04o ~ CAdm r. N l CLn N. s4. o N 0 0 -On 4 v- rCM n .4 m e 0 I z Ui . i -.4 *: I * n m.I n * 1g

64 $4M q' ,q N 14 q q4 -.- .In C n O to a_ _ __ _ _ 44 C' -1 In 0n

0 d 4- .0 1 p r 

"i~44 rCO 0.-1 r 14 0 (aCn d v a% 0.4 '4- 0 > C ' CO I 14. 4 q f . ni 41' :L

J d -4 o4 I c d -' 4Z E * H4 

~~NL 0' 14 . -L-4 - . n >In 42 In C

* -4 d) V4 0p 4) 1 CO ) 014a 144L 00 p $ Y. V4 V Ch V 4d44OD 41 I -r 4 N OD 1- 04 7 0 . -.14C0 

$4 Vu~'1. .4) q . ; CO4t 41 D

In 

W- 0 4 

v~ 

n 0 N ~ 4 n0%CM I11 I gm

*N 0-I.4 14440 3I
ICO 0 4) $.

V~ 06. -A p >. NjJ 0 to) 0.4 0 q -1 a 41 P4 C4C (a -=$ r n

-4 0 n 140 0 0 0 ' In 044P C qo.4 V *4 In 14 In c In 0 I0 >ILn

$4 N v

C 0 4) ; , -- 0 0 to 0. W. 4) f- C! 1-0 CO It $

.4. 

a,) 

V. 

a,0 -1 tO I- - O 1 4 > 'T * 0n 14 * 0' * OH c 

1414

4.)~~~~d .4*-C k4)4~ ~ En, d)0 VS0'0 4). 4) Cc4 fd .k'4i 40

0 4 0 - m ap .- t - f CD4 in 0 aI 0 -.- 0 L0 0 0. fill W0 0 ) .4 C 1> 5. 4) 0 -$ c 4 V 0' NO -4 I)N O In 0 n $~4 In 04-a'l in C >u

0' C 0 0 * 4 * 4 * $-$ 4 41ILi

0d a, 'T 0- -4 V-. - q 4 %0 C4 ON c. C% 14 Il 0 4 'd Im 0IO 4 r .0 to q) .14 4 V, n'y . d > H > w I 0 0u '.4

00

10 m toI.1 C1 54 0 (D.- - c0 -01 '04.) 0 44 r4 00 -4 0 .I 0 I04 140 

0' c 14 O1 'T .0 '' 41 0 1 (,'n 0 4') .4 In C I n 1 4 

4 0$4 - -.- 00 0' * OC ~ 1.* 174 0 In C 0 .00 ~ 0

CO ~ ~ - . ~ -- 1 140

U

4 CO

0 0 0 I&4= 0 laCC4 .=I 

4 -v c pw 'r4 Nd ' V a4 M $

>4 fn. V'- 00 -4 I q0 C4 -- 43r44 .0 g . -0 4 ' * 0 * 0 -I 4i * ' 41 I . dp 4 C4 4 14 r C I t I (DI 14 I-O 4 c o% cC r- 10 - 1 4r

41 CO -j4j f

14dc 4 c. N. ;V 14 CMOn

el ) - .4 4 0' tn -.4 .4 In 14 I fc I" N . -4 D 4). - ; .~ ", -C' & 1'Cn 'C .

34
H3 0

4) 00

54 M. $4 0

ci 14 c

4) 0 r. :3 W1

to CID'

() N1) ~

$44 0 00 * ± 0

to 04$4 04 :3 0)c

c)$ WID 4 D V=1

0 0o

w.- 044

E-$4 $4 

$4 0i 1 m O a)lr I .- N 

0 ra 04 0 >:

$44

00

co 4) H4

cic 0 04 $4 COW 0 4 104 c r. > w-i W u 04

.$4 CO $4 w A I- to 4 N~ -15

Oci CO ~~$4 ' 4i

~-44

0) ME $4 C* 0

4) 04

004 to 70 C4 v

ci4 O 40 *- $4 4 CA '04) 03 .4 04 N c N

0 4)

ci.-435 ~All
41i

$44

0; o$ o. $

4) N p 03 ( f

$44

4 'n> ) 01 1 O

V - 04 - . $4 :1 V a

-4) 0 ri0

4)l 0))

c l - U . - $ 4

11E U) oi 4 U) $ ma

U) ~ - ~ 0 - 0

w 0 _)_0_____q___0_-5

d) -4 $4(

o *l

0 $4 in $4$4

-. 4S * S -40

4)a -H. 0

04 w 0 C -4 iaD

'oa

$4 . .

$4 $4c $4U

'-I * 0$

$4~$ 0 1a- 4

0l N OD N 00

U'I-C4 . 00. 1 0 4 V* $ tO .40

''H - 0) 1

* .06

O g. .-.

U) 0 ~ 0 0 
-44 -40

ON t4 . 0- - 0 :3 4 41 .43 43 Un)O T1

L i0 *0' r-4*V 3 * .

a,5 0.-dP d- U)' dP (!)0

w )V . 47*n ~ 10 4) $.4 O

14 ~ .-4-4 . 43 4 -4 -4

CA - 1 v 0

a ~ o ~ t Nr )

43w 43uP dP * 0 0 43 0 4 

-) OD) X OD 43 C0 4- 0 k

(p V II' 41 U 41D

dp CO 00 dp :4 M N1- rW ODV0 .M 4) N- w3 ON

0N 4) -4C0 d - 4 * . :12 "A 14 $4 0 24,4 ccl ~14 M - 4 1 : V 14 -IAl wcr 0 41 L 04 

H-. 

43-4 43 -4

'--0 4

03 fa4 43 0) - -. 4 N4 431 0' OD > -V dP0 03- .1, 43 >X ) 43

(D Q.' 4 N I N -o'** fa41 to4 0N eOn cn- " 4 . 0 40 4 ' D U0Z

4344

43~ 00 -4 -4 43 

I 00N NV qj U4ON

$4 en0 :1- NV -A' * V *

040

U) -

r.D r-r 4q t r4O ) t

4) >, v.'- '.4 434 0 ) 0

UU

4J 43 0 O

44 V

0P 43 -.40r 14 0- C DdP t D o $ 0 m ) % 4M ODm) -'4 443 M. 

0 10 N m0 OMN f'4 -9m .4 43'9 14 130 $4

w V

37

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A
o4 dP V0p0r .0 p L )

Cco U) - n to ON n 4 c) r_ r N -) ) to n c 0 .- I4 1)

N ' 0 t $4 

4 0 E-4 i C) to 

04 0 0d )

5- (aqq r

4) 10 H 10. ) 4) H dr P (on 0'c H O. ' t 0~ r- r. 04* OD N N *n 0 0) 0P tC) e

-0 r_ 0 .~ . 0 t 00 r -4 S ~ 4 C 

14 VHdM O 4 - 1 14 $41 ., W. C-' E4t w I in in .) L

E-1) C) -

-H H C) C) C C) CD 0) n fft HP c o H% C) 3

4) H) r_ ~ illt 4) 4fai 4 '0 . r n i .1 n 0 C

E- in U i

-V - $4$ . 0' H01

4.10 0- 

to 0a n 4) -. r4 H) c w' inD ' 0 N ) C )

cd to 0m. 04 to v 0H LA (d$4 in

la40

04 0 ~ 0 V C

r-41 H HH C

UH fuc 1-4 H C A dP 0 dP 00o Cp ) co H4 in 0t l c.N N ODin W' Ln M m- m 1.7t to1w t4 HO. 10 C)- ) 0* 4 * U *)~* CD 1 Ix41 c) .- 0.n 0 0 $4~ n 0 i

C H $4 N ,___ 

00. '- H H0 LU 1

E-4 In C to 

$4 - 4H 00 4

C: 00 C)5

H~E H N4 to ttO O U 0 C CO.. 

0 0 4)N - H

54 $

5 ~ 17 ~ t C-'W0%D t

__ )..1 0 

HO 0% C)4 M eq UCr to H~~toto N~~r -ot to ) U 0' 14 C ~ C to $4 '- $4H C)HH0

0

0) (n* 

%Dn UtoiLn 0 ~ a'U0 

Hr- v- 

- UD 

' en 0 N ) to 4) 0 V '44 in C(nHf S to o 4 r_ m 4 Id C) H j4 toO (d 41 41 rn 1:4 0' E L 04 04~

-,4 N (d 0. 

38
Mo mU 0O N ino G0 

p4 P M 0 0* 9: do

34$4$

$4 N 0H4 

ION~ Y 0 0' ~ 

44 4- ) 1 4 4 - -

o0 CD tp IT ~ a- CI ) m

C4 10' A 0 0 4 - - $4 M

E- lJ ty C4k 4 $4 l 0

ot- 54 54 H 

) W -

(U4 Ln C4 N N4 Nn ON 0' e

to H4 0. * 0

$4 -1

00

a 14a

04. C4 -. to0C -o 

w U) t f >LA O fl 'a (A M 4( 0-

Np v0 M 4N 0 04 0y 0' I -A 0-to -4 $4 H 4 $4 5

4 _4
Table B-9

Rank Order of Associations Between

Geometric Forms and Each General Function Term

Fire Support** Service Support Maneuver Unit**

Triangle Square Triangle

3.91 3.87 3.13

f19.9%) (19%) (34.3%)

Parallelogram Circle Diamond

4.35 4.05 3.45

(12.5%) (21.9%) (21.2%)

Square Trapezoid Parallelogram

4.37 4.26 4.39

(10.3%) (14.6%) (10.2%)

Circle Rectangle Ellipse

4.54 4.30 4.53

Trapezoid Ellipse Trapezoid

4.59 4.38 4.91

Diamond Parallelogram Circle

4.63 4.72 5.18

Rectangle Triangle Square

4.78 5.18 5.21

Ellipse Diamond Rectangle

4.82 5.24 5.22

** p < .001

40

'IA
Table B- 1

Rank Order of Associations Between

Miscellaneous Symbols and Each General Functions Term

Fire Support** Service Support** Maneuver Unit"*

Arrow Bracket Arrow

3.68 3.58 2.90

(19.7%) (20.4%) (36.5%)

Angle Arc Angle

3.96 3.90 3.29 1

(14.6%) (16.1%) (22.6%)

Cross Cross Arc

3.99 4.25 4.51

Arc Zigzag Zigzag 1

4.12 4.38 4.57

x Line x

4.27 4.45 4.59

Zigzag Angle Cross

4.91 4.47 4.85

Bracket x Bracket

5.32 5.04 5.45F

Line Arrow LineI

5.75 5.94 5.83 {

* < .001

41
DISTRIBUTION

ARI Distributior, List

4 OASD(M&RAI 2 HOUSACOEC. Fl Owo, AT TWt Litlra:j

2 HODA (DAMAI.CSZI 1 HOUSACDEC. Ft Ord. ATTN- ATEC-.EX-E-Hum Factors

1 HODA (DAPE PBR 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harriscri. ATTNJ: Library

1 HODA (DAMA-Afl) 1 USAPACOC. F, Benjamin Harrison. ATTN: ATCP-HR

I HODA IDAPE-HRE PO) I USA Comm-Elect Sch. Ft Monmouths. ATTN: ATSN-EA

1 HODA ISGRD-ID) I USAEC. Ft Monoutit. ATTN: AMSEL-CT-HDP

1 HODA IDASH1-DOT-C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA-P -

HODA (OAPC PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft W~omotuth. ATTN: AMlSEL--Sl-CB

1 HODA (DACH -PZ.A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmoutn. ATTN: C, Fad Dev 6-

1 HODA !DAPE-H RE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Aqcy. Aberdeen. ATTN: AMXSY-P

I HODA (DAPE MPO-C) I Edgftwuoo Arsenal. Aberdeen. ATTN: SAP EA-BL-H

I HODA (DAPE-OWI I USA Ord Ctr & Sch. Aberdeen, ATTN,- ATSL-"tEM--C

I HODA (DAPE-HRLI 2 USA Hum Engr Lab. Aberdeen. AT TN: LUtraryiDir

I HODA IDAPE CPS) 1 USA Combat Armss T g Bd. Ft Ben-inw. ATTN; Ad Supervisor

1 HOOA (DAFD MFAI I USA Infantry Hutm Rtsd' UWit. P, Bwanr.n% ATTN: Chief

I HODA (DARD-ARS-P) 1 LISA infantry Rd. F- Berning. AT N: STEEC-TE-T

1 HODA IOAFC-PAS.A) 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss. ATI N: ATSS-LRC

1 HODA (DUSA-OR) I USA A-r Det Sch. Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSA-CTD-ME

1 HODA (DAMO.ROR) 1 UISA Air Def Sch. Ft Bliss. ATTN: Tech ~ib

1 HODA (DSG) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss. ATTUJ: FILES

I HODA (DA1-P0 1 UISA Air Def 8d. Ft Bliss. AT TN: STERD-PO -

I Chief, Consult Div (DA-OTSG). Adeiphi. MO 1 USA Cmd & General Std ColIkge. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Lib,

1 Mu Asst Hum Res, ODDR&E. DAD IE&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General 3tf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATSWV-SE-L

I HO USARAL. APO Seattle. ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd &i General Sit College. Ft Lewmvenbl. ATTN: Ed Advisor

I HO First Army. ATTN: AFKA-OI.TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmrbt 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: DessCdr

2 HO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Houston I USA Combiness Arms Cnmbt Dev Act. Ft Leaveriworti'. ATTN: CCS

I Dir. Arm? Stf Studies Ofe. ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 UISA Coisthifed Arms Crnbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCASA

1 Oft. Chief of Stf. Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined arris Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCACO-E _

IDCSPER. ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cost, 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN- ATCACC-C.

I The Army Lib. Pentagon. ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM. Night Vision L.3b. Ft Belvot', ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SD1 The Army Lib. Pentagon. ATTN: AN'RAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir. ATTN: Tecs Library

1 Ofc, Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAM'ERDC. Ft Btlvoir. ATTN- STSFO-OO

I Teds Support Ofc. OJCS 1 USA Eng Scti. Ft Belsoir, ATTN: Library

I USASA. Arlington, ATTN: IARD.T 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Beivsiir. ATTN: ETL-TD-S

1 USA Rsch Ole. Ornlam. ATTN: Lifc Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft 8elvoir. ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM. Natick. ATTN. SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topionraphic Uzb. Ft Bel-oir. ATTN: ETL-GSL

1 USATTC, Ft Clayton. ATTN: STETC*MOA 1 V!~Aintelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huacttte ATTN: CT0-MS

1 LISAIMA. F: Bragg, ATTN: ATSU CTD-OM 1 UISA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

1 USAIMA. Ft Bra"g. ATTN: Marqust Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd'. Ft iHuactucz. ATTN:ATSI-TE

1 US WAC Ctr &r Sch. Ft McClellan. ATTN: Lit, 1 UISA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Hu.achuce. ATTN. ATSI-TEX-GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan. ATTNV: Tog Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sd'. Ft lPuachuca. A TTN: ATSI-CT50R

I USA O-uartermaster Sets. Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM.TE 1 USA Infellicencu Ctr & Sets. Ft Huactiuca. ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT

I lnte.'-gence Material Oev Ofc. EWL, Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sets. Ft iHuadsuca. ATTN: ATSI--CTD-CS

I USA SE Signal Sd', Ft Gordon. ATTN: ATSO.EA 1 USA Intelirgeisce Ctr & Sd'h. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: DAS!SRD

1 USA Cnaplarn Ctr & Sd'. Ft Hamilton. ATTN: ATSC-TE.RO 1 UISA Intelsigence Ctr & Sd'. F't Puacauca. ATTU: ATSI-TEM

1 USATSCH1. Ft Eustis. ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Inrtelligence Cir & Sd'. Ft lNuachtra. ATTN: Library

1 USA War Collcee Carlisle Barracks. ATTN: Lit, 1 CDR. HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: tech Ref Div

2 WRAI R. Neuroptychiatr Div 2 CDR. USA Electric Prvg Grd. ATTNrc STEEP-4tT-S

IDLI, SDA. Monterey 1 CDR. Project MASSTEA. ATI N: Tech In~fo Center

1 USA Conceilt Anal Agcy. Besthesda. ATTN: MOCA-%vGC I Ha MASSTER. IJSATRADOC. LNC)

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda. ATTN-. MOCA-MR 1 Research Institute. HO MASST ER. Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda. ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Reffuitiisr Coid. F- Sh.etdiass. ATTN-. LSARCPM -P

I USA Artic Test Ctr. APO Seattle. ATTN: STEAC-MO.ASL I Senior Army Adv.. USAFAGODVTAC. EgIn AF Asux Fid No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Ctr. APO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTE-PL.TS 1 HO USARPAC. DCSPE f. APO SF 96558, ATTN: OPPE -SE

I USA Arnmnnt Cmd. Red~tone Arsenal. ATTN: ATSK-TEM 1 Stirrtoti Lib,. Az&*tmy ol Healds Sc-nnes. Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Crnid. Rock Island. ATTN. AMSAR.TDC I Marine Corps los.,. ATTN: Dean-MCl'

I FAA PNAFEC. Asi~rstic City. ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, Commaizndant. A'T: Cooe. ITMT 51

1 FAA.NAF EC. Aluaritic Cty. A~M: Hum Engi Br I IIQUSMC, C4-snwrvtant A-T-mtJ 'We P.P:--25

I FAA Aeronauti:.,l Ctr. Oklahoma City, ATTN.- AAC-44D 2 USCG Acadens1, Ntyw Lun-l,-n. A -TN: Ad-nrssaor

2 USA Fid Arty Sot, Ft Sill ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy. New Lor.&ais. ATTN: Library

I VSA Armor Sd'. Ft Knox. ATTN: Library 1USCG Training Ctr. NY. ATTN: CO

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox. ATTN: ATSB-0i.E 1 USCG Training Ctr.! NY. ATTN: Edu: Svc Ofc

1 USA Armor Sc'. Ft Knox. ATTN: ATSB.DTTP 1 USCG. Psychol Res Or. DC. ATTN: GP V162

I UISA Armor Schi. Ft Knox, ATTN.- ATSS-CDAD 1 HO Mid-Iar Sr. MC Oct. Guarticn. ATTN: P&S Div

43
I US Marine Cortis Whaimo Ofc, MC. Alexandnax. ATTN: AUCGS-F I (af& Civil Irmt of Enviro Medicine. Canada

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATRO.-ED I AIR CRESS. Kansington. ATTN: Info, Sys Bir

6 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN- ATPR-AD I Militupp~kologisk renunie. Copeage

I USATRADOC. Ft Monioa. ATTN: ArrS-EA 1 Muiitary Attache. French Enmms. ATTN: Doc See

ISA Force! Cinc. Ft McPherson. A-'TN: Library MueA he.CERP.A~n %&I l~v on/N aFrAnc

2USA Aviation Test 8d, Ft Rucker. ATT~N: STEBG-PO 1 Puin ScWiet'c Off. APPI Hurn E.gr Rsch Div. MinistryI

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety. Ft Rucker, ATTN: Library of Defens New Dalhi

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety. Ft Rucker. ATTN: Educ Advisor I Pars Rich Ofc Library, AKA. Israel Defen. Forme

1 USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rucker. ATTN: PO Draw 0 1 Ministtris van Defwnsie DOOPIKL Afd Sociael

1 HOUJSA Aviation~ Sys Crnd. St Louis. ATTN: AASAV-ZOR Psychongaisce ZAwkn The Ifagie. Netiemad

USA Aviation Sys Teat Act.. Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTE-TI

I UISA Air Def Sch. Ft Blis. ATTN: ATSA TEM

IUSA Air M.obility Rsch & Dew Lab. Moffeatt Fid, ATMN: SAVDL-AS

1 USA Aviation Sch. Res Trig Wg, Ft Rucker. ATTN: ATST-T-RThI

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Rucker. ATTN: ATST-D-A

1 HIO. DARC)M. Alexandria. ATTN: AMXCE-TL

1 110. DARCO.M. Alex-idr!a ATTN: CDR

I US Mi~litary Acadey. West Point. ATTN: Serials Unit

US Military Acaden-,. West Poirt. ATT~N: Ofc of Milt Ldrsft

I UIS Military Acaemy. West Pomt.L ATTN: MAOR

IU'SA Standardization Gp. UK. FPO NY. ATTN: MASE-GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch. Arlington. ATTN: Coda 452

3 Oft. of Naval Rsch. Arlington. ATITI: Code 468

I Ofc of Navzl Rsch. Arlingtnn. ATTN: Code 460

1 Of c of Nave! Rsch. Arlington. ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Med Pes Labr Pensacola. ATTN* Acous Sch Div

I No-a] Acrowp Med Res Lab, Pensacola. ATTN;: Cod* 1.51

I Naval Ae-otpz Med Re-. Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code LS 7

1 ChieI of NayPers, ATTN: Pert-OR

1 iJAVAIRSTA. Nerfolk. ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 law Ocear~grpbic. 0C. ATTN. Ccdi 6251. Charts & Tech

ICenter of ?N-wal A.-l. ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NJavAhrys~O.n. ATTN. AIR-S313C

Nay Butied. ATTN. 713I

INavifelicoteSubStma 2. FP0 SF 96601

1 AFHRL (FT) Willam AFO

I AFI4RL (TT) Lovr-i AF8

1 AFHRL (AS) V%?AFB. CH

2 AFHPL (DOJZ) Brooks AFG

I AFHRL (OOJNI Lackland AFB

1 I4OUSAF MUM)SD

1 IIOUSAF iDPXXAI

I AFVTG (P01 Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HOE WPAFO. ONl

2 AF lntt of Tech. IWAFP,. OHf. ATTN: ENEISL

I ATC (XPTO) Rmndolp AF8

USAF A~ro~id Lub. Brooks ArB! ItjL..4). ATTN: DOC SECU

1 AF Log Canal. McClellan AFIS. A TM~: ALC/WPRII

I Air Force Armkery. CO. ATTN: Dept ofBel Scr

5 NAv~m & new Ctr. Son Diego

2 Navy Wcd Neuropsychiatric Rsch Unit. San Dieg

1 Uw Eleetronic Lab. San Diep. ATTN: Ret Lab

I Nav TrnnCen. San Diego. A7TN: Code 9000--Lib

I fawPostG'aSch. luontemy. Al rV Code 5SftI NavrTtngEqLuipCtr, Orlando. A-tri: Tech Lib

I US Dent of Labor. vC. A-TN: Maipytw Admin

US Dept of Amstire. CC. ATTN: Drug Efirorce Adrnin

Nat But of Standards. Dc. A TT: Crnopvaer Info SectionI

INet Civaring.ffous, f~o MU-info. Roclcvite

IDener reeral Ctr. Latetwrood. ATTN: OLM

12 D-efenoe Doocumentxiton Cenwta

4 Dir Psych. Amiy ft. Ruuzetl Of cs Canberra

I Scientific Advsr. VIl Od. Arm lie. BuniR Ofes. Canberra

I i! anti Air Attache. Auttrian Embassy

I Centre si Recherche Des Fackeurs Humanine de Ia Defeltat

"Awtnhyte. Brirtels

2 C.vrwdL-ji Joint Staff Washingrn

I C/Ai. Staff. Roytil Canadian AF. ATTN- Pern Szd Anal Or

3 Chief. Ca-nadian Oaf Rich Staff. ATTN: C!CRDSMW

3 British D~f Su",. British Erntwasa. Washirugion