Technical Paper3lO 

USE OF A BLACK “CULTURE ~~ ASSIMILATOR ” ~~ ~~

•

TO INCREASE RACIAL UNDERSTANDING

~~~ 

Dan Landis, Harry A. Day, Penny L. McGrew

University City Science Center

James A. Thomas

U.S. Army Research Institute

and

Albert B. Miller

Delaware State College

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

¶

~

i) ~~~~

______ 

-

~ oCT 31

_________ 

~~ ~

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Siptemb r 1978

*çpvov d ~

oc pub~’c ,, I..i, . u,str’but.ofl unhimit.d .

_ 

‘0 __ ____
U. S . ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR TH E REHAVIORA

~ 

AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. IIAU.SI

~

P

JOSEPh ZEII)NEI( Colonel, US Army

Tech iiicai I)

~

rcctor Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

,

Ihiiversity City~~~~~~ ice Center

~

ij:

~ 

_

~

_ I NOTICES

1)1 IHIBUIIOP4 Primar y ilistribution of this ‘sport has ham mad, by ARt . Ph ase address COr’ spondenc~ concerning dsst’ buturn of reportt to U S. Army Rew.rch Insti t ut , for tha Behav i oral and Social Sciences . I’,I TN P1 h I P , bOO t •,rntinvar. Avrii ur . Alesa ,id ,ia . Virçpiii a 22333.

HNAL DISPOSITION Thit rapo rt may ha destroyed Whan it ii nO lOngS, nasdid , Plea,, do not return It o ii. U S Arm y Mi.p.,cp, Iflit itu t a lot lb. B.havior& and Socia l Sc,sn

~~s.

~Q..LL. Th,. I.iidings in th is ‘sport ate not to be construSd a. an official D.partm.n, of Tb. Army position

“ us, su d.sign.tad by other aut hor iad documant,,

_________ —
unciassit~

ied

sECURITV C S S ~~~~~~ TION_OF THIS PAGE (Wh o,, Dot. Entored)

~ READ INSTRUCTIONS r E

~ 

ORT DOCUMENTA t un i”.’ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPOR’ NUM BER 2. GOVT ACCESSIO N NO. 3. IPtE N ’r s$.

~TALOc. HUMMER

Technical Paper 310 1 ~~~~~~ _____________

4 . f IT LE (ond 5u~~~(

~~~.~~~~~~~~~~ ______ 

8 PERIOO~~~~~~RED

(

‘



‘ __ i~~~~ i~

’ A B1J..CK ~CU~ T~ R~ ASSLM1LATOR~ TO INCREA SE / Final Jun 72 - Jun 73~ k~C1AL UNDLRSTANDING . -. _ PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

AIJTHOR(.) ~~~~~~~ .

~~~~__.~~~~__..____—.—— --..‘.- — S. CONTRA CT OR GRANT NI)MBI~ R(.)

~

L

~

-I D fLar2dis Hair/ R /D~

J/i IennYL /M cGrew r/~~~~~ r --

j .- . - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .—.— -—*———— 

-

9. PER FORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS t PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TASK

REA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

University City Science Center /

Philadelphia , PA 2Q162108A743

II. CONTROLLIN GOFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~

/

‘

~~ ~~J . R~~

?ORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the 3ehavior~~..

~ SepL~~ k

~ 78 I and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower f~

venue , ~ NUMBE9OF P AG ES

Alexandria, VA 22333 18

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODR~~5S(

~

If EJlI.tsei i from ConSrollin~ Offic.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of (hi. report)

Unclassified 

r’ I IS..

/ I — SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STA T EMENT (of (hi. Report)

Approved for public re ease ; distributi limited

(1

~

’2f

~

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I?, OISTRIBU TI0N STATEMENT (of the ab.It.ci .nts r.d in Block 20, If differ.ii from Report)

IS. SUPPL EMENTARY NOTES

original version printed in the Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32(6),

169—183.

II. K EY WOROS (ContInu, on rev.,.. uid• If n.c.a.a,, .td idsntlfy by block numb.,)

Cult ’ire assimilator

Race relations training

Junior officers

A STRA C1 (C~aas~~u. 

~~ ,. ,wa. .t~~ N ntes~~~ ~~d ldan1if~’ by block nu~~b.v)

‘~ 1A proyran~~d l I t ;I.ruction approach to race-relations training in the U.S. Army

involved the development of the technique (culture assimilator) and its field

test. In the development phase , 65 black officers , 90 black enlisted men ,

bS whi’:e officers , and 90 white enlisted men participated ; in the field test,

84 wh i te Junior grade officers and 85 black junior grade officers participated.

Results indicated~ (a) the sample of problems used in the assimilator represents~ a set of events far more familiar to black officers than to white officers; 

—~

I’—- ~~~~~~ un LOtTIOW or ‘wow si IS OSSOLEEt Unclassified 

~

~3’ g y 739 _____ SECU RITY CLAUt

~~ ~ ICAT?OPf TiltS PAGE (misei Oat. Entered) ~~~~~
Unciassitiec . -

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whw Data Enterad)

item 20. (continued)

(b) blacks obtain hi gher scores on the assimilator (ind icative of greater

knowledge of the black perspective on race relations in the Army) than whites ;

(C) significant evidence of learning of acculturative materials on the part

of white officers was obtained; and (d) there was significant improvement on

an independent test of intercultural understanding

1

Unclassified

— .

~~~ — - ---~~~~ SICUNITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE~~~~.n Data Ents,e~~
Technical Paper 310

USE OF A BLACK “CULTURE ASSIMILATOR”

TO INCREASE RACIAL UNDERSTANDING

Dan Landis, Harry R. Day, Penny L. McGraw

University City Science Center

James A. Thomas

U.S. Army Research Institute

and

Albert B. Miller

Delaware State College

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Submitt ed as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by:

Jack J. Sternberg E. Ralph Dusek , Director

Field Unit Chief INDI VIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria , Virginia 22333

Off i ce, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

S.pt.mb.r 1978

Army Project Number Racial Harmony 20152108A743 Training

Approsed Ooq publ ic r.laase; distribution unlimited

______ 

- ..
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

impl

~mentatton 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.

- -

~~ - ,. --- —
FORL WOI~

L~ 4

Since 1972, the Army Resear-th institute has been active in research

on L-

~ policy , operational problems , and programs of the Army ’s I~~ce

Relations/Equal Opportunity (RR/EO) program . One of the objectives of

~~te Army RR/EO Research Program ir . FY 7~ w~ .s ttic development ni alternative modes of RWEO training to ~upplement the existing progrr~

rr .

This technical paper , the first ~f two , describes the research in—

volved in determining the feasibility of apply ing a programed learnir~

g

approach to race-relations training. The purpose of this approach , the

culture assimilator , was to improve majority group junior officer

awareness and understanding of the lifestyles , social norms , and behavior manifestations of black enlisted personnel. The research was

conducted under Army Project 2ç~

l62l0~ A743 , ‘ Race Harmony Promotion

Programs ,” in the F? 73 Work Program as an in—house effort augmented

by ,.

~ contract with University City Science Center under contract DAIIC

l~i-72—C— 0039 .

O EPM INER

-Te hnical Director
USE OF A BLACK "CULTURE ASSIMI LATOR" TO INCREASE RACIAL UNDERSTANDING 

IJRIEF 

Requirement: 

To determine the feasibility of using the culture assimilator (a 

programed learning experience) as a race-relations training techni que . 

Procedure: 

The specific approach involved the development of a culture assimilator aimed a t junior grade officers. A culture assimilator is designed 

to provide information aimed at helping individuals of one cultural {or 

subcultura l) background to understand better the point of vie w (subjective cult ure ) of individuals of another cultural (or subcultural) bac kground. The particular items of an assimilator focus on " c ritica l 

incidents" involving situations particularly likely to result in crosscultural misunderstanding. The critical incidents that provided the 

basis for assimilator items were based on extensive taped interviews of 

black and white officers and enlisted personnel collected at several 

Army installations. Most of the items developed in the pilot ass imilator 

dealt with the cultural background and perspective of black enlisted men . 

Critical incidents were converted into problem situations depicting 

black-white interactions. Four responses with feedback were prepared 

for e ach problem, with one showing more insight into the black cultur e . 

A 100-item assimilator was field tested at four Army installations. 

Findings: 

In general, the results of the. field test of the pilot ass imilator 

indicated that (a) the sample of problems used in the assimilator represented a set of events far more familiar to black officer s than t o 

white officers; (b) blacks obtained higher scores on the assimilator 

t han whites; (c) evidence of learning on the part of the white officers 

as a function of assimilator training was obtained; and (d) evide nce , 

though not str ong, was obtained that both attitudes and knowledge 

changed as a function of the training. 

;· / 

(J 
Utilization of Findings :

These results den~ nstrated that the assimilator is a potentially

~s~~ful technique for application in the U.S. Army race—relations

training program. However , the assimilator requires revision and

validation to insure that it fulfills A rmy race—relations training

objectives.
US E OF A BLACK "CULTURE ASS IMILATOR" TO INCREASE RACIAL UNDERSTi\NDING 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION • . • • 

METHOD AND PROCEDURE 

Development of the Assimilato r 

Test of the Assimilator . . . . 

RESULTS 

Familiarity . . . . . 

Differential Learning 

Training Effects 

DISCUSSION 

REFERENCES 

DI STRIBUTION 

Table l. Differences in mean s cores for black officers 

compared with white officers: t values 

Figure l. Le arning curves across five volume positions 

contrasting item difficulty and black vers us 

white subjects • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 

Page 

1 

4 

4 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

11 

15 

17 

10 

9 
USE OF A BLACK "CULTURE ASSIMILATOR" ·ro INCREASE RACIAL UNDERSTANDING 

INTRODUCTION 

Where rela tions between minority and majority g roups are concerned , it takes little documentation to show that America i s a l ess 

than perfect society. Whate ver the causes of the problems (and t here 

have been many articulate and perceptive analyses, e.g., Allpor t , 1954; 

Rokeach, 1960; Loye, 1971; Myrdal, 1962), systematic attempts at providing solutions have been vigorous since the middle 1940's (Lewin, 

1948) . While the programs for the reduction of prejudicial attitudes 

and behavior toward minority groups (blacks and Jews) have t e nded to 

be variations of the small group process models first enunciated by 

Lewin, they also tended to be cut off from a good research and e valuation base . This development was contrary to the prescription of 

Lewin (1948) calling for "comparative studies of social change." 

Curiously, when programs for cross-cultural skil ls have not been 

focused o n American ethnic/racial problems, they have been more open 

to the necessity of rigorous research designs and the development of 

action programs based on empirical data--a rather intriguing example 

being Lambert's work on language learning in Canada (Lambert, Ignatow, 

& Kranthamer, 1968; Lambert, Gardner, Barik, & Tunstall, 1963). With 

a body of research becoming increasingly available , it would seem logical to apply some of these findings to the problem of changing racial 

attitudes in American society. 

The u.s. military is probably a reflection of the total society, 

because it includes representatives of every social and racial group. 

As such, its problems of prejudice may mirror the problems in our 

society as a whole. Because it is also a hierarchically organized 

structure, the military may be similar in many ways to other social 

structures (government, industry, etc.). For these reasons, the results of race-relations programs in a military context may have considerable generality. 

It is not our intent to examine or evaluate current military racerelations programs because summaries of these are available elsewhere 

(Nordlie, Friedman, & Marbury, 1972; Day, Landis, & McGrew, 1975). Our 

purpose he re is to describe the development and initial evaluation of a 

new technique f or increasiny racial understanding in the Army context. 

The uniqueness o f the approac h used here may be understood by contrasting it with current techniques of training. 

l 
ri 1 rlying much of the current training is the assumption that it

i . not only important for members of one cultural group to learn about

t i nor’s and lifestyles of another , but that it can be critical to

‘ ail carn ’ misperceptions about another culture . For example , much

i u’1 L tiO~ ,i1 traxzi i r i q x s focused on giving white personnel an under—

standing of ‘he hii ;tor ’~ axd cultural characteristics of American blacks .

Ijiere a x e , of course , severa l ways that one can present such informa—

lion: books (e.g ., Lj.ebow , 1967) , lectures by race—relations trainers ,

tilins , - nu iti ’iity training, videor ipes of simulated black/white en—

count’ rs , ant visits to urban ghettos . Although each of these tech—

x x ~ q xes has something to recommend it , there is a lack of comparative

iil~ j 01 effectiveness , and these methods tend to be unstructured.

t h ey also usually do not directly address anything like the “unlearn15(3 ” mentioned above nor do they focus on alternative behavior patterns

L1 dt can be appropriately reinforced. This leads to a certain inefficiency in the use of the instructor ’s and the trainee ’s time .

A need to imp rove race relations in the military setting and the

dts -~atinlac t~~c)r with cur rent approaches to the problem led to the

present project. It was decided to try to develop a “culture assimi —

lator ” tha t would have the following characteristics : (a) it would be

too i~ ed on ulack/whito interactions in the Army setting~ (b) it would

b~ developed for use with junior-grade officers; and (c) it would deal

specifically with the interactions between white officers and black

enlisted men. The t r eseSt study , part of a larger research effort

(Landis , Day, r4 ;row , & Miller . 1973a), describes the development and

result- s of a field test of the U.S. Army culture assimilator (Landis &

Miller , 1973b).

A culture ass imi lator is a tra ining technique designed to reduce

the conflicts , tensions , and misunderstandings that frequently result

from encounters between individuals from different cultural backgrounds .

13 accomplished by exposing the trainee to culturally relevant information presented in such a way that he becomes sensitized to subtle

cues important in social interaction with representatives of another

culture . The information is presented in the form of a large number

of short episodes that briefly describe interpersonal situations often

encountered in cross-cultural contexts, along with alternative explanations for the events presented . The individual chooses one explanation and is immediately given feedback on whether his choice is correct , aix explanation of the events in the episode , and an underlying

princi ple to help him understand the other culture . He then proceeds

Lu the ixext episode (Mitchell , Dossett, F iedler , & Triandis , 1971).

Tnc techni4u0 incorporates the theoretical principles of Triandis ’s

(ij •/)) ip1 ro1c ~ I to subjective culture and Skinner ’s (1961) approach

to pro i fln’? learning .

2

- •- •-

______ - —~~~~ -- —•~~~~ - • —~~~~~ - —— - —
To construct a valid and effective culture assimilator it is

necessary first to identify culturally critical concepts and behaviors . ‘rhese concepts and behaviors are incorporated as episodes

in an assimilator to provide the trainee with intercultural experiences to cope with symbolically . Episodes must depict areas of culture contrast that have the largest impact on social behavior with

the culture being studied. This selection process must be empirically

valid so that an episode--a “critical incident” (Flanagan , 1954)--! inally included in the assimilator is relevant , common to the intercultural encounter, open to misinterpretation by the untrained , yet

clear for those with sufficient cultural knowledge (Fiedler , Mitchell ,

& Triandis, 1971).

Critical incidents are gathered from individuals who have had experience wi th the culture under study , as well as from members of the

host culture who have had experiences with individuals from the trainee ’s culture . These individuals are asked to ‘describe some specific

intercultural occurrences or events that made a major difference in

their attitudes or behavior toward the member of the other culture .

These may be pleasant, unpleasant, or simply non-understandable oc—

curences” (Fiedler et al., 1971). These incidents , with alternatives

and explanations added, are presented for validation to a large number

of individuals from the culture being studied ; they analyze the incident , its importance, and the correctness of the interpretation given

(Mitchell & Foa, 1968). The assimilator includes only those incidents

that have the highest agreement among the members of the culture under

study with respect to the above requirements.

A number of culture assimilators have been independently constructed for the cross-cultural training of Americans for interaction

in countries in the Far East, the Middle East , Europe , and Central

America. N umerous laboratory and field studies have been conducted to

validate these culture assimilators as training instruments (Mitchell

et al., 1971). Although these studies varied greatly in geographic

location of the target culture , subject demographics , control group

training, and types and extensiveness of measurement, the results consistently suggested that for assimilator—trained individuals , interpersonal interactions with members of another culture are enhanced .

The fact that this seems to occur across very different circumstances

and situations lends support to the notion that the phenomenon is a

general one and that this method is widely applicable. Less clear

were the results relating to effective task performance ; yet, in the

single instance (the Honduras assimilator) in which the culture assimilator was designed specifically to include task-oriented situations

(O’Brien , Fiedler , & Hewitt , 1971), significant improvement in per—

formance was found . This suggests that better results in both improved task performance and interpersonal relations might be expected

in culture assimilators that are constructed with special attention

placed on including items specific to the work setting the trainee is

3

- - - -
likely to experience .1 This information may be particularly relevant

for an Army assimilator , because Army leadership by necessity must

often concentrate on effective task performance .

All of the prior asx;imilators dealt wi th cultures outsi le the

United States. Recent interest has focused on the feasibility of developing similar techniques for interaction between American subgroups .

Triandis and his associates (Slobodin, 1972) developed a black/white

assimilator focused on the work setting . A laboratory assessment of

the Slobodin assimilator revealed significant shifts , as a function of

assimilator training, in behavioral intentions and knowledge of black

culture (Weldon , Carlston , Rissman , Slobodin , & Tr iandi s, 1975).

Although these results are encouraging , the mechanism is obscure

by which acculturative knowledge is obtained in an assimilator trainiri ’.j situation .

Several other questions bear inspection . First , the assumption

underlying the assimilator is that the information being provided would

be more familiar to members of the target culture than to others, i.e.,

blacks would be expected to score higher than whi tes on the Slobodin .

Curiously , this hypothesis has never been directly tested. Second , if

the assimilator is effective , the test culture would be expected m i -

tially to score low and gradually approach the criterion se t by the

target culture . Again , this hypothesis has not been directly tested.

Final ly, members o~ the test cul ture would be expected to do better on

external measures as a function of learning level on the assimilator.

The present paper was designed to explore these three hypotheses.

METH OD AND PROCEDURE

Development of the Ass imilator

Of critical impor tance in any use of the assimilator technique

is that the situations reflect actual ~vents that blacks and whites

have experienced. In the present project , such incidents were obtam ed by the use of the critical incident technique (Flanagan , 1954).

Interviews were carried out with black and white enlisted men and

officers in groups of no more than five men , homogeneous in race and

rank. The race of the interviewer was the same as that of the group.

The enlisted men were stationed at a base in the Northeast , and the

officers were from a Southeastern base. The enlisted—men sample consisted of 90 whites md 91) blacks; the officer sample involved 63

wh i les nid 63 blacks . t

~ach in terview was tape-recorded for later anal-

~

‘Si5 .iit i (X t I,,’ t Ioli of SU I t ab ix c ritical incidents f~~r the assimilator.

~~I ii two validation studies (Chemers , F’xedler , Lekhyanada , & Stolurow ,

I’Hx , ; Chemers , 196 ’)) the amount of leorninq was measured. In both

c,i ;’o; learning was significant f i r assimi1.~~or-tra i ned subjects.

4 

- ------ -_— ~~~~~~~ - —
Six steps were taken to prepare the assimilator items from he

tapes. First, the tapes were examined and indexed for themes. Second ,

an analysis of the themes was made and incidents selected . Third ,

transcripts of the selected incidents were edited to form a coherent

story line . Fourth , a question was added to each incident, and plausible , but not obvious , options were devised , including one which reflected knowledge of black culture , lifes tyles, or history . (To some

extent it was possible to extract the options from the interviews.)

Fif th , for each option, a rationale was prepared, w ith the “correct

option ’s rationale providing an explanation in terms of black culture .

Finally, each complete item was reviewed by a mixed—race group drawr,

from our own staff.

For the Army field tes t, 100 items were prepared , 75 selected

from the interviews (“Army” items) arid 25 from the Slobodin set

(‘civilian ” items). A sample item , with options and rationales,

follows.

The white CO of a racially integrated unit tried to

recommend promotions on the basis of his men’s work

and proficiency scores. After the list of promotions

was posted , a black Spec 4 en tered his of fice and

asked why he had not been promoted. The Spec 4

claimed that he had fairly good scores and asked

the CO to review his decision . The CO was surprised at this behavior , but promised to give some

attention to the complaint. Upon reflection , the

CO noted that promotion reviews were requested

much more frequently by blacks in his unit than

by whites. The CO was puzzled and surprised by

this realization.

Why did more blacks than whites request reviews of

promotion decision?

Option 1. Blacks feel they won ’t be given a promotion unless they ask for one . (Yes)

Rationale: Many blacks feel that a good mark record

alone is not sufficient for a promotion . They feel

that unless they call attention to their case , it

will not be acted upon . This action is not to be

taken as disrespectful, but rather as an action

which is assumed to be necessary for promotion .

Option 2. The CO was prejudiced and promoted more

whites than blacks. (No)

S 

- - -
Rationale: There is no evidence to support this.

Reread the incident and select another resporist..

Option 3. Blacks are troublemakers more often

than w~ ites are . (No)

Rationale : There is nothing in the incident to

suggest that the blacks were troublemakers. Try

again.

Option 4. Many blacks hope to yet promotions they

don ’t deserve by intimidating their CO’s and getting

them to give in to avoid being called “prejudiced. ”

(No)

Rationale : The blacks ’ behavior was not intimidating .

There were no threats or insinuations. You ’re reading too much into this incident. Reread the incident

and try again.

The items were grouped into five volumes of 15 Army and 5 civilian

items each . Placement of an item was random within its volume , as was

the position of the “correc t” option within an item . Each volume of

the assimilator included a section giving the rationale for the technique and instructions for recording responses .

‘rest of the Assimilator

The present study w as des igned not only to develop a particular

assimilator , but to provide data on several problems. First , no data

in the literature specify “native” responses (those of the target culture) to assimilator items. This information is crucial if the assimilator is to train nonnatives to understand and appreciate the target

culture . Second , no available data relate to the shape of the learning

funct ion of the acculturative materials. The learning curve is important , because the peak point will determine the optimum number of assimi lator i tems necessary to produce learning. Third , little attention

has been given to assessing cognitive changes as a function of assimilator trdining, data that could help determine the eventual usefulness

of the assimilator technique .

Four Lases , (two in the Southeast , two in the Southwest) havir~

q a

sufficient population of black junior—grade officers , served as sites

for the tield test. Each base was asked to make available at least 25

black and 2 white officers ; approximately 15% of each group either

d i1 trot r eport 10 the training room or were dropped from the data pool

bcc~ause t k xcx r data were unusable’.

6

-- ~~ -- --~~~ — -
To control for possible order effect s in the five vo l umes of the

xx-i.r milator s , 10 unique counterbalanced sequences were establi::;txed

and randomly and independently assigned to trainees within each hj

~c .

Apj r ox imat i 1.y five subjects per base had each sequence .

Each subject , in addition to responding to the item opt i ons i n

I ‘~rm s of correctness , rated each option as to its “ adequacy ” and ea’ix

irxci iezx t in terms of its “ familiarity.” Subjects were also give, 1 he

Weldon et. al. (1975) Test of Intercultural Sensitivity (TICS) bot ix ~,‘ -

l ore and after the training . TICS items are similar in format to tbc

•x ’-c;imila tor except that the rationales and feedback aspects ire

eliminated.

RES ULTS

This section will present the results of three analyses of the

l i La . In the first we consider the question of whether the items air:

d i f f e r e n t i a l ly familiar to black versus white officers. The second

analysis is concerned with differential learning patterns as a functi (

of increasing experience with acculturative materials. The th i rd i n ~

-

~

est~~gates the effect of assimilator training on the TICS measures.

F~

iinh1iarit~~

Because the predominant focus of the assimi lator was on black CUiLure , we would expect that the familiarity ratings by the black off i —

cers should be significantly higher than those of the white officer s

if we were successful in sampling relevant interracial problems.

Consistency over a set of items in the direction of the differ en

between racial groups on familiarity rankings was examined separately

by volume within base and by volume across bases , using Wilcoxon signedrank test. Over all items and bases, blacks rated items as more familiar than did whites at highly significant levels (p .01 or b e t t e r) .

Is addition , i tems in each of the five volumes were rated significantly

more familiar for blacks at all four bases.

This analysis clearly suggests that the situations captured in

I tic assimilator probably have been experienced by many black o f f i c e rs

ii’ • ,it least perce i ved by them to represent familiar problems. ( orivers ely, the white o f f i c e rs are comparatively unfamiliar with these

jiroblema .

___ _ __ I
Differential Learning

A weighted score per item was computed for an individual in the

following way : If he selected the correct answer on the first trial ,

he received 10 points; a correct answer on the second trial , 6; on the

third , 2; and on the fourth , 1. This method gives considerable weight

to the ability to select the correct answer with little or no delay .

Performance in terms of w eighted scores should increase as the

subject works through the five volumes of the assimilator if the training is effective . Because this was an exploratory study , we made no a

priori assumptions about the form of the volume position curve , i.e.,

about the shape of the learning function . Inspection of the means

showed that some of the items were quite easy . These items , because

there could be little improvement on them , would tend to cloud what

learning might be present; therefore , prior to fur her analysis, the

items for each volume were dichotomized at the median into “easy ” and

“difficul t” i tems for each race group . This division was based on the

means from each volume for those subjects who received it first (Position U in one of the 10 counterbalanced sequences , so that the division of items would be based on first exposure responses with minimal

prior learning.

The overall effect of volume position on performance was examined

by combining the data for all five volumes at each position. These data

are presented iii Figure 1 with separate curves for blacks and whites

and a split on difficulty level for both samples . Because data from

volumes presented first were used for the split on difficulty , interpretation of the data and significance tests legitimately should be

confined to contrasts among positions ranging between Position 2 and

Pos ition 5. The first observation based on Figure 1 is that the less

difficult items generally do not discriminate between black and white

officers, whereas the more difficult items clearly do. This is supported by t tests of the differences in mean scores (Table 1). Differences between blacks and whites at each of the five volume positions

were significant (p < .01 or better) on the high-difficulty items ,

while only one of these comparisons was significant on the low-diffi-

• culty items (and that a reversal favoring whites). The high-difficulty

items thus do represent a set that meets the minimum validity criterion

of discriminating in favor of blacks.

Training Effects

For performance (learning) trends (Figure 1), the black officers

show a relatively stable and level performance with little or no overall than ;e between Positions 2 and 5 both on the low- and the highdifficulty items. These results are consistent with the notion that

because black officers presumably alread y understand the black view ,

there is no reason to expect much , if any , increase in performance .
9.5

9.0

• ~~~~ • ~~~ 

• Less difficult items

~ 8.5

0

o Blacks 0

~

J

Whites

8.0

I

w

z 7.5

w

4, —~~~~ •• •

~~~~

7.0. .1’

•

• More difficult items ,

•

VOLU ME POSITION

Figure 1. Learning curves across five volume positions

contrasting item difficulty and black versus

white subjects.

0k
Table 1

Differences in Mean Scores for Black Officers Compared

w ith White Officers : t Values

Volume High-difficulty Low-difficulty All

position item item items

1 2.59* —1.2 1 1.29

2 5 4Ø** _2.63* 2.16*

3 3.23** —0.14 2.47*

4 3.78** 0.64 2.95**

5 3~ 37** 0.06 2.29*

Note. A positive t value indicates blacks scored higher than

whites.

< .05.

< .01.

On the more difficult items , the white officers show a clear steady

linear trend with significant improvement by Position 5 (p < .05).

This suggests that the white officers were steadily learning as they

worked through the five volumes.

Gain scores (Vo lume 1 minus Volume 5) were computed for each subject and subjects were then dichotomized at the median as high- or

low-gain learners . The data for the sum of the 10 TICS items were examined by analysis of variance with race of subject, learning level,

and pre— and postassimilator training as factors. There were two notable effects : race (F = 4.80, df = 1/76, p < .05 and race x achievement x pre—post (F = 3.29, df = 1/76, p < .10).

For our purposes , the effect of interest is the three-way interaction . This effect , which approaches significance at the .05 level ,

shows definite improvement in weighted scores for three out of the

four groups . The largest improvement occurs with the HI-white group

of subjects and is significant (p < .05). The other changes are not

significant.

The actual size of the three-way interaction should be viewed as

a conserv.itive estimate of the effect. This conclusion is made tenable by noting that S Out of the 10 items showed significant pre-post

etfects (p < .05), and each of these effects was in the same direction

a’; the overall analyses. The remaining nondiscriminating items would

.ict t.o suppress the apparent size of the change pre- to postadministration .

10

____ — — - - — -
LiISCU~S IOU

ihe V’

~.U L LS of the current project are encouraging. They are

von more e tisfy ing when one considers that a number of factors worked

against suc’ess. The time was relatively brief and the pace was hurx i ed. ‘l’here could be relatively little sample control . Some of the

subjects were or had reason to be hostile about participating (e.g.,

they were ordered to participate) , although the Army off icers tended

to be professional and diligent about their performan ce. I’he 4-hourl >ng sessions turned out to be something of a test of endurance and

were not representative of the way an assimilator ultimately should be

~~

od. A substantial number of items Us-it proved to be very easy (may-.

bi: only because options were too obvious) possibly further contributed

to subject fatigue , obscured overall black/white discrimination , probably reduced assimilator reliability to some extent, were distractors

or annoyers , and worked against “face validity .” Finally , the black

officers nad a middle-class background and nearly all had at least

some college training, which made them more similar to white officers

tdan were the black enlisted men referred to in many items of the assirn—

ilator. This may have reduced the contrasts between the black and

white officers.

There were compensating factors . The general concern of both

black and white officers about race relations issues meant that most

of the .

~ubjects were quite serious about their performance--many

(blacks as well as whites) expressed appreciation for insights gained.

The other major pluses were a basically rigorous methodological design

and a mixed—race research team. The latter had the advantages of both

insider and knowledgeable outsider perspectives on the black point of

view . This is in line with what Campbell (1964) described as methodologically imperative in cross—cultural research to avoid pitfalls in

ither limited perspective alone.

The data supportive of generalizability across situations (i.e.,

TICS) tend to reduce the need for complete face validity in the acculturative materials. If this finding holds under cross—validation , it

may not be necessary to develop unique assixnilators focused on particular situations—-e.g., Army , Navy , employment, education, etc.

The strong effect of the more difficult items in contrast to the

easy items suggests that an assimilator based on difficult items (without the fatiguing and distracting effects of easy ones) will yield a

more powerful training instrument with fewer volumes. Such an instrument might be desirable , but brevity is not ultimately as salient a

factor as it may have been in the field test. A more potent instrument

(comprised of more difficult i tems) of the same or greater length should

t l lflctiofl more powerfully if appropriately administered over multiple

~ittinqs ,tt . the subject ’s own pace. This is one of the advantages that .

would acciuc to an operational assimilator. Others include (a) accommo-

- - Jation of individua l differences , i .e., the learning would proceed at .i

11

- 

—
!; ubj cc df tcrmiu d rate ; (b ) l ar g i n a s e t t ing t ha t docs not t c:nd 

t o prov ~.: o r c xace rbutc ra c i al t.c n:; i o n, a s r ap sc!:isions ofte n do ; (c ) 

learnin~ during off-duty hours; (d ) an e as ily operationa l i zed t echnique: , 

e.g., put in field manual form; and (e) besides imp roving white unders tanding of blacks, it seems to give more empathetic a nd realistic 

perspective to white behavior toward blacks, e.g., t hat white discrimination is often based on misinformation, defensiveness, or i ne xperience rather than hostile racism. 

There are other cautions that should be mentioned. A comple te 

evaluation would assess the effect of assimilator traini ng on inter -

racial interaction. The limited aims of the current proje ct made such 

a test impossible. However, there is reason to believe that under certain conditions such interaction would be improved. In the Weldon et 

al. (1975) study, trained and untrained white subjects interacted with 

black confederates. Blind ratings made by the confederate indicated a 

superior attra~tion for the trained versus the untrained avbjects. This 

result, however, was obtained only after a relatively long time between 

training and interaction had elapsed. The reverse effect was found 

when the subjects went directly from the training to the interac tion 

setting. Landis (cited in Weldon et al., 1975) suggested the following 

explanation for these ree.ults: 

If an interpersonal interaction occurs prior to consolidation [of new culture knowledge), and if that 

interaction is anxiety producing, then the trained 

subject may fall back upon old responses with a new 

tenacity. However, if the interaction is pleasant 

and long enough to be productive and supportive of 

the new attributions, then the new patterns become 

fully integrated. (p. 309) 

The Weldon et al. results and Landis's comment suggest the conditions under which assimilator training would result in positive interpersonal interactions. Thus although it is c l ear that the assimilator 

is an effective method for transmitting cultural knowledge, the transl ation of that information into behavior may depend heavily on the 

nature of subsequent interactions. The interaction between assimilator 

training and later behavior (particularly the issue of t emporal sequencing) should form the basis of a rigorous study. Such a study 

should include a linki ng of behavioral attributions, s tereotyping, and 

interpersonal attitudes. Unknown as yet is which of these changes are 

most important in changing interpersonal behavior. Indeed, it i s not 

clear what type of assimilator can be said to be a useful device for 

the reduction of prejudicial behavior. 

12 
:~ho ild such a study be performed and show positive results , then

its use in a military context would move the Army one step further toward achie7ing President Truman’s l

~

j4~ order: “It is hereby declared

to be the policy of trie President that there shal.l be equality for all

persons in the ar.~ed services without regard to race, color , religion ,

or national origin.”

4

2

0

4

- 

13
AilVj rt , G. W. The Nature of Prejj i’IiSe. Cambridge , V.- iss . : A’i

~~~sonWesley , 1954.

‘

~~~~~h eii , i. T. Distinguishing Diff er er 1ees of Perception fr -en FaiI~~r e-;

of Communication in Cross—Cultural Studies. In F. 2. C. r

~nthru;~ & II. H. Livingston (Eds.), Cross—Cultural Understanding : Lp iStemology in Anthropolo9y. New York : Harper & Row , 1964.

C.iemers , M. M. Cross-Cultural Training as a Means for Improving Situdtl on41 Favorableness . Human Relations, l9~ 9, 22, 531-546.

(2heme rs , M. M., Fiedler , F. E., Lekhyanada , D., & Stolurow , L. M .

Some Effects of Cultural Training on Leadership in Heterocultural

Task Groups . International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 257-

270; 301—314 .

L~

ay, H. R., Landis , D., & McGrew , P. L. Exploration in Cultural Understanding (CSD TR-75-8). Philadelphia : Center for Social Development , 1975.

Fiedler , F. E., Mi tchell , T. R., & Triandis , H. C. The Culture Assimilator: An Approach to Cross-Cultural Training. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1971, ~~~~, 95— 102.

Flanagan , J. C. The Critical Incident Technique . Psychological Bulletin , 1954, ~j, 327—358.

Lambert, W. E., Gardner , R. C., Ban k , H. C., & Tunstall , V • Attitudinal and Cognitive Aspects of Intensive Study of a Second Language . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, •~~~~~ ,

358— 368.

Lambert , W. E., Ignatow , M., & Kranthamer , M. Bilingual Organization

in Free Recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

1968, ~~~, 207—214.

Landis , D., Day , R. R., McGrew , P. L., & Miller , A. B. Training of

Junior Grade Officers for Racial Understanding (CSD—TR-73-8) .

Philadelphia: Center for Social Development , 1973 (a).

. i:n Iis , ., & Miller , A. B. The Army Culture Assimilator: Interacting with Black Soldiers (CSD-TD-72—1) . Philadelphia : Center

for Social Development , 1973 (b).

!,OwiiI , K. I~

nso1ving Social Conflicts. New York : Harper , 1948.

~ebow , E. Tally ’s Corner. Boston : Little Brown , 1967.

/.

- -~~~~~~~~~ 

— —

~~ 

I ______
Loye , D. The Hea ling of a Nati o n. New 'fork : Nor ton , 1.971. 

Mitche ll, '1'. R., Dossett, D. L., Fiedl e r, F. E., & Tri andi s , H. C. 

Va l idation Evidence for t he Cul t ure Assimila o r. (Tech . Rep. 

71-2H) . Urbana : Universi t y of I llinoi s , 19 71 . 

Mitchell, T. R., & Foa, U. G. Di ffus i on o f the Effect of Cultural 

Trai ni ng of t he Leader i n the Structure of Heterocultura l Tas k 

Gr o ups. Aus tral ian J ournal of Psychol ogy, 1968 , ll• 31- 43. 

Myrdal, G. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem a nd dern Democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. 

Nordli e, P. G., Friedman, C. G., & Marbury, G. R. Race Rel ations in 

the Army: Policies, Problems, Programs (HSR-RR-72/3-st) . McLean, 

Va.: Human Sciences Rese arch, 1972. 

O'Brien, G. E., Fiedl t r, F. E. , & Hewi t t , T. The Effec t s of Pr ogrammed 

Culture Training Upon the Pe r formance of Volunte er t-tedical Teams 

in Central America. Human Relations, 1971, 24(3), 209-2 31. 

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basi c Books, 1960. 

Skinner, B. F. Cumulative Record. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 

1961. 

Slobodin, L. F. Culture Assimilators for Interaction wi th the Economically Di sadvantaged (Vol. 1-8). Urbana : University of I llinois, 

1972. 

Triandis, H. c. The Analysi s of Subjective Culture . New York: Wiley, 

1972. 

Weldon, D., Carlston, D. C., Rissman, A. K., Slpbodin, L. , & Triandis , 

H. C. A Laboratory Test of Effects o f Culture Assimi lator Training. Journal of Personali ty and Soci al Psycho logy, 1975, 1I• 

300-310. 

16 
DISTRIBUTION 

4 OASO (M&AAI 

2 HOOA (OAMI·CSZI 

1 HOOA (OAPE·PBA 

HOOA (OAMA·AAI 

HOOA (OAPE·HAE·POI 

HOOA (SGR0 -101 

HOOA (OAMI OOT·CI 

HOOA (OAPC·PMl ·AI 

HOOA lnACII PP2' AI 

HOOA (OAPl HREI 

HOOA (OAPF MPO·CI 

HOOA (OAI' l OWl 

I HOOA (UAP£ liALl 

HOOA (OAPE·CPSI 

HOOA (OAFO·MFAl 

HOOA (OARO AAS.·PI 

HOOA IOAPC PAS A) 

HODA IOUIIA·ORI 

HOOA IOAMO·AORI 

HOOA (OASGI 

HOOA (0A10PII 

Ch•~ . Contult O•v (DA·OTSGI. Atttlphi, MD 

p,11f Aut. Hum Re•. ODOR.E, OAD IE6lSI 

HO USARAL, APO Se1ttle, ATTN: ARAGP·A 

HO r~t Army, ATTN: AFKA·OI·TI 

2 HO Fffth Army, Ft S1m Hou1t011 

1 Olr, Army Stf Studiu• Ole, ATTN: OAVCSA IDSPI 

Ole Chief of Stl, Studies Ole 

OCSPE n, ATTN: CPS/OCP 

The Army Ltb, Pent.gon, ATTN: RSB Chief 

The Army L11J, Pent.n, ATTN: ANRAL 

Ole, Ant Sect of the Army (AaDI 

Tech SuPPOrt Ole, OJCS 

USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IAAD·T 

USA fhch Ole. Durham, ATTN: Life Sciencn Dlr 

2 IJSARIEM, Nerock, ATTN: SGAD·UE·CA 

I USATTC, Ft Clevton, ATTN: STETC·MO·A 

USAtMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN· ATSU·CTO·OM 

USAIMA, Ft llragg, ATTN: Marrtull L•h 

US WAC Ctr & li<;h, Ft McClellan, ATTN: llh 

US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft Mcf:lwllell, ATTN: TllQ Dlr 

USA Oullt1eti'N1tur Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM·TE 

lnttll lJ(lnr~• M11t11al Oev Ole, EWL, Ft Holllblrd 

USA SE 5•11'111 Sch, Ft GO<don, ATTN: ATSO·EA 

USA h~J> ln Ctr & Sch. ft Hernlllon, ATTN: ATSC·TE·AD 

USATSCH, ft Eutl•t. ATTN: En,,r, Advitot 

U5 A War C'.oueve. Cerli1le Btrreekl, ATTN: lib 

2 WAAIR, Nlu•<>t,.ych,.lry Otv 

1 OLI , SOA, MnntotntY 

USA Collell>t Anal Allcv. Botheida, ATTN: MCX:A·WGC 

USA Co<•cept AnAl AoJCY , Rollllidl, ATTN: MCX:A·MR 

USA Co•K:e~•l Annl Ag<:v, Rethetdt, ATTN: MCX:A·JF 

USA Artie Tell Cr•. APO s .. nle, ATTN: STEAC·MO·ASl 

U'iA Artie TCJt Ctr, APO Se1!11e, ATTN: AMSTE·PL·TS 

USA A11111ment Cnul, R.,lstor"' ArMn•l. ATTN: ATSK·TEM 

U!.A A•m•mruu 1'::: ~1. Ruck ltlencl, ATTN: AMSAA TDC 

FAA NAI F.C. Atlnntoc C•tv. ATTN· I lhrory 

FAA NATlC, All•lltu: t.:11y , Al TN: llurn C"" Br 

I FAA A<of,,.,.,,lcal Ctr. Olot.rhnm• City , ATTN: AAC 440 

2 USA f' hJ Arty Sch, Ft Sill, ATTN: Lllor•rv 

A Armor S. . f t Knn•, ATTN· L•l~flt'l 

USA Artn .. r S. h, Ft "'""" · ATTN. A f SI'I OI·E 

USA llrmm Sch, Ft K""" · ATTN· ATSH·DT·Tr 

USA Arrnnr Srll, Ft Knnli, /\TTN: ATSB·C.Il AU 

ARI Olstrlbut•on L•st 

17 

2 HOUSACOEC, Ft O•u. ATTN: L•h<arv 

1 HOUSACDEC, Ft Orrt, ATTN: ATEC- EX·-E- Hum Fecton 

2 USAEEC, Ft Bonj~tt~in Harrl•nn, ATTN: Libury 

1 USAPACOC, Ft llenj~m n HMrison, ATTN: ATCP- HR 

USA Comm- EI,ct Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN- EA 

USAEC, Ft Monmooth, ATTN: AMSEL- CT- HOP 

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL- PA- 1' 

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL- SI- CB 

USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, hv.l Onv Or 

USA Mauttltlt Sy1 A11al A!JC•t. AherctllUn, ATTN: AMXSV- P 

Edgewood Artenal, Ahllrtlf!en, ATTN: SAAEA BL· H 

USA Ord Ctr a Sch, Ah!!rl14:rlll, ATfN· ATSL- TEM- C 

2 USA Hom Engr Lab, Abllrct..en, ATTN: L• ~tery/011 

1 USA Combrlt Arma Tng Bd, Ft8ctnnotuJ, ATrN: Ad Supervn·•• 

USA Infantry Hum RICh Un•t. Ft 8ennirt11. ATTN: Chref 

USA lnl•ntry Bd, Ft Benninq, ATT N: STEBC- TE - T 

USASMA, Ft SliM, ATTN: ATSS LRC 

USA Air Dtl Sch, Ft811~>. ATTN: ATSA-CTO- ME 

USA Air Oef Sch, Ft 81i11, ATTN: Tech l ih 

USA Air Oef Bd, Ft Bliu, ATTN: FILES 

USA Air Oel Bd, Ft Bliu , ATTN: STEBO- PO 

USA Cmd a Generel Stl College, Ftle-nworth, ATTN: l rb 

USA Cmd 6 General Stf College, Ft le-nworth, ATTN: ATSW- SE- L 

USA Cmd a Glneral Stf College, Ft Le-nworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor 

USA C'.omblneu Arm• Cmht Oev Act, Ft LciYenworth, ATTN: De,Cdr 

USA Combined Arms Cmbt Oev Act, Ft le-nworth, ATTN: CCS 

USA Combined Atma Cmbt Dtv Act, Ft le-nworth, ATTN: ATCASA 

USA Combined Arma Cmbl Oev Act, Ft leiYmworth, ATTN: ATCACO- E 

US." Combined Arma Cmbt Oev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC Cl 

USAECOM, Night Vi•lon Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL- NV- SO 

3 USA Computer SYI Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library 

1 USAMEAOC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB- 00 

1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belwolf, ATTN: Llhrary 

USA TOPOIIfophlc Lab, Ft 8el•olr, ATTN: ETL- TO-S 

USA TCIPCIIi<IPhlc Lib, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center 

USA Topogrophic Lab, Ft Belvnlr, ATTN: ETL- GSL 

USA lntalllpnce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: CTD- MS 

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Hueehuca, ATTN: ATS- CTO- MS 

USA lntelllllf"CC Ctr & Sch, Ft Hu~~ehuca, ATTN: ATSI--TE 

USA lntellftlnce Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATSI- TE: X- GS 

USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Hueehuc•. ATTN: ATSI- CTS- OR 

USA lntelllgenC<J Ctr & Sch, Ft Hueehuca, ATTN: ATSI- CTO - DT 

USA lntelllfitne~~ Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN· ATSI·-CTO- CS 

USA lnllllllgenCII Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: OASISRO 

USA lntelllgttlc:l! Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATSI- TEM 

USA lnllllftence Ctr a Sch, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: Librory 

COR, HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Olv 

2 COR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd. ATTN: STEEP- MT- S 

I COR. Project MASSTEA, ATTN: Tech Info Center 

Hq MASSTEA, USATRAOOC, LNO 

A-arch lmtltute, HO MASSTER, Ft Hood 

USA Ref'.rulting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN: USARCPM- P 

SaniO< Armv Adv .. USAFAGOO/TAC, Elgin AF Aux Fld No. 9 

HO USAAPAC, DCSPEA, APO SF 96668, ATTN: GPPE- SE 

Stlmtnn Lib, Acldemy of Health Sciences, Ft Sem HoustOil 

Mtrino Corps lmt., ATTN: Ooan- MCI 

HOUSMC, Commonrlont, ATTN: Cod~> MTMT 5 1 

I IIOUSMC, Comma11rl1n1 , A rTN Co<irJ MPI 20 

2 USCG Academy, New Lo••tion, ATTN: Allmiumo 

2 USCG Academy, Now l.onrfo11, ATIN· L•t.rMy 

1 USCG TrtiniriiJ Ctr, NV, ATTN: CO 

1 USCG Tralnl"9 Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ole 

1 USCG, P1ychol An Br. DC, ATTN: GP 1/87 

HO Mld- RIHIIJI Br, MC Oc!t, Oulnr!w, AT"TN: PaS Oiv 
1 IJ'- M.,;,,.. C•"l" Li•llron Ofc, MAC, Alr:xenflrie, ATTN: AMCGS- F 

1 USATIIAOOC. Ft Monrooo, ATTN II rno EO 

6 USATRAOOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATI'A··AO 

1 USATRAOOC, Ft Monroe. ATTN : ATTS- EA 

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft Mc:Phennn, ATTN: Libttry 

2 USA Avilliun Test Bd, Ft Ruck~r . ATTN: STEBG- P'O 

1 USA AQcv for Avilttion Saflfy. F t Rucker. ATTN: Libr•v 

1 USA AQcv fm Avilnion S.fety, Ft Rucker, ATTN: Educ AmiUSA vi~ti on Sch. F1 Rucker, ATTN: PO Or-0 

1 HOUSA Avietion Sy1 Cmd, St Lou!\, ATTN: AMSAV- ZOR 

2 USA Alrlatlort ,.,_ 1flt Act.. Edwotdl AFB. ATTN: SAVTE-T 

1 USA Air DefSch, F1811n, ATTN: ATSA TEM 

USA Air Mobility Rsc:h 6 Dew Ub, Moffett Fld, ATTN: SA VOL- AS 

USA Avi1tion Sch. Rft Tnt Mvt. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T- RTM 

USA Aviation Sch, CO, Ft Rucker. ATTN: ATST - 0 - A 

HO. DARCOM, AleX1ndri1, ATTN: AMXCO- TL 

HO, OARCOM. Alexendrie, ATTN. COR 

US Millt.rv Academy, Welt Point, ATTN: Soorills Unit 

US Mlll~ery AatJemy, Wftt Pomt, ATTN: Ole of Milt Ldrlhp 

US Militery Acldemy, West Pninl, ATTN: MAOR 

USA Stenderdirltion Gp, UK, FPO NY. ATTN: MASE- GC 

1 Ofc of Neval Rtdl, ArlingtOn, ATTN: Code 452 

J Ofc of N1¥1l Rtdl, ArlingtOn, ATTN: Code 458 

1 Ofc of Nevel RICh, Arlingtnn, ATTN: Code 450 

Ole of Navdl R.ch, Arlington. ATTN: Code 441 

Noval Alrospe Meet Aft Lib, PenSIColn, A TIN: Acoul Sch Ohr 

N""•l Alrospe Meet Res Lib, "-nSIColn, ATTN: Code L&1 

Nl'lai Alrospe MW AM Lib, PeniiCOII, ATTN: Code L& 

Chief of N..,.e,~. ATTN: P~trs OR 

NAVAIRSTA. 1\l.,rfolk, ATTN : S3f~tty Clr 

1 NIV 0celn09fvpl . DC, A rTN: Codo 62& 1, Ch•t• 6 Tech 

1 Cent11r of NAval Anel, ATTN: Doc Ctr 

1 N.,..,AlrSy!ICom, ATTN: AIR- S31JC 

1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 71:J 

1 NIVHellcot*fSub&que 2. FPO SF 116601 

1 AFHRL (FTI Willi"" AFB 

1 AFHRL (TTl Lowry AFB 

1 IIFHRL IASI WPAFB, OH 

2 AFHFIL IOOJZI 8rook1 AFB 

1 AFHRL IDOJNI Lac:klend AF8 

1 HOUSAF (INYSO) 

1 HOUSAF IDf'XXAI 

1 AFVTG IROI Rendolph AFB 

3 AMRL IHEI WPAFB, OH 

2 AF lnst of Tech, Wf'AFB. OH, ATTN: ENEISL 

1 ATC IXPTDI Rondolph AFB 

USAf AnroMP.d Lil1, Btoolls AFB ISUL- 41, ATTN: DOC SEC 

AFOSR INLI, Arlineton 

1 AF Log Crnd. Mc:Ciell~n AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB 

t Air Fmeo! Ac:lderny, CO, ATTN: ~~of Bel Sen 

S NIVPrn & Dew Ctr, Sen Diego 

2 NIVY M!od l\leurCJPIVdtiAirie Rteh Unit, Sen Diego 

1 N8¥ Elt!f:tronoc L11b, Sen Orego, ATTN: Ret Lib 

N.., Tr~n. Sen Diego, ATTN: Code 000()-Lib 

N~~~rP.,stGreSch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 56A1 

N ... PnstGrliScll, Monttt•r,. ATTN· encte 212• 

NevTr"'IEouii'Ctr, Ora.Klo. ATTN: Tech Lib 

ur. Drt>t nf l11hu•. DC, ATTN: M•"l"""'" Admin 

US O,.pt n f J"'tir.e, OC, ATTN: Dw!l Enforce Admin 

N11t Bw of S ... •dM"'. OC, ATTN: n~Jruter Info S.Ction 

Nnt Cleooing Hotno for MH··Intn, Hncl.vollo 

Ooloowt I'Otleflll Ctr, lalurWOO<I. ATTN: RLM 

12 O<tfaMit Ooc•unnnllllkln Coo1tror 

• rJh Psych, Auny u,,, tt.._u ntr.s, Cenl""'" 

I S.:ir•ntrfrc: ll•lv$o. Mil lkl, Arrny Hfl, llu1\0II Ofc:t, Contreue 

1 Mol "'"' 1\h Att~~r.he, Au,tr l.rn Ernh•MY 

1 (;,.,.,,, '~' Rm:hrodll! 0.0. I''" '"""· HuntOin" rte In f)tfonse 

Nnruu utl••. th••·. t·f·. 

'} (;,Uo,MII/HI J11i111 !!f11lf w .. hifMifmo 

I t:ll\u Sinll. R"yol c:-llnn AI . ATTN: P11rs Strl Anlll Or 

:1 t:hffl, l'·"""""'' U.t floc:h St•fl. AnN: CJCROSIWI 

4 011I1Jh ll,of St11fl, Brilhh huhtKIY, WMhlfllllnn 

18 

Oef 6 Civil inet of Enviro Medicine, C~t~ldl 

AIR CRESS, ~neton. ATTN: Info lye 8r 

MllitMr~ Tjlnel ... Coollh""' 

Millt8ry Att8dle. Frendl Ernbftly, ATTN: Doc Sec 

Medlcin Chef, C.E.R.P.A.-Areenal, Toulon/N1V1I FrlltlCil 

Prln Scientific Off. Appl Hum Ener Rtdl Olv, Ministry 

of Oef-. New Delhi 

1 Pen RICh Ofc Llbr-v, AKA, hreel Detente Forces 

I Mlnllt•ll Yin Def-ie. DOOP/KL Aid Socl11l 

Ply~ bllln, The H..,., Nethlrllnds