Tec huical Paper 291 [AD

I

~~~~~

1

~

L . 

~

J

PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION IN ARMOR TRAINING

Newell K. Eaton

I

I

La.~

C-, ARI Field Unit, Fort Knox , Kentucky

DDC

FEB 6 1919

U~~~~~UU6

[

~~~~ ]rT]

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved fo l public releate; distribUtiOn unlimited.

~~ 

;j 9

- _____--- -___ _____

• _____________________ _______ 

---—~~—--— —
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENC ES

A Field Operating Agency under t he Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM 1. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

.4

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primiry distribution of th,~ report f

~

.s b u n made by ARI PIe..e sddrutt corritponden~~ Concerning distribut ion of r,ports to U. S. Army RSI,I,Ch Inititute for th. Bahevioral end Social Sciences . ATTN PEAl- P . 5001 E,t~nhoieer Avenue , AtesancIria . Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION This report may be destroyed ~ben it is no lOnger r*,ded. Ple.~ do not return 1(0

the U. S. Army Research I nstitu te for th. BuPievioril and Soc i

~I Science,.

.

~QIL Th, find i ngs in thu report era riot to be COflltru•d as en off cu.l D.g.rtm,nt of the Army POsition , unles s so designated by Othe r euthor led documents,

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~ 

___

L — 

~~~~~~~~~ 

—
___________ --

l

~~~jffR~ jffPd 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (5Th -

_______

n~~~~a~~~ v ,.1~~~~~~ A~~ I1tII DAt ~~~ READ INBTRUCTIONS n

~~

rtjrs U MU5..UM~~U~ U ~~ U “#i~ ~~~~~~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORE

L REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT A _________ ‘ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —— Technical Report 29 1 “ ~~/) 

4. TITLE (.sd SublIU.) ~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~ O’~ —— ~~~~ ~~~ (7 PERFORMANCE ~ )TIVATION IN ARJ’t)R TRAINING

__ 

•

~~~ 

,-

- ~ -.—~~

- ,. - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . _ _ 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

~ AUT~ OR(.5 C. C AC .

Newell K./~~~~~~

J

C. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . T ASK

~ AR EA 4 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

US Army Research Institute for the BehavioraJf’~ )—

and Social Sciences PERI—IK \

~ /( (2Q 7627 17A767 I

5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333 ‘

—~ —

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~~~~~~~ LIATE

( / SepL~ I_ .. fl78

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, US Army ‘-

Washington, D.C. 20310 64 1 4. MONITORING AGENCY NAM E & AODRESS(Sf dlii somi l from ControIlhi~ Of tic.) IS. SECURITY CLA SS. (of ski. roperS)

Unclassified

IS.. OECLASSIFICATION /OOWNGRAOING SCHEDULE

tS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ski. R.port)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of lb. ab.lraci .nl.r.d In Block 20, Ii dl fi.r.nl from R.porl)

Ic. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IC. KEY WORDS (Ccnllnu. on r•. ra• .Id. if n#c...~~~ wd ldonllfy b

~ block nsm,b.,)

Performance motivation Performance outcomes

Motivation measurement Tank gunnery performance

Motivation management

10. At~~ RACT (Continue ~, ,.var., .ld. St n.c.e.~~ aid id.nti~~ bf’ block maib.r)

Ilotivation generally affects performance. This research asked specifically

what performance outcomes (rewards) would motivate tank crews to perform

better during training.

First, 52 Armor crewmen answered, on a list of potentially useful recognition and tangible reward outcomes, how much they valued each one and what

they felt was the probability of their getting it. Later, answers from 112

DO ~~~~~~~ 1473 IOITION OF I NOV SI I$ OSSOLETE Unclassif ied SECURITY CLAISIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WPu.n 0.5. SnI.se~~

____ _____ H

-- _______________
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEIWlian D.C. Zni.r.d)

lock 20. Continued

other crewmen confirmed and refined the outcome values, as well as indicating

that outcome values were constant across rank for grades E2—E5 .

Outcomes with the highest combined scores were then offered as rewards for

high performance during training, to 108 Armor crewmen. Analysis of results

showed that for tank coimnanders, drivers, and loaders, performance in general

was positively related to recognition—based motivation and negatively related

to tangible reward. For gunners, performance was negatively related to

recognition—based motivation.

Strategies for motivation management programs could probably be based on

recognition.

~ ~~~ u~

lfø t

f 1

~~ 

5 . ’ ; ,’c ’i~ I

HP” at 1 •S.~~~tII~~

(l

~ -—

i~ ~

_ • l ‘

— 

*. tt. ‘‘k ’

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATiON OF THIS PAGE(Wha, D.C. tnl.rotj

— ___________
Tec kuicel Paper 291

PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION IN ARMOR TRAINING

Newell K. Eaton

Donald M. Kristiansen, Work Unit Leader

I

ARI Field Unit, Fort Knox, Kentucky

Donald F. Haggard, Chief

I

Submitted By: Approved By:

E. Ralph Dusek , Director Joseph Zeidner

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING & PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL DIREC TOR

RESEARCH LABORATORY

7

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 Number Technology for Increasing

2Q782717A767 Soldier Productivity

Apprusd fcc public relsuw ; dfsitIbutlon 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

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.

L

I 

—,- _____________

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

~~~~~~~~~ --

r

FOREWORD

An area of major importance in the Arm y Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ( ARI) is improvement of

the individual soldier ’s training and performance. The ARI Field

Unit at Fort Knox , Kentucky , in its work unit area “Performance

Motivation in Training and Evaluation Environments ’ (Army Project

2Q7627 17A767), is concerned with research and development of

technology for increasing soldier productivity by increasing

levels of performance motivation. The long—range program includes

developing an effective model of performance motivation in a

military setting , developing psycholog ical instrumentation

to measure performance motivation , and developing strategies to

manage performance motivation .

This Technical Pape r describes research on performance

outcomes (consequences to individuals of their performance) in

an operational armor battalion , and the relationship between tank

gunnery performance and motivation ind ices derived from a motivation model and Instrument which used the outcomes research.

Effective motivation management strategies could be developed

from the outcomes and motivation model research.

J EPH ZEIhI~ i

chnical Director

I

I
PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION IN ARMOR TRAINING

BRIEF

Requirement:

To determine the perceived value and frequency of a set

of performance outcomes (consequences to individuals of their

performances) in an operational Armor battalion by constructing

and testing an objective appropriate motivation model and

instrument; and to determine motivation management strategies for

an experimental program .

~~ocedure:

A set of potentially useful performance outcomes was obtained

from past research interviews with Armor training cadre and

trainees. Outcomes were selected for potential value to m dividual soldiers in Armor training and perceived potential for

occurrence there . A questionnaire , developed to determine the

value and perceived frequency of occurrence of each outcome , was

given to 52 Armor crewmen during their annual tank gunnery

qualification at Fort Hood , Texas (Phase I). Their answers

enabled outcomes to be ranked by perceived value x frequency.

Outcomes with the highest value—frequency composite scores

were chosen in each of four motivation source categories: recognition , tangible reward , intrinsic , and self—actualization. A

motivation model based on contemporary expectancy theory was

ex pa n ded into a composite—source model to provide specific

motivation indices in each of the four source categories. An

instrument was then developed , based on the composite—source

model and using the selected outcomes , and administered to 108

Armor crewmen in a battalion during their annual gunnery training

——tank crew qualification course (TCQC)——at Fort CarEon , Colorado

(Phase II). The outcomes questionnaire used at Fort Hood was

the n administered to 112 Fort Carson crewmen to obtain more

detailed information on outcome value and frequency perceptions

(Phase III).

Findings :

Phase I provided sufficient information for developing the

composite—source motivation instrument. In Phase II, gunnery

performance was significantly related to motivation indices

from the instrutnent ’s four source categories. From the stand—

point of develop ing motivation management strategies , most

interesting relationships were with the recognition and tangible

reward source categories——the most easily managed . For tank

commanders , drivers , and loaders , performance generally was

.

5 

-. .. -.

~~ ..

.. . --.
positively related to recognition—based motivation and negatively related to motivation based on tangible reward . For gunners, however , performance was negatively related to recognition—based motivation .

Intensive anlaysis of outcomes data from the Phase III questionnaire administration allowed evaluation of the outcome value s and frequencies with some degree of confidence . The analysis also indicated that for enlisted grades E2 — E5 perceived value and frequency of outcomes did not differ by rank . Thus, management strategies need not differentiate for these ranks .

Utilization of Findings :

The composite—source motivation model and instrument has practical utility for motivation research and evaluation . The motivation instrument , refined with information from intensive

analysis of performance outcomes , has potential as a diagnostic tool in military settings. Experimental motivation management strategies based on relationships observed in this research can potentially provide the Army with specific , tested motivation

management strategies for optimizing motivation in training and testing . Recognition is the most likely source for an experi— mental management program .

. - ______________

________ ________ -J — —~~—~~~~~- — .

- — — -.- —-—~~~~
_________ 

~~~~~~~~

PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION IN ARMOR TRAINING

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 7

PHASE I , PILOT RESEARCH AND INITIAL OUTCOME ANALYSIS 7

Method 7

Results 8

Discussion 9

PHASE II, ASSESSMENT OF MOTIVATION SOURCES IN RELATION TO

PERFORMANCE 11

Method 12

Results 14

Discussion 23

PHASE III , INTENSIVE OUTCOME ANALYSIS 26

Method 26

Results 27

Discussion 32

SUMMAR Y AND CONCLUSIONS 33

REFERENCES 35

APPENDIXES 37

DI STR IBUTION 53

TABLES

Table 1. The Most Valued—Most Frequent Outcomes in Each

Source Category 10

2. Relationships Between Selected Measures of Tank

Com.anders Performance Motivation and Selected

Table VIII Measures 15
_______________________________ —

TABLES (continued) Page

3. Relationships Between Table VIII Scores and Tank

Commanders ’ R and TR Motivation Scores , by Company 19

4. Relationships Between Selected Measures of Gunners ’

Performance Motivation and Selected Table VIII

Gunnery Measures 20

5. Rela tionshi ps Between Selected Measures of Drivers ’

Performance Motivation and Selected Table VIII

Gunnery Measures 21

6. Rela tionshi ps Be tween Selec ted Meas ures of Loaders ’

Performance Motivation and Selected Table VIII

Gunnery Measures 22

7. Relationships Between Motivation Measures Administered

10 Weeks Prior to and 1 Day Prior to the TCQC 23

8. Mean Outcome Frequency and Variance (N=102 ) 28

9. Mean Outcome Value and Variance (N=102) 30

FIGURES

Fig ure 1. The Relation Between Motivational Variables ,

Metivation Level , and Performance 3

2. General Expec tancy Theory—based Model of Performance

Motivation 4

3. The Relationship Between Ac tual Table VIII Scores and

Derived Score3 Based on Tank Commander ’s Perf ormance

Mo tiva tion 16

4. The Relationship Between Actual Table VIII Scores

and Derived Scores Based on Tank Commander ’s

Recognition Based Motivation 17

5. The Relationship Between Actual Table VIII Scores

and Derived Scores Based on Tank Commander ’s

Tangible Reward Based Motivation 18

L

. . 

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

-
—------ ..--. - —~~-.--.-. ,. -.

PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION IN ARMOR TRAINING

It is a common observation that performance in training and training

assessment environments may be degraded by reduced levels of individual

and group motivation. Reduced motivational levels during training and

assessment , as compared to the actual job situation , can have sever al

adve rse effects. Scores obtained during assessment may not reflect true

on—the—job performance capability because of attenuated motivation

levels during assessment. More damaging , reduced motivation during

training may attenuate any beneficial effects of training , thus directly

reducing performance capability. The purpose of the research reported

here was to study sources of performance motivation in one environment

——Armor training and assessment. In later research , the results will be

generalized to performance motivation in other combat , combat support ,

and combat service support settings.

BAC KGROIJND

Rega rdless of the particular approach one takes to motivational

problems, certain basic relationships are generally recognized . First ,

an individual’s performance is considered to be a function of both the

individuals’s ability to perform and his performance motivation .’

Performance motivation is defined as motivation associated with the

performance of a particular task or cluster of associated tasks. Thus,

it comprises both sourecs of motivation which are relatively general ,

applying to many different tasks, and sources which are quite specific ,

pertaining to only one particular task or limited number of similar

tasks. in this way it is analogous to Spence ’s D + K construct(s). 2

In many situations , where some moderate level of ability can be assumed

to exist , superior performance might be observed when performance

motivation is high. An easily recognized example would be the highly

motivated individual who , though no more gifted than his contemporaries ,

excels through the sheer concentration and effort he expends in completing an assigned task . Second , pe rformance motivation level is believed

to be a function of a number of environmental and internal variables

(motivation variables) which serve as sources of moti vation. Changes in

either an individual’s external environment or his internal state could

change his motivational level. For instance , an individua l who anticipates certain significant outcomes of very good performance may be

[Brown , J. S., and Farber , I. E. Secondary motivational systems. Annual

Review of Psychology, 1968, ~~~ 99—134.

Lawler , E. E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey : Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company, 1973.

Spence , K. W. Behavior Theory and Conditioning . New Haven : Yale University Press , 1956.

Vroom , V. H. Work and Motivation. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1964.

2Spence , K. W . Behavior Theory and Learning . Englewood Cliffs , N. J.:

Prentice—Hall , 1960.

-— . - - . ...--—

-

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

~- -1 ~~ --. ,. - . . -
expected to be more highly motivated , and thus perform better , than an

individual who expects no noticeable outcomes for effort expended in the

performance of a task.

Relationships which are thought to exist between performance motivation level, motivational var iables , and performance are shown in Figure 1.

In the model , performance is a function of performance motivation level ,

and motivation level is a function of a large number of motivational

variables. Therefore, performance is a function of those motivational

variables.

One general model of motivation in an “expectancy model .” According

to this model , performance motivation is a function of an individuals’s

expectancies (subjective probabilites) that good performance on the job

will lead to particular outcomes for the ind ividual, and the values he

places on those outcomes (Vroom , 1964). These outcome expectancies/

values am postulated to be a source of motivation and thus , in part ,

determine performance motivation level. If this is so, then the manipulation of outcome expectancies and values could serve as a powerful

motivation management tool. Research to determine the validity of

the general model , or to develop a model and an associated instrument

incorporating current research results , therefore , takes on a role of

considerable importance.

Recent extensions of the general expectancy models have entaile~i , in

addition to performance—outcome expectancies (POE) and outcome values

(OV), the individual’s subjective probability that effort expended in

the performance of the task will lead to good performance on the task.

This belief is an effort—performance expectancy (EPE). According to one

widely recognized form of this model (see Lawler, 1973), performance

motivation is a function of these three components , as shown in Figure 2.

Sample question formats for evaluating each of the three variables are

also shown in Figure 2.

The expectancy model , in the above form , has proved to be quite

popular among contemporary motivational theorists.3 This popularity

is proably due to the relative ease and objectivity of performance motivation determinations derived from the model , the basic scientific and

intuitive appeal of the model , and certain instances of respectable

correlations between job performance and individual motivational indices

determined from tests based on the model. In one particularly successful

study, a correlation coefficient of +.62 (p < .01) was demonstrated

between motivational scores and supervisor’s performance evaluations.4

Therefore, the general expectancy model has served as a basis for development of a performance motivation model and instrument applicable in

military training and evaluation environments.

~~~~~~~~ E. A. Personnel Attitudes and Motivation. Annual Review of

Psychology. 1975, ~j, 457—480.

4Orpen , C. A quasi—experimental investigation into the effects of

valence, instrumentality, and expectancy on job performance. International Review of Applied Psychology, 1975, ~~~~ , 71—78.

—2—
-

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

— --- -.--

~~~ 

--

~~~~~~~~

- -—-.- - .-.

~~~~

(0

4) 00 0

0 0 . 00

I_i ~J •.—l~~U 4J 0 tO

0 > (0 4) ._4 .

~4

to 1.1 1.1 1.1 4.1 (4 to 0 0 0 0 to B B 0 5 44

o u 4) ~~~ o0

o •.-i 11 5 .

-‘ 0 U 0 0

0 ‘4.~ (4 0 14 to 0 >~~ -4 (4 -.-4 .-4 (0 14 144) (4 -40 E U . • .

~~-4 . . . w oj .—i E 11 0 6 0 0 .0.0 14 O E o 0. 4-’ 0) 6 (4 0 —I 5 I

~ .—4

~

4-1 to to 00 5 -.-4 ‘1-4 4) 4) 0) s-I 5~~~4 - a > W i-i > 4) 0 0 0 0 04) . 0 4) 0 . )

0. 0 0 14 —4 (4 > 0. .-4 1_i u

1.1

0 •00 4-~ Ii-. li-i

0 t U E 0 0 0

-on ( 414 0 (

4 (4 to 14 1_i 0 0 0 0 00 0) .

~ ..-

~ .. 01

00 (4 4.1 4.1 44

O • .4 U U U (4 0

~ — 0 0 (4

.0 >0 a a U ,-4 O 4-4 14-4 4-1

41) 1-J .

~ 4

0 0 044 (4 (4 (4

(4 1-i GJ .r-4 . .. ~~ 0)

to ..-, (4 0.

5(0 .o ,-4 >, >. >-.

O ’I-a .0 .0 .

0 C 0 (4 4) Lv ‘4-4 4) O~~U .0) 0) (4 0 0) 4) 4) —4 0 (4 (4

0. 0 >0 -,-4 ..-4 -.-l 0)

o .00 5 5 5 -J 14-1 -,-4 0 5-I 14 5-1

O ’ ~ 0) -.-4 4) 41) 4) C

(4 4)1.1 44 1-1 44 ( 4 ( 4 4) 4) 4) 0—4 •,-4 5-I Lv

>~~~ 11~4 4 )

0 ) 0 0) 0.. to U) 4) -)Z o0 .

~

.4 .4.4 .4.4 0

.0

Lv

4-. Lv

>

C

.2

0 4-i .0)

‘~

-

~ (4 4) 1414 00 8 (0 00 00 0014 0) 0.. (

4 0 0 00 1.1 5 005 -,-4 ’a-i 4) (4 O W 014 U C (4 W1 - 0 1-a 0) 0

.0 50 > 4.4 41) 0.

U 41) 0 4) 14 U

0 00 I — 0 14 00 0

4_i 14>, U Q -..4 .-I 14-4

14 C 0 0 (0. 0 I > 0) o (4 U: . . . 0.

00 0 0 (0 -..4~~~ .—4 41) 0 041) . 0(0 41) —

(4 >~-.-4 U 14 (4 U .. 0)

0~~~ >00 U4 J O 5 1_ i 0 0 4) .4.4 41) 14(4 0140 14 •‘-l (4 5-’ U.-4 (4 —I C4 -4~~~ 0 .-I 4J 5 0

14.0 1.1 14 1-~~~U O 1.4(4 14 5-i ‘i-i

>0 041 ) 000 II I > 0 4) 0) _, 4 .rI 41) 4) 4) 144) 00 41) 4 ‘4-4 1-4

4414 8.0 0.0.0 00 44 14 0) oCO 00 1

~~ 0.0 0 4) 0 41) .0

0.

—3—

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -- —-—
PM EPE x E [PO.E x o~vj

Each PO1E and 01V refer to a particular military outcome i.

The following are examples of 1) a military outcome , 2) an item to assess an effortperformance expectancy (EPE), 3) an item to assess a performance-outcome expectancy

(PO.E), and 4) an item to assess valence (O~V).

very very

very very fairl y very very perfect

no little little little some 50-50 good good good good 100%

chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

1) Sample military outcome i:

C.0.’s commendation for a job well done.

2) Sample Effort-Performance Expectancy (EPE) item:

Estimate the odds from 0/10 to 10/10 that if you work ha rd and concentrate on

Tank Gunnery you will perform very well. /10

3) Sample Performance-Outcome. Expectancy (PO 1

E) item:

Estimate the odds that if you perform very well on Tank Gunnery you will

receive the C.O.’s commendation for a job well done. /10

4) Sample Outcome 1 Valence (0~V) item:

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Like Like Like Like Like

it it it a it it a Don ’t it a it it a it it

extremely greatly lot some little care little some lot greatly extremely

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 ÷2 ÷3 +4 +5 L

Look at the eleven expressions listed above . Decide how you would feel about the

following outcome if it were to occur. Indicate the expression which best describes

your feelings by circling the appropriate number from those next to the outcome .

receiving the C.O .’s commendation for a -S -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

job wel l done

Figure 2. General Expectancy Theory-based Model of Performance Motivation

— 4—

L - - 

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

- - -—~~ i

~~~~~~_.- —..--. ———--.---——-—~~~~ 

-.
- .

Despite success in some situations , the expectancy model has not

always proved successful . On many occasions , motivation measured by

expectancy—based instruments has not proved to be highly related to the

employee ’s measured performance .5 One reason may be found in a potential interaction between various sources of motivation——intrinsic and

extrinsic sources , for example.6 The additive relationship between

outcome sources suggested by the general model may not be appropriate . Instead , different sources of motivation may be positively or negativel y

related to one another in a particular situation , and each sour ce ma y be

positively or negatively related to performance. The logical extension

of this thinking would provide as many different motivation scores to a

model and instrument as individual sources of motivation .

A more parsimonious approach would categorize the sources of motivation and build a “composite—source’ expectancy model and instrument

providing a motivation score based on each source category. Two general

categories seem appropriate : intrinsic and extrinsic sources. Extrinsic

sources can be fu rthe r div ided acco rding to type of outcome upon which

the source is based , and its ease of management. Recognition outcomes ,

for instance , are extrinsic motivation sources which are relatively

inexpensive and easy to manage . Tangible reward outcomes are relatively

eas y to manage but not always inexpensive . Outcomes relating to self—

actualization are seldom inexpensive or easy to manage because they are

likely to be based on relatively rigid organizational policies. Such a

categori zation is supported by recent research on the interactive effects

of these outcome categories.7

One can build a composite—source expectancy model and instrument

based on these categories which will provide four separate motivation

scores , one for each source category : Recognition (R), Tangible Rewa rd

(TR), Intrinsic (I) and Self—actualization (A) motivation . Such a

5porter , L. W ., Maanen , J. V., and Crampo n , 4 . J. Continuous monitoring of employees ’ motivational attitudes during the initial employment

period . University of California , Irvine , Technical Report 4, 1971.

Prepared under ONR Contrac t NODOI4—69—A—0200—900l NR Number 151—315 .

Pritchard , R. D., and Sanders , M. S. The influence of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy on effort and performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1973 , 57 , 55—60.

• 6Deci , E. L. The effects of extrinsic rewards on “intrinsic motivation .”

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976 , j

~~ 117—129.

Notz , W. W . Work motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic

rewards: A review with implications for theory and practice . American

Psychologist, 1975 , ~~~ 884—891.

7Decl , E. L. Intrinsic motivation , extrinsic reinforcement , and

inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, ~~~ 113—120 .
composite—source model is shown below:

PM~ = EPI EOIJ E x ~ 1.

~

Again , EPE is the effort—performance expectancy, and PO1jE refers to the

performance—outcome expectancy of outcome I which is in category j; OjjV

refers to the value of outcome i in category j; and PMj refers to a moti—

va tion score in category j.

Befo re a use ful expectancy model can be successfully developed to fit

a particular use , however , and befo re a moti va tion assessmen t in str ument

based on that model can be designed and motivation management strategies

developed , one must understand clearly which performance outcomes

(sources of motivation) are actually relevant to a situation . Relevant

outcomes are outcomes which could reasonably be expected by the soldier

to occur contingent upon some acceptable level of performance. In

addition , one must know to what degree the relevant outcomes are valued

by those performing the task in question. It should be emphasized that ,

according to expectancy theory, these evaluations are based on the perceptions of those to whom the model is to be applied rather than the perceptions of those who apply the model . Thus, motivation models , instruments ,

and management strategies developed from the manager ’s or commander ’s

view of appropriate performance outcomes may lead to less desirable

results than those directly founded on the views of the soldiers.

The set of performance outcomes which has proved useful in models and

instruments designed for private industry may not be completely congruent

with the set of performance outcomes appropriate in military settings.

And the wide range of activities engaged in by Army personnel may preclude identif ying any completely general set of performance outcomes

useful within the Army. It may be , however , that outcomes can be identi—

fled which are relevant and valuable to soldiers engaged in certain kinds

of activity, such as combat or combat training .

Two sources of performance outcomes which may prove useful for this

purpose are readily available. Bialek and McNeil8 studied performance

outcomes in a Basic Combat Training (BCT) company at Fort Ord , California ;

Borman , Johnson , Motowidlo , and Dunnette9 used a list of performance

outcomes in questionnaires given to soldiers in Germany and Korea and to

National Guardsmen in Minnesota . It is not certain , however, to what

extent data from the 1968 BCT stud y are appropriate today. Many soldiers

in the last half of the 1960’s were draftees facing probable involvement

8Bialek , H., and McNeil , M. Preliminary study of motivation and incentives in basic combat training . Hum RRO Technical Report 68—6, 1968.

9Borman , W. C., Johnson , P. D., Motowidlo , S. J., and Dunne tte , M . D.

Measuring Motivation, Morale and Job Satisfaction in Army Careers Volume

II. Report under US Army Research Institute Contract DAHC 19—73—C—OC’~ by Personnel Decision s, Inc., Minneapolis , Minnesota , 1975.

—6— 

- 

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

- 

~~~~~~ -
in the Vietnam War. By contrast , all soldiers today are volunteers

entering a peacetime Army . In addition , numerous changes have take n

place in training procedures and subject , and in living conditions in the

last decade. While Borman ’s performance outcome list is not too old ,

it probably also was administered to units still directly feeling the

effects of the draft. And Borman did not report data indicating the

relative value of the outcomes; while many items (i.e., improved medical care) are of value , they are not outcomes relevant to performance

motivation. Quality of medical care , for instance , is not likely to be

a function of a soldier ’s performance on a particular task.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE S

The specific objectives of the present research were to identify

valued performance outcomes which occurred with sufficient frequency in

an operational Armor battalion to be use~

ful in evaluating motivation ,

and to determine the relationship between an expectancy theory—based

measure of motivation and performance in an operational Armor battalion.

The research was conducted in three separate phases. Phase I was a

pilot outcomes study which served as the basis for Phase II. In Phase

II , an experimental motivation measure was devised and applied to men

in an operational Armor battalion in order to determine the relationship

bet ween the ir motivation lev els and tank gunnery performance. In this

phase of the resea rch , performance outcomes were more fully investigated

to provide a better measure of outcome values and frequencies , and to

determine whether either outcome frequency or value was a function of

crewmens’ pay grade.

PHASE I , PILOT RESEARCH AND INITIA L OUTCOM E ANALYSIS

The purpose of this portion of the research was to determine the

perceived value and frequency of occurrence of a number of tank g’d’.iery

performance outcomes. This information was needed to (1) identify

appropriate outcomes for use in an expectancy theory—based motivation

model and instrument , and (2) provide a list of potential sources of

performance motivation to be utilized in developing a performance motivation management program . Of interest were the value and frequency of

individual outcomes as well as the most highly valued and most frequent

outcomes in each ot the four classes: Recognition (R), Tangible Reward

(TR), Intrinsic (I) and Actualization (A) sources.

METH OD

General Method. First , a questionnaire was developed to determine

the perceived value to the individual , and the perceived frequenc y of

occurrence following very good performance , of a number of selected

performance outcomes. Second , the questionnaire was administered to

Armor crewmen in an Armor battalion at Fort Hood , Texas during their

annual tank gunnery training .

—7—

- 

-

. 

___ - -
__

Questionnaire Development. The questionnaire used in this stud y

was designed to determine the value of 51 performance outcomes and their

frequency of occurrence following very good training performance . The

outcomes were obtained from several sources. Some were based on a study

by Borman et al. (1975), some were fr om Bialek and McNe il (196 8), and

others were from numerous interviews with Armor enlisted , noncommissioned

off icer (NC O), and officer personnel . Outcomes were selected on their

potential value to an individual in an Armor setting , and their potential

occurrence in that setting . This potential was evaluated by means of

preliminary administration to ten soldiers in training and five training

cadremen . Care was taken to evaluate both intrinsic and extrinsic

sources of motivation. Anong extrinsic outcomes were those related to

recognition , free time , special privileges , advancement , and tangible

rewards.

The resulting questionnaire (PT 5103) presented the list of 51 out—

comes in each of two sections . In the first section , the soldiers were

asked to indicate how frequently they believed each outcome occurred for

the average soldier performing very well (top 25%) on his training task.

They were asked to respond on a seven—point scale , from Never happens,O% J

of tasks, to Always happens, 100% of tasks. In the second section , the

soldiers were asked how they, personally, would feel about each outcome

if it did occur for them . An 11—point scale from +5, Like it extremely,

to — 5, Dislike it extremely, was provided . Because it was thought that

most outcomes would be rated between +5 (Like it extremely) and —1 or —2

(Dislike it a little , or Dislike it some) in practice the 11—point scale

would also approximate a seven—point scale. The questionnaire is in—

cluded as Appendix A.

Research Participants. The research participants were 52 Armor

crewmen (E—5 and below) assigned to an Armor TOE battalion at Ft. Hood , Texas. They were preparing for annual tank gunnery qualification.

Procedure. The data were collected in the field during the conduct

of an unrelated research project. Participating soldiers were available

in small groups of two or three , or sometimes singly. The instructions

were carefully read to the crewmen , and the examples explained , prior to

their beginning the questionnaire . The confidentiality of their indivi—

vidual responses was stressed both before and after their completion of

the questionnaire. Participants completed the questionnaire either

alone , or with one or two other crew members , while sitting on or beside

their tanks. Communication between participants was discouraged during

the questionnaire administration. About half the participants were

instructed to complete only the section on outcome value, to meet time

restraints imposed by an unrelated research project.

RESULTS

Of the 52 men completing the value section of the questionnaire , 38

(73%) followed the instructions in completing the questionnaire , and

their responses were included in the evaluation of the value results.

“Following instructions” was defined as giving not more than 80% of the

outcomes the same rating . This criterion was designed to eliminate

—8—
those who did not consider the outcomes individually but simply went

down the response column giving all or almost all outcomes the same

answer. Of the 20 men completing the frequency section , 14 (70%) followed instructions , and their responses were included in the analysis

of the frequency results.

Because of the pilot nature of the research , the relatively small

samples collected , and the nature of the questions to be answered ,

extensive evaluation of the data did not seem justified . Analysis was

limited , therefore , to the calculation of frequency and value means and

sta ndard errors for each of the performance outcomes. Data for all outcomes are provided in Appendix B , the outcomes ranked in order of

perceived value .

Table 1 shows the four most—valued , most—frequent outcomes (based on

a combination of their value and frequency ranks) for each of the four

outcome categories: Recognition , Tangible Reward , Intrinsic , and Self—

Actualization . Also shown , with an asterisk , is an outcome “Receiving

additional training in your field” which many soldiers indicated they

had read as- . . . in the field . The men verbally indicated that additional training in their field would be of about average value .

DISCUSSI ON

The objective of this pilot research was to indicate which performance outcomes , by virtue of their perceived value and frequency of

occurrence , might best be incorporated into an expectancy—based motivation model and instrument. Such outcomes should have moderate to high

frequencies and value s in each measure. Moderate to high frequencies

allow acceptable inter—subject variability by eliminating any “floor

effects.” In princ iple , any outcome with acceptable inter—subjec t frequency variance could be chosen for a motivation instrument regardless

of its value——so long as there was an acceptable level of variability in

its value estimates. In our case , outcomes with moderate to high value

estimates were chosen so that they could be used both in the motivation—

measurement instrument and as guides to outcomes which could be managed

to increase motivation. If moderate to highly value d outcomes should be

shown to enter into a motivation instrument reflecting later performance,

appropriate changes in the frequency of those outcomes could be expected

to increment group motivation levels. If a causal motivation—performance

r elationship is assumed , the changes could increase overall performance.

Outcomes which met the value and frequency criteria were readily

identified from the analyses. Specific outcomes in each of the four

arbitrary categories are shown in Table 1. Such outcomes were considered

appropriate for an experimental motivation model and first generation”

instrument designed to test the utility of a composite—source ex pectancy—

based motivation theory in an operational setting . The outcomes were

therefore incorporated into the motivation instrumen t utilized in the

second phase of the research.

—9— 

-

.- ~~~~~~~~~ :iT_

_ T _ 

i: - .
Tabl e 1

THE MOST VALUED-MOST FREQUENT OUTCOMES FOR EACH SOURCE CATEGORY

Recognition

Receiving recognition from the company commander for doing a good job.

Getting an individual award for superior crew performance.

Getting praise from your superior for doing good work.

Receiving a “Well Done” from your platoon sergeant.

Tangible Reward

Getting a promotion in rank.

Being given a 3—day pass .

Being given two hours of free time on one day .

Having more free time to yourself.

Intrinsic

Feeling that you’re carrying your share of the load .

Feeling tha t you have done an honest day ’s work.

Feeling really proud of having done a good job.

Feeling that you’ve achieved a worthwhile goal.

Self—Actualization

Being ;iveu a more responsible position.

Having aure challenging opportunities in your job.

~~~~~ Being held more personally accoun table for your work.

Raving more to say in how you do your assigned job .

*Receivjng additional training In your field.

M.ny men sad thy mi,,.ad this as in the fisid and would heve assigned th, outcome moderate vslue if they h.d

~~~ reed it • .

~~~~~ fisld.

— 1 0 —

- - ~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ___________________________________
PHASE II, ASSESSMENT OF MOTI VATION SOURCES IN RELAT ION TO PERFORMANCE

The second phase of the research was designed to indicate the utility

of a composite—source expectancy—based motivation model when applied in

an operational Armor setting . Specifically, we wished to determine the

relationship between Armor gunnery performance and motivation measures

derived from an instrument designed according to the four—category

expectancy model discussed earlier. These categories were : Recognition

(R ), Tangible Reward (TR), Intrinsic (I), and Self—Actualization (A)

sources. The most promising outcomes in each of these categories , as

determined from Phase 1, were incorporated in the instrument.

Of primary interest were relationships with motivation scores taken

veil in advance of the tank gunnery criterion firing , for four reasons.

First , such motivation measures, if indicative of motivation during the

training period preceding qualification , could influence the extent to

which the training was effective , and thus affect performance. Second ,

previous researchlO indicated larger motivation—performance relationships when motivation was measured some time before performance was

evaluated than when motivation was measured immediately before performance evaluation. Third, if early measur es of motivation were predictive

of later performance , and if motivation could be effectively managed ,

then steps might be taken to improve performance through early motivation

management. Fourth , persons familiar with qualification performance

generally indicate that when actually beginning the qualification course

all crewmen appear to be maximally motivated , some to the extent that

their performance suffers. Even motivation measures taken 18—24 hours

prior to qualification (as close as is practicable) might not be expected

to indicate the varying levels of motivation extant during the actual

task performance.

Measures of motivation taken just prior to qualification were of

importance primarily because they could give an ind ication of motivation

stability over the time between the tests. One would expect that motivation scores based on A and I sources would be more stable than those

based on R and TR sources. The occurrence of R and TR sources are subject to larger changes in perceived performance—consequence contingencies

than A and I sources. This is the reason that R and TR sources of

motivation are most appropriate candidates for motivation management

strategies , and the reason the relations between these sources and

performance is of potential importance to the motivation manager.

With these considerations in mind , the research was conducted using

a test—retest methodology (described below) In which both motivation

measures were obtained prior to tank gunnery performance.

10Lawler , E. B. A causal correlational analysis of the relationship

between expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1968, 52 , 462—468.

— 11 — 

-. - - - -- -
METHOD

Research Participants. The research participants were enlisted

armor crewmen in an operational armor battalion at Ft. Carson. They

included the 29 tank commanders (TCs), 38 gunners (GNRs), 21 drivers

( DVRs), and 20 loaders (LDRs) who were present in the battalion through—

out this phase of the research. The number of soldiers in each position

differed because of crew turbulence , f ailur e to take the tests, failure

to be measured on the performance criteria , etc . The majority of the TC5

were in their second three—year enlistment while most GNR s, DVR5 , and

LDRs were in their first enlistment.

Instruments. The motivation instrument developed for use in the

Armor battalion incorporated questions covering the three primary features of general expectancy—based motivation instruments: (1) effort—

performance expectancy (EPE), (2) performance—outcome expectancy (POiE),

and (3) outcome value (O iV). Four motivation scores could be derived ,

one in each of the four source areas (R, TR , ,I and A), by using only the

PO1E and OiV outcomes appropriate to a particular source when calculating the motivation score based on that source. For example , in the

calculation of a motivation score based on tangible reward sources , the

following calculations would be emp loyed :

Eha rd wo r k PE (POpromoti on in E) X (O promotion iSV)

rank rank

+ +

PMTR Eexert effort~ . (P03_day passE) X (03—day passV)

+ +

Etry hardPE (p02—hr. free timeE) X (02—hr . free timeV) ( ] + I

(POmore free times) X (Omore free timeV)

There we re th r ee EPE questions , each asking in a slightly diffe rent

way the soldier ’s perception of the relation between the expenditure of

effort and good performance. Each crewman was asked to assign a probability, from 0/10 to 10/10, that the exertion of effort would lead to

good performance . Thus , for the ,

~~ EiPE portion of the equation

scores could vary from 0, if the subject assigned all three questions

0/10, to 3, if the subject assigned all three questions 10/10.

4

Calculation s on the ~ POiE x OiV portion of the equation were

made in the following manner. The subject was asked the odds that good

performance in tank gunnery would lead to his receiving a promotion , and

he responded from 0/10 to 10/10. Fkt was then asked the value he would

place on a promotion , from —5 , “Dislike it extremely” to +5, “Like it

— 12—

S
extremel y. ” Thus , fo r an y POiE x OiV produc t his score could railge from

10/10 x —5 yielding a maximum negative score of —5 , through 0/10 x 0 ,

yielding 0, up to 10/10 x +5 yielding +5. The sum of the four different outcome products could therefore range between —20 and +20, and the

produc t of the EPE sum and the POiE x OiV products from —60 to +60.

The four outcomes in each category shown as most promising in Table 2

(from Phase 1) were used in the instrument. In the actualization section , however , “Receiving additional training in your field” was used rather

than “Having more to say in how you do your assigned job” because the

subjects in Phase 1 indicated they had misread the former outcome and ,

had they read it correctly, might have rated it higher than the latter .

The instrument contained 16 PO1E questions , 4 in each source

category; 16 OjV questions , corresponding to the PO1E questions ; and

3 E~PE questions which were used in each of the four separate motivation

measures derivable from the instrument. The instrument is shown as

Appendi x C .

A ranking form was also used in this research. It was designed to

allow platoon sergeants and platoon leaders to rank their five GNRs,

five DVRs, and five LDRs from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) in term s of their

demonstrated ability to do their assigned duties . A copy is shown as

Appendix D.

Procedure. The motivation instrument was administered to the crewmen

by a civilian employee of the US Army Research Institute under controlled

classroom conditions about 10 weeks prior to their beginning the annual

tank crew qualification course (TCQC—Table Viii) at Fort Carson , Colorado. Guarantees of confidentiality were given .

The same procedures were followed 10 weeks later when the instrument

was readministered the day before the crewmen were to begin the TCQC

Table VIII. lki this administration , however , the men were in the field .

The platoon sergeants and platoon leaders were also administered the

rating form on their GNRS, DVRs, and LDRs at that time . The instructions

were read to them and discussed , and any of their questions were answered .

Main it was stressed that only Army Research Institute personnel would

see their responses.

Between the first and second administrations of the motivati on

instrument , the battalion commander announced that a number of outcomes

would be provided tank crewmen contingent upon their very good performance in tank gunnery. For men in the top five tank crews (of 54), these

included tangible rewards of 2—5 working days off , $25—$75 cash prizes , a nd exemption from extra duty, as well as recognition outcomes of letters

of commendation and an award plaque . All tangible rewards and recognition outcomes were to be presented at a battalion award ceremony. This

served as a fledgling motivation management program to increase the

crewmen ’s motivation and thus improve their tank gunnery performance.

- 13 -
Thc c’iterion performance data were collected in conjunction with the

4th Infan try Division (Mech) Tank Gunnery Assistance Team and included

both overall Table VIII scores and time/accuracy measures on individua l

engagements. Performance criteria used for TCs were Table VIII overall

scores , because the TC has com plete supervisory responsibility over the

tank crew. Table VIII scores incorporated the sum of all performances

with main tank gun and machine gun engagements . Performance (time to

first round and success) on main tank gun precision engagements against

stationary targets (P—S engagements) was also used as TC criteria . Such

engagements require a great deal of TC involvement in terms of both his

physical performance requirements and supervisory responsibility.

Criteria used for GNRs were Table Viii scores and time and success on

main tank gun battlesig ht engagements against stationary targets (BS—S

engagements). F~~re , Table VIII scores were chosen because the gunner is

involved in all the major components. Battlesight main gun engagements

were chosen because these are primaril y a CNR ’s task and require a relativel y small per formance contribution from the TC.

The DVR ’s criteria were the DVR’s ranking in the platoon (as assigned

by the platoon sergeant and platoon leader) and Table VIII overall score.

Similarly , LDR’s criteria were LD1~’s rankings and Table VIII overall

scor e .

RES tJLTS

Mo tiva tion scor es based on A , I, R, and TR sources were calculated

for each man in each crew position on each test administration . For

tank commanders , Pearson product—moment correlation coefficients were

calculated between each of their three criteria (Table VIII total score ,

number of successful P—S engagements , and time on P—S engagements) and

each of the eight motivation scores (A, I, R and TR for both motivation

assessmen ts). Because of the special interest in R and TR as motivation

sources having greatest management potential , the multi ple correlation

between these and the criteria was calculated , as well as the semipartial

correlation showing the ind ividual contribution of each source.’’ The

multiple regression analysis with R and TR allowed for the optimal combination of these sources with our composite—source model . All above

mentioned statistics are shown in Table 2.

11 Sem ipart ial correlation (sr’s) was chosen because sr coefficients

rather than partial coefficients , provide the best index of the relationship of a particular variable to criterion variance with the

effects of one other variable removed . Semipartial correlation coef—

ficients tend to be lower than partial correlation coefficients and

have a sign Indicati ng the direction of the relationshi p between the

pr ed icto r va r iable and the criterion. When partial correlation coef—

ficients are significantly differen t from zero , semipartial correlation

coefficients are also , and vice versa (Cohen , J., and Cohen , P.

App lied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral

Sciences. Hillsdale , N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum , 1975.)

— 14 —

____
Table 2

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED MEASURES OF TANK COMMANDERS ’ PERFORMANCE

MOTIVATION AND SELECTED TABLE VIII MEASURES

NCriterion : Number Time to

Motivation N Successful First

Sou rce N,,. Table VIII Engagements Round a

A 1st Adm — .05 +.O9 +.Of,

I ‘ +.26 +.34* .00

R “ +.25 +.30 +.09

TR _ .46** - .18 — .03

N = 29

A 2nd Adm — .02 +.11 +.19

I “ + .16 +.28 +.14

R + .O5 +.1l + , 15

TR “ — .19 .00 — .14

N = 26

R R&TR 1st Adm .68*** .46* .09

Sr R “ + .5 0*** + .4 2** — .08

Sr TR “ _ .63*** _

~~35* +.O1

R R&TR 2nd Adm . 39 . 18 . 37

Sr R ‘ +.34* +.18 +.35b

Sr TR “ — . 39** — .15 — . 34b

aT,., is is a measure where small values are “good ” and high values “bad.” Thus , signs have been reversed to make these

coefficients compatible with the other relationships depicted in this table.

p <.10,2-tailed

~~~ < .05, 2-tailed

~~~~ < .01 . 2-tailed

The mul tiple correlation coefficient between TR and R sources of

motivation (those that are most easil y managed) and Table VIII scores

(the princ ipal criterion for tank commanders) was .68, (p < .001), m d i—

ca ting a very strong rela tionsh ip be tween the se so urces and Table VIII

scores . Figure 3 shows a graph of this relationship.

Analysis of regression indicated a significant increment in prediction ,

from r .46 for TR alone (accounting for 21% of Table \1III var iance) to

R = .68 (accounting for 46% of Table VIII variance ) when both TR and R

were included . Note that while TR and R motivation sources contributed

strongly to TC performance , the relationship between R sources and per—

formance (as indicated by srR — +50 , p < .002) was strongly positive

whereas the relationship between TR sources and performance (sr — — . 63 ,

p < .001) was strongly negative . Plots of the se relationships are shown

in Figures 4 and 5.

— 15 —
2000 -

1 900 -

U

U

1800 .

U

U

1 700 . a

U

V., U.

LU

L) U

V ’ 1600 .

U

U

.

~~~1500 .

1400 . U

U U

U

1300

U U

1200

U

1100

1300 1400 1 500 1600 1700 1800

DERIVED TABLE V III SCORES

Figure 3. The Relationship between Actual Table VIII Scores and Derived Scores Based on Tank

Commanders’ Performance Motivation

— 16 —

I - I 

- - .- ,- -

~~ ~~

--

~~

--

~~~~~~~~

-.—‘- - 

-~~ ,,

- 

____________ ~~~~~ ____ ______
r

~~~~

. -

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

‘

-

~~~~~~ 

—

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

--

~~~~~~~

-- - --

__ -—__

21 00

U

2000.

1900 -

U

U

1 800.

U

• .

vs 1700 a LU

L)

vs . . ~ 1600 U

LU 

-J .

1

1500 U

1400 U U

U

1 300’ U

1200’

U

1100.

-140 -100 -60 -20 +20 +60 +100 +140

TC’S MOTIVATION BASED ON RECOGNITION SOURCES

Figure 4. The Relationship between Actual Table VIII Scores and Derived Scores Based on Tank

Commanders’ Recognition Based Motivation

— 17 —

____ 

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

H

2100

U

2000

1900

U

1800 U U

U

U.

~~ 1700

0

L)

vs

~~ 1600 U

U

U . I.-

U

~ 1500 I,—

U

U

U

U

1400 U

U U

U

1300

U U

1200

U

1100

I U

-50 -30 -10 +10 +30 +50 +70 +90

IC ’S MOTIVATION BASED ON TANGIBLE REWARD SOURCES

Figure 5. The Relationshir between Actual Table VIII Scores and Derived Scores Based on Tank

Commanders’ Tangible Reward Based Motivation

— 18 —

-

L ——.=--- --- —--— —— ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

—
p.--

Because a relationship of this nature was not anticipated , data

from the three individual companies were analyzed to determine whether

the relationship would hold up in what could be considered three small

independent replications of the same study. The results of these

analyses are presented in Table 3. In all cases the erR’s were positive , and the srThls negative , reflecting the relationship observed for the

battalion over all .

Table 3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TABLE VIII AND TANK COMMANDERS ’

R AND TR MOTIVATION SCORES , BY COM PANY

Company n RTable VIII. R&TR srR sr.FR

A 10 .64 +.56 — .53

B 11 .87 +.29 — .86

C 8 .57 +.53 — .48

When TR and R sources were combined ad~

’itively, as suggested by a

conventional expectancy model rather than the composite—source model

evaluated in this researc h , the re was no relationship between motivation

and performance (r = .02 , p > .20).

Because of the particularly strong relationship between performance

and motivation based on TR and R sources , the individual components of

the model were evaluated in an attempt to identify the source of the

relationship. No relationship was found between TCs’ Effort—Performance

Expectancies (EPE) alone and performance (r +.071 , p > .20). Thus the

EPE component of the model was probably not a significant contributor

to the results illustrated in Figures 1 , 2, and 3. Next , TCs ’ Performance Outcome Expectancies (PO 1E) were evaluated for TR and R outcomes.

PO 1

E based on TR sources proved to be the best predic tor (r — — .634,

p < .001, accounting for 40% of the criterion variance). The addition

of PO1E for R variables yielded a significant increment in variance—

accounted—for (8% increment , p .055). Mirroring the full model results,

the semipartial correlation coefficients based on POiES were — .690,

(p < .001) and +.283, (p — .055) for TR and R outcomes respectively. An

analogous analysis with TC outcome values (OVs) revealed neither significant zero—order , semipartial , or multiple correlation (all p > .20).

Thus, the sources of the motivation—performance relationships would seem

to stem from a strong negative relationship between TR POjE and performance , and a smaller but significant positive relation between R POiE and

performance.

— 19 —
F - -

~~~~

---

~~ ~~~

- -

~~~~~ 

. 

~~~~

-

~~~

-‘-

~~~~~

----.- --- — - 

~~~~

. . 

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

An analysis schema analogous to tha t used for TCs was used to determine the relationship between CNRs’ motivation scores and their criteria

(Table VIII score , number of successful BS—S engagements , and time to

first round on BS—S engagements). Th-se results are shown in Table 4. This analysis indicated a relationsh~, which was, in part , the reverse

of that indicated for TCs: ~

2~R motivation based on R sources revealed

a small but significant negative relation to Table VIII total score

and number of successful BS—S engagements.

The DVRs’ and LDRs’ motivation scores were related to their ratings

and Table VIII overall scores in the same manner as for TCs and GNRs. These results are shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

Table 4

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED MEASURES OF GUNNERS ’ PERFORMANCE

MOTIVATION AND SELECTED TABLE VIII GUNN ERY MEA SURES

BS—S

Criterion : Table VIII Number of Time

a

N Successful to

Source Engagements First Round

A 1st Adm — .09 — .17 —.08

I “ — .23 —.25 —.05

R “ — . 34** — . 34** — . 26

— .06 — .12 4.04

N — 38

A 2nd Adm — .18 +.O1

I “ —.06 — .13 —.27

R “ — .24 —.11

TR “ — .27 +.05 —.26

N — 38

R R&TR 1st Adm .39 .36 .36

Sr R “ _ .39*** _.34**

Sr TR “ +.19 +.12 +.25

R R&TR 2nd Mm .27 .27

Sr R “ — .05 —.26

Sr TR “ — .12 +.25 +.19

aThis is a measure v,here smal l values are “good” and high values “bad.” Thus, signs have been reversed to make

th ese coefficients compatible with the other relationships depicted in this table.

p <.10.2-tailed

~~p < ,05. 2-tailed

~~~p < .01, 2-tailed

— 20 —
r

Table 5

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED MEASURES OF DRIVERS’ PERFORMANCE

MOTIVATION AND SELECTED TABLE VIII GUNNERY MEASURES

Source Criteria : Table VIII Ranking a

A 1st Adm — . 22 +. 40*

I — .20 +.44**

R “ — .07 +.41*

TR “ +. 04 +.31

N — 21

A 2nd Adni — .18 +.27

i “ — .12 +. 20

R “ 4.01 4.27

TR “ 4.02 +. 08

N — 21

R R&TR 1st Adni .18 .41

Sr R “ +. 17 4.26

Sr TR “ +.18 4.03

R R&TR 2nd Mm .02 .42

Sr R “ — .01

Sr TR “ 4.02 .33

5This is a measure where small values are “good” and hi gh values “bad.” Thus , signs have been reversed to make these

coefficients compatibl e with the other relationships depicted in this table.

~

p < .10. 2-tailed

p < 05. 2-tailed

~~~p < .01 , 2-t ailed

As Tables 2—5 show, the same interesting pattern emerged for the

relationship between motivation based on TR sources and motivation based

on R for the nonfirers in the tank , the TC, DVR , and LDR. All signif 1—

cant relationships between R and performance measures were positive (4

for TC, 2 DVR , 3 for LDR). For motivation based on TR sources, all

significant relationships were negative (5 for TC, and 1 for LDR). Gunners, who actually fired the tanks, presented a different picture. All

significant relationships between R and performance for GNRs were negative

(7 instances), presenting a marked contrast to the positive relationships 

between R and performance for nonfirers (TCs , DVRs, and LDRs).

Correlation coefficients between first and second administration

motivation measures were calculated for each crew position and each motivation source. Then the weighted average correlation across crew

positions was calculated . These are shown for each motivation source

in Table 7. All mean r’s were significant, but A, I, and R had markedly

higher correlations than TR.

— 21 —

—

~

---- - —---a ‘ 

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

--•~~~~~ - - ___
Table 6

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED MEASURES OF LOADERS ’ PERFORMANC E

MOTIVATION AND SELECTED TABLE VIII GUNNERY MEA SURES

Criteria : Table VIII Rankinga

Source _____________________________________________________

A 1st Mm .00 4.10

I “ — .07 — .04

H “ +.5O** +.23

TR ‘ 4.09 4.09

N 2 0

A 2nd Mm — .02 — .13

I “ 4.15 4.13

R 4.33 +.27

TR ‘ 4.34 4.02

N = 20

R R&TR 1st Mm 57** .24

Sr R “ +.56*** 4.23

SR TR “ — .28 — .08

R R&TR 2nd Mm .35 .48

Sr R “ +.09

Sr TR ‘ +.IO

a

Th is is a measure where small values are “good” and high values “bed.” Thus, signs have been reversed to make these

coef ficients compatibl e with the other relationships depicted in this table,

p < .10, 2-tailed

“p < .05, 2-tailed

“•p < .01, 2-tailed

Finally, in order to determine the direction of any overall group

changes in motivation scores over the 10 weeks between motivation measurements , a 4 x 4 x 2 ANOVA was conducted , having as factors motivation

source (A, I, H and TR), crew position (TC, GNR , DVR , and LDR), and

measurement time (10 weeks or 1 day before the TCQC — Table VIII). After

the first motivation measurement , but before the second , the battalion

commander had announced that a number of tang ible rewards, as well as a

certain degree of recognition , would be awarded to men in the top tank

crews on the TCQC. It might be expected , therefore , that motivation

levels based on TR sources , and perhaps R sources , would have increased

between the two measurements. The results of the ANOVA , however ,

indicated only one significant main effect , Notivation Source (F = 113 ,

df 3/315, p <.00]). The means were 91 , 102, 146, and 190 f or TR , A

R, and I, respectively. Ouly one interaction proved significant ,

Motivation Source x Crew Position (F 2.13, df = 9/315 , p < .025).

All other main effects and interactions failed to reach significance

(all F’ s < 1.69, all p’s >.10).

—22 —

,,. k* r.e,-

~~ ’ .

- S’-~~~~t . -

- - - 

~

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

- -
~ -

Table 7

RELATiONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION MEASURES ADMINISTERED 10 WEEKS

PRIOR TO AND 1 DAY PRIOR ID THE TCQC

TC GN R DR LDR

n=26 n’38 ~~25 n20

rRl_R 2 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ •35* .63*** ~~~~~

r11_ .12 .76*** 43*** .62*** .6 .56***

rThl_TR2 •47*** .21 .19 .21 .27***

rAl_A2 .71*** .42*** .36* .61*** 53***

p< iO, 2-tailed

~~p< .05. 2-tailed

••

~ p< -C l . 2-tailed

DISCUSSION

The results of this stud y b ring to light several interesting rela—

tionships between motivation and performance , and ind icate a number of

potential uses of these relationships in motivation management strategies. ~ie of our first questions dealt with the relation between

motivation , as measured by an instrument based on a composite—source

model from expectancy theory, and observable performanc e in tank gunnery.

While previous research with the additive model by a number of investigators had pcovided some support for motivation—performance relationships , most investigations reported only modest relationships . There are

several reports of relatively strong relationshi ps between motivation

and performance ratings——suc h as Or pen ’s ( 1975)— —but only one study has

shown a significant relationship where actual observable behavior was the

performance criterion. ’2 In Matsui and Terai’s study, the significant

result was due in part to the large N (190): r ’s were in the .20’s. The

research presented here represents the first report (to the author’s

L knowledge) of really strong relationships demonstrated between expectancy

th eory—based motivation measures and a “hard” criterion of observable

behavior.

L 

‘2Matsul , T., and Terai , T. A cross—cultural study of the validity of the

expectancy theory of work motivation . Journal of Applied Psychology,

1975 , ,

~~~~~~~, 

263—265. 

- 

- 23- 

- - 

-
There are several possible reasons for this. First , the measu res

we r e taken in con j unction with a tr aining pr og r am . Motivatio n could

affect the degree to which the preparatory training was effective , and

through this relationship, affect criterion performance. This concept

is supported by the markedly stronger relation bet ween TCs ’ first motivation measures and performance than between their second measures and

performance. TCs have primary responsibility for training their crews .

Thus , differences in TCs’ motivation early in training could markedly

affect their crews ’ training and later performance.

From the relationships between motivation performance across the

four crew positions , it becomes apparent that the strongest relationships

were for TCs. As suggested above , this is not particularly surprising in

that the individua l TCs’ motivation can affect not only his own performance in training and testing , but also the degree to which his crew

benefits from training and performs during testing . The TC can , to some

extent , override any effects of gunner , driver , or loader motivation

through his supervision , leadership, and command responsibilities .

A second major fac tor leading to the stronger motivation—performance

relationships with observable behavior reported here was the use of a

composite—source model of motivation . The composite—source model , where—

in summations are made separately within each category and sources are

treated separately, is different from the more conventional additive

procedure in which (POiE) (OiV) products are summed over all outcomes

regardless of category. A great deal of current theoretical discussion

supports looking at the components separately. Both Dcci (1971 , 1972,

and 1975) and Notz (1975) have offered convincing data and discussion

cham pioning the potential interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation sources.13 In 1972, Dcci reported an experiment wherein

performance of students given recognition (“verbal reinforcement”) was

superior to that of students given none and inferior to that of students

promised tangible reward .

Dccl’s result was similar to that observed for our non—firers (tank

commanders , drivers , and loaders). For men in these positions , all

relationships between motivation based on recognition sources and performance were positive, and all for tangible reward sources were negative . Dcci interpreted his result as consistent with the hypothesis that

extrinsic motivation serves to decrease intrinsic motivation (and thus

performance based primarily on intrinsic motivation sources). Recognition , according to Deci , “was not phenomenologically distinguishable from

internal satisfaction” and served to increment intrinsic motivation.

Assuming Dcci’s interpretation is correct for his data , one additional ingredient would be needed to make the conclusion to appl y to our

TC , DVR , and LDR data as well . Dcci measured intrinsic motivation by

looking at post—criterion performance , when he assumed extrinsic motivation

~~Dec i , E. L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic

motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971 , j

105— 1 15. ~~

— 24 —

__________________
-

~~~~~

-----

~~~~~~

- ---- 

~~~

-

~~~~~~~

-— - —

~~~~

---

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

-- ---. . ----

~~~~~~ 

-- -- -

sources were not acting to affect performance. He noted , however , that

in other cases pre—criterion performance might be positively affected

by expectancy of extrinsic outcomes . We would have to assume that

even though training performance preceded criterion gunnery qualification , for certain critical (but unspecified) training elements , no

causal relationship was perceived be tween training performance on those

elements and TR criterion performance. Thus, performance would have to

have been motivated by intrinsic sources and (according to Dcci) closely

associated recognition sources. Increased recognition—based motivation

would thus have incremented pe rformance. Increased tangible reward

motivation , however , would have decreased intrinsic/recognition—based

motivation but failed in itself to incr ement pe rfo rmanc e , thus leading

to a net performance decrement. Obviously, any firm adhe r ence to suc h

hypothesized mechanisms would require independent confirmation of the

basic assumptions.

Such an interpretation was not consistent with the gunners’ results.

Although one might wish that the results were chance occurrences that

would not be replicated , the number of significant relationships seriously weakens that notion . An argument could be made that for gunners ,

unlike TCs’, drivers , and loaders , gunnery performance is more under the

direc t control of the reinforcing contingencies offered by tangible

reward , and less affected by effects of intrinsic motivation . It is not

clear , however , why that should be the case for onl y gunners when all

contingencies were apparentl y ope rationally app lied equall y, without

regard to crew position . It would probably be best to suggest that this

is a finding for which no readil y credible explanation is available.

The results for three of the four positions are apparently related to

motivational sources in a way which is consistent with contemporary literature. What management strategies , then , are most likely to benefit

the crew performance? Given the general negative relation between

extrinsic (tangible reward) motivation and performance , tangible reward

would seem to be an inappropriate motivation management strategy. Perhaps efforts should be extended to reduc e the relatively widespread use

of such management strategies . If one were to infer some causal relation

between TR and performance , then for TCs , DVRs and LDRs, the strategy

may be damaging . If no causal relationship is inferred , one can at least

suggest tha t suc h management would provide little positive benefit , and

expending the manager ’s effort on TR may prevent his concentrating on

other sources.

Recognition sources , on the other hand , look more promising . A

potential strategy would be to manage motivation through the management

of recognition sources which are relatively “pure” in the sense of being

free of associated tangible reward . Such a strategy might be expected to

increment the motivation of TCs, DVR5 , and LDRs , if any causal relationship can be inferred from the correlations we observed . That such causal

relationships might be expected can be inferred from the causal correlational analysis presented by Lawler (1968).

— 25 —

_____________________________________ -- - - 

- - . - 

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

The time factor noted above is also important in terms of the poten—

tial for use of management strategies . If motivation measured just prior

to performance was the only measure related to performance , management

opportunities would be extremely limited . In our case , however , the

relatively long (10—week) time period between measured motivation and

performance suggests the possibility that motivation could be effectivel y

managed during this time . Management of recognition sources seems to

be an appropriate first step.

What of the effect of this procedure on gunner ’s performance? Hopefully, it would not decrement gunner ’s performance. If one were to

attribute the majority of crew performance to the supervision , leade rshi p, and command emphasis given crews by TCs dur ing training , overall

improved performance might be expected . Such a thesis awaits empirical

confirmation .

PHASE III , INTENSIVE OUTCOME ANALYSIS

Although outcomes were identified in Phase I which proved appropriate

for use in a motivation assessment instrument in Phase II, further questions remained which the Phase I pilot data did not answer. Answers to

these questions take on a good deal of importance , given the relative

success of the initial research with the composite—source motivation

mod el presented in Phase II.

Because of the small samp le available in Phase I, it was not possible

to determine with any confidence the relative value to the individual or

frequency of the majority of the performance outcomes. Only relatively

gross differences could be determined . In Phase III, a much larger

sample was used in order to provide relatively small confidence intervals

for each mean value and frequency, thus allowing finer distinctions to

be made between outcomes. Secondly, in the Phase I research , the small

sample size did not permit comparisons to be made between outcome values

and frequencies as perceived by men of differen t grades. This com parison

could be very important , however , in either the refinement of a motivation measurement instrument or the development of a motivation management

program . If perceived values or frequencies do vary with grade , separate

procedur es or strategies may be required for men 1.n the different grades.

Such a result seems a distinct possiblility, given the variation in

pay, prestige , career commitment , and personal freedom afforded men of

different grades.

The specific objectives of this phase of the research were the refinement of our knowledge about the value and frequency of outcomes in an

operational Armor battalion , and evaluation of the effect of military

grade on these value and frequency perceptions.

METHOD

Research Participants. The research participants were 112 Armor

crewmen in an armor battalion undergoing annual tank gunnery qualification at Fort Carson , Colorado. The sample included 30 Privates (E2),

34 Privates First Class (E3), 23 Specialists (E4), and 25 Sergeants (ES).

L -26 -

L __ . .

‘ .

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

— -
P rocedure. A civilian emp loyee of the Army Research Institute administered the outcome questionnaire (Appendix A) under controlled classroom

conditions in conjunction with several additional instruments pertinent

to a separate stud y. As in Phases I and II , guarantees of confidentialty

were given .

RESULTS

Of the 112 armor crewmen partici pating in the study, 102 (91%) followed the instructions in completing the questionnaire , and their answers

were included in the anal ysis of the resul ts. “ Following instructions”

was defined as respond i ng in such a way that not more than 80% of the

outcomes were given the same rating . This criterion was designed to

eliminate those who did not consider the outcomes individuall y but simply

went down the response column giving all or almost all outcomes the same

answer . Of the 102 men who followed instructions , 26 were E2s , 31 were

E3s , 20 were E4s, and 25 were E5s .

An Outcome by Rank unweighted—means analysis of variance was conducted

separately for the soldiers ’ value and frequency ratings. The procedures

outlined in Winer 14 were followed . The analysis of frequency responses

yielded a reliable main effect of Outcome (F = 23.51, df = 50/4900 , p <

.001). This resul t indicates a significan t difference in the soldiers ’

pe rceptions of the frequency with which outcomes occurred . The main

effec t of Grade and the interaction of Outcome by Grade , however , were

not significant (F’s < 1.00, dfs 3/98 and 150/4900, respectively). This

result indicates that there was neither any overall difference between

grades in perceived outcome frequency nor any significant variation in

the way men of different grades perceived the frequency of the various

outcomes. The outcomes , and their mean frequencies are shown in Table 8.

The mean within—rank variance for each outcom e , also shown , is an indication of the degree to which the crewmen agreed upon the frequency of

each outcome . To permit com parisons of any pair of outcome means , a “critical difference” at the 1% level was computed , yielding a value of

.55. The confidence interval of any particular mean was ± .39.

Jut identical analysis of the outcome value s revealed a signif ican t

main effect of Outcome (F = 12.07, df = 50/490 0 , p < .001), indicating

highly significant differences in the perceived values of the outcomes .

Again , the main effect of grade did not prove to be a significant - source

of variance (F < 1.00 , df = 3/98). Thus, value perceptions over all

outcomes were not a function of grade . Outcome by Grade interaction

approached but did not reach significance (F = 1.22, df = 150/4900 ,

p = .038). Because of the very small F—value obtained , and the very

large df , the interaction was judged to be of no practical significance.

Therefore, overall mean values for each outcome are shown in Table 9.

Again , outcome variances , the critical diffe rence between means , .58 ,

and the confidence interval of a mean , ± .41, are also shown .

~

4Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.

New York: McGraw—Hill , 1971.

-27 -

L ~

. -- — ---- -- - ------ --— • - -

~~~~~~

-- - -
-

~~

5 .0

0

W

S

o 5 ‘0 0

‘0 5 0 4-’ 0 1-I .0 l.i 00 5 o 0 U

EO. S ‘0 w E W .,-4 woo 4~

1 E 4 1-i t., “

~~ S -~4 ’~4

0 .5 0

4 ’ i OO U~~~ U) 0 5 U U ES .5 i-i .0 5 .-4 00’0 U t-i -,-l 1.1 1.1 ~ -

‘ ~ 4 0 W W ~~~ C0. ~~ 0 5 .3 t-i O S ‘—4 “-,

.000 ,5

~~~ O~~~~ UO U Ct O ’i-4 Ct

~~~~~~~~~~ bO o ’-4 00 O~ Q ) U U t-i U) m. E t.~ t-~~-,-l .5 4,1 t.~ U E U ~~~ b0 ‘0 55 US 00 0) ‘

~4 0 t

~ 0

‘0 O t-. .—4 U) S 0) S’0 U U ~ 0 5 0 “-4 - t~~ -’-4 U ,0 U-4 0 -.-4 S ‘,-I 0

0 0) OU .SCO

~~~(

t O ’0 ~~~~4-1 r-~~

,5 S U ) U~~~ ‘

.-4 .5 U SO) .5’0~~ ~~~~~‘4 U 4-i t.& O t.i W E .0 U I

~ 55.5.-I U S I-i t-i~~~~ -,-4~~~ E O -.-I w o .-‘IU).0 1 1-’ oO O U~~~~~~~ S C O O UO 00 0) 0) .5 0) 0) 0.. Ct O U)S’1-4 .5 0 -.-4 0.~~ i— , -.-4 .5 CO S I-. U ~~ 5 t-i U ~~~~W~~~ 4 ~~~~~~~~~~ U) ~

‘_

~ 0 0 I-i U

Z 0) O I.i

~~~~ 5 50. 1-i U) U00 O~~~~ 005 0. ~

1-1 ~ E ‘0 m 0~~~ 5 0 — 4 0 S o S’0 SS0.U 5(0 0) 0) ‘

4-. s 0 O~~~.0 ,50)r4 ~~~~~~ 4 5 5 .,-4 ~ ~~~~~ 0) .0

U 0O~~~ U ‘0 .5 I-~ 0) U~~~~~ W0 

’ OE I-i 0 U

o U S OCU 0)5 0) ~~~S 00 ’

,-4 1-i t-i —I ‘00 ~~~ U I-i

z ~ “ - 4 655 ~~~ C0S0. U ’.-4 S~~~ o W.0 00 0 0. .5 U) 0

0 > 0 --I U -,‘4~~~ -..l -.-4 ’

-e., 0, U ) - ,- 4 E >-~ .

~~~-,-4 0 . m>~ W 0.

> -. ~~~~W U) ‘0 5 5 6 U )’~

’I ‘4E5.5 OCO U 0. .5 9-i t-i~~ -4 ,5 5 4-I .‘-4W ’ .-4 1-i ~~4 W5I.i .—4 0 5U) )-i 0. -’-4 0

~~~-‘~ UOIi 1-i 0 E 5~~~ $.i 0

~~~ S~~~- it-i I-. ~ i

u-i : 5 (0 5’0Ct~~~ U) I

~~ 0 S C O 0.’0 a)’-l-i 0) >~~5 00 30 OWU S 0 .0 WU> CO CO I-i 5 ’0 SIt U S 5 0 0) 0) >s 5.5 ~~WU ) 5~~~~~ CO ‘U I-I -

‘0 0 0)10 >~~~~ U U.-45 WOIi U 0 )0 0) .510 00 — 

~~~~~~~ 5cO 5~~~ 0) ( 0 0 ~~~~~ I-I l’-i -’-4 5 ,-4 U 0) 0. 5 .0 _ 0 CO t) .5 .5 5 0 .0.5 5 1-. 5 0 ) 0 SUO •r~~~t) 0. 5)

~~~~~ 0. UI-i 4.J 0 ’I-4 U )0 . ~~4 ’ •4 ~~~ I - I 0’, ~~.’l 0 0. .-4~~~ ~~~~I-i ’4-i Q -,-I -,-4 ~~~~C O 0 U) ~~~5 i.J W .5 ‘-4 .-I

-~ - ‘-- ‘ G ) 0 ~~~’ 300 i.~~~3 i.i ij 0 ,5 6 000 0 i.1 ‘0 1.15)0 1 0

)‘

~~~~ >-

~~~. >-~~>- 0. 0) ‘-4 U ~-. 1,J S >~ 0 610 0) . 50 . 5 llC ‘—4 0 EU ) ‘0I -i’0W ‘— 4 U E ~1

~~~~4~~~~4 

~~5 ’00. U t) ~ 1 ) 1-i 1.i S U Cd U CO CO CO CO lt CO 0—4 C0 0) CO l’S U 5

~~~ 0 .00 W I.)S U)O)

~~ “—‘ II 0) .5S~~ -. 1-.~~~ 0) . 5 0 0)1-. .

5 COWW 1.1

o I.. 00 U~-4 iJ i,JCt Q. 0.0.001.. I JE >S U O 0 C0 00 U> > 0 0 o S 5) 05 -‘-4 0. 5 5 1 .’ - 4 06 00 ’-4 00 .5 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0. -.-4 00 00 00 00 00-.-4 00-.-4 0. 00 00 Z if’. 5>5 5 >5 SS 00 5 >5> 00

o ~~ - •,-4 “-4 00 ‘

~

-4 -‘-4 ,-4 ‘-4 - -4 00 ‘

~ 4 - ‘~ 4 ‘~4 00 5 ~—4 -.-4 - ‘,-4 00 00 00 0) 5 r-4 0J15 4 ’4 >, l.l ~‘45W ~~ 4.4 5

~~~4 . ‘ 4 W U W 555. ~~~’.-4 WUW—4 0)0)101-1 W -,-4 U 1-l WW’,- 4 .~ U U UU -.-4 ’

.-4 -.-4 -,-4 >

~~ lla U0 ) WW Q) W —4 0) 0) 0) 0 ) 0 ) 0)5)5)10 G) G)UU WWW. — 4 10 1’) t

~~ I~ ‘i-i .0 ~

4-1 ‘4-i 0. 00 14’i .0 I’. 00 4.4 ‘-i-i ,0 U ‘4-~ 1-i 00 I-i .

0 .0 .

0 ‘—~ .5

U)-

S

CO 0) +~ E S

CO S W

W E

0)

U U S

CO

.0 0 5 - -

~~ C”. 0’. 0 ‘.000 it ’. It’, ‘.0 C’-I -

~~ .,t ~~ 00 N. C”~ (“‘I r-4 ‘

.0 N’ C’-’. ,—4 C’~ It’.

CO 1.. a”. rn 00 00 .—I C’) 0’. ‘.0 —I ,—i .-I r’-l N. r-. -

~ C”) 00 00 Lr’. C’) ‘.0 r-.

W 0)5 • . . - . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

U 5 ~ >~ ,-4 C”) - ,-4 C’.) C”) C”) .-4 C’) C’., C’) (‘.1 (‘4 C’) ,—4 C’.) C”) .-I (‘4 .—4 C’) C’) C’-) —I

5 >

0)I.i

5)4.1

“45

“-I — -1-4

‘001U

U COW S

5)

S

1_I ~~-‘ S C (

~t 0” N. 00 N’ (‘-1 00 N’ r-. a’. C”. .-4 0000 ~

am C”. -0’ ~

J”. 0 -0’ C”. C”. 00

.,,4 5 5~ C”. ‘—I .—4 0’. 0’~ 0”. 00 00 00 N. N’ N’ ‘.0 ‘

.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 Lñ -1’ C’) C”) .—4 ‘—4 ‘-4 0

i. O 4) 1. . . . . , . . , . . , . . . . . . . . - . 0 1.) ~ ra. .

~~ -~ -

~~ c-”. c’-’. m c’. C”. C”. ~ m m rn m m C’-’. m C”. C”.

— 28 —

- _ _ __ __ •_ _3___ . -----

.

. - - *-- —~~ —

- —~~ -— 

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

-

_ ~~~~~~~~~ _

~~~—--~~ ---~

- - ———‘—---- — - -
~ - - . — - - -

1,4

a)

0.

CO

0.

CO U)

6 5) 5) 1.1 5) 5 0) o -

~ ‘0 .

~~~U) 5 100) -‘-4 5 -,‘4 0i 10 5)1. 1-. )

6 .5 0 0) 5 .0 0 I.J U)

1-i UH,5 ’ 0 0 U ~~~ ‘H 1.I

0 ‘.-.. U -,-4 ~“1 5) 0 >5 ,

~~ w ‘

4-. 55) 0 4.1 E >-‘~-4 G) 5) 0) 1-i -“4 0. -.-I 5 0 U I-. 0) ~ 5) ~~~~ 4-i S ,5 0 ) 05 ~ 0. .0 >-CO O 00 0 1010 0. 10

0 .-1 0 1. 5)

U >-‘. 1-. 0 .~~~1. 5 1.

5) S~~~ 1. 0) CO ~ 0 .~~~‘0 I-i~~~ 0 0 5 1., ‘ 0 5) 00 5) 1-. ‘0 0 0) 3J 00 ‘4-4 0 U 0.) U >- ~ ‘4-4 ‘0 ~~ - 3~ 0 ~

I 1. .5

- -‘-4 Sb -,-4 ‘—4 5) ,.. U ~~~~ U 0i- J 00 0 10.-it-i 00’,-4 >- Q) ‘-4 C~ S’0U C~ U) 5 0 ‘4-

~~~S 5 -1.10 0 ‘ HU) .0,5 -H 0 1~~~ -~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 - _ I 0 0 ’0”- 4 (1) 5 U ~

—4 0.5 0) C O O 1-. 0,. 55)0 565 ‘,-4 5 1-. 1 1) 0 5 5 5)4-1 1-. 5~~ 05) U ‘) 1-~ W I-iWU (00 0 0) 5 0. 5 5 ) 0 5 >- 5) > 1-i S .55)50. ‘~4U) 0 11) 0 0 1. 1-. .5 1. ~~~~ 5)

CO - H t) S U ‘I~~~~ U OCOO U )

0) ~~~ 0 Ci) ~~~ 1-. CO> 1-i Li-i b 4 - 4 55 ‘H O 4-. >, 0) >-.

6 60) 0 001-. ’.-. W — 1 0) LI~i -H 0 5 >- 5 I-i U 0. 1-i l-. 0 0 1-. >-EWW 0 . 0) 1 .. 5 QUCO4J 4.1 ‘.-4 CI)OU - ’ - 4 (1)05)

U 1.. 1.. U)~~~ ‘0 0 . (OWU CO 4.1 ‘4-i ~ - ‘4-i 0 ‘0 ‘.-4 ~ 1-. 1-. ‘0 6 Q) >- ‘0 U >- 00 -

~ 4 I)) -H 0.,

0’ ‘US U ) U ) ~~~~~~S 4.4 O U’0 U -,-I >-’. 1-. CJ>-S E 0)

0 1-1 > -C ’0 105 0 0 ( 0 0 1.1.5-H U>U 0 — 4 55 00 0 0) -‘-4 - 1-. 0 00 >- > -6 u-i .4-.0 5 1-1 ~~~U -H’0 00U-i 5 -,-4 U I - iE O CO 0 >-Ui-i 61. .00 0 ’0 ’0 U) > 1-. 0 -‘ - 4 >10 0 ) 0 > >- ‘—I 1 .0 00 ) U I4,4 U .55 - ‘-4.50 ‘0 1-i --I

5 1.5 5 1-it) >- 5 ) U O-,-4 5 0 0) 1 . . 1 0 W’0~~~ 140 1. 50)

> ‘H1.U > ‘0 5) 000 0.1. 5 0.5’0 5) 5 0) 0 . L4 ‘H OCt 0 -’-4 0 W > ’. —4 EU) 50. CO CO CO CO USU 44 5)

0.-~~~~~ CO .5 Li-.. E 5 ESO U) 1-i ’H O. S U COU 15> - U U C O S S ,-4 (O c/) 0 ) 5 > 0 6000 0) 0) 4-i

~~~0)~~~~ ’0 5 W .S U O U Q . : 1 0 0 10 OU 1-i 04-i 5~~~ E ’0U) 0) 0. i— -,-4 -H 14U1.. 1 6 1.. ,S U ) 5 1. ES 0. 0 10 0 5

0’4 0 U 5 ) 0 0) 1. Ct ‘4 4U 0U ,-4 .-4 1.50

>-6 >0. S 5) 0 ~~~ 0 it’. E I-i U 1.1.0.5 L4~4 C 0 U 5) 1’. ‘0 CO 0. 0 1-.. U .5 > C’) ‘4-4 ‘0 -H U-i ‘-i ~ ‘H .—4

~~

I 5) 5 (1) ‘0 ‘0 0 U ‘4-i 5) (1) 4-1 ~J)- 3 0) 4-1 0 0 U ‘0 ‘0 0)0) . 50 0) > U -.

~~~. S UW 5)0)5)

5 ) 5 ) 4 4 0, . 0 ) 5 (0 5) 5 )5)0.1.. C”) 0. 0 ) 0 )>

0 5 1.551. 1-i t.. 5 ) 0 ) 1. - ‘ - 4 1 .6 5 5 0) 1 5 01. 0 X E0C ~3 0 0)0)0 0 00 0 0) —4 > 00 0 ~

‘4 0 U0 00 r ,—4 Q Li-i ,-4

S S E ’.-i1. E S E S -S - ,-455 Q ) E X >- S ,O C O ~ -H 0 0 - ~t U 1-i -H U 00 00 -H 1. 0) -H 00 CO 0) 00 (0 > 5 > 5 00 00 00 00 > 5 >00 00 00 >5 0)) 5 -.‘4 -.4 -,-4 -H 5 00 00 5 5 5 -H O)) -H 00-H 5 00 5 00 5 -H -H 005 00 -H O)) 5)4.15)44 - H 5 5’ H ‘H -,-4 Qj 5 U 5 5) ’,-4 5’H S’H 5)4.1 5 -H S U S U U UU > - ‘-4 ”-4 > > > U -’-

~ 4~

1 -,-4 U > -,-4>- H > U l-1 -4 > ‘

~

-4 4.l -H 5 )5 )5)5) C0 W 0. Ct 5100)5) 0) 0) W CO 5)55)5 0)5)5)5 0)0)0)

14 00 1. 00 .5.0.0.5 .5.51- 4 .0 0 0 . 0 1- i.5 .0.5. 05 1. 00 .0 .5 .000 .0

a)

‘.1

S

(0 5-_ I ~

0.~~ C’J00 30 1f’. O ’.D 0 0 0- 4 ’.O C’) C’) 0 a ”. C”. L r’.030 -I’ N’ ,-4 0 ..

~~~ir’. .-4

CO I,.. Or-..f’.c’l —4 a’.m ‘.0 C”.0-t -

~

t 00--~- 00 0 0 0 a” 0 ” 00 1t’. ,—4 a” ur’. ’S’. c’)

0) 10 - . - - . - - - . - . . . . , . - . - - . - . , - ~~> C’-) ‘-4 C”) C’.) C’

.) C’.) -I C’-) C’.) C”. C’) C’) C’) -4 C’.) - ‘-‘4 C’) C’) ‘—4 C’) - ,4 .—4 ,-I ,-4 .-4

0)

S

S

-‘-4

4~

1

U

SD

5) 0, -

5 C~ C’) C”) -0’ -

~~ C”. C”. C”. N’ ‘0-0’ C’-) .—4 .4 -0’ —4 0 0’. C”. C”. 0’. N’ ii”. C’ C’-) 0’. N- C”) (0 01 0 0 0’. 0’. 0’. 0’. 0’. 00 N’ ‘0’0 ‘0 ‘

-0 ’!’. It’. It’ •-t -0’ -0’ C’-) 00 0’. 0’. ‘.O Lñ -0’ 5)1. . - ‘ . - . ‘ ‘ - ‘ ‘

~

. C”4 C”. C’) (‘4 (‘4 C’) C’.) C’

-) C’.) C’) C’) C”) C’) C’-) C’) 1’) C’.) C’) C’) C”) C’) C’) .-4 ,-4 ‘-4 4

— 29 —

-~~~__________ . - 

- 

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

:- . -

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

-

~~~~~

-

~~~

------
:

~~~~~~~~

_ -

~~~~~~~~~

_ - _

~~~

- _ _

~~~

_ -

~~~~

U)

E CO 1. 0) 0) 0)

‘(0 ~~ U ‘0 U) -H S — 1. 5) — CO 0 .5 -

~~~E ~~ ‘H U 5 1. 1. 0 0) 1-i 0 ,

~ 0 0 5) 0) 5 >- a) ) I4-4

0. ‘H C) Ii

S (1)) CO CO >-.O C O 0 0.10 0 — 40 0) .0 0 0 1-. 1. U ’-~~ O S >- 0 0 0 )00 1.

O 5 5 ‘0 0 CO —, 5)

0) ‘-1-1 0 t)’0 S ‘ WU ) C’) ‘.-~ )‘. 4.10)01. 0 .5 ‘O’0 5 0 —4 ’

~

-- 0 H 00 U ) Si.l O -H U5J 5

~~~ -H -H

5 >- -‘-4 00 4-i U)’0 4-~ 5 5 0) 0 O 1..S i-i U -H .0 U) ’,-4 .

~ 1.1.1010 0 0 -H O)) ‘0 0 ) 5 Z ,-4 510 515 4) 5 O C O ’0 I-i 5 I’-. - ‘-4,50 5 1-i t-i 5 0 0 ) 4) 0 - H )55 5 4-i S 1. 1-a U

5 0 0 ) 0 U10) 1 4( 0 0) 0 4 )0 0 0 ) 1 4> - 0 E l) -.4 i-I 0) 5,5 5 1.0 ) 4-a0.0 l--.

O U) ‘H 44 4) 1-i5U 0 . 55 0 0)5 5

Z 4) 1. >- I4.i Ii-~~~ 5 1-i S 5) 510 0>- 50 0 1-a U )

S a) 1.’i-i~~~I1. 0 0 1.0. Cl) U.I 1.-H > ’0 0 1 00 H 0 0. 0 ) 0 0)4 ) E > -’ . 0 0) 15 5 044 -‘-4 1. i-I

U > CO’W 4-. 6 1 . 1 0 0) ’W ‘o-i .5 00 1 .0 ’0 1-I 1-i C)J E I.i ’H ‘ 00 _I S - 0)~~~I S 0) 4 . . 0 )> -

S >- 510 0 510 5’0>- 0 ’0 ‘0 0 0)0) 0. > 4-i

0 U . ~~~ 0 U) 4) I-i0 5 5 5 0) ) >-S0 5 0 1.)> S’0W-’-’ 0 5 5>- CO 44 4-i > - 0 S’W 5 0 ‘‘H ~ -4 4.i CO U) 1. 5

Z ‘0 5 0. CO U >-0 H E . 001-i > ‘0 .5 5.55

‘(0 ~

-4 1-4 1. .—4 4.l 0 .—4 >-’,.S’0 0 5 14 Li.. 5 1 -’) U U

0 ’— ’ ‘0 0 ) >- 5 .,i 0) 1. US 1 .U ) 5’0 0 ) 0 0 ) 4 -4 5C051.

‘ ‘-‘ 1.5>10 0. 4) 1. -,-4)105 ‘4-. 000 0) 0 .0 0 0

O C CO ’ H O’0 W EWO 500 )44 S’H U) (5 (1) O Z ii • S I W U ) E E ‘4-4 .5 U) 4~

J • H i

~

4 >- 1. ‘0 0>0. Ci) 005— 4 4) C5 ,-4 ~

8-i 0 >10 1. 1.50 5 5 5 5 0

~~ ~~~~II 0 0 0) 0 ) 1044.5 0)54-15 0) 5 4 40 ‘0 0 1 -J O 0 ’0 . S Cr’ —“ E -.-4 1.1. 1-a i 1. - ,-4 00 0 . U ) UQ. 5,5 1-i 1.-H S — 5 044 44, 0 O 1.0 )-~ 0 1. U) (0 0) 5 4) 0. ‘

~- i>SCO

1 . 0 544 1. 1100)) E~~ — 1-i 9-i 0)It’.~~~ COO E -HO Cx. 00 4-450 .514 (05 1.C”) 5 —4 ) -H >- 0)’0 >-4 - i

If’. 0 0) CO ‘0 ‘

~- ‘0 ‘0 0) 0’0 . Q)- 4) -H 44 44 .-4 CO 5 0

1.4 - --4 i-I l-i 4)0) 4) Si .

50) Si .5 Si .—4 ‘_I .’4 U

0. 0 - 0) 5 )U)0)U 440) (0 1.104444 0)50) 5 5 50)

0 II - 5 1-i a) 0 0)1. 5 Cr1.55 0 1-i 1.0 ) 1 . 0) 1.5.51.

O 4 ) 5 0 > ‘—I .--I OG) c J0c~~ U 500 0 0 10 4-i>0 1-. 0.5440

C-’ 1 0 + 1 ),

~ 5 ,-‘4 E l-i 1 4 5 5 50. -HE S

~ 5 4 )00 00 CO D)) U i-I 000) 00-H-H 0000 00 0 0 0000

0 CO Il 500 500 005 S> >0 0 5 0 0 5 5550 0 0) 00 -.-4 500 DO ’,-I 5 00 005-H O)) -H -H -_I S -.-4 00 5 -.-4 -.-4 -H ’

,-4 5

~~

‘ 5 U) 5 U w-I 5 5 U -H 5 5 ‘H 44 5 U 4) 5) ‘H U 5 -H ,—I U 4-1 .—4 ‘H I ‘H U > -H ‘H U > ‘H -H > U -H 44 0 0 .

~~ U -H > 5) U U 0) > ~~ .-4 5 5)5)50) 5)0)104) 0 ) 104)4 ) 0 ) 0 )0 ) 5 0 ) 0 ) 5 0) 0)0) 4) 5 .0 00,5 .0 .0 0 0, 5 .0 .0 ,5 00,0 00 1.1.44 00,0.59-.. 00 009-. .5

C O E 1-i

a) ‘—4 >—4

O C t

1.

5 4 ) 4)>

4 )0 4)

C,)

5 4 )0 10 .04-4 5-H -4- It’.C’--) ,--I C” .00C’-1 C’) U”.00C’,-4 ‘.000-S’ C’ -0 ’ It ’. ’0 If ’. It’.II”. C’) C”.

101. ‘0- N’ -0’ 0 N ’ ’. 0 C’N’ C’) C’-4 O\ r’- 0~~.0

~~~I C’-’. 00N ’C’l 0 N’’.0.—4

0 )_ -4 5 ) 5 - ‘ - . - - - - ‘ - - - . ‘ - . . - - - - ‘ -

0) 10 Z

~~~~ C’-) c-.)~~

---4 m m C”. C”)C’) C’-) C’-’.C”4 C”. Cfl U’.~~5’C”. If’. C”. C’4 C’

-) r”. C’1 r-4 C”.

5

~~ 0)

1. 0) 4)44

4-4 5 14-i -,‘4

‘04)

0

— 5

(0 0) .-I

U ’S .—4 -H -H (0 44 4-~ 1. 5 -0’ C’) 0’. ‘.0 0 C’ N. C”. C’ C-I 00’.O 0 N’ 00 N. C’ ~ 4 ‘.0 ‘

-0’ C”. 00 1 5 4) C~ C’ C’ 00 C”. C”. C’) C”.) C’-) ‘—I ,—4 00 0 C’ 00 00 N. N’ ‘

.

0 ’0 ‘0It’. I!’. Ifl

1. 0 > 0) - . . , . - . • , . . . . . , - . . . , . - - - 00 OZ ~

-“. c”-’. c”. r’. C”. C’I C’l Cfl r”’. C”.mr”. C”. C”) C’-l C’l C”-) C’-IC” l C ” I C”)C ’ C’-IC’)

—30 —
-400

.5U

U) 00z

0)

-H

10 ‘-4 .0 l.a ‘

~~~ 0 0)

0) “—‘. 0. U 55 10

5 00 ‘0 0. CO ‘

0’H 0 (5 44 IJ 0 )

1. .0(0 00 0) 0 00 5 U) 0. “-‘. 5 10 4) (0 B ‘0 -H 1. 0) -H 0)0) 005 0)

0)44 0) ‘-4 5 

.5 51-. 1-4

0 1.1 94 .5 -_I ‘ 00 5 ,~~~4 4>- -.-4~~~ 1.1

5> 4.1 .5 5-H (0 1. 1. 0 1.0) 0)-H 0 )UoU 0 1.1 (0 ‘0 0) 0 5 S , 0 ) 0 ) 1. 1 0) 5 0

1 0 0 >- 14-4 

U S 5 -H 0 00 -H 1.

4,) 14 ,5 0-5 5 0 1. 0)0 )00 ,

‘.~ -.-~ 1. ‘-I 

0 (0 

‘(0

5 000,5 0 >-, I-i 544- _I 14.4 44 1-a 1.,~~~0. ,‘.d U )1.UU 1.10 0 1 4 0-H E 1/) 4)5 51.6 1. ‘H 4) 0) U 4) ). )

~ 5 >- S 1. . 5

0

000 0 S O0C#54 -1. 

5~

~H 0) 0 514 0)’5 ) 5 5 0 S U U ) 0) > - 1. 5 ‘0 0

) 0 5 .-4 0 -) 01-a 0 544 

4-4 44 0)

0 5 0 ) 0) 4) , 5 00) (O 0> - 

5 4-45>- (0 0U)-H ,5 -. 5 4 40 1 . -,-4 (0 4) -H 0 ~~~~~~ U 0 14-i

O U 0 UO U 0 ) 4 J COU 1-a,

0’0 S 

0) >. l-a 

5

~~~

-5 -.

’4 440. 44 -H E 5.50) S-H 0 10 0) 0 4 .15 I-a 1-i 5 1.4 4) 44 0)0)5 0.H 0) 0. 0 0)44 W , 0 00,5 0 0)55 50)5 0 ) 51. 10, 5-H (50. CO >-5U ) $ -i -.-45S1.1 .50 (1) 0 0 (0 ‘H I-I .—4 1. 0 4 ) 0 4J 4J -H 1. >-44~~~ 1. U>-

>- 4-1 0 > 1 0-H 0 0 1 .5 0’ . 0 0 0- 5 1 4 -’ ‘.-4

5 0. 5 S S U U 0 )0 . 1.E’S(O 5 50 - 5100 55,—4 14.i 5 50 ) 0 555

0) 

‘.-4 0),0 0 )

0 544 

‘ . —4 0>- 1. .H0) ,5f0 50 0,) 0.-

H , 5> - 

5 S 1.~~ ’) 0) 0- 1-iW0) 0 >- 0) > 1-i 414 4-10,5 0 6 U 0 4 ) - H Cx’. ’--4 5 ’1-i ’.-4 ’0 ‘0 00’S I-i 500 1 .0 44 01. 5 1-a >- 00 0) E 5.5.0 (0 1. 5 55 0 ) 0.54 ) 0 (05 0 0) 1 4~~ ’H 0 1 .5 4.1 5 0-’.-l 44 14-l U >-0 5 U) — 0. -H C-, HO 0. 0 ’.-’ S 4-i 000Cl) 0-H I-i ‘—414 >-S . 50 ) - H 0 - >- 4.1 E ’0 S E U S

0 0 141.5 1) 1 . 1 .0 .-4 4 - i 1 .5 

4) 0)5> 

0 .—4U -H 0 . - 4 1 4 0) U)

OU O 0 ) 5,5 5 1.0 1.1.0 — ’ .-4 1-i S 1 . 00 )5 

5 1-i 0. >-E 0 U) 5) : ( 0 0 1 0 0) ’ 0 1 . 00555 14.i U) -H

4)’S S U) 1-1 C-’. 1.0 )0 ‘0 0. 

5 50-U ‘50) 5 5U 4 4 5 0) ‘H I-.) CO S > 550 ) ‘HO 1. 5 5- ’4 .5 5 445,51-i 5 05 0 ) 0 0 ) 5 00) >l.l 00U)U0 0 044 0) ‘—4 4) 44 5 0 5 1.01.5 >- .-4 5 0) 51.50. - _IGJ C#’) 1.5)5 .—4 5 -H 0) 441.1-4 0 CO (00. . 50 0 ) 0)50. 44.0 ,S 101.5 10)1. 144)4- 1 1. ‘—4 E 44 1-i 0- .—I0.UO -H U 5 0 .—4 ’--I 0 0 44 14-4 S .—I5 O 5 0) 5 ‘—4 1. 5 0 1 5 -_ I 544-_I C0 0.’0 E 0. 4-l U 0 0 )0 0 .54401 . 5 0 )0 0 ) 0 04 4- ) 0 0 4.1 ‘H ‘1) 0 . 4) 0 ’S >-~~~~~>- U C O >’.,5 ,5140-.5 0 4J >-‘H ’H U O U C O 0 .—4 4) 0) 4) 0) 0 0 544 U’5 U) 1-4 4)44 5 0.> U 4 4 ,5 W14 U ’0’ 5-H 5 )50 5 0. 0 )5 0)CO U ) 0 ) 1 0 ( 05 4 4 14005C ’ -I 0) 5 1 .0 0..-4 ~101.40 U ) O J CO O) 1. 0) .5 .5 0 .5 1 .’ 0 S 0) 1. 5 - 5 5 .—4 0)> 000 14 .-I U 0 0 U 00 50 04 40 )) 05> 000. 0) 0. U 0 0 0 5,01.-H E S 4) 5 5 5 S 5 4 ) _I 5 . 50 > - 5 10 0. 00 -H 00 1. b)) -_I 00 -H 00 -H OC -H .50 0 0 0 ‘H 0 0 4 4 0 . 00 -H 00 0 0 > 5 5> 5 > 5>5> 00 S >5 5 0))- > 50 00 0 00 5-H -H O)) ‘H-H-H-H S 00’H OO -.-4 ’.-4 00 00 5

-55 5 ‘H W

U S .—4 0J

.-4 5j .—4

0J .--4 5j - . - 45 >

- 5 

V .—455 .—4 -H 0)

>-H -.-I -..I > C ) U 0)0 5)0 0)0 0)0 >-_IS ’H U0 ) SiC -

U

5

0) 5)4) (00

)4) 0) 0 )0 )0) 0) 0)0)0)5 ) 

COW .-I Q,) 4)0)0)0) 0 ) 50 ) .5 ,0 ,0,0 .5 1. 00,0 4-4 1. 4.~ 1. 4.

~ 1-i 9-4 1. .5,0 0..0 1-a 4-4 .0 .0 4-i .5 1-.

0~

5 -H - C’) N’ -0’ .-4 (‘-1 CC 14”. C”. 

0’. N’ 00 -0’ 0’. C’ C”. It’. C”. —1’ -0’ N’ 

C’) -0’ 0’. It’. N- N’ N- 51. If’.O’.OO ’.O C’)-.0’ I(’.’.O -0’C ’-0’’.O .—I’0m’.0 C’C’ 4%O -0’ C’O” r’l N’ 00C”. 0)5 . . ‘ - - - - • ‘ . ‘ - . - ‘ . . ‘ ‘ ‘ - ‘ - - ‘ ‘ - - 

‘0 

~~~ > U”.

C’) ‘0’ C”. 0’ ‘0’ ~~ 0’ ~~ C’) hl’. 0’ 

‘s’. c”. ~~ 

‘-0’ C”. C”. C”. 0’ -0- ’.0 

u’. C”. 

‘J’.N’’0

0)S

S 

-

US0

(-IO\ .-4‘-4 0) (0 5 It’. C-I 

-4 00 N’ N- N’ ‘0 4!’. IC’. C”. 

C’-) 0 0 N’ 

It’. C”. 

C’) 0 

0’. C”) 0 0’ C’ N- .—I —I

.0 

4) 5 

it ’. if’. If’. -1’ 

‘-0’ ‘0’ —0’ -0’ -0’ -0 ‘0 —0’ ~~ 0’ C”. C”. C”. 

C’) C’) .—4 .—I 0 C’ C’ 0’ If’. —4 10 > 5) - . • - - , . , , , • - • , ‘ - • • . • • , , - - - 1-I 0 ~~ C”) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C”) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’.) C”) C’.) C’) C’) C’.) C-I C’) C’) -4 4 ,-4 ,-4

— 31 

—

V - 

I

L

~. _. —..-—-- ——-

— ‘----

.

- - 

•

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

.~~~~~ :-

~~~~~~~. 

‘

_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.-.

-

-- 

_._

~~~~~~

-~

~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I

Finally, to determine the degree to whch mean outcome value and

frequency perceptions evaluated at Fort Carson were like those evaluated

in the Phase I pilot research at Fort Hood , standard Pearson product—

moment correlation coefficients were calculated . Correlation between

mean value s assigned the 51 outcomes at the two posts was .42, while

the correlation between the mean frequencies assigned the outcomes was

.76 , both p < .01.

DISCUS S ION

This r esea r ch was de signed to evaluate the values and frequencies

of occurrence of selected performance outcomes as perceived by individuals in an operational Armor battalion undergoing annual tank gunnery

training . Two questions were of particular interest. First , we wi shed

to determine the relationship between an individual’s military grade and

his perceptions of the value and frequency of motivation sources . The

discovery of a significant relationship between either perceived value

and grade or perceived frequency and grade would have major implications

for the measurement or management of motivation. Such a finding could

lead to the developmen t of different measurement/management techniques

for men in different grades. In addition , we were interested in determining the relationshi ps between the outcomes in terms of their judged

frequencies , and in terms of their judged values. This information could

be used in the refinement of our instrument for measuring performance

motivation , and in the development of programs to improve performance

motivation.

The results of the frequency analysis did not suggest that perceived

outcome frequency is a function of grade. And the results of the value

analysis yielded little evidence that value perception is a function of

grade . Taken together , these findings indicate that we may evaluate

overall outcome frequency and value judgements , disregarding grade .

Thus, in the development of motivation—measurement instruments and

potential management strategies , grade need not be a major concern when

dealing with men between E2 — Private , and E5 — Sergeant. This finding

is particularly important because men in those grades make up the

majority of enlisted armor crewmen (91% in the battalion evaluated).

Thus , men in those grades comprise the population most likely to be of

interest to those evaluating or managing performance motivation in

Armor battalions .

Our second question dealt with the potential use of selected outcomes in motivation measurement instruments and experimental motivation

management programs. In evaluating the outcomes for these two separate

purposes , different sets of criteria are required . Outcomes most

suitable for inclusion in measurement instruments have moderate mean

value s and moderate perceived frequencies. They should have relatively

large variance on these measures to indicate substantial individual

differences which may be related to performance.

tb the other hand , outcomes most suitable for consideration in an

experimental motivation management program should mee t the following

three cri teria : First , they should have relatively high values with

—32 —
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —--- .

---- ~~ -

small value variances , indicating that they have about the same appeal

for most people. Second , they should have pre—existing frequencies

which indicate tha t they can be effectively managed . If one hypothe—

sized that increasing motivation based on recognition sources would

increase performance , then one would choose recognition sources which

had relatively low pre—existing frequencies. Third , they should have

the potential for economical frequency changes throug h m otivation

management efforts. A number of outcomes meeting each set of requirements can be identified from Tables 8 and 9.

Outcomes which might be used in motivation measurement include

“having more opportunity to supervise the work of others ,” “being presented with a trophy before the company,” and “feeling that you are

really doing something worthwhile.” Outcomes more appropriate for

potential use in a performance motivation management program as recognition sources might include “receiving the Battalion CO’s commendation”

or “getting praise from your superior for doing good work.” Of course ,

these should be considered examples of outcomes which may be identified

from the tables as having potential utility in measurement instruments

or management programs . The decision regarding which specific outcomes

would be most likely to be productive depends to a large degree upon the

particular situation in which they are to be utilized , and the hypothesized relationship between motivation scores and performance.

SUMMAR Y AND CONCLUS IONS

The specific objectives of this research were to identif y valued

performance outcomes which occur with sufficient frequenc y in an Armor

battalion to be useful in motivation evaluations, and to determine the

relationship between an expectancy theory—based measure of motivation

and actual performance in an operational Armor battalion . Phases I and

III of the research dealt with initial outcome evaluation and intensive

outcome analysis , respectively, while Phase II dealt with evaluation of

a composite—source motivation model based on contemporary expectancy—

theory conceptions of motivation .

The pilot research conduc ted in Phase I provided a list of performance outcomes which were evaluated in term s of their rank on perceived

value and perceived frequency of occurrence. From these , outcomes were

chosen in each of four categories (recognition , tangible reward , intrinsic , and self actualization sources) for use in the composite—source

expectancy theory—based motivation instrument.

In Phase II of the research , the instrument was administered twice

to Armor crewmen in an ope r ational Armor battalion undergoing the annual

tank gunnery training and qualification . The first administration was

g iven under controlled classroom conditions 10 weeks prior to qualifi—’

cation , and the second under field conditions a day prior to qualifica—

tion . Numerous significant relationships were observed between gunnery

pe rformance and measures of motivation. Althoug h many measures of in—

trinsic and self—actualization sources of motivation were related to

gun nery performance , our primary interest was in the relationshi ps be—

tween performance motivation and recognition and tangible reward sources.

______________ 

- - - . -- -
________________ •

Sources in those two categori es ar e likely candidates for management

because it is easier to modulate frequencise of occurrence of outcomes

in those source categories. Recognition sources of motivation were generally fournd to be positively related to performance for the non—firers

on the tank——the tank commander , driver , and loader—---while tangible

reward sources were negatively related to performance. For gunners , however, thi s relationship appeared in part to be opposite , recognition—

based motivation being negatively related to performance.

The research in Phase II demonstrated the practical utility of the

composite—source motivation model . Because the four motivation sources

were not related to performance in the same direction , the conventional

additive model was seriously questioned . Frthermore , when the additive

model was used for tank commanders ’ recognition and tangible reward

outcomes , no hint of a relationship was observed between additive—model

motivation indices and performance. Yet , when the composite model was

used with the same data , a remarkably strong relationship was observed

between measured motivation and performance.

Several potential applications of the motivation model were discussed .

The most likely source for an experimental motivation management research

program is recognition , which was positively related to performance for

tank commanders , driver , and loaders . Despite the apparent negative

relationshi p found between gunners ’ recognition motivation and perform—

ance , it was argued that incrementing recognition sources may have a

positive overall effect on crew performance. Such a recognition—source

management strategy may positively affect the performance of three of the

four crewmen , one of whom is the tank commander who has the primary

responsibility for crew training and performance . Any negative effects

on gunners may be outweighed by the other three crew members , particularly the tank commander.

In Phase III , further information was gathered for the development of

a second generation motivation instrument and potential motivation management strategies. Phase III research , based on a relatively large

number of men , permitted a muc h clearer determination of the relative

values and frequencies of the outcomes , and allowed the motivation evaluator and manager to choose his outcomes from a list based on empirical

determinations from the target population , as recentl y suggested by

Campbell and Pritchard .

Second , Phase III considered the relation between crewmens ’ grade and

judged frequency and value of outcomes. In view of the interaction between crew position and motivation source effect observed in Phase II ,

it seemed entirely possible that outcome value and frequency judgments

could be modulated by crewmen ’s grade . However , neither value nor frequency perceptions were found to be a function of grade. Thus grade , over the range evaluated , need not be of concern when designing motivation measurement instruments and management strategies.

‘~ Campbell , J. P. and Pritchard , R. T. Motivation theory in industrial

and organizational psychology. In N. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago : Rand McNally, 1976.

—34 — 

~~- - - —-----.-~~
- -

REFERENCE S

Bialek , H., and McNeil , M. Preliminary study of motivation and incentives in basic combat training . HumRRO Technical Report 68—6, 1968.

Borman , W. C., Johnson, P. D., Motowidlo, S. J., and Dunnette , N. D.

Measuring Motivation , Morale and Job Satisfaction in Army Careers,

Volume II. Report under US Army Research Institute Contrac t DAHC 19—73—

C—0025 by Personal Decisions , Inc. , Minn eapolis, Minnesota , 1975.

Brown , J. S., and Farber , I. E. Secondary motivational systems. Annual

Review of Psychology, 1968, j

~~, 99—134.

Campbell , J. P. , and Pritchard , R. T. Motivation theory in industrial

and organiza t ional psychology. In M. 0. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychol~gy~ Chicago : Rand McNally, 1976.

Cohen , J. , and Cohen , P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis

for the Behavioral Sciences. Hilisdale , N. J.: Lawrence Earibaum , 1975.

Deci , E. L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology~ 1971 , j

~~ 105—115.

Deci , E. L. Intrinsic mot ivation , ext rinsic reinforcement , and inequit y.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, j

~~ 113—120.

Deci , E. L. The effects of extrinsic rewards on “intrinsic motivation.”

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, j

~~

, 117—129.

Lawler , E. E. A causal correlational analysis of the relationship between

expectancy attitutdes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,~ 1968, ~~~ 462—468.

Lawler , E. E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey : Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company , 1973.

Locke , E. A. Personnel Attitudes and Motivation. Annual Review of Pgy—

chology, 1975, a~~ 457—480.

Matsul , T., and Terai , T. A cross—cultural study of the validity of the

expec tancy theory of work motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1975, 

~~ 

263—265.

Orpen , C. A quasi—experimental investigation into the effects of valence ,

instrumentality, and expectancy on job performance. International Review

of Applied Psychology, 1975, .~~~~~~ 71—78.

Notz , W. V. Work motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic

rewards: A review with implications for theory and practice. American

Psychologist, 1975, 

~~ 

884—891.

- 

-35 -
- _ - - - -

~~~~~~~~~ - - _ - • ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ -

Porter , L. W., Maanen, J. V., and Crampon , V. J. Continuous monitoring of employees’ motivational attitudes during the initial employment period. University of California , Irvine, Technical Report 4, 1971.

Prepared under ONR Contract NODOI4—69—A—0200—9001 NR Number 151—315 .

Pritchard , R. D.,and Sanders, N. S. The influence of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy on effort and performance. Journal of

4pplied Psychology, 1973, ~~~ 55—60.

Spence , K. V. Behavior Theory and Conditioning . New Haven : Yale University Press, 1956.

Spence , K. V. Behavior Theory and Learning . Englewood Cliffs , N. J.:

Prentice—Hall , 1960.

Vroom , V. H. Work and Motivation. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1964.

Winer , B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York : McGraw—Hill , 1971.

L __ __
r _____ _____

APPENDIXE S

Appendix Page

A. Outcomes Questionnaire used in Phases I and III (PT 5103) 39

B. The Perceived Value and Frequency Means, Ranks, and

Standard Errors of the 51 Outcomes Evaluated in

Phase I of the Research 45

C. Performance Motivation Instrument Used in Phase II

(PT 51O2A) 47

D Platoon Leader ’s — Platoon Sergeant Rating Form 

51—
- -

APPENDIX A

OUTCOMES QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN PHASES I AND III (PT5193)

How often does it happen?

As we all know , part icular events are typ icall y followed by certain outcomes.

For instance, the event of scoring h i ghest on the PT test in Bas i c Training was normall y followed by a trophy , feel i ng of pr ide , or C ,O. ’s coamiendat lon for the h i gh scorer .

The purpose of these questions is to determine how often certain outcome s (like receiving a trophy , t he C,O .’s coeinendation . or a feeling of

pride) occur follow ing very good performance (top 25%) on variou s Armor training tasks in an operational Armor company. Because you have undergone a great deal of training in the past montns you are in a very good position

to help us obtain this information ,

For eac h of the following outcome s p lease select an answe r from the choices

be l ow , The answer should describe your beliefs about how often each outcome occurs for the average soldier when he performs very wel l (top 25%) on the

various Armor training tasks ,

Never Rarely Sel dom Sometime s Often Almo st Always

happens, happens , happens , happens , happens, always , happens, 0% of isis then between between betwee n happens 1 00% of

tasks 20% of 20% 1 40% 40% & 60% 60% & 80% more tha n tasks

tasks of tasks of tasks of tasks 80% of tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Exam ple:

How f requent l y do you believe the following outcome will occur for the ave rage soldier who performs very well (top 25%) on his training tasks?

Please choose best answer and circle, Thank you.

bei ng relieved from a cleanup detail 1 2 3 (

~

) 5 6 7

If you believe that the average soldier is sometimes (about 50% of the time )

relieved from cleanup details for very good (top ~25%) per fonnance on training tasks circle 4.

How frequently do you believe the following outcome will occur for the

average sol dier who performs very well (top 25%) on his training tasks?

Please choose best answer and circle. Thank you ,

Receiving recognition from Company Coutnander

for doing a good job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being allowed to sleep late every morning for a week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being excused from stand i ng inspection for onew e ek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeli ng proud to be a soldier in the United

States Army 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

bei ng given a more responsible position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting praise from your superior for doing

good werk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being presented with a trophy before the compan y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting a promotion in rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

taking part In sports during duty hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiving a lettef of merit from the C, 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PT SIO3 —

receiving greater leadership responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- 

EDING pA BL~ E~NoT pxu4g

~~~~~~~~~

____________________ __ -~~~~~~-

_

~~~~~~~~ -- -~~~
Never Ra rel y Seldom SometIme s Often Almost Always

happens , happens, happens, happens , happens, always happens,

0% of less than between between betweer happens, 100% of

tasks 20% of 20% & 40% 40% & 60% 60% & 80% more than tasks

tasks of tasks of tasks of tasks 80% of tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How frequently do you believe the following outcome w i ll occur for the average soldier who performs very well (top 25%) on his training tasks?

Please choose best answer and circle.

feeling really proud of having done a good job 1 2 3 4 5 5 7

being given two hours of free time on one day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiving additional trainin g in your job area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

be i ng abl e to p l a n an d organ i ze your ow n work

activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —

receiving the Company Commander s special

recognition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling that you are an important part of the

Artnor Team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having a special letter of merit sent to your

parents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being the Post’ s ‘Soldier of the Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting an individual award for superior crew performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

playing an important part in helpin g your —

unit get the job done 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiv i ng a “Well Done ’ from your Platoon

Sergeant ‘ 2 3 4 5 6 7

being held more personally accountable for

your work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting free laundry service for one month 1 2 3 4 5 € 7

getting less harrassnient from officers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having more opportunity to supervise the work —

of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

be i ng relieved from a short detail 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling more that you are serving your country

in an important way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hav ing more say in how you do your assigned

job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiving 24 hr post privileges for one week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling that you are really doing something

worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting more respect from your superiors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being given the opportunity to further you

military education (like NCO school) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being given a three-day pass 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hav i ng more challenging opportunities in

your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PT 5103 —

— 40 —

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Never Rarel y Seldom Sometimes Often Almost Always

happens , happens , happens , happens , happens , always happens , 0% of less than between between between happens. 100% of

tasks 205 of 205 & 4O~ 4O~- & 60 6O~

. & 8O~ more than tasks

tasks of tasks of tasks of tasks 805 of tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

low frequently do you believe the following outcome will occur for the

average soldie, who performs very well (top 25’~) on his training tasks?

Please choose best answer and circle.

getting an hour off each day for a week to do as you like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling that you have done an honest day s work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having your picture and Story in the Post/

your hometown newspaper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being treated more fairl y and more consistently

in the Army 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being popular with the men in your unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling that you have achieved a worthwhile

goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having more ~‘

-

~ e time to yourself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having more of an opportunity to try Out

your Own job ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being treated with more consideration by your

superiors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having more ti’ie to spend with you friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

having more control over your persona l l i ’ e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

feeling that you are carryin g your Share of

the load 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

getting respect from your friends in the un it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiving a $25 savings bond as an award 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

receiving the Battalion C. O. ’ s c onriendation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being exempt from guard duty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This information is being col lected by the 4rmy Research Institute. It is f or

RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. No part of any soldier ’ s individual scores will be

entered into his records or be available to anyone other than Army Research

Institute personnel for researc h uses onl y.

PT 5103

— 41 —

________
How do you feel about it?

A number of things happen to a soldier in the Army. Many of these things happen when the

soldier performs well on his assigned tasks. The purpose of this questionnaire is to

f i nd out how ~~~~~~ personally, would feel about these things if they did happen to you.

Please think about each of the outcomes listed below. Then carefully answer how you

would feel about each one by circling the number correspond i ng to the phrase which

best describes your feelings. Your answers will be used for research purposes only .

-5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Don ’t Like Like Like Like Lik e

it it It it ~

t care it it it It it

extremely greatly a lot some a little a little some a lot greatly extremely

Example: How would you feel about:

being conqratulated by the Commanding Genera l -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 i

~~~~+5

for doing very well in tank gunnery.

If you would like it greatly you would circle +4

How would you feel about: Please circle one.

receiving recognition from Company Cormnander

for doing a good job -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being allowed to sleep late every morning for

a week -5 -4 -3 —2 -1 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

ueing excused from standing inspection for one week — 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeling proud to be a soldier in the United

States Army —5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

bei ng given a more responsible position -5 -4 -3 —2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

getting praise from your superior for doing —

good work -5 —4 —3 —2 —l 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being presented with a trophy before the company — 5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

getting a promotion in rank -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

taki ng rirt in sports during duty hours -5 -4 —3 -2 —l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving a letter of merit from the C. 0. -5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving greater leadership responsibilities —5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 —

receiving the Battalion C. O.’s cormiendation -5 -4 —3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being exempt from guard duty -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

PT 5103 INFORMATION FOR RESEARC H PURPOSES ONLY

L 

-42 -

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dislike Disl ike Dislike Dislike Dislike Don ’t Like Like Like Like Like

it it It it it a care It a it It it It

extreme l y greatly a lot some little little some a lot greatly extremely

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

How would you feel about:

feeli ng really proud of having done a good job -5 —4 —3 —2 —l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being given two hou rs of free time on one d~y -5 -4 —3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving additional training in your job area —5 —4 -3 —2 -1 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

- be i ng able to plan arid organize your own work ac tivities —5 —4 —3 —2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving the Company Commander ’s special

recognition -5 -4 —3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeling tha t you are in i m portant part of the ,lrmno r Team -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having a special letter of merit sent to your

parents -5 —4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being the Post ’ s “Sol di er of t he Month” —5 —4 -3 —2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

getting an indiv idual award for superior

c rew perfornianc~ —5 -4 —3 —2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

playing an Important part in helping your

unit get the job done -5 -4 —3 -2 —l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving a “Well Dona from your Platoon

Sergeant -5 -4 -3 -2 —l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being held more personal ly accountable for

your work —5 -4 —3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 —

getting free la undry service for one month —5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

gett ing less harrassmnant from o ficers —5 —4 —3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having more opportunity to ~upcrvise the work

of others —5 -4 —3 -2 —l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being relieved from a short detail -5 -4 —3 —2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeling more that you are serving your Country

in an important way — 5 -4 -3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 —

having more say in how you do your assigned job -5 -4 -3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving 24 hr post privileges for one

week -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeling tha t you are really doing something

worthwhIle -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

getting more respect from your superiors —5 —4 —3 —2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

—43 — 
Dislike Dislike Dislike D i s l i k’e Dislike Don ’t Like Like Like L ke Like

it it it it it a care it a it it it it

extremely greatly a lot some little little some a lot greatl y extremel y

-5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

How would you feel about:

being given the opportunity to further your

military education (like NCO school ) -5 -4 -3 —2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being given a three-day pass -5 -4 —3 —2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having more challenging Opportunit ies in

your job -5 —4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

getting an hour off each day for a week to do as you like —5 -4 —3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feel ing that you have done an honest day s work -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

h~v i n q Jr picture and story in the Post/

your 5 etov- i~ newspaper -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

bein 9 treated rore Thi r t y and more consistentl y

in the Army -5 -4 -3 —2 -l 0+1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being popular with the men in your unit -5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeL og that you have act-~eved a worthwh ile

goal -5 -4 —3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having more free t i ’ ~

e ~ yoJr Se~~ -5 --. — 3 —2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 -+4 +5

ving more of an opportunity to tr~ o.~

t

your own job ideas -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

being treated with more consider~t,on by your

superiors -5 -4 —3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having ‘more tin e to spend with your friends -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

having more Contr i over your personal life -5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

feeling that you are carry ing your share of

the load -5 -4 -3 -2 — l 0 +m +2 +3 +4 +5

getting respect from your friends in the unit -

~~ -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

receiving a $25 savings bond as an award -5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 ‘5

This inform ation is being collected by the Army Research Institute . It is for

RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. No part of any soldier s individua l scores will be

entered into his records or be available to anyone other than Army Research

Institute personnel for research uses only.

PT 5103

Please fill In your name , number , and unit below. As soon as possible

your data will be coded and your name , number , and unit will be clipped

off this sheet and destroyed.

Name Number Company Platoon

-44 - 
0 C)’- .

o

0

0 C)

C) C) •-.~~~~ CC

— U) 000 C) CO

~~~~~~~ ~

— E O > S 4.j .

CO —~ m-~ 0 8.’ 0 $-~ o .

~~ 0 ~ 0 — 4-~ ~~~a-~ C) 8w

00- s., 05- a) -~~ C) 0 .0 0 ‘-4 CO 0 ~ 5- ~ .0 0 ~ 0

0 ~‘••~~ 5-

~~~ 00- -— I.C ) >~ ~~u )O4 ’ ~~5- 010

~~~00 ‘cOIv C) CO ~~4) O 4 -~~ 5- .’-, vi 0 ~ ~~ ‘0 0) >-. ~ — 0 ‘0 >.. C) a-’ 8., ~ - •-4~~~— 0 0 0 ~~

4 •-4 5-~~~ 54.4 0)

>~ C) .0 0 00 a-’ >~ .0 a-i ~~~10 0 0 0 a-i 00 ~~~~~~~~ ~~ coo0~~~ — 0 Q ...v

“i CC C) Cn0L ~ .0 ~~~~ 0> E .0 100 CC vi C) a-~ 0~~-4 0 ‘ii 5-~~~ 0 0 CO> ~~.c: 8-. V a.i c.CU C )c0 0 vi O vi U) 8-i a-’ 0 ~~~~~~~ ...i CO, 0.0 C C- ’ 0)8-, ~

Ii ~~ .,4-’~~~ -. ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ a

~ 0) 004.’ 00 5-a O0- 0 0 0 0 00.0 •-‘ a-’ 0 4-’ ~~~0.

~~~~vi 00 0) 0 0 0 ~~ -’ CC U0.. — C0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .0 >., ~~ ., .-4 >s4_ e ClO. OCC -,-’ C) 5-0 0 0

0 cc 0 ~~~ vsO.0 E +-~~~ -.- ‘ u~ 0 $ - ~~~.’ C)

occ ~~~ o o>-.a 0 -— 0 5-5-05- ‘

a-. ~~~~ ~~ , ~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ e ooo Cl) -

~ - — u’. 0 . .. ~~~ _, C) C ~ ~~ 0. 5- 0 ‘i ~‘4 ‘a.

—. 0 0 >, CC >., — 0 CC 0 0 a-i — vi CO 0., ~~ ‘a-. >~ 5- .0 >-.

CC 0 C ~~~C.. —~~‘i.0 0 0~~-’ - C/) ~~ U 0a-’ 0 0 — C) L Q C., ~

-. Ci > ‘0 -

~ 05 - 8-’ 0 ~~ 5-~~~~0

CO C )’i ’ a-i 5-0 CC 00.,CC’ 4-~ C O O s.’ CCC ) CC 0 ‘a- 0 o JCC >5-8- . o ~~os . Ou ) 0. 050 C) - ‘C ) ‘i 0 CC 00.5- C) . C) ~ . (

~~~ C) .-‘ CC 0 4-i >~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~ .00.0 > .—. i- .-. 0 000)5- C O 0 OCC C - . 0 ~

- . m ~.cco 00. CC CC C - a 

C ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 0 .0CC0 0CC C CO 0. .0 C ) ? C 4.) C) CO04~ 0 0)8-’ 05- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a-i5- 4-i ....

~ — , a..’00.Z + . i0 0 0 . . CC — ‘ ~ 0 cO O S- CO —~~~~ C) > o 000 + - ’ 0 0 5-’ >.. 0 ) 00 ~~~ C O 0 00 - CC00C) .... a-iC)a - ~ >..>. 0 >-. 4w CC ~4-. .0 0 >~ 0. 0 -

~~ >.

, ~ 8-. -

~ cC 5~ 5.)

o s- C) — i0e.’ .0 OCCES ) 5.) 4. ’a-. 00)0 0 a..’ —’ C) ’-’ ~~ ‘.4 0) 4.)

OCCO.C-: Q00u) CC a-’C 8-. 05000 00 s _ ~ _ 0C) 5 - C R C) v5-C) .0 00 8- .0 C) Sv C ~

0C ) CS a.) .-’> ~~~a.~~~~~~5- O0> C 4 -’ o0->CC~~~~ O 4-i > 0 CC00 —’~~-’ CO ~ ‘ 0 0- 4 5..) o CO • — E 00) cc cc cc 00 00 0 00 ...‘ ~~~ ~~~~. — cc ~0- ...m .0 cc o > o> cco oc 0> 0 ..

~ .

~~ --. 00 ~ .

~

.4 00- ...-I ~ 00 C) . •.i 

~0- ~.‘ ~ ~ ..-~ c~ ~~ • .-. . 0

~ 4.J~~~w~~~~~~~ .4...4~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C)C>s Q) 0 ’ 4JC)Q...-4 >0)..w 5) > > . 4i C ) C) CO 5) >C)~~~~> 4-) Q . ,.4 a-i 0 )C )0 )0 CC000 cC CCO O 0C)--’C) ~~~C )0.~

o o o C)o 4w .~~~.0 oc s-’ .o c.c

5.3 >

54,

C/s

—4 Z ~.‘ ‘~J U) I’S VS ~ 00 ‘

.0 00 * ‘.0 00 — 00 F”. F— -r itS L’S 1— 0 CO~ VS

5- —. s’s -

~ ifs —r ~~ VS irs VS ifs •-r s’s s’s F’S -~~ ‘5 -r — -t -r ~~ ~~

- VS

541 3-, :— . ... , • , •

5) 5)5 0

— r- ri Ni ifS ‘.5) ifS ‘.0 - .5) 0) ‘.5) VS C -~~ ‘.5) 5) 5) 0) LI’S NI ~~ ~~ LI’S LI’S

— J r., r’l r’1 r J VS~~~J ~~~ ‘

~~ VS VS ~

-

~~ rj ~~~~~nj ~

-J J r ~

1VS N r-i r’-I

5.3

‘—4

ci C ri C —i c — N- s’s us 00 00 r-j -- 

-r t L’s cc — - 0 0 0 0) C’.) ~ ‘S N. ~~ U) N. ~~ 00 C-. ‘ j F 5) C r N. ifS VS — 0 —

C U.. ~~~~~~~~~~fS r V S* - r ~ Jr . v F’s N4VSP’s -. ~~~~~ ) V S t’s s

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

00)o LI

~S o L’S r’ o ~ as ~~- am in VS 00 — —. C’. 00 N LI’S ‘t NI 0’. 0’, L’S

‘ ‘0 ‘0 LI’S ifS LI’S ~~ VS VS Ni (N C-i .- — — -~ C C C 0 0’. 0’. 0)

VS VSVSVS V)VS5’S VS F’s F’s r.” F’s VSt ~’S VSVS r~

’s r’i~~ ar’.i

Cl U’. L’S a/S U) LI’S mis L’S mis mis in us C) . . . . . . . . — .s~ 5- VS 0’. N ~~

‘ — C LI’. ~~ ‘0’0 C’) LI’S Ni ‘0 ifS C ‘0 ’C’ CS ~~ ‘ C F-- ~~ 51.. — —‘ N IL/S VS VS Ni — — —. — NI — ~~ Ni VS

Lr) L/S

.—. r’.i ’ L/S ’.O N.~~~~ O’.C NI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~-5)~~~~ .

~.‘ f’.~~C ’ 4 -

CC _4 .—, ..—4 ,

~ , .—. -.—, ._-~ __.. r..j n-j Ni NI c-j

>

— 45 —

-- 

- •- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —4
- - -

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

- -—

>..

CC

4-i

CO

CO

4_I >’. -

~~ 5 -0 5-.

05- 0 0) 0)

0.-”.: vi .

~~ >.vi E 4) - vi CO CO E S-. .

~

.40) ‘0 -— — 5- 1.

5 - 0 .0 0 vi 4-’ 0) CO 0 0) < --4 ~ 1.’ 0 4~1 ~

— 0.0 ~~~ 0 ‘0 5.. CC 00 ,s~~~CO > 0 4_i 0) .,.

~ 0) 0 via) CO a-i 0) 4.) ‘.4 >.. 0 4) 4-i 0 0 0)0. CO~’-’ 0 00- 0) 5.4 4-1 ~~~-.4 0

~~~ ~.4 CO CO C) 54) 4w >s CO .0 0) IO U) 4) ~‘-4 P.. CO COO 010 00 0 4.’ >-..--a 00 0 0) CC 0 5-’ 0

C/) 8-a 8-, 4-i 5- ‘0 0 5- .

~~ 0 .s

~ 0.5- C) 0 U 0 4-i CO 0) 00 .s

~ 5-, ‘0 5 - 0 0 0) 0

‘0 0 00) 5/) 00 0 0) v i O 0 054a 8-. ‘C >- 0 0)> , 0 4~

i 0 Sw>, 4) ‘0~~~ 0

~~~~.0 U ‘-4 ”—- 0 4.1 0 & ) ‘ CO ..4 0 CO 4-~ 4-i 00— 0)4-’ ‘C~~- 4>-,ClS C).’-400 0 ~

. 40 0 ) 0 0)0 0)050 •,

~~~~~~ 0)

5-0.0 5- vi -0 ‘Cvi 4.~ 4) ~~~~~~~ .~

C .0o: .0 ’.-4 .,-a +-‘4-. 0 .0 CO~~ 0 5-00a-i 5 - CO COvi5 - 0 0 )40.0 4-J0u -‘4 0.

~ 0 .-’ 00 sO 5-0 0 s .I 0 5 - 4 -’ 0) 4-i 5 - 0 ) 0 5 - 500) 05- 00 0)— ’ 0 0 .40 0) 5- ~~~ 0 ) 0 )0 0 ) 00 . 000) ‘0 . 0 -4 0) >-. .00- 4w .0 4.

~~ 0) 5 - 0 5-0 ‘05 00 S - E U) 0 .0 4) 04.1 4.1 0.. 0)4.) Uvi 0 ..-~~00 C0 -. OX 0 — 8-. >-.,4~

i CO CO CC 0 00 5- 5-. 8-. >-. 4) 4-i 4-i 0 >-, > 4-1 >-, vi --a 0 00- 0 8-. vi 00 0 0 O 4 -~~ 0.4-’ 4~~~>, 5 - 5 - 5 - 0 ) 0 )5 - - CO 00 0 -.4

vi-.4 a) •~~~~o o ~ 4 0 C ’5 .-’ viO C) 00)0 .0 . 0 0 ) 5- 4 -i >,.,4 ..4 (/S

CC ‘0 5 - > 5 - >~

.. 5-’C08.. 4) . 0N 4w 0.’4-i~~ J >0)4) vi 5 - -.4 0 5-’C4 - a 4) -p4 0) 00 0 a—’ --l 0 >-,0)’0’0 000 >, CC U) ‘CQ) viO 0 ) 0 0 0.00 0 0 ) 0 - 0 >.,U50)4w .0 0 • ,CO5 - CO 0 -~

- 4CO > -. viCO e-~~0 0 0 0 0- *5-~~~~ CO CO 00 0.0)104.? ‘.‘4 O 0) 0 O ’0 O -p4 5-. vi ’..4~~~~~4w - .-a 4w 00- ‘ C0 ~~-’ 0 4 . 10 5 - 0 04 .’ > U .0—4 0 0 Q )>,5-4w 5-. -’-i O 5- ‘08.. a-i>5- 5-C000 0)- VS CC

4-’ 0 0 5-0) 5-0’0 •,

~

44J CO O .0 5 - 0) 4- --40 .0 010 .0 0 viU ) 0 )5 - 105-0 0’0COS - . 5 - 00) U >. S0)-~~4 0’05 0 00 5- 4w ..

~4 4.i 0 CC 4) 0.0) P.’0 CC a-i U )’0 CO 0.. 4) 4-’ 0 ‘0 0100 OCO 4-a CO Si-, v i a- i 4-’ 054) 0 0) ’-’ —a 0 ) > -, C C .0 CC — --4 E a -~ 04w00 4.i U) 4-J s j U) CO C5-, O .00)0 4 0 >0) C) >-.. 0 0 5 - 0) slS slS O 4w05-C/S s.’ c0 0 CCC) 0

CO.0.00) 0)5- O O E -’i 0 104 - ’ CO 4w+.’’0 : - .-‘ &S Q, O .005- vi 4-i a. .4.l 8-a 0)--4 5- 0 .0 0 .5- CO 05-CO ~ E S-’ a-’00 0 •.4 C4’) CO O 4-’ --4 4wvi5 - ~~~ 5-0)~~ -4 OOvi 0 0 4 -’ ~

-‘--‘ 4-.’ ‘0 in 4.i~~~~~4) .0 0 4 -1 0) 4-i sO 5 -1000.. 5-0.50- ‘0 4-’ U ~~ 4-’ U CO NI 5- 4-’ 0) ~~ 0) 0 --a .0 ,0 ~~

4 0 0.-i a-i 4) ‘0 .4~~~.4 CC

‘0—: US . C) 4..l 0 0 0 II) 4-~~’C 4) 0) 5 - ’0 0. 0 0) 0) 0 ) 0) ..4 0)4) ~ ‘ s ~

5 4-’ .0 0) 0 00).CO > CO’0 ‘C 5004 - i S-. 5- s-i cC CC 10 4-i U) Q. NIvia) 0)0)0. 0) Z 4.1 0) -.4 CC 5- — 5 -CO O 010 5- S-iOU ) 0)5 - 0) 05- 5-. 54) 0 ..-4 0 0 4) 00 0.0) 0 0 0) 00 00 0 - CO 0 00 0 — CC 0 4w 0) 0) 00—’ 0-00 0 5- --4

CO 5-. 5 -00 0 0.0 0 .0 S -’ 00 ) 0 0>-,0 ) ‘4-’ . 00 a-i 00 00 4-) . ,-

~ - -‘ 00 0) ..4 00 CO 00 00 w-i 0.. CC -’-4 5- 0. .‘-4 0. >0 0 0 >5 - 000 - 00 > 0 00 0 0 0 0 5- >0 0 50 0) ...4 ‘-I 00.-’ .-4 00 --’~~ -4 ~~ CO 00 0 .. 0 00 -“I 0 .-4 00- 00- 00.-, 00 00~ -i CO 0.. .0 0)-4 CO 4-’ .-O C ) C) 4-’ --40 ’ - 4 0) 4-) --4 0 4.~~•’.4 4.’ 0 000) 0 CO0 )• ’-4 54) 4~I

() 4 ). . 4 4.i C) .,-4 0 5) 5

~~~~4 > C) 4.J 5-..4 4.1>4._4 .4...4 C) • ,-4 Cj >~~~~ 0)0) 0 )0) 0)0)0)0) 0)50 0) 50 0)0 )50 0) 0)500)0) 0)0)0)0) 0 )0)500) 0 5- 4” .0 00 4w .0 5- 5- 00- 4-i .0,0 5- 00.0.0 00.0 00.0 .0.0 5- .0 .0 5- .0 CO .,

~

w

‘C

0)

4.4

ci 8-. 4) N. if’. -4 00 if) 0 C’S — sOVS C’S 50’ as 00 00 N. — VS LI’S ‘.0 —i L/’S —4 0 OS ’0 0 5- ~~ -i- ~~ - ~~

- 50’ u’S 50 50 VS LI’S VS VS i/S .j’. VS if) VS L/’S L/) VS 50~ I’) VS -

~~ 50’ ~~ VS vi 0 - - - - . - . . - . . . . . - - . - . . . . . • - - CC >-,

- C) US ’ (IS O

— — a’. oo ’.0 N 0’. in 0 ‘

~~

- ‘

. OVS 00 in NI 50 LI’S NI 00 VS N. Os 0 — N ‘.O’0 VS .0 CO VS NI NI VS NI VS VS VS VS ~‘S ss- VS VS VS VS VS VS NI 50 VS VS ~~ VS VS VS 50

> - . - . . . . . - - - . - . . . . . - . . - . - . .- I

‘C(C a-’ 4) -—

5-’ ci NI NI N NI NI -

~~ NI N. .-‘00 ‘CC- 00 VS — N. C 00 VS u’S 0 ‘.0~~~ 00 L’S NJ L/’. 0 US’0 U) 50’ F-- LI’S 50 ~ —4 Os irs C-I NI ‘—a NI LI’S 5’.) 0 C Ci 0 00 0 50’ ‘.0 N. VS 50 00 0 ‘ CC

8-~ - . . . . . . . - . - . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . 0 0) CO U.. NI NI V’S VS VS VS NI VS ~~ VS NI NI Ni VS VS F’s Ni VS — NI NI — NI NI 50’ VS C-I 5- CO >-,

0) 0) 4’ 0 VS NI 50 VS VS ‘.0 10’ — in 0 N ‘.0 ‘ONI Os’O .) in 00 N VS NI — Os ‘-4 ‘CC-I .0 CC -

— 0’. 0’. 00 00 00 N N N ‘.O~ 0~~~ 50’ ~~ ‘ ~~ VS VS VS VS C-i NI C-I NI NI — 0’. 00 C-I 4J .0 CC - . . . - . . . . - . . . . - . - . . - . . . > NI C-i NJ NI NJ NJ NI NI NI NI NI NJ NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI — — ‘-4 ‘0 >.. ‘-40) (0,0

vi 4-’ LI’S in in LI’. LI’S LI’S L/’. 4) - . . . . . 04w .s~ 5- — 00 0’. C-I NJ 0’. I/S Os C-I ..0 ’.O VS Os 00 — VS VS C-i Os N 0 .-i N NI — C N 0) .

~~ CO SL. ~~ VS — NI NI NJ VS — NI 50 50’ VS C-I VS V’. 50 VS 50 50 50 in VS 50’ — 50 E CO 0)

~~ 0)

O in in in in in in CO — — . - ‘ . . - ‘ - ‘ - - ‘ ‘ ‘ - ‘ 4’ • 10 CC

CC L/’. ‘.ON 00 00 C ‘-4 NI VS 50~ ‘000 Os C C NI VS 50’ in ‘.0 N- 00 0’. 0 — X

5-. N ININIC- ) NJVSF ’S VS VSVSF ~

’ S 8 ~’S VSVSV S 50’ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~50’50 ~~~in in 4’

—4 6 — L

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

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

APPENDiX C PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION INSTRUMENT USED IN PHASE I I

(PT 5102A)

Last Name First Name Service number Tank

Please fill in your name , number , and tank above. As soon as possible your data will

be coded and your name , number , and tank will be clipped off this sheet and destroyed . No part of any soldier ’s individual scores will be entered into his records or be

available to anyone other than Army Research Institute personnel for research uses only.

In the following sections we want to find out what you think the odds are for certain

specific happenings. Then we want to know how you migh t feel if ~~~ did happen to you.

SECTION I What are the odds?

For each general quest ion below please circle the odds (chances in 10) which best tells

how certain are that the statement is true. Choose any odds from the following:

very very

very very fairly very very perfect no little little little some 50-50 good good good good 100%

chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

Example: What are the odds that if you do very well on tank gunnery the Commanding

Genera l will shake your hand and congi-atulate you?

0/10 1/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/IC 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

If you feel there iB ~~~~~~~ little cha nce that this would happen circle 2/lU.

YOUR AN SWERS W ILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTI A L . PLEA SE AN SWER CAREFULLY AND HONESTLY . THANK YOU .

1. What are the odds that if you do very well in tank gunnery you will receive praise

from your superior for doing good wor k?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

2. What are the odds that if you do very well in tank gunnery you will feel really

proud of having done a good j ob?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/~~ 7/ 10 8/10 9/10 10/10

3. What are the odds that you will receive a promo .. n in rank if you do very well

in tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

4. What are the odds that you will do very well in tank gunnery if you really put ir.

a lot of effort ?

0/10 1/ In 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

5. What are the odds that you will be held more personally accountable for your work

if you do very well in tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

— — PT SlO2a

____
Very ~

‘ery

very very fairly very very perfect

no little little little some 50-50 good good goad good 100%

chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance chance

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

6 What are the odds that you will feel that you are car-tying your share of the load

if you do very well on tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/1,0 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

7. What are the odds that if you do very well on tank gunnery you’ll have oore free

t ime to yourself?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

8. What are the odds that you will be given a more responsible position if you do very

well in tank gunnery ?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

9. If you do very well in tank gunnery what are the odds that you will receive a

“Well done” from your platoon sergeant?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 3/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

10. What are the odds that you will be given a three-day pass if you do very well in

tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

11. If you exert yourself and concentrate what are the odds that you ‘.dll perform very

well on tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/ 10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/ 10

12 . If you do very well in tank gunnery what are the odds that you will receive

recognition from the Company Commander for doing a good job?

0/ 10 1/10 2/ 10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

13. What are the odds that you will feel you ’ve done an honest day ’s work if you do

very well in tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

14. If you do very well in tank gunnery what are the odds you will be given more

challenging opportunities in your job?

0/10 1/10 2/ 10 3/10 4/10 5/ 10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

15 What are the odds that you’ll be given two hours of free time on one day if you

— do very well in tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3,’lO 4/10 5/10 6/10 1/10 .8/10 9/10 10/10 L - - 

-48 - ~~ S102a 

- -

~~~~ -~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~
_____________ - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~

very very

very very fair ly very very perfect

no little little little some 50-50 good good good good 100%

cha nce ch ance chance ch ance chan ce ch anc e chance chance chance ch ance chanc e

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

16. What are the odds that if you work hard you will do very well in tank gunnery?

0/ 10 1/ 10 2/10 3/10 4/ 10 5/ 10 6/ 10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

17. If you do very well in tank gunnery what are the odds that you will get an

individual award for superior crew performance?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

18, What are the odds that you will feel you have achieved a worthwhile goal if you

do very well in tank gunnery?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10

19. If you do very well in tank gunnery what are the odds that you will receive

additional training in your job area?

0/10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8)10 9/10 10/10

SECTION II 110w do you feel about it?

In this section we are asking how you fee l about the happenings you saw in Section I.

We would like to know how you would foci if it happened to you.

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Don ’t Like Like Like Like Like

it it it it it a care it a it it a it it

Extremely greatly a lot some ijitie little some lot greatly extremely

-s -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 — 2 +3 +4

Example: 110w would you feel about being congratulated by the Commanding General for

doing very well in tank gunnery?

-s -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +4 +5

If you would like it a lot circle +3.

YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENT IAL. I’LEASE ANSWER CAREFULLY AND HONESTLY . THANK YOU .

20. How wou ld you feel about getting a three-day pass?

-5 -4 -3 —2 -1 0 +1 .2 +3 +~~

21. How would you feel about knowing that you ’ve done an honest day ’ ’

~ work?

—s -4 -3 -2 -1 0 ÷1 +2 +3 +4 +5

22. How would you feel about receiving additional training in your job area?

-5 -4 -3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

PT SIO2a

____ -
r

Dislik e Dislike Dislike Dislike KDislike Don ’t Like Like Like Like Like

it it it it i t a care it a it it a it it ex— extremely greatl y a lot some little little some 201 greatly tremely

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 .1 .2 .3 +4 .5

YOU R ANSWERS WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE ANSWER CAREFULLY AND HONESTLY. THANK YOU .

23. flow would you feel about receiving praise from your superior?

-5 -4 -3 -2 —1 0 +1 +2 +3 .4 +5

24. flow would you feel about being giv en more challenging opportunities in your job?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 .5

25. How would you feel about believing that you have achieved a worthwhile goal?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 .3 +4 +5

26. flow would you feel about being able to carry your share of the load?

-s ‘ -4 -3 -2 —1 0 -1 +2 +3 +4 +5

27. How would you feel about being really proud of having done a good job?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 .2 +3 +4 +5

28. How would you feel about being given two hours of free time on one day?

-5 -4 - 3 -2 -l 0 -l +2 +3 +4 +5

29. How would you feel about receiving a “Well done ” from your platoon sergeant?

-5 -4 -3 — 2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 .5

30. flow would you feel about getting an individual award for superior crew performance?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 .5

31. How would you feel about receiving a promotion?

-5 —4 —3 -2 —l 0 +1 +2 .3 .4

32. flow would you feel about receiving recognition from the Company Commander for doing a

good job?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 .2 +3 .4 .5

33. How would you feel about being given a more responsible position?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 .2 +3 +4

34. How would you feel about having more free time to yourself?

-5 -4 —3 —2 -l 0 .1 +2 .3 .4 .5

35. 110w would you feel abou t being held more personall y accountable for your work?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -l 0 +1 +2 +3 .4 .5

— — PT

- -w’_ .s~

_

~~~~si_~~ _’__’-__~~~~~~

____

-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~---~~- --- — -
- - - -

APPENDIX D

PLATOON LEADER ’S - PLATOON SERGEANT ’ S RATING FORM

1. PLEASE LIST THE GUNNERS IN YOUR PLATOON , starting with the gunner

assigned to your first tank (i.e. A2 1 if A Co , 2nd Pit) and continuing

to your fifth tank.

CO Phi TANK GUNNER’S NAME RANKING

1 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________

________ 

2 ______________________________________________________________________ _____________

_______ 

3 _________________________________________________________________ _____________

4 _________________________________________________________________ _____________

_______ 

5 ______________________________________________________________________ _____________

Consider your gunners in term s of their demonstrated gunning ability at this

time . Disregard their personality, conduct in the platoon , military

courtesy, moti vation , training , etc. Rank the gunners in terms of demonstrated

gunning abili ty only, with the best gunner ranked 1 , the second bes~~2, etc.

Write your ranking next to the man ’ s name in the column headed “Ranking”.

2 . PLEASE LIST TIlE DRIVERS IN YOUR PLATOON , starting with the driver

assigned to your first tank (I.e. A21 if A Co , 2nd Pi t) and continuing to

your fifth tank ,

Co - Phi TANK DRIVER’S NAM E RANKING

_______ 

2 _________________________________________________________ ______________ _______________

_______ 

3 ___________________________________________________________________ ______________

_______ 

4 ___________________________________________________________________ _______________

___ 

5 _________________________ _____

Consider your drivers in terms of their demonstrated driving ability at this

time . Disregard their personality, conduct in the platoon , military courtesy,

motivation , training , etc. Rank the drivers in terms of demonstrated

driving ability only, with the best driver ranked 1 , the second best 2 , etc.

Write your ranking next to the man ’s name in the column headed “Ranking”.

(OVER)

PLEASE CONT I NU E ON THE BAC K OF THIS PAGE

— 51 —

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

3. Pll:-\SL LIST 111E LOADI RS ~~~ YOUR PLATOON , st ar ting with the load er

assi gned to your first tank (i.e. \21 if ~ Co , 2nd Pi t) and continuing

to your fifth tank .

CO Phi T\Nf. LOADER’S N\~IF RANKING

4

S __________________________________________________________________________

Consider your loaders in terms of their demonstrated loading ability at this

t ime . Disregard their personality, conduct in the platoon , military courtesy,

motivation , training , etc. Rank the loaders in term s of demonstrated loading ability only, with the best loader ranked 1 , the second bes t 2 , etc. Write

your ranking next to the man ’s name in the column headed “Ranking ” .

THANK YOU

-52 -

.

.

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

AR ) Distnbution List

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

2 HODA (DAMI-CSZ) 1 HQUSACDEC, FtOrd , ATTN: ATEC—EX—E—Hum F.ctor; 1 HQDA IDAPE.PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

1 HODA (DAMA.AR) 1 USAPACDC , Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN: ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE-I4RE-P0) 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN : ATSN— EA

1 HQDA ISGRD-ID) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—CT—HDP

I HQDA (DAMI.DOT-C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—PA—P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ-AI 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN : AMSEL—S l— CB

1 HODA (OACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, A’fl’N: C, Fad Des Br

1 HODA (DAPE-HAE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberc’een , ATTN: AMXSV—P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA—BL -- H

1 HQDA )OAPE.DW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen , ATTN : ATSL—TEM--C

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

1 HODA (DAPE-CPS1 I USA Combat Arms Tog Sd, Ft Banning, ATtN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA IDAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit , Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA IDARD-AR S-PI 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN~ STEBC—TE—T

1 HODA IDAPC.PAS.A) 1 USASMA . Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSS—LRC

1 HQDA (DuSA-OR) I USA Air Del Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN~ ATSA-CTD--ME

1 HODA IDAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Blits , ATTN~ Tech Lib

1 HODA IDASG) 1 USA Air Del Sd, Ft Bliss , ATTN : FILES

1 HODA (DA1O-PI) 1 USA Air Oaf Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBO—PO

1 Chief , Consult Div (DA.OTSG). Adelphi, MD I USA Cmd & Generel Stf College, Ft Leevenworth, ATTN : Lib

1 Mu Aist. Hum Ret , 000R&E , OAD IE&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Sti College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW—SE—L

I HO USARAL , APO Seattle , ATTN: ARA GP-R 1 USA Cmd & General StI College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA- Ol.Tl 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army , Ft Sam Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN~ CCS

1 Dir, Army Sti Studies Oft . ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf , Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATT’N : ATCACO—E

1 DCSPER, ATTN: cpsiocp 1 USA Combined Arms Crnbt Des Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCACC— Cl

I The Army Lib, Pentagon. Afl’N: RSS Chief I USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Selvoir , ATTN : AMSEL—NV—SD

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

1 Ofc , AssI Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMERDC , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB—D O

Tech Support Ofr. ojcs 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir . ATTN: Library

I USASA. Arlington, ATTN~ IARD -T I USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir, AT’I’N: ETL-TD—S

1 (iSA Rsch Oft, Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN : STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Nasick , ATTN : SGRD.UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC. Ft Clayton , ATTN: STETC.M0-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATTN : ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS—CTD-MS

1 USAIMA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marguat Lib I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. A1’TN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan, A’fl’N: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATT N : ATSI—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan , ATTN: Tng Dir I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN : ATSI—CTS—O R

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM.TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th, Ft Huachuca, A1’TN: ATSI—CTD—DT

1 Intelligence Material Des Ofc , EWL . Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTD—C S

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon. A’fl’N: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuci, ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATTN : ATSC-TE.RD I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuc., ATT N : ATSI—TEM

1 USA’ISCH, Ft Eustis . ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, A1’TN: Library

1 USA War College, Carl. Barracks . ATTN : Lib 1 COR , HO Ft Huachuca. ATTN: Tech Ret Div

2 WRAIR , Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR , USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN : STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI, SDA, Monterey I CDR , Project MASSTER , ATTN: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , AT’TN: MOCA-W GC I l4q MASSTER. USATRADOC , LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda. ATrN: MOCA-MA ¶ Research Inetitute, HO MASSTER. Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda. A’fl’N: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting C,nd, Ft Sherthan, ATTN: USARCPM—P

1 USA Artic Test Ct,, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC’MO’ASL 1 Senior Army Ads., USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Aux FId No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Ctr. APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL” TS I HO USARPAC. DCSPER , APO SF 96558. ATIN : OPPE— SE

I USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: AISK-TEM I Stlmeon LIb, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Isl and , ATTN: AMSAR.TDC I Marine Corps ln,t., ATTN: Dean -MCI

I FAA.NAFEC . Atlantic City , ATTN: LIbrary I HOUSMC. Commandant. ATTh: Code MTM T 51

I FAA.NAF EC Atlantic CIty , AT’TN: Mum En~ Sr ¶ MOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN : Cods MP I—20

1 FAA A roneuticil Ctr. Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy. New London , ATTN: AdmissIon

2 USA Fid Arty ScIs , Ft Sill. AT’TN: LIbrary 2 USCG Academy, New London , ATTN: LIbrary

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN : Library I USCG Training Ctr, NY , ATTN: CO

I USA Armor 5th, Ft Knox , ATTN : ATSB’D I-E I USCG TraIning Ctr. NY. ATTN : Educ Svc Otc

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , An N: ATSB-DT-TP I USCG, Psychol Pee Br . DC, ATIN: GP 1/62

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-CD-AD I HO Mid—Range Br, MC Det, Ouantico. ATTN : P&S Div

- 53

__ ______ __
1 US Marine Corps Liais ion Ofc , AMC, Alexandria , ATTN : AMCGS—F 1 Oaf & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monro., ATTN AT RO—ED 1 AIR CRESS. Kensington , ATTN : Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATP R—AD 1 Militaerpsy kologisk Tj,rwsse, Cogehagen

I USATRADOC. Ft Monro e, ATTN : ATIS—EA 1 Military Attach., French Emt.sssy , AT1’N: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd. Ft McPherson , A’fl ’N: Library I Medecin Chef . C,E.R.P.A.—Arsen.I. Tou lon/Naval France

2 USA Avia aon Test Sd. Ft Ruck.r, ATTN : STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off. Aopl Hum Enge Rsch Div. Ministry

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

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety , Ft Rucker . A’T’Th : Educ Advisor 1 Pars Pacts Otc Library, AKA , Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation 5th, Ft Pucker , ATTN : P0 Drawer 0 I Ministeris van Defans ie , 000P/KL Afd Socuaa l

1 HQUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, St Louis . ATTN : AN SAV—Z DR Psycholo gische Zaken, The Hague , Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act., Edwards AF B. ATTN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Oaf 5th, Ft Slits, ATTN : A TSA TEN

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & 0ev Lab , Moffett FId , ATTN: SAVOL—A S

1 USA Aviation Sch. Ret Tng Mgt. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—T— RTM

1 USA Aviation 5th, CO. Ft Pucker , ATTN: ATS T—D—A 1 HO, USAMC, Alexandria , A’fl’ N: AMXC D—TL

I HO, USAMC, Alexandria , A’fl ’N: COP

I US Milita ry Academy, West Point , ATTN : Serials Unit

I US Milita ry Acade my, West Point , ATTN : Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Milita ry Academy, West Point , ATTN: MAOR

1 USA Standardi zation Gp, UK , FPO NY , A’fl’N: MASE—GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington , ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

I Ole of Navel Rich. Arlington, ATTt4: Code 450

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

I Naval Aarospc Med Re, Lab, Pensacola , ATtN: Acous 5th Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Rex Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Code L51

1 Nasal Aerospc Med Re, Lab , Pensacola, ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPers. AT’TN: Pert-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA, Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nay Oceanographic. DC. A’fl’N: Code 6251. Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATIN: Qoc Cot

1 NavAirSysCom, ATTN: AIR—5313C

1 Nav BuMed,ATTN: 713

I NaslfelicopterSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

I AFHRL (PT) William AFB

I AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFH RL (AS) WPAFB . OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ( Brooks AFB

I AFHRL (DOJN) Lackland AFB

1 HOUSAF (INYSD)

1 HOUSAF )DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB . OH

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

I ATC IXPTD) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib , Brooks AFB (SUL—4). ATTh : DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NL), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB , ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sal Scn

5 NavPers & 0ev Ctr. San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rich Unit, San Diego

I Net Electronic Lab , San Diego, ATTN: P., Lab

1 Nay TrngCen. San Diego, ATTN: Cod. 9000— Lib

I NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTh : Code S5Aa

1 NavPostGraSch . Monterey, ATTN: Cods 2124

1 NavTrngEquipCtt . Orlando, ATrN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor , DC. ATTN: Manpower Admin

I US Dept of Justice, DC, ATIN : Drug Enforce Adm in

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

1 Nat Cleari ng House for MIt—Info , Roc kv Illa

I Denver Federal Ctr, Lakswood, A’fl’N: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Olt Psych, Army 14g. Russell Ofcs. Canberra

1 Scientific Advir, Nil Sd, Army lIp, Russell Ofc.. Canberra

I Nil arid Air Attach,, AustTi.n Embassy

1 Cent,, da Rech,rcha Des Facteurs. Humalrse de I.Defense

National,, Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

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

3 Chief . Canadian Oaf Rack Staff , ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 BrIti sh 0,4 Staff . British Embassy. Washingt on

—54 —

-

~

---i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~