I
I
tice might be optimal (given considerations of
pal PraC
equipment availability, and so forth). 4
e*P
eIlS
rerning visual-training programs,
the committee
C
ded that there was no research base to suggest that
^
loaHc tn imnrnved nerformance. There
is
i
c°flC U
aining leads to improved performance. There
is
sue
tr
that certain visual abilities can be improved by
evidenC
the eye muscles, but evidence that attentional
train,ng
an be enhanced by visual training is lacking.
ski"s C
committee concluded that there remain too many
The
, s for the relationship between biofeedback and
|0°sCPerformance to be determined. Part of the prob-
ski'led £at biofeedback is often used as part of broader
1C11 lS
eUtic programs that incorporate other, possibly ef-
theraP
techniques. Another problem is that biofeedback
feCtlV i\0 train physiological parameters (heart rate, for
is use
)e) although clear knowledge of the most desirable
i
of these parameters with respect to a given
skill
•
allv does not exist. In cases where that relationship
tyP
known (e.g., hand warmth and finger dexterity), there
j*
evidence of performance benefit.
Altering Mental States
The idea that people can achieve an internal state that
... be optimal for a broad range of performance has been
ijne
. Some level of arousal
is optimal for perfor-
apP
e of a given complexity (Duffy,
1962; Yerkes &
nndson
1908) and,
specifically,
the optimal
level de-
reases’ as
task complexity
increases (Easterbrook,
JU)
This concept
fits
the behavior theories of the
950s, which specified that a source of energy or drive is
auired t0 Reep the organism active and was reinforced
hv the physiological discovery of a diffuse activating sys-
tem in the brain (Moruzzi & Magoun,
1949). However,
with new knowledge of the variety and specificity of neu-
rotransmitter systems (Robbins & Everitt, 1982) and with
psychological theory focused on cognition, we have be-
gun to think of a large number of cortical computations in
widely distributed neural systems (Rumelhart & McClel-
land, 1986). The view that cortical computations are mod-
ulated by different transmitter systems in varying ways
makes it more difficult to suppose that any training tech-
nique will provide optimal states for all forms of physical
and mental activity. An example comes from the finding
that the optimal conditions of alertness for rapid respond-
ing differ from those for the best memory performance
(Posner, 1975).
Unfortunately, the committee did not find time to ex-
plore the evidence for the wide variety of specific training
or induction methods that might provide a basis for tech-
niques for manipulating internal states. It recommended a
literature review of links between such techniques and
changes in performance and, in
its next phase, will ex-
amine further the techniques of intensive meditation and
self-hypnosis.
The committee considered issues of brain asymmetry
in detail.
It reviewed Hemi-Sync, in part through a visit
by Springer, Thompson, Druckman, and Lawrence to the
Monroe Institute in Virginia where it was developed. Al-
though this technique is said to be valuable in therapeutic
settings (pain control in cancer patients, alcohol abuse,
retardation, autism, and seizure disorders) and though
formal research designs have been approximated for its
application in a few educational settings (courses in basic
broadcasting, ear training, and introductory psychology),
the committee concluded that current attempts to alter
performance through coordinating the two hemispheres
by an external or instructional device do not appear to be
effective. It observed, more generally, that the scientific
evaluation of claims for enhancing performance by
in-
volving the hemispheres differentially awaits the devel-
opment of reliable measures of hemispheric activity
in
individuals.
4. Following on that recommendation, an experiment is underway at
the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama to evaluate mental practice as a com-
ponent
in the training of complex
soldering of electronic
circuits.
Landers guided the design of conditions that will permit a comparison
of mental-practice, placebo, and standard training groups.
Stress Management
The clear thrust of the evidence from various types of
research on stress, from animal studies as well as human
studies, is that an individual’s uncertainty about impend-
ing events and sense of control over them are the main
factors in perceived stress. This conclusion is supported
by the extensive review paper on stress and performance
prepared for the committee by Seymour Levine (see foot-
note
2). A case
in point
is the study of hormonal and
behavioral responses of Norwegian paratroop trainees as
they made repeated jumps from a tower on a guide wire
(Ursin, Baade, & Levine, 1978). Initially high elevations
of cortisone
in the blood were reduced to basal levels
after the second jump and fear ratings changed similarly.
The
implications of this research evidence
for the
army are complex. There surely are practical limitations
on how much knowledge and understanding of the future
can be disseminated during combat and on how much
individual or group control can be permitted or demon-
strated. Moreover, though the committee focused prima-
rily on stress reduction, the army must also induce stress
during training to prepare
soldiers for real combat. A
study by Novaco, Cook, and Sarason (1983) showed that
providing marine recruits with more realistic information
about what lies
in store for them, and about the
skills
necessary for coping with the rigors of boot camp, led
them to exhibit higher expectations of personal control
and efficacy.
vol. i,No.£M£M^ For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200640001-i
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
A|||HUUHI| Fu i Keteas&mmsm
. CIA KUHMb UU/aUKUU^UO^OOOT'/-^
Enhancing Human Performance
The committee reviewed individual and intrapsychic
approaches to stress reduction, including arousal reduc-
tion (relaxation training and biofeedback), cognitive re-
structuring and problem
solving, and behavioral
skills
training. Regarding biofeedback, on which a conclusion
was specifically requested of the committee, it was found
that although biofeedback can achieve a reduction of
muscle tension,
it does not reduce stress effectively.
Committee members’
appreciation of military
stress
was enhanced by a visit to Fort Benning, Georgia, where
they viewed paratroop training (and arranged, and then
mercifully aborted, an opportunity for David Goslin to
make a jump). They saw Bradley vehicles maneuvering
under fire and then rode in one. They also heard a pre-
sentation and viewed a videotape on the extraordinarily
demanding and stressful procedures of Ranger training,
which centers on several weeks of long daily marches
over difficult and hazardous terrains under severe envi-
ronmental conditions.
Influence Strategies
The committee’s treatment of strategies of social
in-
fluence centered on neurolinguistic programming (NLP).
NLP’s wide use in the army was described by army rep-
resentative Robert Klaus in two briefings; a background
paper by Pruitt, Crocker, and Hanes was recruited by the
committee (footnote
2); and Singer, Davison, Mobley,
and Druckmann attended a workshop on NLP techniques
and interviewed Richard Bandler, one of the developers
of NLP. The conclusion was that
little
if any evidence
exists either to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate
that
it is effective as a strategy for social influence.
NLP has also been used as a means to model expert
performance and the committee’s visit to Fort Benning
included a review of a test of this aspect of NLP as ap-
plied to marksmanship. Though the committee could find
only one evaluation of NLP as a model of expert perfor-
mance, and found that one wanting,
it did conclude that
the investigation of expert models constitutes a worth-
while activity for the army, and the continuing committee
plans to pursue that topic.
Group Cohesion
The army
is quite committed to developing group co-
hesion.
Its current COHORT system of keeping units
intact
is motivated by the desire to enhance group per-
formance by increasing group cohesion. The chair of the
committee’s resource advisory group, Lieutenant Gen-
eral Robert M. Elton, and the commander of the Army
Research Institute, Colonel William Darryl Henderson,
have written
in support of
it (Elton,
1984; Henderson,
1985). A technical report from the Walter Reed Army
Institute for Research points out that civilian scholars as
well as senior military officers accept that cohesion in-
hibits breakdown, without regard to the research co^
munity’s ability to demonstrate relationships (“The
Manning System Field Evaluation,”
1986, No.
3,
p, ^
Peters and Waterman’s In Search of Excellence (I9j%
may represent civilian scholars in this regard, and indeed
the research community has been supportive to a degrJ
(e.g., Campbell, 1975; Katz & Kahn, 1966).
The committee, however, believed that the argunie^
in favor ought to be treated as hypotheses rather thap
conclusions,
citing
difficulties
in
separating con Se,
quences and indicators of cohesion, the gap between i^
proved cohesion and better unit performance, the
ten.
dency
to rely on
single-factor explanations
of group
performance, and the possibility of reciprocal effects hi
tween cohesion and performance. The current evidenC{
makes
it necessary for organizations seeking to
benefit
from cohesion to proceed largely on faith; the committee
referred to some possible negative consequences of Co.
hesion
as reviewed by
Porter, Lawler, and Hackman
(1975): ineffective handling of deviance, “group think,”
increased impact of any
existing negative norms,
and
increased intergroup
conflict. The committee
also
dis.
cussed issues of implementation that
it saw as
having
received
little attention. A background paper by Tamjr
and Kunda (footnote 2) developed implications from the
cultural perspective advanced by Schein (1985).
A'
Parapsychology
The subcommittee on parapsychology made
its
prin-
cipal
site
visits
to the laboratories of Robert Jahn
at
Princeton University and Helmut Schmidt in San Anto-
(
nio to discuss experiments on the psychokinetic control
of random event generators. Experiments on
remote
viewing were also discussed
at Princeton. Hyman and
Humphreys were joined on both visits by Dr. Paul Hoi-
witz, a consultant to the committee and a physicist
at
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., who had organized a
1979 symposium on “Physics and Parapsychology”
for
the American Physical Society that included as speakers
Helmut Schmidt and Ray Hyman. Also visiting Professor
Jahn were Druckman, Lawrence, and Paul Holland, then
a member of the committee. Hyman visited Edward May
at the Stanford Research Institute to discuss experiments
on random event generators and remote viewing. Hyman
and Horwitz were briefed by representatives of the U.S.
Army Laboratory Command on parapsychology and mil-
itary intelligence; Druckman and Swets were briefed on
Soviet parapsychology by representatives of the Army
Foreign Science and Technology Center and the Defense?
Intelligence Agency. In connection with a meeting held in
San Diego, the entire committee, kindly accompaniedI by
local psychology professors George Mandler and William,
McGill, visited the laboratory of Cleve Backster whosug-j
sponds
time an
the eon
strat*on
Visit
hoW sU
6vent g'
device
jecttrie
rnode,
:
number
conditn
piodeSi
jjorwit
ference
random
a rneeh;
(a digib
istic an
could v
noise si
falling
t
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-OO789ROO220O.640(QQlMftRCHi
VOL.
1,
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: Cl
John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork
s(S that the electrical activity of a preparation of leu-
jLytes taken from the mouth of a human subject
re-
K
0„ds to the emotional states of the subject, at a later
*Le and in a different place. For this visit, the promise to
the committee, not fulfilled, was an observable demon-
iration of anomalous events.
|
Visitors
to Professor Jahn’s laboratory were shown
how subjects sit in front of one of three kinds of random
^ent generators and attempt to affect the behavior of the
^vice in one of three ways: In the PK+ mode, the sub-
ject tries to get a higher than chance level of hits; in PK -
„iode, a lower than chance level; and in baseline mode, a
nUmber of hits equal to the chance level. Under volitional
conditions^ the subject is free to select among the three
(nodes; under instructed
conditions, he or she
is
not.
jjorwitz observed that the investigators reported no dif-
ferences in results occasioned by a transition from a true
random event generator (an analogue electronic device or
a mechanical device) to a pseudorandom event generator
(a digital, programmed device) that is actually determin-
istic and nonrandom. They believed that their subjects
could will changes in a voltage or voltage threshold of a
poise source or changes in the trajectories of small balls
falling down a chute with multiple obstacles and, equally
well, changes in certain bits (from zeros to ones or vice
versa) of predetermined and otherwise completely repro-
ducible-sequences as generated by an array of shift ree-
lsters.
At his Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Dr.
Schmidt described an experiment designed to permit a
skeptical group of scientists to apply adequate controls to
a psychokinesis experiment without destroying the psy-
chological environment for a subject that
is said by psi
researchers to be critical for obtaining positive results.
I Both groups use a piece of data not yet available (e.g.
specified weather data from the New York Times at some
agreed upon future date) as a pointer into a given table of
random numbers, which will generate “seed numbers” to
a pseudorandom number generator and hence produce a
predetermined sequence of ones and zeros. Both groups
follow a set procedure to assign PK + and PK - modes to
the seed numbers and thereby instructions for the sub-
ject. An agreement made during the site visit to conduct
aJomt experiment with Dr. Horwitz as participant, which
would be monitored by the committee, was not followed
up by Dr. Schmidt.
The committee benefited from a review of the litera-
ture on remote viewing and random event generators pre-
V°L.
1, NO. 2, MARCH 1990
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200640001-7