|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
ENHANCING HUMAN PERFORMANCE:
ISSUES. THEORIES' AND TECHNIQUES
Background Papers
Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
National Academy Pre
Washington, DC 1988
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by
the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special
competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors
according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting
of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit,
self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority
of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a
mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of
outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National
Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting
national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the
superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of
the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National
Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility
given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to
be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O.
Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the
public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
This project was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Institute.
OCR for page R3
Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance
John A. Swets, Chair, Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Robert A. Bjork, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los
Angeles
Thomas D. Cook, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University
Lloyd G. Humphreys, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois
Ray Hyman, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon
Daniel M. Landers, Department of Physical Education, Arizona State
University
Sandra A. Mobley, Director of Training and Development, The Wyatt Company,
Washington, D.C.
Lyman W. Porter, Graduate School of Management, University of California,
Irvine
Michael I. Posner, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon
Walter Schneider, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh
Jerome E. Singer, Department of Medical Psychology, Uniformed Services
University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.
Sally P. Springer, Executive Assistant, Office of the Chancellor,
University of California at Davis
Richard F. Thompson, Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Daniel Druckman, Study Director, National Research Council
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
PREFACE
The Army Research Institute in 1984 asked the National Academy of
Sciences to form a committee to examine the potential value of certain
techniques that had been proposed to enhance human performance. As a
class, these techniques were viewed as extraordinary, in that they were
developed outside the mainstream of the human sciences and were presented
with strong claims for high effectiveness. The committee was also to
reco end general policy and criteria for future evaluation of enhancement
techniques by the Army.
The Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance
met first in June 1985. The 14 members of the committee were appointed
for their expertise in areas related to the techniques examined. The
disciplines they represent include experimental, physiological, clinical,
social, and industrial psychology and cognitive neuroscience; one member
is a training program director from the private sector. During the next
two years, the committee gathered six times, met in to to or in part on
several occasions with various representatives of the Army, conducted
interviews and site visits and sent subcommittees on several others, and
commissioned 10 analytical and survey papers. The committee also examined
a variety of materials, including state-of-the-art reviews of relevant
literature, reports commissioned by the Army Research Institute, and
unpublished documents provided by institutes, practitioners, and
researchers. The committee's report describes its activities, findings,
and conclusions. Though cast largely in terms of the sponsor's setting,
the report is relevant to other settings, for example, industry. The next
few paragraphs present some background. That the United States Army
should be concerned to enhance the performance of its personnel is
self-evident. We know that young volunteers must become not only soldiers
who do well in battle but also technicians who skillfully operate and
maintain complex equipment in peace and war. We are aware, moreover, that
personal skills are not enough: individuals are heavily dependent on each
other within small groups, and groups of various sizes must work very
effectively together to permit survival and ensure success. And of
course, all must be ready to give peak performances in situations of great
hardship, uncertainty, and stress. In the face of these staggering
requirements, one must realize that turnover of personnel is high and that
the training time available--to impart the necessary cognitive, physical,
and social skills--is brief.
So it comes as no surprise that the Army is on the lookout for
techniques that can help enhance human performance. The Army Research
Institute is charged with seeking out and developing such techniques: it
does so by employing researchers in the human sciences and by supporting
appropriate research in universities and other public and private
organizations. It focuses largely on promising new techniques as they
appear in the mainstream of behavioral, physiological, and social
research. However, given the pressures and given a view of mainstream
research as slow, narrow, and insufficiently targeted, it also comes as no
surprise that some influential officers and certain segments of the Army
want to cast a broader net to snare promising enhancement techniques. To
do this, they look beyond traditional research organizations and practices
to what are viewed as extraordinary techniques. These techniques are
OCR for page R6
thought possibly to provide such unusual benefits as accelerated learning,
learning during sleep, superior performance through altered mental states,
better management of behavior under stress, more effective ways of
influencing other people, and so on. There is also an initiative within
the Army to consider techniques based on paranormal phenomena, for
example, extrasensory perception to view remote sites and psychokinesis to
influence the operation of distant machines.
Along with these urgings to examine, to try, or to implement
extraordinary techniques come difficult new problems for those in the Army
responsible for evaluation, as well as for those in the Army responsible
for personnel and training practices. One issue is that proponents of
such techniques are usually not content with traditional evaluation
procedures or scientific standards of evidence, often giving more weight
to personal experience and testimony. Furthermore, a typical technique of
this kind does not arise from the usual research traditions of experiments
published in refereed journals and peer review of cumulated evidence, but
rather appears full blown as a package promoted by a commercial vendor.
What does the Army Training and Doctrine Command or the base commander do
when the need is great, the package is ready, the claims are for miracles,
some senior officers are vocally supportive, and the evaluation criteria
are fluid? What do Army intelligence agencies do when the same conditions
apply and other nations are said to be active in investigating paranormal
effects?
The committee decided to assess a representative set of the techniques
in question and resolved to address the surrounding issues in an
open-minded and thorough way. We therefore divided ourselves into a
number of subcommittees organized according to the behavioral processes
addressed by the several techniques: accelerated learning, sleep
learning, guided imagery, split-brain effects, stress management,
biofeedback, influence strategies, group cohesion, and parapsychology. In
addition, a subcommittee on evaluation issues was formed to examine
practices and standards relevant to all the techniques. Each chapter of
the report was prepared by the appropriate subcommittee, but interactions
were frequent and so the report represents a collaborative effort of all
the members. The papers in this volume were prepared as background for
the committee's work.
As committee chair, I am now in the pleasant position of recounting
the several contributors to the total committee process, a process that
went remarkably well. Definition and guidance for the committee's task
came primarily from Edgar M. Johnson, director of the Army Research
Institute. Administrative and technical liaison was ably provided by
project monitor George Lawrence, who worked closely with the committee in
its various activities. They were supported well by several senior Army
officers, including Colonel William Darryl Henderson, Commander of the
Army Research Institute; Major General John Crosby, Assistant Deputy Chief
of Staff for Personnel; and General Maxwell R. Thurman, Vice Chief of
Staff. The committee met with members of a resource advisory group that
included Lieutenant General Robert M. Elton, chair, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel; Lieutenant General Sidney T. Weinstein, Assistant Chief of
Staff for Intelligence; Dr. Louis M. Cameron, Director of Army Research
and Technology; Major General Maurice O. Edmunds, Commander of the Soldier
Support Center; and Major General Philip K. Russell, Commander of the
OCR for page R7
Medical Research and Development Command. Among the Army staff who were
very helpful to the committee are Colonel John Alexander and Mr. Robert
Klaus; the names of many others appear in Appendix C.
The committee's two consultants contributed special expertise: Paul
Horwitz (of Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.) joined the site visits of the
subcommittee on parapsychology and advised on physical aspects of
experiments in that area; dames Schroeder (of Southwest Research
Institute) attended the committee's meeting at Fort Benning, Georgia, and
advised on the application of scientific research by the military (see
Appendix E). The committee also received special expertise by
commissioning papers. These papers and their authors are listed in
Appendix B.
At the National Research Council, David Goslin, executive director of
the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, once again
provided wise counsel and support. Ira Hirsh, commission chair, and
William Estes, also representing the commission, gave valuable advice and
encouragement. Thomas Landauer, a member of the NRC's Committee on Human
Factors, provided liaison in the areas of our committees' mutual
interests. The reviewers of this report gave us a good measure of
reinforcement along with helpful critiques. Eugenia Grohman, associate
director for reports, lent experience and wisdom to this report. Special
gratitude is extended to Christine McShane, the commission's editor: her
skillful editing of the entire manuscript contributed substantially to its
readability, and the coherence of the volume owes much to her suggestions
for organizing the material. Julie Kraman, as administrative secretary to
the committee, earned its considerable appreciation for setting up
efficient meetings and for handling all manner of tasks graciously and
smoothly.
Daniel Druckman, study director of the project, receives the
committee's great appreciation for his intellectual contributions across
the broad range of topics considered as well as for his logistic support.
Working closely with the authors of chapters and commissioned papers, he
provided an integration of the several contributions as well as much of
the introductory and interstitial material. He also served on two
subcommittees in areas of his expertise.
The ultimate debt of anyone who finds this report useful, and my large
personal debt, is to the members of the committee. As individuals, their
capabilities are broad and deep. As a group, they gave generously and
productively of their time, were always engaged, responded to every
challenge, and, especially, showed an exceptional talent for reaching
consensus in a collegial, advised, and efficient way.
JOHN A. SUETS, Chair
Committee on Techniques for the
Enhancement of Human Performance
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
PART I. Issues of Theory and Methodology
Human Performance Research: An Overview
Monica J. Harris and Robert Rosenthal
Intuitive Judgment and the Evaluation of Evidence
Dale Griffin
PART II. Learning
Learning During Sleep
Eric Eich
Accelerated Learning
Robert E. Slavin
PART III. Improving Motor Performance
5. Mental Practice, Concentration, and Biofeedback
Deborah L. Feltz, Daniel M. Landers, and Betsy J. Becker
PART IV. Stress Management
6.
7.
PART V.
8.
9.
Stress and Performance
Seymour Levine
Stress Reduction Programs
Raymond W. Novaco
Social Processes
Influence Strategies
Dean G. Pruitt, Jennifer Cracker, and Deborah Haines
Culture and Group Cohesion
Boaz Timid and Gideon Kunda
PART VI. Parapsychological Techniques
10.
Remote Viewing and Extra-Sensory Perception
James E. Alcock
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Medical Research and Development Command. Among the Army staff who were
very helpful to the committee are Colonel John Alexander and Mr. Robert
Klaus; the names of many others appear in Appendix C.
The committee's two consultants contributed special expertise: Paul
Horwitz (of Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.) joined the site visits of the
subcommittee on parapsychology and advised on physical aspects of
experiments in that area; dames Schroeder (of Southwest Research
Institute) attended the committee's meeting at Fort Benning, Georgia, and
advised on the application of scientific research by the military (see
Appendix E). The committee also received special expertise by
commissioning papers. These papers and their authors are listed in
Appendix B.
At the National Research Council, David Goslin, executive director of
the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, once again
provided wise counsel and support. Ira Hirsh, commission chair, and
William Estes, also representing the commission, gave valuable advice and
encouragement. Thomas Landauer, a member of the NRC's Committee on Human
Factors, provided liaison in the areas of our committees' mutual
interests. The reviewers of this report gave us a good measure of
reinforcement along with helpful critiques. Eugenia Grohman, associate
director for reports, lent experience and wisdom to this report. Special
gratitude is extended to Christine McShane, the commission's editor: her
skillful editing of the entire manuscript contributed substantially to its
readability, and the coherence of the volume owes much to her suggestions
for organizing the material. Julie Kraman, as administrative secretary to
the committee, earned its considerable appreciation for setting up
efficient meetings and for handling all manner of tasks graciously and
smoothly.
Daniel Druckman, study director of the project, receives the
committee's great appreciation for his intellectual contributions across
the broad range of topics considered as well as for his logistic support.
Working closely with the authors of chapters and commissioned papers, he
provided an integration of the several contributions as well as much of
the introductory and interstitial material. He also served on two
subcommittees in areas of his expertise.
The ultimate debt of anyone who finds this report useful, and my large
personal debt, is to the members of the committee. As individuals, their
capabilities are broad and deep. As a group, they gave generously and
productively of their time, were always engaged, responded to every
challenge, and, especially, showed an exceptional talent for reaching
consensus in a collegial, advised, and efficient way.
JOHN A. SUETS, Chair
Committee on Techniques for the
Enhancement of Human Performance
OCR for page R12
