Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1