National Academies Press: OpenBook

Human Behavior in Military Contexts (2008)

Chapter: Front Matter

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Human Behavior in Military Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12023.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Human Behavior in Military Contexts Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military James J. Blascovich and Christine R. Hartel, Editors Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, N.W.  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri- ate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. W74V8H-05-C-0050 between the Na- tional Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of the Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-11230-7 Library of Congress Control Number-10:  0-309-11230-3 Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Cover credit: Photograph from Getty Images, U.S. Marines Encounter Demonstra- tion in Al K¯ t, Iraq, by photographer Chris Hondros. u Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2008). Human Behavior in Mili- tary Contexts. Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military. James J. Blascovich and Christine R. Hartel, Editors. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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 Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone 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 en- gineers. 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 engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi- dent 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 Insti- tute 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. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences 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 Coun- cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military JAMES J. BLASCOVICH (Chair), Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara MARTIN M. CHEMERS, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz JONATHAN GRATCH, Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California EARL HUNT, Department of Psychology, University of Washington DANIEL R. ILGEN, Department of Psychology, Michigan State ����������������������������������������� University RANDY L. LARSEN, Department of Psychology, Washington University RICHARD E. MAYER, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara HAROLD O’NEIL, JR., Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California ALAN J. MCLAUGHLIN,* Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology VIMLA L. PATEL, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Arizona State University MIGUEL A. QUIÑONES, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University ANNA SIMONS,** Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School CHRISTINE R. HARTEL, Study Director JANET E. GARTON, Study Director (through July 2006) MATTHEW D. MCDONOUGH, Senior Program Assistant *Resigned, November 2006 **Resigned, October 2006 

Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences PHILIP E. RUBIN (Chair), Haskins Laboratories and Department of Surgery, Yale University LINDA M. BARTOSHUK, Department of Psychology, University of Florida SUSAN E. CAREY, Department of Psychology, Harvard University JOHN A. FEREJOHN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University MARTIN FISHBEIN, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania LILA R. GLEITMAN, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania ARIE W. KRUGLANSKI, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland RICHARD E. NISBETT, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor VALERIE F. REYNA, Department of Human Development, Cornell University LISA M. SAVAGE, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Binghamton BRIAN A. WANDELL, Department of Psychology, Stanford University J. FRANK YATES, Judgment and Decision Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CHRISTINE R. HARTEL, Director vi

Preface Late in 2005, staff of the Research and Advanced Concepts Office of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) asked the National Research Council (NRC) to explore research opportunities in the basic behavioral and social sciences in order to assist ARI in developing a long-term research agenda in these areas. The NRC, through the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, created the Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military to undertake this task. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who contributed to this project. The lead contact at ARI, Paul Gade, provided guidance and enthusiastic support for the project. Ably assisting him—and the committee—were Peter Legree and Jonathan Kaplan. Members of the study committee, volunteers selected from many aca- demic specialties and several having extensive experience in research for the military, found the project an interesting and stimulating opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. They cooperated in work groups, learned each other’s technical languages, and exemplified in their work the collegial qualities that are among the National Academies’ unique strengths. The Academies are grateful to them for their hard work, expertise, and good humor. The committee held three meetings, at which it identified a variety of possible research opportunities in the behavioral sciences and considered the promise of each. As the committee considered priorities, it invited the input of a number of other specialists in vital research areas at a commit- vii

viii PREFACE tee-sponsored workshop in October 2006. This workshop made possible an even deeper discussion of the promising areas of opportunity. Through such consultation and private deliberation, the committee arrived at a consensus on recommendations to ARI. The committee believes it has identified key areas of research that, with additional investment, will yield useful results for the U.S. military. Those investments will also reveal enormous potential of behavioral and social research to meet military needs. The committee owes special thanks to several experts from outside the committee who prepared papers that were especially valuable: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Boston College; Michele Gelfand, University of Maryland; Arthur Graesser and Brandon King, The University of Memphis; Todd Heatherton, Anne C. Krendl, and Dylan D. Wagner, Dartmouth College; Nicole Krämer, University Duisburg-Essen; Judith Kroll, Pennsylvania State University; and Jiajie Zhang, University of Texas, Houston. The commissioned papers, which were presented at the committee’s workshop, provided detailed ac- counts of the current state of research in fields that the committee thought would be likely to lead to exciting advances in knowledge and have possible applications to military needs. The second part of this report consists of six of those papers. Although they are not the work of the committee, we consider them to be useful aids in our consideration of investments for the U.S. military’s research port- folio. The papers represent the opinions of their authors, and they do not necessarily map directly onto either the recommendations or the research areas recommended by the committee. We also benefited considerably from the presentations and comments at the workshop of several other experts: Robert Atkinson, Arizona State University; Heidi Byrnes, Georgetown University; Turhan Canli, State Uni- versity of New York at Stony Brook; Peter Carnevale, New York University; Gerald Clore, University of Virginia; Catherine Cramton, George Mason University; and Marianne LaFrance, Yale University. All of them contrib- uted to the committee’s thinking in important ways, and we thank them. At the NRC, Janet Garton was the study director for the first 8 months, getting the study off to a very successful start. Subsequently, Christine R. Hartel, director of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sci- ences, took over as study director. In both roles, she provided critical ex- pertise and guidance for the project. Senior program assistant Matthew D. McDonough provided skillful administrative and logistic support over the course of the project. Donna L. Randall saw to it that every organizational requirement was fulfilled. Julie Schuck and Matthew Von Hendy assisted with research for the report; Kristen A. Butler helped out in many emer- gencies. The executive office reports staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, especially Eugenia Grohman and Yvonne

PREFACE ix Wise, provided invaluable help with editing and production of the report. Kirsten Sampson-Snyder managed the report review process. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro- cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Robert Atkinson, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University; Richard Brislin, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii; Keith Brown, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University; Susan T. Fiske, Department of Psychology, Princeton University; Larry G. Lehowicz, Experimentation, Test and Training Sector Group, Quantum Research International, Arlington, VA; Alan M. Lesgold, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh; Kevin R. Murphy, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University; and William Revelle, Depart- ment of Psychology, Northwestern University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Neil J. Smelser, Univer- sity of California, Berkeley. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review com- ments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. James J. Blascovich, Chair Committee on Opportunities in Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences for the U.S. Military

Contents Executive Summary 1 PART I:  COMMITTEE REPORT 1 Overview 7 2 Intercultural Competence 20 3 Teams in Complex Environments 29 4 Technology and Training 39 5 Nonverbal Communication 46 6 Emotion 55 7 Behavioral Neurophysiology 64 References 70 xi

xii CONTENTS PART II:  PAPERS Culture and Negotiations 85 Michele J. Gelfand Adult Second Language Acquisition: A Cognitive Science Perspective 106 Judith F. Kroll Technology-Based Training 127 Arthur C. Graesser and Brandon King Nonverbal Communication 150 Nicole C. Krämer The Science of Emotion: What People Believe, What the Evidence Shows, and Where to Go from Here 189 Lisa Feldman Barrett Neurophysiological Approaches to Understanding Behavior 217 Todd F. Heatherton, Anne C. Krendl, and Dylan D. Wagner

Next: Executive Summary »
Human Behavior in Military Contexts Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $72.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Human behavior forms the nucleus of military effectiveness. Humans operating in the complex military system must possess the knowledge, skills, abilities, aptitudes, and temperament to perform their roles effectively in a reliable and predictable manner, and effective military management requires understanding of how these qualities can be best provided and assessed. Scientific research in this area is critical to understanding leadership, training and other personnel issues, social interactions and organizational structures within the military.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) asked the National Research Council to provide an agenda for basic behavioral and social research focused on applications in both the short and long-term. The committee responded by recommending six areas of research on the basis of their relevance, potential impact, and timeliness for military needs: intercultural competence; teams in complex environments; technology-based training; nonverbal behavior; emotion; and behavioral neurophysiology. The committee suggests doubling the current budget for basic research for the behavioral and social sciences across U.S. military research agencies. The additional funds can support approximately 40 new projects per year across the committee's recommended research areas.

Human Behavior in Military Contexts includes committee reports and papers that demonstrate areas of stimulating, ongoing research in the behavioral and social sciences that can enrich the military's ability to recruit, train, and enhance the performance of its personnel, both organizationally and in its many roles in other cultures.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!