Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1994
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington, D.C. 20418
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 work of the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance is supported by the U.S. Army Research Institute.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Learning, remembering, believing : enhancing human performance /
Daniel Druckman and Robert A. Bjork, editors.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
"Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council."
1. Performance-Psychological aspects. 2. Learning, Psychology of. I. Druckman, Daniel, 1939- . II. Bjork, Robert A. III. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance.
BF481.L43 1994 94-21350
Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
COMMITTEE ON TECHNIQUES FOR THE
ENHANCEMENT OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE
ROBERT A. BJORK (Chair), Department of Psychology. University of California, Los Angeles
DONALD F. DANSEREAU, Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University
ERIC EICH, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
DEBORAH L. FELTZ, School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology, and Human Performance, Michigan State University
LARRY L. JACOBY, Department of Psychology, McMaster University
DAVID W. JOHNSON, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota
JOHN F. KIHLSTROM, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona
ROBERTA KLATZKY, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara
LYNNE M. REDER, Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University
DANIEL M. WEGNER, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia
ROBERT B. ZAJONC, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
DANIEL DRUCKMAN, Study Director
CINDY S. PRINCE, Project Assistant
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. Bruce M. Alberts 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
PART I OVERVIEW
PART II LEARNING AND REMEMBERING
Transfer: Training for Performance
Illusions of Comprehension, Competence, and Remembering
PART III LEARNING AND PERFORMING IN TEAMS
The Performance and Development of Teams
Training in Teams
PART IV MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATES
Self-Confidence and Performance
Altering States of Consciousness
This is the third report of the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance (CTEHP). The committee's first two reports, Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques and In the Mind's Eye: Enhancing Human Performance, issued in 1988 and 1991, respectively, attracted the attention of both researchers and the public. Press conferences for the reports' releases were well attended, the committee's principal conclusions were featured prominently in the media, and reviews of each report appeared in a number of magazines and professional journals. Both books were reprinted in paperback versions.
At the first meeting of the committee in June of 1985, none of its members could have predicted that now, almost 9 years later, the committee would be about to publish its third report, with an agenda for a fourth phase of committee activities mostly in place. The 14 members of the committee, selected for their expertise in relevant basic science areas, were charged with assessing the promise of some "new age" techniques designed to enhance human performance. The Army Research Institute, responding to advocates in the Army as well as in other governmental agencies and in the private sector, had asked the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to convene a committee to evaluate a range of specific techniques, each of which was accompanied by claims of extraordinary effectiveness. Those techniques, developed largely outside the academic research establishment, offered to accelerate learning, foster group cohesion, andin the parapsychological domainproduce remote viewing and psychokinetic control of electronic devices.
To the charter members of the committee, the committee's task seemed
well defined, if somewhat novel. The committee began its work under the assumption that it was embarking on a one-time mission. By the time the first report was released, however, another full agenda for the committee had emerged, partly as a consequence of research developments, both basic and applied, partly as a consequence of the success of certain techniques in the marketplace, and partly as a consequence of changing needs and concerns of the Army. During the committee's second phase (1988-1991), and again in its third phase (1991-1994), the same process occurred.
While the committee continues to live on well past its original life expectancy, it continues to evolve and change as well. In part, that is a matter of changing personnel: of the 12 individuals responsible for the current report, only Daniel Druckman, our study director, and I were involved in the committee's first phase. Beyond changes in personnel, however, the committee has broadened its focus to include potential innovations based on developments in the mainstream of basic research, as well as unusual or controversial techniques developed outside that mainstream. What has stayed largely in place across the committee's phases is its method of operation. Site visits to applied settings, both military and civilian, are an intrinsic aspect of the committee process, as are briefings of the entire committee by advocates, critics, and neutral parties (see Appendix A for a summary of those activities during the committee's current phase). Highly interactive discussions, motivated in part by the need to achieve consensusevery member of the committee must sign off on all of the committee's final conclusions and recommendationsare also an indispensable part of the process.
Veterans of this committee, of which there are now 27, have seemed unanimous in their opinion that serving on the committee was an eye-opening experience. Although each committee member was selected for his or her expertise relevant to some of the issues on the committee's agenda, the give and take of the committee process required that each member become educated, so to speak, about issues and research findings well outside his or her area of expertise. In an era of increased specialization, this kind of challenging and broadening experience has become increasingly rare for scientists in all fields. Serving on the committee also involved interactions with real-world practitioners, who daily face the concrete goal of trying to optimize the performance of individuals or groups in classroom, job, and military settings of various types.
For me, serving on the committee during its first phase and chairing it during phases two and three has been by far the most interesting and rewarding committee assignment of my professional career. It has certainly been an instructive experience, one evidence of which is the discussion of institutional impediments to effective training in the epilogue of this volume. Good things must end, however, and it is time now for a new commit-
tee led by a new chair to move on to another set of important issues, and for me to move on to other responsibilities. I will look back on my nine year's involvement with the committee with fondness, and with an appreciation for the extent to which my world view has been altered by the experience: the view from the ivory tower will never be quite the same.
My final duty as outgoing chair is a pleasant one: thanking those who have contributed to the huge effort represented by this report. An appropriate place to start is with the Army Research Institute (ARI), the sponsor of this committee throughout its existence. Edgar M. Johnson, director of ARI, has been a constant source of support, encouragement, and good counsel during the life of the committee. He has managed to avoid even a hint of trying to influence how the committee might carry out its job, while at the same time being a resource to the committee and facilitating activities the committee thought important, such as making site visits to Army locations, gaining access to prior ARI reports, and scheduling briefings of the committee by key ARI personnel. He has our gratitude and respect. We also appreciate the efforts of George Lawton, the ARI liaison to the committee, who was a valuable source of information and advice throughout the current phase of the committee's activities.
A number of individuals gave time and effort to host site visits by the committee. Brigadier General William G. Carter, commanding officer at the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, hosted a particularly instructive visit by the entire committee. We appreciate his efforts and those of the staff, whose patience, good humor, and logistical efficiency helped make that visit maximally informative. Other very useful site visits were hosted by Robert Welp, at the National Training Center of the Federal Aviation Administration in Oklahoma City; by John Seely Brown, vice president for advanced research, and Professor James Greeno, senior scientist, at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; by Michael Brown, director of nuclear training, and Raymond Mulligan, curriculum development coordinator, at the L. F. Sillin, Jr. Nuclear Training Center in Connecticut; by Nels Klyver, Police Training Administrator at the Los Angeles Police Academy; by Barbara Black, director of the ARI field unit and Major Milton Koger of the ARI unit at Fort Knox in Kentucky; and by Elaine Colburn and Julie Crooks, senior simulation analysts at Illusions Engineering in Westlake Village, California. Each of those individuals took time away from their other responsibilities to help the committee; on behalf of the committee I want to express my appreciation to each of them.
Other individuals helped the committee locate certain background materials. We are grateful to Professor Peter Suedfield at the University of British Columbia for help in locating literature on the REST (restricted environmental stimulation) technique discussed in Chapter 9, to Professor David Orme-Johnson at Marharishi University for making materials on Transcendental Meditation
available, and to Norman Freeberg and Judith Orasanu of the Educational Testing Service and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Ames, respectively, for providing reports on team performance.
Among the staff at the National Research Council who assisted the committee, several individuals were especially helpful. While our study director worked on an overseas assignment during the summer of 1992, staff officer Anne Mavor kept all work on track. Cindy Prince, Susan Shuttleworth, and Carolyn Sax labored over drafts of the manuscript. The committee is especially indebted to Eugenia Grohman, associate director for reports of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education: this report, like the two before it, benefited from her skillful, if none too gentle, editorial hand. We appreciate her efforts in making technical writing readable. We also appreciate Elaine McGarraugh's thorough and organized job of proofing and copy editing the entire manuscript. Our report also profited greatly from the anonymous reviewers who provided many important criticisms and suggestions.
Finally, I want to thank the members of the committee and certain other individuals who contributed directly to this report. The contributions of professors Daniel McIntosh at the University of Denver and Colleen Kelley at Macalester College to Chapters 10 and 4, respectively, were very substantial and significant. General Paul Gorman (ret.), consultant to the committee, was a remarkable resource. The richness of his knowledge and experience repeatedly helped frame issues in a meaningful way for the committee. Professor Bernie Weiner, a friend and colleague at the University of California at Los Angeles, also provided valuable input and advice to the committee.
To the committee members themslves, I am indebted not only for their cooperation and broad scholarship, but also for their insights and quick humor. The committee's discussions frequently had more the character of an interactive seminar than a committee meeeting; I will miss the unique education afforded by these sessions. To Dan Druckman, our study director, I owe a special debt; it has been a privilege to pull in the same harness with him for almost a decade. He brings to an extraordinarily difficulty job a unique mix of attributes, among which are persistence, patience, and a rare blend of academic and administrative abilities. He has my profound respect, and I treasure the friendship that emerged from our shared mission.
ROBERT A. BJORK, Chair
Committee on Techniques for the
Enhancement of Human Performance
There was a problem loading page R11.