The Effects of Movement and Intravehicular Versus Intervehicular Communication on C2V Crew Performance: Limited User Test Phase III

Abstract : The procedure and results of the group performance component of the command and control vehicle (C2V) Limited User Test (LUT) Phase III are described in this report. The test was conducted to examine: (a) the effects of movement on the ability of crews to work effectively as a team, (b) terrain impacts on team performance tasks, and (c) the effect of distributed team operations. Sixteen National Guardsmen, divided into four-person teams, served as participants. The evaluation design was similar to a 2 (Movement: Stationary, Moving) x 2 (Terrain: Paved, Course A) x 2 (Communication: Intravehicle, Intervehicle) with the baseline occupying the position of the nonfitting control arrangement. The effects of movement on team performance were evaluated by conducting some trials while the C2V was stationary and other trials while it was moving. The influence of terrain on team performance was studied by conducting some trials on Course A of the Perryman test course and the remaining trials on a paved 3-mile course. In the intravehicular communication condition, the four members of a team were housed in the same C2V and worked together on the same task. Teammates had visual contact and communicated verbally via intercom. Two teammates were in each C2V for the intervehicular manipulation. It was concluded that the C2V environment impaired all group performance tasks, especially those that appeared to demand a great degree of coordination and integration. Team performance was below the baseline when crews were housed in the C2V, regardless of whether the vehicle was stationary or moving, although movement increased the deleterious impact of the C2V on group performance. The impact of terrain on performance was inconclusive, possibly because of the small sample size and the limited number of situational conditions examined.

[1]  N. Kerr.  Illusions of efficacy: The effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. , 1989 .

[2]  Samuel Himmelfarb,et al.  What do you do when the control group doesn't fit into the factorial design? , 1975 .

[3]  Allen L. Edwards,et al.  Experimental Design in Psychological Research. , 1951 .

[4]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Collective versus individual induction : recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing , 1991 .

[5]  A. Anastasi.  Psychological testing, 6th ed. , 1988 .

[6]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[7]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Learning and Behavior , 1966 .

[8]  E. A. Fleishman,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. , 1992 .

[9]  Irwin G. Sarason,et al.  The Social Nature of Psychological Research , 1968 .

[10]  Daniel J. Isenberg,et al.  Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision-making accuracy in small groups , 1981 .

[11]  Don Beal,et al.  The Lens Model: Computational Procedures and Applications , 1978 .

[12]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[13]  G. Littlepage,et al.  Recognition of Expertise in Decision-Making Groups , 1992 .

[14]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[15]  A. Ingham,et al.  The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance , 1974 .

[16]  S. Bartley.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1982,55, 122. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1982 , 1982 .

[17]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Psychology of the Scientist: V. Three Experiments in Experimenter Bias , 1963 .

[18]  Joseph G. Rosse,et al.  Yours, Mine, and Ours: Facilitating Group Productivity through the Integration of Individual and Group Goals , 1995 .