Open Warfare Simulation Paper
The Relationship between the Reaction Times of Open and Asymmetric Warfare Experiment
CDT PVT Jacob L Williams
PL100
MAJ Erwin
Section C2
5 September 2013Abstract
The overall purpose of this study is to determine if there is some sort of relationship between a soldier’s reaction time in battle in two different scenarios. Scenario #1 includes the utopian environment of warfare where all targets are the same and are bad. Scenario #2 is more realistic and incorporates the decision-making process to decipher between ally and nemesis. A simulation experiment of the same principles was created by a website using flashing colors on a screen and the participants’ reaction time to pressing a button. It makes sense to state that …show more content…
the test with the more complicated variables would have a slower reaction rate as the brain has to process more information at one time, but one does not know for sure. In the end, it turned out with a p-value of less than 0.01 as a whole study; the results supported the hypothesis and confirmed all of the initial guesses. This is applicable to the real Army in that in high stress situations, soldiers will have to make tough, yet quick, decisions to do the right thing and potentially save someone’s life.
The Relationship between the Reaction Times of Open and Asymmetric Warfare Experiment As an infantry platoon leader, he/she notices that his/her soldiers perform urban warfare in a different way when placed in two dissimilar combat environments. The first environment is a conformist, open, environment when there are no civilians, only hostiles; the other atmosphere is more complex containing both civilians and enemies. This creates a predicament as when moving through the latter setting, the soldier must make quick reactions to distinguish adversaries versus non-adversaries to avoid unneeded deaths.
To simulate this, the platoon leader creates an online simulator to replicate what the soldiers go through when moving through open and asymmetric warfare environments.
The first scenario, the simple reaction time, simulates the open warfare in which soldiers must press a key on the keyboard as quickly as possible after the color red flashes on the screen. The second test, the choice reaction time, incorporates some decision-making skills where the soldier must now press keys that correspond with two different colors, red and blue, where red imitates the enemy and blue represents the civilian.
The prediction the platoon leader comes to before initiating the experiment is that the reaction time of the second scenario will be noticeably slower than the first because of the added complexity of not knowing which of the two colors will pop up on screen.
Methods
Participants
For this experiment, a total of 438 soldiers took participation. Of those 438 soldiers, 376 were males and 62 were females. The age groups being studied ranged from 17 years of age to 25 years of age. There were about 3.86% soldiers at the age of 17, 48.41% at the age of 18, 27.50% at 19 years of age, 8.18% at 20 years of age, 5.68% at the age of 21, 4.77% at the age of 22, 1.14% at the age of 23, and a mere 0.23% for each 24 and 25 years of age.
Figure 1. Pie Chart of Age Distribution.
Materials
Research Methods Paper Handout
Lenovo X230 Tablet
Microsoft Excel 2007
Internet Access
Website (Figure 2): http://opl.apa.org/Experiments/Start.aspx?EID=19
Class ID from Instructor/Handout (“6037”)
Procedure
1) Receive information about experiment from instructor.
2) Conduct “Reaction Time Color” at http://opl.apa.org/Experiments/Start.aspx?EID=19
a. Log in with Code from Instructor: “6037”
b. Follow directions on-screen throughout Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 until completed. Take note of the first and third scenarios as they are the open and asymmetric warfare simulators.
3) Receive, by email, raw data in an excel file and the APA template for the paper from the instructor.
4) Calculate the pie chart for the age atmosphere using Microsoft Excel.
5) Calculate the three measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and standard deviation for both the simple and choice reactions using Excel formulas.
6) Analyze the data and determine if hypothesis was proven.
7) Type Research Paper in accordance to the APA template and directions outlined in the Research Methods Paper Handout.
Experimental Design All the participants will be tested in both the simple reaction time and the choice reaction time. The simple reaction time experiment consists of the participant watching the computer screen as the screen flashes with a color. The participant will then press any key as quickly as possible whenever a red color flashes on the screen. The choice reaction time experiment constitutes of the participant reacting to two different flashes in an unpredictable order. The participant will press the “” for any blue flashes as they appear. This type of experiment is called a “repeated measures” experiment because each participant is completing both tasks, thus each cadet is a part of both the experimental group and the control group signifying “each person is compared to his or her own performance” (“PL100: General Psychology,” 2013). Because each cadet is a part of both groups, in order to maintain variability control throughout all the tests, the tasks are presented at random to eliminate any factors that may give the participant an advantage over others such as pre-anticipation and adaptability.
Variables
For the variables in this experiment, there are only two and are relatively straightforward. The independent variable is the website generating the screen flashes as the experiment unfolds. “During the tasks, the time from the onset of the [screen flash] to the key-press reaction is the [dependent] variable that is measured to the nearest millisecond” (PL100: General Psychology,” 2013).
Results
Table 1
The Central Tendencies, Standard Deviation, and the Inferential Statistic
Mean
310.6819132
0.370885845
0.410744292
Median
0.2675
0.371
Mode 0.259
0.32
Standard Deviation
520.6416854
0.265745462
0.160630646
Inferential Statistic: p=0.006149
Graph 1
Simple Reaction Time versus Choice Reaction Time Central Tendencies w/Standard Deviation
Discussion
Analysis
Between the two tests, there was a noticeable difference in the reaction times. The times for the simple reaction test were lower than the times in the choice reaction test, clearly shown in both Table 1 and Graph 1. This difference is logically sound because when one only has to focus on eliminating a target without other variables to take into account, he or she will anticipate the test’s next stimulus. Whereas in the latter test, instead of having to worry about just enemies, or the red flash, he or she has to be concerned with the blue flash, civilians, as to not kill any of them. When the flashes are played at random, the participant must stay attentive and aware of what is coming as he or she could be facing a non-lethal target.
The inferential statistical value, p=0.006149, is virtually zero and is less than five percent, therefore the study rejects the null hypothesis: there is no relation between the reaction times of an open warfare and an asymmetric warfare. It already takes into account the randomness of the experiment including its sampling error. In fact, it supports the initial hypothesis by verifying there is a relationship between the two tests and that the decision-making one requires more time.
As with any experiment, there is always room for improvement. A way to further this study would be to have a third test that incorporates complete random timing of the pictures, not at nice and even three second intervals, but rather in an erratic pattern of numbers. Having this erratic problem could symbolize how a soldier would respond in real life to sudden, horrifying, and glorious moments.
Conclusions
Three hundred seventy-six males and sixty-two females later, the Reaction Time Experiment started. This is the end of the study and all of the findings support the initial hypothesis. There are not any sources of error as the point of this experiment was to keep the data anonymous and tests completely random so there could have been no prior preparation. However, with that being said, there are several factors that could have adjusted our set of data points in such a way to throw us all. These threats to validity include fatigue, low levels of attentiveness, the mind being somewhere else at the time, not being focused, worried about other agenda items, etc. The external validity can be applied to all soldiers by the fact that in combat, soldiers have to make sure that the person they are ready to shoot is not in any way trying to cause them harm or kill them; this takes that extra decision-making second. There, in effect, is a relationship between the reaction time of the soldier and the stimuli that is presented before him or her. If it is friendly, it may take an extra split second to confirm that it is a No-Go target and the soldier carries out the rest of his mission.
References
PL100: General Psychology for Leaders Course Guide. (2013). United States Military Academy, NY.
CDT PVT Jacob L Williams
PL100
MAJ Erwin
Section C2
5 September 2013Abstract
The overall purpose of this study is to determine if there is some sort of relationship between a soldier’s reaction time in battle in two different scenarios. Scenario #1 includes the utopian environment of warfare where all targets are the same and are bad. Scenario #2 is more realistic and incorporates the decision-making process to decipher between ally and nemesis. A simulation experiment of the same principles was created by a website using flashing colors on a screen and the participants’ reaction time to pressing a button. It makes sense to state that …show more content…
the test with the more complicated variables would have a slower reaction rate as the brain has to process more information at one time, but one does not know for sure. In the end, it turned out with a p-value of less than 0.01 as a whole study; the results supported the hypothesis and confirmed all of the initial guesses. This is applicable to the real Army in that in high stress situations, soldiers will have to make tough, yet quick, decisions to do the right thing and potentially save someone’s life.
The Relationship between the Reaction Times of Open and Asymmetric Warfare Experiment As an infantry platoon leader, he/she notices that his/her soldiers perform urban warfare in a different way when placed in two dissimilar combat environments. The first environment is a conformist, open, environment when there are no civilians, only hostiles; the other atmosphere is more complex containing both civilians and enemies. This creates a predicament as when moving through the latter setting, the soldier must make quick reactions to distinguish adversaries versus non-adversaries to avoid unneeded deaths.
To simulate this, the platoon leader creates an online simulator to replicate what the soldiers go through when moving through open and asymmetric warfare environments.
The first scenario, the simple reaction time, simulates the open warfare in which soldiers must press a key on the keyboard as quickly as possible after the color red flashes on the screen. The second test, the choice reaction time, incorporates some decision-making skills where the soldier must now press keys that correspond with two different colors, red and blue, where red imitates the enemy and blue represents the civilian.
The prediction the platoon leader comes to before initiating the experiment is that the reaction time of the second scenario will be noticeably slower than the first because of the added complexity of not knowing which of the two colors will pop up on screen.
Methods
Participants
For this experiment, a total of 438 soldiers took participation. Of those 438 soldiers, 376 were males and 62 were females. The age groups being studied ranged from 17 years of age to 25 years of age. There were about 3.86% soldiers at the age of 17, 48.41% at the age of 18, 27.50% at 19 years of age, 8.18% at 20 years of age, 5.68% at the age of 21, 4.77% at the age of 22, 1.14% at the age of 23, and a mere 0.23% for each 24 and 25 years of age.
Figure 1. Pie Chart of Age Distribution.
Materials
Research Methods Paper Handout
Lenovo X230 Tablet
Microsoft Excel 2007
Internet Access
Website (Figure 2): http://opl.apa.org/Experiments/Start.aspx?EID=19
Class ID from Instructor/Handout (“6037”)
Procedure
1) Receive information about experiment from instructor.
2) Conduct “Reaction Time Color” at http://opl.apa.org/Experiments/Start.aspx?EID=19
a. Log in with Code from Instructor: “6037”
b. Follow directions on-screen throughout Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 until completed. Take note of the first and third scenarios as they are the open and asymmetric warfare simulators.
3) Receive, by email, raw data in an excel file and the APA template for the paper from the instructor.
4) Calculate the pie chart for the age atmosphere using Microsoft Excel.
5) Calculate the three measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and standard deviation for both the simple and choice reactions using Excel formulas.
6) Analyze the data and determine if hypothesis was proven.
7) Type Research Paper in accordance to the APA template and directions outlined in the Research Methods Paper Handout.
Experimental Design All the participants will be tested in both the simple reaction time and the choice reaction time. The simple reaction time experiment consists of the participant watching the computer screen as the screen flashes with a color. The participant will then press any key as quickly as possible whenever a red color flashes on the screen. The choice reaction time experiment constitutes of the participant reacting to two different flashes in an unpredictable order. The participant will press the “” for any blue flashes as they appear. This type of experiment is called a “repeated measures” experiment because each participant is completing both tasks, thus each cadet is a part of both the experimental group and the control group signifying “each person is compared to his or her own performance” (“PL100: General Psychology,” 2013). Because each cadet is a part of both groups, in order to maintain variability control throughout all the tests, the tasks are presented at random to eliminate any factors that may give the participant an advantage over others such as pre-anticipation and adaptability.
Variables
For the variables in this experiment, there are only two and are relatively straightforward. The independent variable is the website generating the screen flashes as the experiment unfolds. “During the tasks, the time from the onset of the [screen flash] to the key-press reaction is the [dependent] variable that is measured to the nearest millisecond” (PL100: General Psychology,” 2013).
Results
Table 1
The Central Tendencies, Standard Deviation, and the Inferential Statistic
Mean
310.6819132
0.370885845
0.410744292
Median
0.2675
0.371
Mode 0.259
0.32
Standard Deviation
520.6416854
0.265745462
0.160630646
Inferential Statistic: p=0.006149
Graph 1
Simple Reaction Time versus Choice Reaction Time Central Tendencies w/Standard Deviation
Discussion
Analysis
Between the two tests, there was a noticeable difference in the reaction times. The times for the simple reaction test were lower than the times in the choice reaction test, clearly shown in both Table 1 and Graph 1. This difference is logically sound because when one only has to focus on eliminating a target without other variables to take into account, he or she will anticipate the test’s next stimulus. Whereas in the latter test, instead of having to worry about just enemies, or the red flash, he or she has to be concerned with the blue flash, civilians, as to not kill any of them. When the flashes are played at random, the participant must stay attentive and aware of what is coming as he or she could be facing a non-lethal target.
The inferential statistical value, p=0.006149, is virtually zero and is less than five percent, therefore the study rejects the null hypothesis: there is no relation between the reaction times of an open warfare and an asymmetric warfare. It already takes into account the randomness of the experiment including its sampling error. In fact, it supports the initial hypothesis by verifying there is a relationship between the two tests and that the decision-making one requires more time.
As with any experiment, there is always room for improvement. A way to further this study would be to have a third test that incorporates complete random timing of the pictures, not at nice and even three second intervals, but rather in an erratic pattern of numbers. Having this erratic problem could symbolize how a soldier would respond in real life to sudden, horrifying, and glorious moments.
Conclusions
Three hundred seventy-six males and sixty-two females later, the Reaction Time Experiment started. This is the end of the study and all of the findings support the initial hypothesis. There are not any sources of error as the point of this experiment was to keep the data anonymous and tests completely random so there could have been no prior preparation. However, with that being said, there are several factors that could have adjusted our set of data points in such a way to throw us all. These threats to validity include fatigue, low levels of attentiveness, the mind being somewhere else at the time, not being focused, worried about other agenda items, etc. The external validity can be applied to all soldiers by the fact that in combat, soldiers have to make sure that the person they are ready to shoot is not in any way trying to cause them harm or kill them; this takes that extra decision-making second. There, in effect, is a relationship between the reaction time of the soldier and the stimuli that is presented before him or her. If it is friendly, it may take an extra split second to confirm that it is a No-Go target and the soldier carries out the rest of his mission.
References
PL100: General Psychology for Leaders Course Guide. (2013). United States Military Academy, NY.