Computer modeling and simulation is a valuable tool for warfare simulation and weapons analysis/evaluation. Although it is agreed that anti-personnel landmines (APLs) are very powerful psychological weapons, their psychological effects are not incorporated into current mine warfare simulations. This paper focuses on issues involved in the incorporation of APL psychological effects into computer models. Three basic approaches for incorporating fear into mine warfare models are presented. Within these approaches, issues about the experimental study, quantification, and use in the model of the effect of interest are discussed. Issues of the necessary level of fidelity for mine warfare simulation are also approached. Although the simulation of mine warfare presents unique challenges, a discussion of these issues may be relevant to developers of other types of simulations incorporating human representation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenderL.SalviL.PromiselD. (1997). Evaluation of human performance under diverse conditions via modeling technology. Proceedings of Workshop on Emerging Technologies in Human Engineering Testing and Evaluation, NATO Research Study Group 24, Brussels, Belgium, June 1997.
2.
BaronS.KruserD.S.HueyB.M. (Eds.). (1990). Quantitative modeling of human performance in complex, dynamic systems.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
BerkunM.M.BialekH.M.KernR.P.YagiK. (1962). Experimental studies of psychological stress in man. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(15), Whole No. 534.
4.
Department of the Army. (1998, May 29). Field Manual 20-32: Mine/Countermine Operations.Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army.
5.
DriskellJ.E.SalasE. (1991). Overcoming the effects of stress on military performance: Human factors, training, and selection strategies. In GalR.MangelsdorffA.D. (Eds.), Handbook of military psychology.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
6.
EvansS.M.MackieR.R.WylieC.D., (1991). Fatigue effects on human performance in combat: A literature review (ARI Research Note 91-90, ADA 242 887). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
7.
FinebergM.L.PetersS.D.McClellanG.E. (1996). Sensitizing synthetic forces to suppression on the virtual battlefield. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Computer Generated Forces, 479–489.
8.
FrenchJ. (1992). Micro Saint model of fatigue assessment (ADA 249 976). Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: Headquarters, AMC/ACB.
9.
GillisP.D.HurshS.R. (1999). Using behavior moderators to influence CGF command entity effectiveness and performance. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computer Generated Forces, 237–251.
10.
GreerW.L.BartholomewJ.C. (1982). Psychological aspects of mine warfare (Professional Paper 365, ADA 128 244). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
11.
HammertonM.TicknerA.H. (1968). An investigation into the effects of stress upon skilled performance. Ergonomics, 12(6), 851–855.
12.
KishiyamaM.M. (1989). Modeling combat fatigue in the joint theater level simulation model (ADA 209 892). Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College.
13.
KolasinskiE.M. (1999). The psychological effects of anti-personnel landmines: A standard to which alternatives can be compared (Engineering Psychology Laboratory Report 99-2, ADA 371 531,). West Point, NY: United States Military Academy.
14.
La VineN.D.PetersS.D.LaugheryK.R. (1996). Methodology for predicting and applying human response to environmental stressors (DNA-TR-95-116, ADA 314 337). Alexandria, VA: Defense Special Weapons Agency.
15.
MarshallS.L. A. (1950). The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation.Quantico, VA: The Marine Corps Association.
16.
OrasanuJ.M.BackerP. (1996). Stress and military performance. In DriskellJ.E.SalasE. (Eds.), Stress and Human Performance.Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
17.
PewR.W.MavorA.S. (Eds.). (1998). Modeling Human and Organizational Behavior: Application to Military Simulations.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
18.
RachmanS.J. (1990). Fear and Courage.New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
19.
RachmanS. (1995). Development of courage in military personnel in training and performance in combat situations (ARI Research Note 95-21, ADA 296 369). Alexandria, Virginia: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
20.
SilvermanB.G.MightR.DuboisR.ShinH.JohnsM.WeaverR. (2001). Toward a human behavior models anthology for synthetic agent development. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computer Generated Forces, 277–285.
21.
Van NostrandS.J. (1986). Model effectiveness as a function of personnel [ME =f(PER)] (ADB 109 139). Bethesda, Maryland: US Army Concepts Analysis Agency.
22.
VandivierP.L., (1990). Soldier dimensions in combat models (ADA 240 079). Ft. Benjamin Harrison, Indiana: US Army TRADOC Analysis Command.
23.
WalkR.D. (1956). Self ratings of fear in a fear-invoking situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 171–178.
