军事环境中的创造力:评估现有军事视觉辅助工具在平民中促进军事欺骗的效用。

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Frontiers in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-09-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1665765
Callum A O'Malley, David J Harris, Tom Arthur, Hannah Blackford, George Raywood-Burke, Nigel Jones, Samuel J Vine
{"title":"军事环境中的创造力:评估现有军事视觉辅助工具在平民中促进军事欺骗的效用。","authors":"Callum A O'Malley, David J Harris, Tom Arthur, Hannah Blackford, George Raywood-Burke, Nigel Jones, Samuel J Vine","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1665765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Deception can function as a useful tool for any military figure. Historic examples demonstrate that deception facilitates success by corralling an adversary into failure. Traits such as creativity and imagination are considered of central importance to devising useful and effective deceptive ideas. In lieu of being naturally creative/imaginative, visual aids highlighting core military deception principles could offset these shortcomings. This study assessed whether an existing military deception visual aid improved the number, usefulness, and originality of deceptive ideas amongst a civilian population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An independent samples design comprising 80 participants (44 female) were equally assigned to an experimental (with aid) or control (without aid) group. Participants created as many deceptive stratagems in as much detail as possible, during a 15-minute hypothetical task scenario. The number of stratagems and ratings of the usefulness, originality, and a snapshot score of the participant's self-selected best stratagem were compared between experimental groups.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>No significant differences emerged for the number of stratagems (<i>p</i> = 0.061, <i>r</i> = 0.238) or usefulness (<i>p</i> = 0.348, <i>r</i> = 0.116), originality (<i>p</i> = 0.558, <i>r</i> = 0.076), or snapshot scores (<i>p</i> = 0.603, <i>r</i> = 0.068). Results question whether deceptive thinking for a military context can be improved by a visual aid containing prompts about military deception principles. However, some task elements (e.g., same hypothetical scenario/only rating the best stratagem) may have reduced/nullified potential differences between groups. The use of an existing military deception visual aid may be limited to military samples. Future studies could employ mixed-method approaches or gamified designs to investigate the potential to enhance military deception planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1665765"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creativity within a military setting: assessing the utility of an existing military visual aid to facilitate military deception amongst a civilian population.\",\"authors\":\"Callum A O'Malley, David J Harris, Tom Arthur, Hannah Blackford, George Raywood-Burke, Nigel Jones, Samuel J Vine\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1665765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Deception can function as a useful tool for any military figure. Historic examples demonstrate that deception facilitates success by corralling an adversary into failure. Traits such as creativity and imagination are considered of central importance to devising useful and effective deceptive ideas. In lieu of being naturally creative/imaginative, visual aids highlighting core military deception principles could offset these shortcomings. This study assessed whether an existing military deception visual aid improved the number, usefulness, and originality of deceptive ideas amongst a civilian population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An independent samples design comprising 80 participants (44 female) were equally assigned to an experimental (with aid) or control (without aid) group. Participants created as many deceptive stratagems in as much detail as possible, during a 15-minute hypothetical task scenario. The number of stratagems and ratings of the usefulness, originality, and a snapshot score of the participant's self-selected best stratagem were compared between experimental groups.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>No significant differences emerged for the number of stratagems (<i>p</i> = 0.061, <i>r</i> = 0.238) or usefulness (<i>p</i> = 0.348, <i>r</i> = 0.116), originality (<i>p</i> = 0.558, <i>r</i> = 0.076), or snapshot scores (<i>p</i> = 0.603, <i>r</i> = 0.068). Results question whether deceptive thinking for a military context can be improved by a visual aid containing prompts about military deception principles. However, some task elements (e.g., same hypothetical scenario/only rating the best stratagem) may have reduced/nullified potential differences between groups. The use of an existing military deception visual aid may be limited to military samples. Future studies could employ mixed-method approaches or gamified designs to investigate the potential to enhance military deception planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1665765\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12510928/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1665765\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1665765","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对任何军事人物来说,欺骗都是一种有用的工具。历史上的例子表明,欺骗通过使对手陷入失败而促进成功。创造力和想象力等特征被认为是设计有用和有效的欺骗性想法的核心重要性。代替自然的创造性/想象力,突出核心军事欺骗原则的视觉辅助可以弥补这些缺点。本研究评估了现有的军事欺骗视觉辅助工具是否提高了平民群体中欺骗想法的数量、有用性和独创性。方法:采用独立样本设计,包括80名参与者(44名女性),平均分配为试验组(有辅助)和对照组(无辅助)。在一个15分钟的假设任务场景中,参与者创造了尽可能多的欺骗策略,尽可能详细。在实验组之间比较了策略的数量以及参与者自选最佳策略的有用性、独创性和快照得分。结果与讨论:策略数量(p = 0.061, r = 0.238)、有用性(p = 0.348, r = 0.116)、独创性(p = 0.558, r = 0.076)、快照得分(p = 0.603, r = 0.068)均无显著差异。结果质疑军事背景下的欺骗思维是否可以通过包含军事欺骗原则提示的视觉辅助来改善。然而,某些任务元素(例如,相同的假设场景/只评估最佳策略)可能会减少/消除组间的潜在差异。现有军事欺骗目视辅助工具的使用可能仅限于军事样本。未来的研究可以采用混合方法或游戏化设计来调查增强军事欺骗计划的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creativity within a military setting: assessing the utility of an existing military visual aid to facilitate military deception amongst a civilian population.

Introduction: Deception can function as a useful tool for any military figure. Historic examples demonstrate that deception facilitates success by corralling an adversary into failure. Traits such as creativity and imagination are considered of central importance to devising useful and effective deceptive ideas. In lieu of being naturally creative/imaginative, visual aids highlighting core military deception principles could offset these shortcomings. This study assessed whether an existing military deception visual aid improved the number, usefulness, and originality of deceptive ideas amongst a civilian population.

Methods: An independent samples design comprising 80 participants (44 female) were equally assigned to an experimental (with aid) or control (without aid) group. Participants created as many deceptive stratagems in as much detail as possible, during a 15-minute hypothetical task scenario. The number of stratagems and ratings of the usefulness, originality, and a snapshot score of the participant's self-selected best stratagem were compared between experimental groups.

Results and discussion: No significant differences emerged for the number of stratagems (p = 0.061, r = 0.238) or usefulness (p = 0.348, r = 0.116), originality (p = 0.558, r = 0.076), or snapshot scores (p = 0.603, r = 0.068). Results question whether deceptive thinking for a military context can be improved by a visual aid containing prompts about military deception principles. However, some task elements (e.g., same hypothetical scenario/only rating the best stratagem) may have reduced/nullified potential differences between groups. The use of an existing military deception visual aid may be limited to military samples. Future studies could employ mixed-method approaches or gamified designs to investigate the potential to enhance military deception planning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.20%
发文量
7396
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信