. _ _ _ _ _

*.

.

EDWARD C. STEWART12S20 MONTCLAIR DRIVE

stLVER SPRING. M ARYLAND 20904

February 28, 1979

Mr. B. H. WeissSenior Technical Operations Specialist.

Executive Office for Operations SupportUnited States Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Weiss:

I enclose a proposal along the lines that we have talked about. I look

forward to discussing it with you and adapting it to your needs. In discussing

this project, I have referred to the nature of my interest in it, which I

would like to state in this covering letter.|

The objective of ,the project is to provide a psychological analysis of

the process of communication between the decision-makers (EMT) and ,IRACT. The

operations of NRC are regulatory in the nuclear field. The Operations Center

is activated to respond to incidents associated with nuclear materials. Its'

activities are conducted in circumstances of crisis; and this aspect requires

that an effective study provide a concrete and specific analysis of realistic

situations. The psychological analysis of the crisis management should produce

results that will prove useful in other crises both in the government and in the

private sector. The potential for applying findings from this study to other

situations of communication under conditions of crisis makes this project

particularly attractive. I know of little information available about communi-i

cation under crises. !

I hope that this proposal meets with your approval. If you have any

questions about it, please contact me. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,..

|5 rut). k

| ECS:kdr Edward C. StewartEnc.

8001210 hf g

_ _ _ _ _ . -

'

,

.

.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMMUNICATION

DURING INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Backaround

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Incident Response Program was

developed as a response to inadequate communication among the NRC, its licensee

and other organizations during the fire at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant

near Decatur, Alabama, on March 22, 1975. The Office of Inspection and En-

forcement developed an Incident Management Center (IMC) that received its

initial test on March 26, 1976. Since that initial drill, the system has been

repeatedly tested and improved. The METREK Division of the MITRE Corporation

was brought in to perform four tasks: (1) develop system concepts for NRC roles

i~n responding to an incident, (2) define communications recuirements for the

operational capability selected by NRC, (3) specify initial operational proce-

dures for early response, (4) identify NRC actions needed to achieve initial

and then full operational capability. METREK also develops scenarios for

training and conducts the exercises.

The IMC eventually became the Incident Response Ce,nter (IRC) and the

Center began using increasingly more complex exercises designed to test out

specific objectives. Operations of IRC during the test exercises have been

evaluated favorably. The Incident Response Program is judged to be operating

satisfactorily with the technical aspects of communication well managed.

The program is considered stabilized, working well, but not yet irre-

trievably fixed and unchangeable. The recent maturity of the program seems to

provide an ideal time for assessing it from the psychological point of view. '

.i-

The technical ceiling of the program seems within reach, raising the question

( of the capacity of EMT and IRACT to communicate with the means at their

disposal.

-1- i

t

6

*-

.

.

.

-2-

Rationale for psycholoaical Analysis

The essential feature of the fluclear Regulatory Commission is that it

is a regulatory agency which must rely on other agencies with the resources,

authority, responsibility and capability for action and timely response to

nuclear c'ontingencies. The " commodity" of the agency is information which must

be communicated quickly, precisely, and recorded accurately after reaching the

right receiver. A decision has to be made on the basis of the information

received, and instructions have to be communicated to the appropriate parties.

The final step in operations is an evaluation of the response of the IRC.

Because the agency deals solely with information in all of these activities,

communication is th> essential activity of the agency. The technical aspects

of communication are well developed with the remaining issue an evaluation of ,

the interface between the roles, procedures, techniques and technology on the

one hand, and the human communicator and decision-maker on the other. The

subject presents two problems:

1. Communication under Crisis

The agency is in the unusual position of preparing and planning for

improbable, remote but critical events which constitute a crisis. Although

the simulation exercises which are conducted introduce stress into the training

and anticipate conditions of genuine crisis, still the ability to anticipate

what happens to the interface between the human communicator and the technology

and procedures deserves evaluation. There still remains a large gap between

the stress of simulation and the genuine crisis.

2. Unknown and Improbable Crisis

The IRC has been developed for handling a crisis for which there is,

no precedent. Therefore the planners in the agency do not have valid experience

which can be used to guide their management of an unknown event.r

1

!

.

. ,-

5

,- .'

.

-3-

Both of these reasons suggest a psychological analysis of communication

to attempt to examine the process in depth and therefore be able to assess the

current program from the perspective of psychological factors in communication.

Focus of Analysis

Preliminary discussions have suggested several factors which should

enter into the psychological analysis of communication between EMT and IRACT.

These cluster under five categories.

1. Contextual factors

Lighting, distractions in the environment and general physical aspects

should influence communication and may produce unexpected effects in times

of crisis.

2. Group dynamics

The social relationships among members of EMT and IRACT will undoubtedly

influence communication. Among the potcatial factors of significance here are

the questions of hierarch-::s and hence the problems of hierarchic communication.

3. Channels of communication

What are the relative merits, strengths and weaknesses of visual versus,

verbal communication?

4. Functions of communication!

The major task of participants in the Incident Response Center is to

,commun ca e information, to use the referential function. Neverthelessi t

communication also serves other functions. It can be used to express anxieties

of the communicator, to assist the understanding of a situation, etc. People

have different needs and uses when their communication is approached from the

aspect of functions.

('

1

.

L_

- - -

.

-

..

.

-4-

5. Principles

a. Intensity of response

The first principle that comes to mind refers to a strategy for respond-

ing, to incur the risks of overreacting or of underreacting. It is clear that

generally, the response must be overreaction. (The acceptable risk is to

respond to a false threat as if it were real rather than to respond to a real

threat as if it were false.) On a more microscopic level, it might be useful

to evaluate information from the angle of over- or underreacting.

b. Quantity versus quality

Technical systems generally increase the capacity for receiving and

storing information. Transmission of a message is also quicker. The question

can be asked whether there is too much' information transmitted and whether a '

better strategy would be to consider the quality of information rather than ,

the quantity.

c. Sequencing

The same item of information introduced at different phases of a,

l

process of connunication will carry different meanings. Items which precede l

land those which follow a given item modify the meaning conveyed by a message

and thereby affect the judgment made of the information received.

d. Intentions versus consequences

Judgments used for the individual's own behavior are different from1

the judgments used about the behavior of others. The individual typically

views his own behavior from the perspective of his own intentions, but views

the behaviors of others from the point of view of the consequences of their

acts, typically disregarding their intentions. This and other principles

carry considerable weight in influencing the judgments which people make of4

k others.

.

.

,

.

-5-,

These factors will be used in the initial steps of evaluation of current

procedures, and as work progresses, the focus will undoubtedly shift to accom-

modate the information collected.

Method

1. Interviews

Interviews will be conducted with the members of EMT, with congressional

and public affairs officers, with directors of IE and other offices, and with

various liaison officers. The total number of interviews should be between

15 and 20.

2. Analysis of exercises

The various exercises which have been run will be analyzed.

3. Participant observation

The writer will be an observer for the exercise scheduled for March 13,

1979.

Product

A written report will be produced summarizing the findings of the

psychological analysis of communication between EMT and IRACT.

Time Frame

The interviews will be conducted between March 19 and 30. The analysis

of the exercises and the participant observation will take place during the

same time, and before. The report will be written during the first two weeks

of April with a deadline of April 13.

'.

.

'-

9

a

*

-6-

Budget

The project calls for fifteen man days.

Honorarium, Edward C. Stewart (15 x S150.00) 52,250

Clerical expenses 100

$2,350

,

6

e

!i

e

_

'

%

CURRICULUM VITA

EDWARD C. STEWART

Name in full: Edward Charles Pereira Stewart Address: 12528 Montclair Dr.

Born: Nove=ber 24, 1924, Brazil Silver Spring, MD 20904

Married: Four children Telephone: (301) 622-1343

-.

EDUCATION.

University of Maryland College Park, MD 1946-50 B.A. Psychology

University of Texas Austin, Texas 1950-51

University of Texas Austin, Texas 1953-56 Ph.D. (1957) Psychology

MILITARY SERVICE

Unit'ed States Army 1943-1946

1951-1952-

EhtI.OYMENT

Business Council for American University 1974- Senior Specialist,International Under- Washington, D.C. Interculturalstanding Co=munication

University of Minn. Minneapolis, Minn. Fall, 1976, Visiting Professor

University of Va. Charlottesville, Va. Spring, 1976 Visiting Professor,

University of Southern Washington, D.C. 1975- Adjunct ProfessorCalifornia, WashingtonEduc. Center

Washington Inter- Washington, D.C. 1975-1976 Director of Inter-national Center cultural Research

ACTION / Peace Corps Washington, D.C. 1971-1974 Education andTraining Specialist

University of Newark, Delaware 1969-1971 Associate ProfessorDelaware -

,

University of Pittsburgh, PA 1967-1969 Associate Research,Pittsburgh Professori ,

.

O

_..

.. . -_.- . ,. --_

e

i

I

,

'

Human Resources Research Washington, D.C. 1962-1966 Senior ResearchOffice, The George Scientist

| 'a*ashington University,

,.

Monterey, CA 1959-1962 Research Scientist

Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA 1956-1959 Assistant Professor

f

i-

1

I

;

'

i

:

I:t

.h

1

i

|-,

2

4 S

>

1

i

!

*.

!t =

'

!

'. ,

I

f ,

' . " . ,~ _. .-. -. _ . _ _ , . ._ _ . . . . . - . . .

*.,

.

.

VITA

Edward C. Stewart was born in SEo Paulo, Brazil, in 1924. His family moved to

the United States in 1933 and settled in Atlanta, Georgia. He attended public

schools there, with the exception of the last year of high school at Greenbelt,

Maryland. He served in the United States Army from 1943 to 1946 and again fro =1951 to 1952. During the first years of military service, he spent a year and

a half in Europe. His undergraduate college education was conducted at the

University of Maryland, culminating in a B.A. degree in 1950, with a major in.

psychology. Graduate studies then began at the University of Texas, with an

interruption for military service. The degree of Ph.D. in psychology was awardedin 1957.

Prom 1956 to 1959, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at Lehigh Univer-sity, teaching primarily in the areas of perception and social psychology.He then joined the Human Resources Reserrch Office (HumRRO) of George Washing-

ton University, conducting research in the area of leadership, in Monterey,*

California.

In 1962, he went to Washington, D.C. , to join a new group formed within HumRROto conduct research in the area of intercultural co==unication. Since 1964, hisresearch and interest have been in the area of culture--specifically Americanculture--and the development of simulation as a method of education and trainingfor intercultural communication. Completing his research-on si=ulation in

,

1966, he left HumRRO and joined the Graduate School of Public and InternationalAffairs, University of Pittsburgh. He went to France for six months to lecture

to a group of international businessmen, and then returned to Pittsburgh..

In the fall of 1969, he joined the University of Delaware, which was juststarting a program in the field of Intercultural Co=munication. In addition

to research and academic works, he has participated as a consultant in areasof intercultural communication for the Peace Corps, AID, Foreign ServiceInstitute, Military Assistance Institute, and Business Council for International

,

Understandin,g (BCIO), at the A=erican University, Washington, D.C. As a con-

sultant for Westinghouse Corporation, he has applied the intercultural-

.

e

5*

perspective to problems and issues within American culture itself.

His basic interest has been culture and cultural differences. Within the last

few years, however, he has developed materials and lectures and gathered ex-perience in the fields of health and education. In the former field, he has had

an association with the Medical Mission Sisters, consulting and training for

them in their hospitals throughout the world and in Philadelphia.

As Educational and Training Specialist in the Peace Corps, part of his respon-

sibilities lay in administration of training. He has worked with contracting

procedures, constructed new forms of statements of work, and developed and ad-

ministrated a system for evaluating training programs throughout Latin America.

In the areas of conduct of training, he has participated in training of staff,

planning and conducting training activities, and continued work in the develop-

ment of training methods and content.

Since 1974, he has been actively associated with the Business Council for

International Understanding, American University, in developing art and

aesthetics in intercultural communication, using mimes anong other artistic

means, and linguistics.

As Director, Intercultural Research, Washington International Center, he con-

ducted an investigation of patterns of thinking, employing both cultures and

disciplines as fields of study.,

For the spring semester of 1976, he returned to teaching at the University of

Virginia. For the fall term, 1.976, he was Visiting Professor, University of

Minnesota, teaching intercultural com=unication. He has continued teaching *

in the Washington area at the University of Southern California, Georgetown

, and The George Washington University.l

.

6

.

.

CONSULTING AND TRAINING

Agency for International Development (AID) Washington, D.C.Business Council for International Understanding The American University(BCIU) Washington, D.C.Control Data Corporation Minneapolis, Minnesota

E. I. Dupont de Nemours Wilmington, DelawareForeign Service Institute (FSI) Arlington, Virginia

Medical Mission Sisters Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaOrganizatioh of American States (OAS) Washington, D.C.Peace Corps Washington, D.C.International Com=unication Agency (ICA) Washington, D.C.Washington International Center (WIC) Washington, D.C.Westinghouse Corporation Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaWorld Bank Washington, D.C.

TEACHING

Lehigh University University of PittsburghUniversity of Michigan , University of DelawareUniversity of California (Berkeley) University of VirginiaSan Jose State College, California University of MinnesotaMonterey Peninsula College (Calif.) University of Southern CaliforniaGeorge Washington University Georgetown University

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS '

American Psychological Association (APA)American Anthropological Association (AAA)American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)'International Communication Association (ICA)Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI)Speech Communication Association (SCA)Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR)

LISTED M THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS

American Men and Women ol[ Science i

12th Edition of the Social and Behavioral Sciences1

Dictionary of[ International Biocraphy <

Since 1971-1972 1i

Who's Who in Eastern United States *

Since 1971

>s

||

- _

-.

,*9

WORK AND TRAVEL ABROAD

Work 3g Research

1962 Ecuador1967 France, Great Britain1969 Bangladesh, Malawi, Ghana197.1 Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Italy1972 Brazil

. 1973 Guatemala1976 Belgium

Militarv Service.

1944-1946 Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,Great Britain, Netherlands

Conferences and Travel

1966 Germany1969 Belgium, India, Laos, Thailand, Turkey, West Pakistan

.

1971 Denmarki

1973 Puerto Rico1974 Puerto Rico1976 Japan1977 Germany

| 1978 Germany,

-

=i,

S

9

9

I

G

9

1

.

, . - , - , r.. - ,. - - . . , , - . -, - --v. - , . . , . -

o

.

. .

.

PUBLICATIONS *

.

Stevenson, H. W., and Stewart, E. C. A developmental study of racial awarenessin young children. Child Devalop=ent, 29 (3), Septe=ber, 1953.

Stewart, E. C. The Gelb Effect. Journal cd[ Experimental Psychology, 57 (4),1959.

Stewart, E. C. Aspects of American Cultsre: Assumptions and values that affectcross-cultural effectiveness. Human Resources Research Office, TrainingManual,. August, 1966.

Stewart, E. C. , and Pryle, J. B. An approach to cultural self-awareness.Paper for American Psychological Association convention, New York, Septem-ber, 1966. Issued as Professional Paper 14-16, December, 1966.

Danielian, J., and Stewart, E. C. New perspectives in training and assessmentof overseas personnel. Paper for First Counter-insurgency Research andDevelopment Symposium, Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Virginia,June, 1966. Issued as Professional Paper 6-67, February, 1967.

Hood, P. D., Shovel, M., Taylor, J. E., Stewart, E. C., and Boyd, J. Prelim-inary assessment of three NCO leadership preparation training systems.Technical Report 67-8, June, 1967.

Hood, P. D. , Showel, M. , and Stewart, E. C. Evaluation of three experimentalsystems for nonco=missioned officer training. Technical Report 67-12,with Appendix Supplement, 248 pp. , September,1967.

Stewart, E. C. The simulation of cultural differences. The Journal ej[ Communi-cation, XVI (4), December, 1966.

Stewart, E. C. Simulation exercises in area training. Paper for lith AnnualArmy Human Factors Research and Development Conference, Fort Bragg, NorthCarolina, October, 1965. Issued as Professional Paper 39-67, Septe=ber,1967.

Stewart, E. C. The simulation of cross-cultural communication. In G. Maletzke(Ed.), International and Cross-Cultural Communication between Industrializedand Develooing Nations. Berlin: German Development Ir.stitute,1967.

Stewart, E. C. Theory, method and instruction for cross-cultural interaction.Paper read at conference on Research on Cross-Cultural Interaction.Washington, D.C.: Office of Naval Research, May, 1968.

Stewart, E. C., Danielian, J., and Foster, R. J. Simulating interculturalcom=unication through role-playing: A strategy for area training. Tech-nical Report, 1969.

Stewart, E. C. Cultural differenc-s are human resources. For NATO conference:Special Training for Multilat< ;al Forces, July 22-26, 1969, NATO Head-_

! quarters, Brussels, 1970.\

t

*I

!1

!!

I

5- - ~ - ' ~ - - - - -

,

* .|.

.

Stewart, E. C. American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective.Regional Counc,11 for International Education, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1971.

Stewart, E. C. American advisor overseas. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter(Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company,1972.

Stewart, E. C. Outline of intercultural co==unication. In D. S. Hoopes (Ed.),Readings in Intercultural Communications, Volume III.. Pittsburgh, PA:Intercultural Co=munications Network, University of Pittsburgh, 1973.

Stewart, E. C. Definition and process observation of intercultural communica-tion. In Nezi Jain, M. Prosser and M. Miller (Eds.), Intercultural Com-

munication: Proceedines of[ the Speech Communication Associatien SeminarConference X. SCA, 5205 Leesburgh Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, 1974.

Bystrom, John, Casmir, Fred, Stewart, E. and Tyler, V. Development ofStrategies for Closing the Gap between "the is" and "the ought-to-be."International and Intercultural Communication Annual, SCA, December,1974.Volume 1, p.152.

Stewart, E. C. Cultural sensitivities in counseling. In P. Pedersen, W. J.Lonner and J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across Cultures. Honolulu,Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii, 1976.

Stewart, E. C. The survival stage of intercultural com=unication. Internationaland Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. IV, SCA, 5205 Leesburgh Pike,Falls Church, VA 22041, 1977.

Stewart, E. C. Outline of intercultural co=munication. In Fred L. Casmir(Ed.), Intercultural and International Communication. Washington, D.C.:University Press, 1978.

1

* Professional Papers and Technical Reports refer to a classification of thepublications of the Human Resources Research Of fice, The George WashingtonUniversity.

1

|

|

.

1

.