The vast majority of my articles on the history of psychological operations
study wartime operations. This article is a bit different. It explores an American
peacetime operation aimed at determining the ability of the airdropped propaganda leaflet
to spread information.
I first wrote briefly about Project Revere in a November 1967 article entitled
"Leaflets over America" in The Aerial Leaflet. At that time I expected to write
a major article in the near future. I never did so. The data has been filed away in a
manila envelope for the past 38 years. Perhaps it is finally time to write that
long-awaited story.
At the height of the Cold War, in those years just after World War II and prior
to the Korean War, the United States Air Force joined with academia to predict the
reliability of the diffusion of a test message dropped from the air. Project Revere was
established to test the distribution and effects of airborne messages and to discover
formulas that would guarantee a high probability of maximum diffusion and compliance with
leaflet instructions in future conflicts and wars. The name for the project was meant to
remind the public of Revere's historic ride and the spreading of his message in a time of
national emergency. It was selected because American citizens would recognize the
patriotic importance of the project and be more motivated to take part in the project,
which required the filling out of the leaflets, and interviews. They would be less
motivated if it was considered just a mere scientific experiment.
This was just one of many partnerships between the Government of the United States and
major universities to study improvements in propaganda dissemination and message
diffusion. The Central Intelligence Agency contracted with American University to prepare
a handbook on leaflet dispersion by balloons. Johns Hopkins University later prepared
studies on methods of dissemination and density of leaflet distribution. However, the Washington
University project was the first major study to scientifically observe all the phases of a
leaflet operation from start to finish.
Some of the pretesting of the project is mentioned by H. Taylor Buckner in “A
Theory of Rumor Transmission,” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1,
spring, 1965. He says in part:
In this study, a message (Gold Shield Coffee—Good as Gold) was started
with 17 per cent of the residents of Issaquah, Washington, on Monday, July 16, 1951. On
Tuesday, July 17, an airplane passed over town and dropped 30,000 leaflets containing the
first half of the slogan and informing the residents of the 305 occupied housing units
that there was a slogan known to one person in five in the town. The leaflet also stated
that if the slogan was known when the coffee company representative called, the respondent
would receive a free pound of coffee. On Wednesday, July 18, an adult from almost every
household in town was interviewed. Among the questions asked was, "Whom did you
tell?"
A paper entitled “Project Revere
– Leaflets as a medium of Last resort” clarifies further. It states that this
was the first of the Project Revere experiments. The community was given half of the
slogan of a coffee company, and then leaflets were dropped telling them that they would be
given a prize if they knew the entire slogan. Interviewers came to each home with a pound
of coffee. To win that coffee, the interviewee needed to know the slogan and be able to
identify the pathway through which he received or passed the information.
During the three-year project, the USAF dropped [all numbers hereafter are approximate]
51 different messages on 27 different experimental leaflets over 30 communities. About
three quarters of a million leaflets were dropped on about three quarters of a million
citizens in the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Alabama.
Eighteen types of diffusion
curves and mathematical models were devised to verify the results of the test. The
Human Resources Research Institute, Air Research and Development Command, Maxwell Air
Force Base monitored the research. The study generated 17 technical reports to the Air
Force and 54 papers in journals. In addition, numerous studies and articles have been
published since the end of the project.
Stuart Carter Dodd discussed the experiment in "Formulas for Spreading
Opinions," The Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. XXII, No. 4, winter 1958. Some selected comments are:
Why did the Air Force contract for research on leaflet operations? They
told us in effect: We need to learn principals for predicting and producing message
diffusion from airborne leaflets. We have dropped over 2 billion leaflets with very little
firm knowledge of their effect. We must be ready to drop billions more, perhaps in very
different situations.
What rules, for example, can you find for deciding how many leaflets to
print or drop? What rules may be discovered for guiding the pilots as to where to drop
most effectively? What rules for best timing? What rules may help us write the most potent
leaflets? In short, what principals may maximize the effect of the leaflet weapon?
The Washington Public Opinion Laboratory of the University of Washington in Seattle
became partners with the USAF in the project. They were paid $330,000 to do the
mathematical research and prepare the models. The Lab considered the study a "coveted
opportunity to begin testing an interactance formula or hypothesis." The formula
would predict any social action as a product of a few necessary, standardized, and
measurable factors. The testing would follow the steps of the scientific method using
current mathematical models. The leaflets were seen as an unusual research opportunity.
Project Revere Salt Lake City Postcard
The best way to discuss the project is to study the test in one community. For
the purposes of this article we have selected Salt Lake City Utah, 26 July 1951. The
Air Force dropped 55,000 leaflets in two groups. The first half was disseminated over a
residential area at 2:00 a.m. The second half was dropped over another residential area 12
hours later at 2:00 p.m. The leaflets bore a secret mark so that the testers could
determine where the leaflets had been distributed. The leaflets were 5 1/2 x 7 inches in
size, bright yellow in color. They were in the form of a postcard addressed to "Civil
Defense, % Postmaster, Salt Lake City, Utah." The leaflet asked the finder to fill
out a number of civil defense questions, check when, how, and where the leaflet was
obtained and to place it in a mailbox. The postage was paid.
Of the 55,000 leaflet postcards, 3,940 were returned by mail. 94% were properly
filled out. There was no appreciable difference between the returns from the day and night
drop. Newspapers and radio stations were asked not to report on the project. Pollsters
could then interview people in the community in person and by telephone to determine how
many had heard of the leaflets and were aware of the data in them. This way, the diffusion
of the data was uncontaminated by the press.
Ninety percent of those citizens who mailed in a completed leaflet stated that they had
found it on the same day that it was dropped. The people interviewed face-to-face turned
out to be more honest and more accurate than those interviewed by telephone. This seems to
verify the PSYOP belief that face-to-face communication is the most important form on
contact. One conclusion of the test was that "It appears that great caution should be
exercised in interpreting results of telephone interviews." It is a pity that the
political pollsters seem to have ignored this data over the past 50 years.
Project Revere Salt Lake City Leaflet
A second form of leaflet prepared to test the speed and accuracy of the
air-dropped message depicted an unidentified bomber. The text is:
It is clear that this leaflet was not to be mailed back to the testers.
Instead, it was hoped that the finders would discuss the contents with their neighbors and
the numbers could be counted during personal interviews.
Newsweek Magazine of 13 August
1951 mentions the project in an article entitled “Postcards From Heaven.” Some
of the article is:
As Salt Lake City milkmen made their
rounds at 1 a.m. on July 26, occasional raindrops filtered down from cloudy skies.
Suddenly the air was filled with fluttering, oversized postcards that drifted to the
streets, sidewalks, and lawns of the city’s East Bench residential district.
Twelve hours later, housewives and
husbands still chatting excitedly about the aerial visitation again spotted boldly
lettered 5 1/2 x 7-inch black-on-yellow cards spinning earthward. This time many could
glimpse a two-motored plane from which the messages were spewing.
“Urgent,” each missive read.
“If this were an enemy leaflet dropped to warn you of an atomic attack coming today,
what would you do?”
The article goes to say that curious
citizens scanned newspapers, called radio stations, civil defense authorities and the
police in vain. All of them received the same answer; “This is a test. Please follow
instructions.” An Air Force C-47 had made eleven passes over sectors of the city
having population densities of from 7,700 to 16,000 persons per square mile. Aerial
photographs had been taken of the postcard dispersal, while ground crews photographed and
counted coverage at specific intervals. Meanwhile 30 interviewers made a house-house
canvass, and telephone crews tallied reactions. Children had a field day. They climbed
trees and drainpipes to collect the cards. One 9 year-old collected about 50 of the
postcards and opened a small business selling them for a penny apiece.
Returning to the scientific concept of
the project, the mathematical formulae and models are complicated enough to
"cross a Rabbi's eyes" as Tevya might say in Fiddler on the Roof. To
simplify and summarize the concept we can say that leaflets were dropped over different
communities in different ratios (leaflets to inhabitants), at different times, and shortly
afterwards the inhabitants were questioned by phone and personal interview in an attempt
to discover how far, how quickly, and how accurately the information on the
leaflets had spread. The assumption was that the data gathered from this peacetime
drop over American towns would be accurate enough to help determine the way that leaflets
should be prepared and dropped over enemy towns in a time of war. In the words of the
report:
The mission of Project revere was to gain information about the employment
of airborne leaflets over friendly American populations. It is possible that many of the
generalizations about the use of leaflets over targets in the United States may apply to
foreign, hostile cultures; but fuller evaluations must be based on data gathered in other
research projects.
Project Revere Postcard
Jennifer Gabrys depicts a second Project Revere postcard in her booklet Airdrop, Book Works, London, 2004.
The postage-paid card is addressed to "PROJECT REVERE, Washington Public Opinion
Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle 5, Washington." She also illustrates an
airdropped leaflet, which depicts a silhouette of a bomb and the text:
One raid by an ENEMY BOMBER could paralyze
radios, telephones, newspapers.
IN SUCH A DISASTER leaflet like this could be
dropped from airplanes to give official instructions.
YOU are an important part of this scientific test
to find out how effective leaflets are for spreading vital information to everyone.
OVER
Project Revere Leaflet
I assume that there was a questionnaire on the back of the leaflet and
notification that you would be visited or called by a representative of the testing group.
A great deal of information was gathered from this test. Much of it was
published in The Findings of Project Revere - A Non-technical Report on Leaflet
Message Diffusion. One of the organizations submitting the report is the
Psychological Warfare Research Division, Major James L. Monroe, Chief. That name caught my
eye because Monroe is the officer credited with designing the Monroe Leaflet Bomb during
WWII. The Revere Report covers every aspect of the test, from preparation, delivery,
diffusion, evaluation, to suggestions for further research.
Washington University went to great pains to prepare an in-depth study of the
value of the printed airdropped leaflet, and one hopes that American PSYOP troops are
aware of the findings and still follow some of the policies today. There is far too much
data to mention in this short informal look at the project, but we will mention some of
the more interesting findings. The reader should understand that we have arbitrarily
selected a few items of particular interest from hundreds of statements
and conclusions.
The Leaflet as a Medium of Communication.
The long-term effect makes leaflets a more lasting media than radio or
loudspeakers. Research indicates however, that the long-term effect can easily be
exaggerated. The continued presence of leaflets has little effect after a day or two. Cut
off from newspapers, radio and television, leaflets provide a quick way of reaching such
communities with information and instructions.
Preparing the Leaflet
The major criterion in the writing of a leaflet message is simplicity. A simple
message, clearly and concisely presented, is more likely to stimulate social diffusion
(person-to-person) of the message. The level of simplicity should be such that the
material can be understood by young children. Graphic material can be diffused orally and
it is remembered better than verbal messages. Use short words and short sentences.
Differences in color and format are needed to indicate that different messages are on the
ground and encourage reading of more than one version. "Safe Conduct" and
"I Cease resistance" leaflets should be standardized and highly recognizable
partly to assure the recipients that they will be recognized by infantrymen of the issuing
forces if surrender is attempted. Safe conduct passes should be durable. Such leaflets may
be carried around for months in a shoe, helmet or coat lining. Also, a durable safe
conduct may appear more reassuring and authoritative and therefore, more likely to be
honored if used. The predominant color in a leaflet should contrast with the predominant
color of the terrain on which it is to be dropped. Colors should be selected which are
known to be the favorites of the target population. Blue is preferred by Anglo-Saxon
cultures and red is preferred in India. Yellow leaflets attract aphids and plant lice and
the leaflets will be covered by them if dropped on grass. The most satisfactory color of
the text is black regardless of the color of the paper.
Delivering the Leaflet
There is little difference in diffusion of the message whether the leaflets are
dropped during the day or during the night. If the leaflets are dropped during the day,
the best time is early in the morning. The lower the plane, the more accurate the drop. A
useful way of talking about the numbers of leaflets is to specify the number of leaflets
per person in the target population or group. This number can be designated as leaflet
ratio. One leaflet to one person is 1/1, 16 leaflets per person is 16/1, and so on. Low
leaflet ratios are likely to result in a low degree of communication while high ratios
(16/1 or greater) result in much higher degrees of communication but the relationship is a
wasteful one of diminishing returns. For instance, a 1/1 ratio of leaflets to persons
resulted in an 18% communication of the message. Raising the ratio to 4/1 did not
quadruple the diffusion. It rose to 32%. At 16/1 the communication was 55%. At 32/1
the numbers were not much better than at 16/1. It is not cost or risk effective to drop
vast amount of leaflets when fewer will do almost as well. The relative degree of
communication that is likely to be achieved and the risk that is entailed to accomplish it
will be the primary considerations that determine the number of leaflets to be dropped.
Leaflet ratios between 2/1 and 8/1 will probably achieve effective communication. In the
case of urban areas, leaflets should be dropped to cover the entire area for maximum
communications. Complete coverage of the drop area seems to be advisable in any
population, which is known or suspected of having certain restrictions on its freedom to
move about. There is reason to suspect that the same conclusion could be made with regard
to leaflet drops on troops. If an infantry squad is unable to move out of its area and no
leaflets drop within reach, it is less likely that they will be informed.
Diffusion of the Message
Contrary to expectation, learning about the message through conversation
produced better recall that actually seeing the leaflet alone. The greater interest of two
people speaking about the leaflet was more important than one person just reading a
leaflet. More people will hear about the leaflet through conversation than will actually
see the leaflet. People who actually find the leaflet are twice as likely to talk about it
than those who heard about it. In areas where severe penalties are provided for reading or
possessing a leaflet, the restraints are always less stringent for children. We can inform
adults through the children. This should be taken into consideration when designing the
leaflets. The leaflets should be children-friendly and designed to tempt them to pick it
up. They will discuss the leaflets with their friends and bring them home to the adults.
Leaflet messages are mostly passed within the first hour. The rate of growth steadily
declines after the initial hour. About half of those who will ever learn the message do so
within the first three hours, and at the end of the first day about 80% of the diffusion
is completed. If action by the population is desired at a specific time, the leaflets
should be dropped from 24 to 48 hours before the event is scheduled to take place.
Distortion of oral messages is very high, in some cases only one percent of the original
message remains after the message has been passed by five persons.
Suggestions for Further Research
A promising set of rules for writing "potent" messages was developed
but needs testing. The study determined that there were 17 main type of leaflet appeals
identified as intensity, duration, probability, permanence, continuity, and so on. The
role of the airplane should be studied. Would a noisy aircraft stimulate curiosity and
speed up the rate of diffusion? Can too many leaflets discourage the message diffusion
just as too many commercials on TV "turn off" a viewer?
The Air research and development Command Human Resources Research Institute (HRRI)
published a research digest entitled The Relationship between Numbers of Leaflets
Disseminated and Communication Achieved in January 1954. The report was written by
Otto N. Larsen under an Air Force contract with the direction of Stuart Dodd of the University
of Washington Public Opinion Laboratory. This was one of a series of twelve technical
research reports and research digests prepared by the Project Revere staff.
HRRI Standard Leaflet
The digest discusses the procedure used in testing. Eight small Washington State
communities ranging in population from 1,015 to 1,800 were selected as target sites for
the test. A leaflet was prepared that warned the reader that one raid by an enemy bomber
could paralyze all communication and thus leaflets could become an important source of
information. Citizens were asked to mail one leaflet to Project Revere and pass out extra
leaflets to others.
HRRI Standard leaflet (Back)
A postcard questionnaire was attached to the leaflet. The number of leaflets dropped
ranged from 325 to 37,600 (a ratio of from one leaflet to every four people all the way to
thirty-two leaflets per person). The leaflets were all dropped at about noon on a
Wednesday spread over the towns as evenly as possible. The response was measured both by
the mail-back postcards and field personnel who personally interviewed residents of the
towns. Charts were prepared that showed the amount of communication that took place after
the drop in each scenario. Citizens were asked if they had seen the leaflet and if they
recalled the message.
Some of the conclusions reached by the author are:
Doubling the number of leaflets will not insure doubling the amount of
communication or diffusion of a given message. Dropping from four to eight leaflets per
person achieves maximum efficiency. Regardless of how many leaflets are dropped, only
about one-half of the people will pick them up. Only about 6% of the people hear the
leaflet messages orally from others. About 33% of the people never hear the message at
all. More people saw the leaflet than knew the message, and more people knew the message
than acted upon it.
The report ends:
The findings of this report have been derived from one carefully conducted test
involving eight small target communities in western Washington in 1953. Under the
controlled testing conditions described, the findings are confidently reported. However,
the limits of their generalization are not known. Further tests under varying conditions
should be undertaken.
In other words, the author is saying that the diffusion of communication from
leaflets are one thing in a peaceful town under ideal conditions, but the numbers could be
quite different in a time of war when the leaflets are dropped between bombing from the
air and artillery bombardment, and the population is under stress from sleep and food
deprivation.
This has been a very brief look at one of the most important and least known
studies of the actual testing methods used and the results of a scientific leaflet drop.
As I stated early in this article, there are close to 100 papers on this project so the
interested reader can find much more detailed data on the subject. As always, I encourage
readers with comments (or postcards or leaflets from Project Revere) to write to
the author at sgmbert@hotmail.com.
© Copywrite, all rights reserved December 24, 2004
