Page:CIAdeceptionMaximsFactFolklore 1980.pdf/16

C00036554

FIGURE 1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DECEPTION, PRECONCEPTION, AND SURPRISE

A. RAW DATA

WAS DECEPTION EMPLOYED?	WERE PLANS KEYED TO ENEMY PRE- CONCEPTIONS?	WAS SURPRISE ACHIEVED?			TOTALS OR SUBTOTALS
		YES	NO	UNKNOWN
Yes	Yes No Unknown	106 17 8	4 4 1	0 0 0	110 21 9
No	Yes No Unknown	8 5 12	0 1 58	0 0 0	8 6 70
Unknown	Yes No Unknown	0 0 0	0 0 0	1 1 6	1 1 6
Totals or Subtotals		156	68	8	232

B. AND SOME CONCLUSIONS

Historically, deceptions schemes have more often been keyed to enemy preconceptions and when deception is keyed to enemy preconception the probability of surprise is greater.

Supporting data: Cases where deception is known to have been employed

COUNTS	KEYED TO ENEMY PRECONCEPTIONS?		TOTALS
	Yes	No
	110	21	131
%	84	16	100

Supporting data: Cases where deception is known to have been employed

WAS DECEPTION KEYED TO PRECONCEPTIONS?	Yes	WAS SURPRISE ACHIEVED?		SUBTOTAL
		Yes	No
		106	4	110
	No	17	4	21
SUBTOTAL		123	8	131

Relevant statistic:

	OBSERVED COUNT	EXPECTED COUNT UNDER NULL HYPOTHESIS
Yes	110	65.5
No	21	65.5
Total	131	131.0

Computed Value of Statistic

$\chi ^{2}={\frac {(110-65.5-0.5)^{2}}{65.5}}\cdot {\frac {(21-65.5-0.5)^{2}}{65.5}}=60.47$

Critical value of statistic

$\chi _{1}^{2}(0.05)=3.84$

Relevant Statistic: Computed Value of Statistic

$\chi ^{2}={\frac {(|(106)(4)-(17)(4)|-{\frac {131}{2}})^{2}131}{(110)(123)(21\cdot 16)}}=4.16$

Critical value of statistic

$\chi _{1}^{2}(0.05)=3.84$