N O T I C E

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM MICROFICHE. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT

CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH

INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810010124 2020-04-06T08:03:02+00:00Z

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON

w

SMALL GROUP TACTORS IN

LONG DURATION SPACE FLIGHTS:

Review and D irections for Future Research

Albert A. Harrison

University of California, Davis

September, 1979

(NASk -CR-152385) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON N81-18650SMALL GI?OUP FACTORS IN LONG DURATION SPACEFLIG3TS: REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURERESEIRCH (California Univ.) 54 p CSCL 051 Unclas

G3/53 16360

EOAmes Research Center R^1k

Sr{ pACidCNational. Acroaautics and Space. Administration

ACCEgS DEpr:t.

Contract No,: NASA NCA 2-081.80-803 c'^.gy PrvR f

I^

^ i

e §§

a

I

SMALL GROW FACTORS

Crew Composition

A. Size

1. Size and Performance

2. Size and Social Stability

3. Size and Satisfaction

B. Individual Characteristics and Crew CompntibiJity

1. Class Factors

2. General Appeal Factors

3. Limited Appeal Factors

hL1— -

Interpersonal DYLaMiCS

A. Leadership

1. Task and Socioetnotional Leaderflilp Activities

2. The Contingency Theory of Leadorship Effectiveness

B. Cobesiveness

1. CaUSL'S of Cohesivenoss

2. Cunsequences of Cohu.,A-veness

C. Conformity

1. Groupthink

2. The "Long Eye" Syndrome

D. Interpersonal ConfliCL

1. Human I-telations Training

2. The Use of Established Groups

111. Summary of Principal. Planning and Research Issues

IV. Reforences

W

t t

SMALL GROUP FACTORS IN

LONG DURATION SPACE FLIGHTS

Albert A. Harrison

University of California, Davis

Apart from communications .etween ground control personnel and the astro-

naut, social variables were of little or no consequence in tho earliest manned

space flights. But as solitary missions gave way to group missions, flight time

increased from minutes to weeks, and technological advances provided persoaanal

some liberation from monitoring instruments and operating controls, social vc„ria-

bles gained prominence within the space capsule environment. Each of these trends

which promotes social life in space is expected to continue. The space shuttle

will make three to six person j month-long, orbital missions relatively common, and

interplanetary miss ions whic'n will Occupy five to eight persons for the better

part of two years (Sells & Gunderson, 1972) are Possible within the foreseeable

future:. Huge orbital laboratories and settlements involving thousands of people

have received serious discussion (Maruyamm, 1976; O'Neill, 1976) and there appear

to be a growing reluctance to dismiss, nut Of hand, those visionaries who foresee

large-Neale outward migrations, Accompanying; increases in crew size, mission

length and leisure time will be increased needs to understand the emotional,

behavioral., and social dinaensions Of 1.i.fe^ in space.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how peoples' relationships with

one another wa., -Pffect the pJgyChological funccioning and welfare of the indivi-

dual asrxonaut and th,. porforinaiice and morale of tile. crew. The y primary focus is

on crews that are, "small” in the- sense that each crew member has the opportunity

to interact with each and every other crcw member on a face-to--face basis.

«r

. #

tk

4

Large crews of 20-30 members or more require additional analyses (Chapter 00).

Moving into space was and is a staggering task involving tremendous

research and engineering accomplishments. Necessarily and understandably,

attention was fii^4t focused on the immense technological problems associated

with launching and recovering; a space vehicle capable of sustaining Life under

incredibly harsh conditions. The chief psychological interest: centered around

the effects of weightlessness on performance, and upon man-machine engineering

(Gerathewohl, 1959). By the mid 1960's, however, interests had expanded to

.include social psychological variables. Over the following decade, a number of

theoretical papers and reviews appeared, the most salient including those by

Haythorn, McGrath, Hollander, Latand, Helmreich and Radloff (1972), Kanas and

Vedderson (1971), Kubi.s (1972), Rawls, McGaffey, Trego and Sells (1.96$), Sells

(1966), and Sells and Gunderson (1972). These reviews firmly established that

social psychological variables will be important determinants of hut-,Ian performance

'and well being in space.

1. Crew Composition

The size of the crew and the characteristics of the individual crew members

are expected to have profound uffects on performance and morale. In this section

we shall consider some of the ways that variations in crew size, crew background,

a nd social compat=ibility factors may affect individual satisfaction and group

success.

A.- Size

Most U.S. missions completed thus far Dave involved primarily two person

groups (dyads) or three person groups (triads), but crews of six t;ieinbers or so

PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

L

I I

rJ

are seen as appropriate for tale space shuttle and interplanvulry missions and

it is considered technologically ,fvn-;iblc y to establish orbital or lctttnr bases

involving; 30-40 pcopl -o . A1oSt. of tilt, experimental litOrat W'O Involving "groups"

uses dyads or triads; subject availability Lind other praGL'ic:tl considerations

have discouraged laburatury studies of groups 1arl,er than four. However,

naturali,itic studies, In undertaaor and polar environments in fall.-out shel-

ters, and ' ill organi;, aViolial enVirUllmellts provide bases for

forecasting, s me of the oftects of si, e vttriatian wi t;11Ln the x111,111 group range,.

1. Size and Performance

Amebic, other,, Steiner (1972, 1976) and Kleinhatls and Tavltor (1976) have

reviewed the effloCLS of group si :e tin problem .solving, and other measures of

performance, 111t'1't';lSing, ,,riled) shz o has throv ► ,onora l offectti xmich in turn

i.nfluotiov perft)rmanco. These- art; pooling, effor-LS, IlI0t. iV:lL'itlnllI offeCt6, Mid

clrg;atllzalti011al t- ffc-CtSi.

Poolin g of f v(t s rofor to the agg,regat,ion of knowletlg,e, 'ibi l l bell, alld SkillsI.

Within a group. tldJitlg additional members t() tile group int'r. ,aI4.vs cite numbor and

rallg,e of col,nitive and mrinual rOSourev q that are available alert-I) 1)oosti111, the

group's potential. Pooling, off cts are not till lilllitOd, however, bel'atl;le t1101'e is

an ilivrrasin., likelihood th.lt Slumta abilit.iv-S and skills will bovome t>verrc,prQsentt,.d

Within the pool. Alt.hotl t;h Jarg,vr groups linvo morn potontial 111;111 smallor g ;Helps,

lllotivational and org,anL- ational l,.ffeoL,i 113;1y make iL difficult for UAS piltellt-jar

to be realized.

rfhtivat iolizil 01 fist LS rCfOr to t"he it111,act of group mellber.;hip con individual

invol.1'em,,'nt id mot.1vat:i ll ttl pursue'- group goals. This 3 s it ckvmplox ill.'1.ay of

effect;, which is, in balant: -, likely to hurt; jVrforrainee (Momilans & raylur, 1976).

i

C 6F

First, the larger the group, the loss responsibl y: each member may feel for the

group's actions, with the result that vgo involvement is low (n;arley & Latane,

1968; Wallach, Kogan A Ban, 1962) . Second, the larger the group, tilt: less visi-

ble individual performance, with the result that good performance may go unrecog-

nized and poor performance unpunished (Wicker, 1969). Third, the larger the

group, the more thinly distributed social recognition and other rewards that may

follow from good performance (Itadloff & Ileltaareieh, 1968). Fourth, tlae larger

the group, the less likely tale individual tilewher can deepen c• om:aitnient by making,

meaningfui inputs into the decision makIng, processes (Meinhan, .& Taylor, 1976) .

Finally, large groups may encourag;lz conditions such gas anotiyrnity which in Lunt,

gives rise to horsing-around and even destructive behavior (Divot'r, Dineen,

Endresen, Beaman & I-racer, 1975; Diener, Westford, Diener & Beaman, 1973;

Festi.ng;er, Pepitone &Newcomb, 1952) .

ter .lnl ?.1t iCltl.al oi`feC 1 5, Xeft'r to pre-Ilerformance .lctivi l,ie"i which bc'cotne•

increasingly burdensoi,te as the group increases in Sill`. The larger the group,

the more time and effort required for ft to "get its act tcaf;etlahr" so that It can

effectivoly perform. As in the case of motiv;atiOnzal effects, ort;anizatiental

effects are soon as basicnIly adverse.

As the size of the spare crcar incro a ,;es, one might hypotbosivo decollerat

ing benefits due to pooling, but accellerating Losses due to ioeativational and

orgatlirationol decline (Steiner, 1976). The overcall rates of ollri;e should be

such that performance first imps o- I S 111d then deteriorates cal tta increasing

size. Maximal performance should come thus from intermodiatc: s1zed crow.

however, this Should not discourage large missions, because stops can be taken

to promote the beneficial efforts of pooling, and retard moti.vaLional rand

organizational loss.

F I

First, further research should make it Increasingly possible for crew mcm-

bers to be chosen, in part, on the basis of complementary skills and interests

(RayLhora Ot M., 1971). A careful analysis of mission requircronts and of

the people who might satisfy them could result in a fairly largo crew which Is

not characterized by n pool which Is overstocked with certain abilities and

skills.

Second, procedures might be found to combat the motivational losses asso-

cisted with WaLiv&Y large groups. Strong norms of personal regponsibility

might be

established to help offset diffusion of responsibility. Behavior can

be carefulAy monitored to ensure that individual perforiminev I,,, appropriately

rciognized. Individunl incontives and bystems rewards can be set at such a

Wei that continuing with the group is a highly attractive alurnativo. Select-

iny people whose personal valuos are alroady congruent with A"oup goals may

lesson the need for participative decision making procedures. The frequent uso

of names and the oncouragoi ,,wilL of harmless idiosyncratic bohaviors may bell)

prevent anonymity.

I Finally, through careful selection and trai"ing, organization Nay he imposed

prior to the mission's departure. Unanticipated problems naN avisv in flight

which require an immodinu responsv and fur Which the crew, as a whole, is ill

prepared. In this case, individuals or specially trained subgroups may oo in

the best position to take Off'OK&O action (Chnpter 00). All of thoso remedies

ploposed for group ills, howovor, are to some oxtent based on conjecturo, and

require careful research.I

-11A

8

2. Sint; and Social Stability

On the basis of work by Baaloa and others (e.g., Baleo, 1950, 1953, 1958) ,

Was and Adderson (x1971) concluded that within the parameters of small groups,

increased size should lead to greater social Statbilit;y. Uyaadv experience ten--

sioaaaa because of an inability to farm a majority. Triads are unstable, because

of shifting coalitions winch involve two persons pitted zgainst they third. Kanas

and laeddorson recomhand as large a small group as possible, but add that an odd-

numbered orew would have the .7dv aaata,ge of being able to break a tiv in democratic

decision-making s:ituaLions.

3. Size and SaLlsfaution

Increasing crew size Increases thet nearker of possible dyadic Mationships

Within the crew according to formula (n2 - n)1 3 where A Is they numhor of people

in the crow (SOM 6 Gu114i4`rwon, 1972). Thus, while as thi'e'f pvrnoaa crew could

generates only 3 dyaadic, relationships, as six person crow could go"oa,ato 15 dyadic

relationships, and a 12 person crow, 66 dyadic relaItionships. Increasing crow

size, through Increasing tile number of possible relaaticaaaship: , increases (1)

options for social stimulation, (3) options for developing friendship. and

(3) Options for exorcising varied role behaviors.

',Tae evidenoc is it bit skete°hy, and t°oMill i caaLe d by the problem that relaaLivel.,

largo gloupn may be stationed in as relatively comfortable main base whiles rvlaa-

Lively s wall groups are located in primitive* quarters which offer fow of the

main base's aamonitiosa However, Smith's (1969) review supgosts lower emotional

Inc! interpersonal prcal}.lrms in relatively largo 1Vo1aLe.l and conilned groups.

In one sLudy, Doll and Gunderson (1969) found that =Laarotio part ion varying in

sine f rai 8-11 reportod less in the waay of c • onpaatibil i,t y and aavCovq i is haawnt t h,al

9

parties ranging In size front 20-30, In anotbor study, tht-rye some authors (1971)

found that military personnel stationed at am-ill bases were, ogre ltesti a thail

their counterparts at-more. heavily populated basses. A1t1iouj;h cross-study compari-

sons are difficult, it is interest.itll; to not(' t11at the Georgia Fallout 5111.11ter

Studies (Hattwws, Abearn & Keith, 1965; Hammes & Osborine, 1965; Hammes & Watson,

1965), which imposed very Spartan conditions oil unselected but unusually large

groups, ltad very low doie tion ratt , s. Smith Milt] Ilaythorn (147°...) found t,r$ads

more Harmonious than dyads 1,^ it simulation study..

In sum, crew size is e;;l)ecl.ed to affect how tl.itronauts iorforni and Dist,+ they

P,Qt 0011J; With vile 11100100. In the first instatwv, ervw si.*t- af[O-Cts the pool

of 'skills and abilities, votivation, and OrhRlniz;Itiott, In tht- second instance,

crew size ;Iffttcts tilt; levt al of social stimulation, ntlMber of friendship option;;,

and opportunity to oxercit;k'- role*^ro jiltt_d Ht}WC1't*1°, TIt}t" i1l1 ( i f tht'SC'

etfeet are wt'11 Lindt'r;iLoo,l, and {1it'toul t% few studius have rw o1vt}tl varying•

grou p si;e wl)ilt' holding other varlables constant) wo laok- tho nocessary

boaring ,; For in,ji,ing rellablo predict-j ons. Does a givon size offocL occur incre.-

inoutall.y, by leans and bounds, or at it ratty? Duos it i-ontinue indefinite-

ly, or rt'noli at1 ilsvGil)Lott' or platoon' C:loarly such knowlej t,c WOUld prove of use

for planning znul ,:iporson 12)issions.

B. 1tldivfdtlall L.141] IeLcristies alit] CrcW Compatibility

A protai.rttint therm ,ill tilt' lite'ralt.tlre iS the, 1)]`Ob-1 1r, of NvICt ilig, ala crew

nlein}erst people wl'o are COlXt4ltwiblt! With oil(., another .1S 3rell ;tom with the onviron-

mental sys,tetrls (Altrnn & lla,, Ui ern, Y) 05, 1967x, 1.907b; Ilaythvi ii, 1968, 1970,. 1973;

Hayttiorn & Altluati, 1967; flayt 1iorn, X11 ti: an & Myor:;, 1.1)66 Haythorlf et al., 19721

Kaplan & Fedderson ) 1971; Kubis, 1972; Sells & Gundort otl, 197.' = Crew :it!I'„at'r

i

10

may be considered compatible to the extent that each member Orvws qualities and

emits behaviors that the other crew members consider desirabiv and appropriate

under the oondiLions. 4 The rosoarch Lack is i.dViltifyinl; l)dtterns or personal,

attributes wh ich, in L110 caggreeaaLo, will proiiot c- group harwaony and encourage

a high level performance. The problrin is not i-tcrely fiti4ing people with good

or pcasitiVe CIuali.Liv.9, buL finding people whoso qualities iit y mesh in a good

or pos iLive way. The issuc: is excevdInt,ly co..n1 Ivx, bs.vau.SV bo nt:atay variables

need to be en Lertvined. As Kubi4 (197:) note,-,-.

...even with con:ii(j l,raLlun. re.itrIcted to porsonaliLS-rt. , l aced variables

(interests, attitudes, tra ts) alone, Lite aatidwr Is ss1 i-Sroat that the

analysis of distinl;uis,haabl y patterns bevonivs, in instirmounLabie task.

There are, fcr exaraplo, 2 uiffvrent paaLLVa°aas in as p;aciatp if ea011 of the:

Li charocLori:;LLC.i wOrO to 110 ('aate(^rlt;e^d {alt the ntiaaiaslEal iila'pa"'l(^w

. dichotomy...

The ,,eaarch for crew conipatibility, theta is likely to 1w lintiLrd only by

tho number of dinwnsions upon which people can he mezningf+ally oompared. But

the sea rch imn;t, continue. Social Conipaat .ibi.lity ei;i'rgt`d as tho foroGost, factor

in analyseB of sup orvlstiry ratln ,ti iind peter noaniin ations at polar otradons aaaad

compatibil.it!. 1 has been related to whoLhor or not Lhe ;antartle Ea(lvont(arers had is

"'good year" or a "baad Ve ar" (Gunderson, 1963, 1908; tl(andersota & Ap apaan, 1966;

Gunderson & Nvl.son, 1903, 1965,. 1.96x; Nelson, 1905). In simulation tesearc:h by

Alt.inian and Ilaythorn_ and their isolat,od and noni'invu groups who had

in4oiiipatible ta4`('ds showed inertias d stars, wli hdrEawal, aind LerriLori.al 1-''O'ivii;xs.

In addition, they triode more attt,ailp)Ls to withdraw froiti the st u, y (Altman & Il aythorn,

1965, 1967a, 19o7b I1Eaythorn, 1966', 1970, 1973; Ilaythorn & Altviail, 1907; Haythorn

tit al., 1966, 1972)

I

in the disrustaiva to follow, Oomp:atihili.ty factors are organized Into

three categories. The first rawrory, ela ss f:trtors. #o.•xaa,ev those qualities

or attributes Moointed with a.e abership in as biologic y ! vlaatan;, naocial category,

or drmopr.aphic group. The second catvgor^ ^ajljl wal crynsists (ti

those gaaalitie•s or attributers exported to t*taake an astronaut attractive to, and

compatible with, as wide range of othe r pvoplo. Thes e= arc the personal qualities

that nee expected to her valued by anyone (tar just nbout anyone) who Is with the

astronautut in an.

Isolated and confined grt'aay. The thir i cat v)-oi Y, 11r!1 L d ilplLen

factors, onck o,aacrnos those= pvrntonal atirlbuton or quaai itiev c s Np t tvd to vary in

desirability depending on the attributes: or ku:aliticaa~ Of the ether people in the

group. Those are the qualities that are likely to be Valued by ;,OOW pOople Who

might be with the aantronaut In Rae . golatod and confined group.

J. Clan;;:: FaaCtOrat

To ,sottie extent, crew 0O Issas ib i.i A Y Will Rpcnd on thV hi eel og e • aal and Social•

gioups Z' 1"om which the crew 111 0111l i t"ws are drawn. 11iiporteaalt vari::: los includ e sox,

age brooket, and ra ev or othniOiLy.

it. Sox

Space travel has boon as do.mivatod enterprise, but Wo l :vil a.110: 11 aeatS are

in training and it in atrvo;nivod that in the long run sonie sort of sexual paari.n

is likely to be iavhit!vvd (ShG.t`ivy", NarLOW & SongA, 1977). I.xtrvvol;, little Q

known cabOUL women in space. Cotton have visited polar st"t irate* , Mod in under-

water habltaaLS, and paarLi ipaate'ti in fallout rhulte'r SLOW" but the Vast bull cif

AS data caluv from all malo pro s v ivv q , ` bosv few .stLaaiies which hcavej involved

women have not fov"sod sharply on svx or gvndor variables.

6

12

Several issues are involved when we Consider women enttrrtng space, The

least of these is whcLhc^' or not women arc:=. equipped for the , rigors of lire in

space. Early doubts 'seem to be l,ivinf, way to a convieLloa that woman con do tho

job and have the right to be there. This conviction seems to reflect, in part,

an increasitli, rucolniticln of woman's vnpabi.lities outside of the traditionally

feminine splac:re, rand in part n I,rowIng recognition that technical systems are

am easily enl,fnvered to meet wolaon's needs an men's needs.

' More prt Nsinr, are ist:ues coacuxning the soolall dynamicts wl thin all female

and mixod-sex e.rews. At the conjo(' ltrall levol, 011V Can f01 0v a 1. t' both advantages

and disaadvantoj,es with a mixed-sex crew, On the one hand, inclusion of members

of, tho opptlaitcs sex can creaato diversivy and lielp reinstate otherwise relinquishtd

role behaviors. On the tether hand, Jonlou5ivs may arise as the result of crew

metnbtart; "paztrital; off." A terminactud rolaltionshltl could prc'VLI dC'v:t; tatil1g. Then,

too, there may be a certain aawkwaardnvs:, dvaaling with tho opposite sox under condi-

t ions of isolation and cc lnf int:tnent, and at l.0,1St ,chic pColilc; arc wclrrIvd nbout

SOCiety'a, j,'Crt:Vptiollti of po-W-lblP f,0fill s— fife ill tkl y Capsule.

At least two fcu• ce.q will militate again:.t the fornation of potentially di --

ruptive peters:ct+xtaall bolldti. 1: irstt, soxuaal noods burin,; npa cv Llipllt may not be

sivillaar to tho.tv on caarth (Chapter 00). In timOs, of crisis, change, or even

distraeLioll, SOXual 11c-Od:1 may lee cotisidered ot milior or lit) a1,;portatice. It Is It

INISt pry:,sl to that they ispaco vnvJrt>lll',!ollt will be sufficiolitly ,11'Lifici,11 to the

stiiaco Lravell.t, r that :iex will 110t ht1.tvrcvived alti al pressiaaly noel for a very

f extcuded pc riot of time, even a year or more.

Second, thcvrc is at least sovio skigi;eSU011 that peoplt, within small, relatively

c losed aoc.iaal systcrns tend to choose, cis Ilaart.ne'r.s, tic=cp1.0 f o—w outside that "Vst'ov-

ThQY St,0111 to 1'e'loflliiZe thilt (Aldogal'*011., vIloict-11 C- an fain joaalotivit's aalld

_a.a

13

reduce privacy to a dangerously low level. The findings ary tentative, howevvr,and come from kibbutzim (Talmon, 1964) and rooiden ial college (UoI.r, mater, 1974)

which maintain relatively perseaul y boundaries.

Finally, there are the related problems of feeling at ease around rember

of the opposite sex and societal misgivings about the spare party, Berry

(1973) suggests that natural processes of social change may ease those latter

problems

..Thv J s! uo of mixing of sexes in space crews in t4c, future may not

be the delicate one it has been traditionally expoc:tod to lacy . Sc;xunl

moros have changed si„nifi cauLly in the U.S. and t h u ► About the world.

As a consequence, living la close proximi ty with persons of the orposi tc

sex may stem to future; sp ace crows a comfortable and nawral thi ng. Fhe

population from which astronauts will be drawn in fut ra v years will more

than 1110y have :rl oat. their yearn in university tlaluiT1g, studying and•working in mixed groups, and living in sexually unsegregated dormitories.

Indeed, mviny univorsit.t 8 throughout. the U.S. now feature such arrange-

' rlu^nts...

Rosoarch-ors , plannor-; and mat ogors earl' thu!: ron ronted with the' following

1. How der isolat.ion and oonf lnowont affect all-to11alo and 1lixod-sex

groups?

2. Vffiat can be d0no Lo 111inimin o the prob 1 omS that. are expected to roMalt

from overt and covert t14. ort nexu al pa i rlygn?

14

Although polar camps, subaqunt`c dwellings, and space simulators have

tended to be male preserves, inhabitants have varied appreciably in terms of

age. The groups thusar studio-' have contained subjects varying in age from

their late teens to middle age. Subjects who have deviated noticeably from

the group's mean age have, like other members, been physically and mentally

fit to stand the environmental rigours and make positive contributions to the

group. Within the ranges studied, age has not emerged as nn appreciable source

of friction. However, the ranges studied have sel. i om exLended beyond one third

of t'iie normal life span. There is :t substantial pool of l)oteni ial astronauts

in.'the 20's to 40's age bracket, but, with in eye to tliv future, it is necessary

to identify tine conditions under which a person is likely to be "too young" or

"too old" for a mission. Approaching this task researchers should recognize that

for most purposes calendar age er ,c^ is less relevant thin variables .Ihich are

loosely correlated with calendar age. That is, whereas capacities and skills

' are first acquired and then lost in a fairly stet sequence, the rate of maturation.

anti decline varies from individual to individual. In most cases it is preferable

to refer to age—related variables rather than to age itself.

Once an appropriate aag;e—range has been identified planners and tranagers are

confronted with selecting= astronauts from within that range. The evidence is

limited, but suggests certain advantages to having an appreciable age mix within

a crew. A mature individual may serve as a parent—surrogate and thereby satisfy

important emotional needs of the other crew members (itadloff and Hel.mreich, 1968).

In addition, one might hypothesize that the intellectual flexibility of youth

(fluid intelligence) coupled with the, storehouse of facts which develops with

age (crystallized intelligence) can enhance a groups problen. solving;

I 0

15

potential (Kalish, 1975).

One other source of concern is the changes that astronauts may undergo

during truly extended.-missions. Thus far, even the Iongest studies of isolated

and confined individuals have: involved buL a very small segirent of the partici-

pants' life spans. But developmental changes which are undetectable on short

missions may become prominent during missions measured in years. Work in the

emerging field of adult developmental psychology suggests people undergo fairly,

pronounced changes at severax points during their adu' Chnc1 (Vander 'landell, 1978).

On a two year mission, for example, somoone approaching 40 might have a major

change of interests and goals. 'These changes might reduce L110 person's fitness

fox the technical sides of the tni.ssion, and also his or her social. compatibility.

At present, missions are not measured in years, our knowledgQ of adult develop--

meat is modc s t, and it may well be that co)MIIitm(-nt to a mis; ion iziay present majo..

changes of interesLs and iduntity. llowuvor, age-related changes require considora-w

tion when planning; a truly 0XLended mission.

C. Race or 1thnic it.v

US-USSRmissions and missions involving craw members drawn from Lraditionally

rivalrous Fasturn bloc, nations have been proclaimed resounding; successes, yet thrre is

always Lhe chance that prolonged isolation and confinoii,ent will, bring long-stand-

ink, prejudices to the fore. Although t>aras and Fedderson (1971.) Dave discussed

some of the implications of ethnically mixed tnissians, race 07' ethnicity have

not been major variables in studies of isolaLcd and confined groups. The race

relations literature, however, provides some basis for 0I)Lirsti^;III. Specifically,

three; conditions associated with life in space riay minimize Lraditional preju-

dices.

16

First, some prejudice appenrs to be the result of an assumption that people

from other ethnic groups maintain attitudes which are different from tine's own

(Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1969). 7n fact, astronauts are likely to discover

that they have many interests and values in comanon (for example, these center-

ing around the mission), Such similarities should militate against prejudice.Second, some

j prejudice flows from the perception of low social status rather than

the perception of race or ethnicity per se (Allport, :1954; Amir, 1969). Since

space voyagers are likely to COMO from a highly seloct Population in terms of

ability, education, and hoaalth, pre-mission status i.s unlikely to contribute to

prejudice.

Third, under certain kinds of conditions, interaction is likely to lead to

a reduction of prejtuliee (Allport, 1956; Amir, 1969). Two of the most inaportar,t.

conditions cooperation and the pursuit of common goals -- are .likely to be

found in space? missions.

Tho race relations literature thus sut;t;0sts that selection procedures which

favor competent, high status individuals and the imposition of tasks which require

the coordination of efforts in pursuit of conimota goals should strongly militate

against prejudice and discrimination. Nonutheloss, we nnatat explore the possibility

that certain kinds of subcultural differences could Sonerato severe; incompatibili-

ties, and that truly prolon^;cwd isolation and confinement may cause otherwise

suppressed hostilities to rise to the .fora. Idontifying such difference's and

filiding way;; to eliminate or contain prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory

acts mutt be given greater priority in future research.

Z. General Appeal Factors

Certain charac Lori stics are likely to mike a person a penertal- Jy desirable

17

partner under conditions of isolation, confinement, and stress. These we have

categorized as general appeal factors because there is a high degree of con-

sensus concerning their value. They include attractiveness, rl=petenct^.

cooperativeness, emotional stability, and :o:-ial versatility.

a. Attractiveness

Rawls, Hopper, and Rawls (1969) instructed college students to "List as many

things as you can possibly think of that would determine how closely you would

be willing to intcr<act with another individual." The other person's attractive-

ness in terms of such things as cleanliness, appearance, dress, and general

demeanor emerged a,* a major consideration.

The search for complex bases for social compatibility should not cause per-

sonal attractiveness to be overlooked. Given that the need to staff large missions

or to simultaneously staff a number of different missions will necessarily result

In decreased selectivity and increased crew hoLorogenuity, it is necessary to

learn more about the attributes wilLch make an individual personally appealing

in :Light of space crew norms. It might be useful, in this regard, to devise and

validate an instrument for identify;inl, personal characteristics which crew members

are likely to find distasteful. or annoying;. This might involve a listing, of

personal char.actcsristics to be rated in terms of irritation value (unkempt hair,

dirty fingernails, a squeaky voice, etc.). Once perfected this sCa.W could be

used in two ways. First, norms could boy established which could provide a basis

for eliminating; "unattractive" space crew candidates. Second, the instrumullt

could be used for weeding; out "finicky" individuals who find too many human.

frailties aversive.

I

b. CRmpetence

Sustained and effective task performance will be ecaentinl for mission

success. Poor or incypetent performnncc under conditions of danger is likely

to have a disruptive effect because of recognition that it jvopnrdixes everyone's

welfare. Gunderson and Nelson (1965) found that "Cask motivation" related to

"}food years" and "bad years" in the Antarctic, and Shears and Underson (1966)

reported that both personal motivation and perceptions of the group's nchieve-

meets were related to satisfaction with the Antarctic assignment:. Studies under-

taken by the Alaskan Air Command also suggest that marginal performance is

correlated with poor adjustment and dissatisfaction (SCD, 1974) and Day (1969)

haa.s discussed the adverse reactions generated by crew members who failed to ful-

fill their performance requirements in the drays of sailing ships. The goof-off

or slouch pouf's an unacceptable threat to group harmony, particularly in the

case of re latively Sma ll missions whory each crew member has in cssonLial p art•

to play.

Discussions of compete;ncey have generally focused on task competence; that

is„ the person'.s tvchoical skills and work Motivation. Howuvor, competence

research Might be e'xOndod to i nclude} int orpersonal. or socioe'hational competence

as well. Along with studies o f competence involvip perforwaauco monsuros, we

need additionaal, studies involving pe'e'r pvrcvptions and ratings. For some purposes,

Tactual competence may be Joss important than perceived competence. For example,

ai -competent crew crate nber who is not seen as such may have: as adverse an effect on

performance and morale as an incompetent crew mombor whose ina6equaa cies aare

correctly identified. Alternatively, an ineaMPOteaat person Who is able to convey

an impression of knowledge and skill may have a calming effect on the rest of the

crow.

,^_A

3 9

C. Cc^opoxy tQ aaes:a

Space voyagers are embarked on a highly interdependent venture which

re.cluires utmost cooperation for success. According to McClintock (1972, 1978),

people vary in terms of their interests in coordinating their oft its for mutual.

gains. He identifies throe types of motivation or motives:

Own kaaiaa motivation refers to a preference for doing; as wall as one can

for oneself regardless of how one's choices affect other people. if it,

is in one's personal Interest to choose :a course which happens to benefit

someone else, it is this course which is chosen. If, however, the greatest

personal gains coma from factions harmful to someone else, knowledge of the

likely harm h,ns little clwrrant effect.

RolaLivo lain motivation prompts Ono to receive a higher level of rewards

than the other ; c'oplo in the relationship. The importooL cunsidorat ion

for the per l.on l;overnod by rolaativu--gaain motivation is to "best" other

people by always "coming out on Lop.''

Joint ':Ilia motivation refers to preferences for courses of faction whi ch

produce honuflts for other pooplo, as well as for oneself. Joint gain

mratiVat;ic,n involves both as sensi tivity Vo other peoples' needs and to

concern for LhOir Welfare.

McClintock and his associates view each individual an "ore or less cousis^-

tently governed by one of these throe motives (MU!, "ihornlaat y & McClintock, 1_979;

Wlinco k, 1972, 1978). Each stem:a from early childhood socialization and

reflect,a bath familial and cultural values, A bettor aandorst,anding of those

motives may prove of Use in the flight personnel solvct ton process, or for

establishing the most e footivo ro and KraacLures in tho space capsule micr(l1io ciety.

ZA

i

Relevant to both cowpot(mce marl cooperativeness is flolmrci.ch's work on tale

aclilevemvnt orientt)Liotl or need achievement (Helalreirh, 1978; llollnreich, tJilhelm

& Runge, 1979). ClasVically, need achievement has been defined ns a persistent

preference for engaging in success-related nctiviries (Atkinson, 1958) People

with high need aChieVOW-11L hnvO Ininy admirabl y qualities, but problems may arise

on board a space vehicle if attaining st• ntldnrds of excellence involves "pritna

donna" behaviors or a put down of other ►too burs of the crew. According to ltealm-

reach, need achievemenL can bay reconcepLualized cis subsutni.ng Lbrue independent

factors. Work orlonLaLlon refor I to mot.ivaLion LO Work hard bc-t-ause work is a

valuable activity in and of Itself, reforsl to a desire to

cotitinL1a11Y improvo one's own best pc'rf orrmince. Coptpt_, tion rofers to an attempt

to do better than other pooplo. Holmmich hypotllesi,-o s that tho combined interests

of t j.,;k act-umplis ► l motet. and so,.-ial compatibility will be best served if crew members

show a strung work and masLory ori.onLaLl n laut relatively litt1c Competitiveness.

Additional research is rt-quirod to porfect ways of asse-;sin t; work orientaLlon,

mastery ori('ntatlotl and coinpoLition, and to test lhAmro.ieh's ituportc"atlt hypothesis.

e

d. 1,motional St,ll?iliLy

A high emotional or uncotltrol.lcld illdivi.dual J)os0f; sin un.1coopUible threat: in

any hazardous rnvit011111 11L. Accordingly, it IMS bQ011 noted Lhat AilL.lrrLic porslonncl

place, high promium on having Calm, even- tt'1rillered, orlotionally lt%lhirc? etlti:pPatliotls

(DO11 & tiundVrSUn, 1971; Law, 1960; hu,gg, 1973).

Many of On rcasonrch questions surrounding emotional stability are quosLiolls

of -selection. atuch more is known nbout how to exoludo peoplo who are liable to

react badly than hew to choost, po plc Of vXCCptio;ltll 11SVeholog Cill heal.tlt (Perry,

1965; 1967) . WhatcVor Lluy ul LlmaLe scrVOI)illg procedures, the+i e is no getting;

r^

21

around the fact that as more and more people are chosen for space missions n

few "high risk" individuals will inadvertently be chosen. We need to how

more about On kinds A supports or props tiant, can be used to help people pre-

serve or restore their emotional. Stability under conditions of isolation and

confinement.

As in the case of competence, crew perceptions may bey ns important as facts

when it comes to they effects of emotional. Instability. Acts which result in the

inference that the performer 18 emotionally unstable (whether or not that

infere=nce is correct) may Qmciraa100 thu crew. Of particular interest is idvnti•-

Eying; those conditieln3 under which undue sig;nifienneo is read into an outburst

or other act, with the result that a funcvJoni.ng; crew member is considered no

longer a member of the team.

C. Social Vorsnttlily

' As noted earlier (Chapter 00) space flight affords restricted opporttnait.y

to perform varied social, roles. Persons who can easily engage in a wide range

of role-rolawd boba v,iors In flight can help re:instatc for ones OVOLhor some of

the lost opportunities. The value of such versatility is expected to be inversely

proport.lonal to crow size and directly hropaart.ional to mission duration.

There area many types of versatility which might he studied s but the nacre

which is receiving the MOSL atte'tation is vQrsaati.lity in enacting behaviors

aalsociaated, in Western soe`iOa.y, with masculine and f'e'minine' roles. l'ien nre

expected to adopt the task. -ori.e nt od inkLrovontal. role and women are expected to

adopt the socioomotionaally orinntead expa°ej.:nivo role. Mon are eaxpMed to be

auLonOMOU , independent, SoMowhat dominating and aaegrossive, and emotionally

Inhibited. jtt}me'n are expected to be warm and nlJt:"I,UV anL and t=? enly display their

feclir_g;: .

j,

I,^x

Research by lleOW& and Spence (Spence, HelmrvIch & StaVp, 1975; 1# O-

rei.ch, 1978; lirlmrAch, Wilhelm & Runge, 1979) suggests that whereas people tend

to adopt the aattitudc »s and behaviors; commonly associated with their sox, some

people are adept at performing both the instrumental and data expressive rolen.

Such people, who are referred to as androgynous, appear able to strive towacdst

goads while* remaining sensitive to other peoples' iieeelf: and concerns. They have

n flexibility= which should yield benefits for themselves and for the people with

whpm they in torFaCL. The andrupyny rc>svareh represents an important attempt to

learn how people may reinstate, for one another, otherwise lost behavioral oppor—

tunnies, This kind of research must he contin"od and extended beyond the sex

role area.

3. Limited Appeal Fac Lars

Finally, there are those personal cln.alitics and .at trihutc^;, whoso effects

can,he gaoged only while simultaneously oonsfOvring the qualities and aattrIbutos

of the other people in the: group, In some cases, it in peoples:' similarities that.

make for eo ►srpatihility, in other raaseas, peoples' diffc onevs ioterwosah. Liz ►pit-eat

appeal factors Include attitude and vaaluO hO ►nui,eaari,tY, skill complo ►aamarity, and

need cost: g at ibi l i ty .

a. Attitude and Valuta

Conflict or sovial, moral and MOO values has proven tv he as problem in

some of the fallout :shelter studivs (Stay 1974) and almost Al a'Mo ers bnvo

tended to ac.VOIL the pos iLlon that hcantolvuvous aattitudvb, va3uou and inLerents

will militate against intrayroup conflict. The oxpoCto tion that crvws composed

or individuals with Shared att -itudv$ and values Will Lend to he =apatiblo is

certainly supported by studies in other contows. hopults f row 'kho fiold and

23

from the laboratory have been spectacularly consistent. attitudinal similarity

is a powerful determinant of mutual attraction. It has been repeatedly found

that the i?rc! Irt i of sh,:* od aLtiLudo s clKermInes tho oxtent to which people

find each other attractive (Byron et al., 1971). Attitudes also vary in terms

of their relevance to the group. Whereas a group may sallow O onsiderahie latitude

for differences of opinion in areas unrelated to the: group'6 purposes and Laski,

dissimilarity on issues clonor to home can spark spirited rtrmiuns (Schachter,

1951).

A superabundance; of rvsv arch poWs to the ooncluoiun that .attitude and

value similarity should he xa powerful determinant of interpersonal attraoLion.

On.111v ether hand, out, would hope to find, Within a given crew, sufficient

attitudinal variability to generate interaction and provide "Qw pleas during

prohlom--solving :iossionf , OIL Is thv app ropr iate bal inre hotwoon s i mi l arity

and differeueos in attitudca, opinions and helivi„' One' hYPothoSin is that

I t i:. e::,ontial to share c'mait l,vnet°ai values, but to show variability in terms

of the ways those valuc!s are Select ion and indovt rinot icon procedures

cap encourage shnred values. Howover, valu e htamogonvi.ty will necessarily declines

as crow size is inareasod.

h . t;cYmp 1 t^ a^cn t a t • ^ e1b i i^z t^i rt<^

As noted by llaythorn and his, associates, intcrlc'oking car complementary

abilities should also enhance group i'ompatibiliLy (Nay horn c a t al., 1972) . Ono

type is skill compltmont,aiitr which exists hon onopersoi is nkilloil W an area

whore Lhe other person is unski, ll o& Another is c oynitivv c ,,ylvmontari ty which

exists when Puo-ple have nano orlapping knowledge and must ac s ;aria £r_• on or rely upon

each other. C:onolemontary ahiliti.ms shou.l.d allow each vrvv ,.?•',;` er to vontribute

74

to the crew's walfare, sensiLiZO Q.^tch to the importance of the other? , conLribu-}

L ons, and in consequence promote ,;kl liJ-IrILy and morale. IIowvvt!r, there is little

or no research char.aclerizod by S.VSLemiltic efforts Lo relate vomplomontary and

overlapping utliliLieS to couipatibility within Isolated and ronfined groups.

C. CampntihI.t, N..`. eds

A recurrent thome in tiles interpersonal aLtracLion littliature is; that

peoples;' nekI ds; May f1 L LoppO Lhtu r ill SUCK a W ly CIS LO affect. grokill Compatibility.

Particularly important for pros ant. purposes is flaythclrn's; version (19u8, 1970,

1973) which has been Loots° tnldt-r (NIIldiLions (if i8olatJon and eonfinvvient..

This invalvOt; LIWOO 1)aLLt 1 lrnSa of n0odh:

'k . -1 noods are Simi liarl v apponrinjr ne'r'ds of tatlt"Il it ili"#tIWO that rile

s=tunt vt.ion of one por;son's; nvod; results; In Litt= satfs:f.iet toil tilt,

Otlier p y t`hon's 11 oLis. For eximiplo, two people wiiII 1.a\4' llovd.i to affiliiJI.

could find muLual -SaLis;iacLion by afftliisting with unt anothit-r.

b. CoMplov l onL:liy ntyods ore dI tI vi. vnt .appooring ntivds of such v nature that

the S aLibractioll of tint' porson's need rys.ul is in the S .It isfileL toll of L110

OLlIvr prison's need. Poo C'xm,.ipIv, it person wbo Im.-, a noel to CiominaLC

Might. ty Sltrlblisll I Sitti: fying r t-l.ttionshill Wi.Lh a p<lson vii^l has rI nt=e+d LO

be stlbmis.;ivo.

c. gum.^"..ct. ItiC+e' nl't'ds are of %ijcll it 1'. ,^u'r y Oat. tile' Sat i.4t itt".i ioll of ono. .r ^. ..,

parson':; neo(l t' y sui is in OW fvustrat ion or of tho other

person's need, This might, occur, for e astlplo, in ii group of people

each of whoul is, striving for domillanev.

Ill cas os, then, sitnilar noods will provide a b a •iiss too ctv.;pat.ibility;

ill other cassos, different tnt , odn will thcose viols. For oxxspit• , Borvmn and

25

Miller (1967) found that people who liked each other were similnr in terms of

need for achievement but diusimilalr in Lerms, of needs for dominance. Also,

It should be notid thiat different types of incompnLibilities are likely to lend

to different kinds ofof respo ►ses. In the Altman :end Haythorn studios, some kinds

of iticompatibillLiVS led to withdrawal and other kindb to increased territor-in11ty.

Two other findings are of note. First, as the Altman and 1faythorn research

shows, incompatibilities which are inconavqucntini under normal conditions W,

ma gnif i c:d under conditions of pi of unl ed Isolation a nJ c onf i nvownt . Second,

bier{ In Some CVicle'liC't.` that loud compatibility bialy gain in it'llsortilneo a1S a

relsti,onWifa progresses from Lho acquaintanceship stale to intar, vy (herahorf tx

llaW s, 1962) . 'Thus, we might hypothesize that need compatibility may gain salience

on long term missions whom 'Vi»!':1g(`1": are llkvly LV Wl'OMO very Intimately

acquainted.

ites;t-are'll Lo date Lillis slij,i`csLs that it Would 110 berth useful and desirable

to mount it walsSW effort aimed at bettor understanding of need corpaltihility.

Such a program should ,attvmpL to (1) identify relevant needs; (?) dhow how they

fit togvLhvr; and (3) spell out the consoquoncesx of com patibility and inconyati-

bilit.y. Ultinate l , svree'niny procedures way be? Avvisod for wvodin} —o"L candi-

dates whosc 114* cds ore too 1101y to Conflict, or ways found for kvoping C'oti,AltW,

needs ullefesr control. 1:osoare:hors Involved in such a program should remain sousi-

t+ivr. to tho possibiliLy that. inc'elwpatihility uny not bo a problvo if condition:

e`onspiry to prevent evow utelllhors from dotcoting their ditfvrt`Tlvvs, a"d that

inCoMpa ► tibilitics Lha ► t disrupt onv group miyw not affect anothvv,

• t

M 6

11. Interpersonal. llynamirs

In tho pt ostmt section, our focus turnH to same social processes that on.,.

likely to occur within small crews We shall coilsicler tliv sileCific topics of

landwereship, cou ormity, collcsivenotis, and conflict.

A. Leadership

Organizattons (such as NASA) which Liponrsor spave mis:;iuns can influvnre

activities ctn board by 111VOSLing; certain people With the right to c*xcrt

influence, taw.lrtling, cokons of rank and stattis to rviiiind tltlu 'rs cif this right,

and giving this pernon rontrol of available sanctions. In cl foist, the sponsor

de,Vegates its own authority to the crew lratk'r ill 01v holies 01;1t h( or sho will

mnnage the mltorial ati,! hur_san rostturc't's in sut-h a way that tht, r:ponsrr's roals

aru achievt,d.

Heavy dt-tt,mds are llkt'ly to Le placed upon I^ettplo pt'r! ori.Auj, loa,lt'rt,hip

fulictionFs ill ;il,te'e C41I)S iiv microsocivtles. Thee.;' dottimith; art' oxpectvtl to (,at'G`C1me

iiimisingly burtlt'n:iomt' a.-i tho mimsion VolitinuotR.

First., thvrc will tic Intrvdible tt,chnicol roquirmonts. Vor a lolie, tiro' to

coo , asLrun mum will bo oxi lvcteel ttl ts,1£t-ly opt'iak , What is tctntmaount tG in

i"x,t t'1`imonta j craft. ''in a hostilO t'nV,* 101l1VnL. Atlhkmt^A thVIt' Will il t' i1dViII100

ItreparatYUn, and :d1lmo dvgre4' of co:%mitileation with rt'fitt t - co 1-vople on I`'arth,

supplies will sLoadily dv-111villti1 ll;ld <i:i dil'AaliCt' inerVilst%. it Will I)CVtli? tt' increao—

ing,ly difficult, to maintain good c misaltli cat ioll with Lamb, I'or '111 lilt ants and

uul-pot. (!s, all prohlet,,s will havo to ,tie solvocl ttt;ing; the hig;l ► ly iir+i.ted resources

available Ill the clo. ed environmont of thQ .*pact

5evolld, this dcmmids tits itiLviper.soual 4-ill:. ^.tc 111,k-Jy tc bo equally

or ovvil tilort' t orz.-.ldablo. *klt) Jt - rc• .a.i 1y I: 1 1t ,W.'< I*t'010I0 All 1'e l ttQ ull-lvr t'i'tndi-

7

ti,ons of tlaonths or years of Isolation a1nd, confinement, but expectations tend to

be }brim (Chapter 00) . people in leadership roles will have to he cons,trmaat a in

Interpersonal: relatiopshipas.

A failure to fulfill the requirements of leaadvrs hip can lead to seve rV

penalties for the group. In the 195V-1960 fallout shelter s tuellCS (Stropo of al.,

1960aa, ME) a dKiborntely passive role on the part of the Shelter Celrnaande'r

was credited With a general lowering ofstandards of WhavOr and a loss of

Inl.erest in Matters of civil defense, The GeorgiaGeorgiaa I;allout Shvite= r Stu! ens also

f oti t -1l that itti$111.1naagt'i ono led to Incroaa,,od friction and decreased morall y (H a;Imv.-i

ct aa1. , 1961; HarAo s & Usborno, 1965; Hammes & Watson, 3965). C".oryctent lva dors,

on -thv other )land, may serve* is mock-lo whose enthusiasm and cvvn temper art: Lmu -

laaved by the crew. They ran prevent faaetionaalism, and ease group membe = rs through

troubled relationships,

How can we t-usuro tyoo,l lvadorsh1p on oxtvii(l od duraatlon space fliphts? ono

possibility Is to crvaat y pea° l t t ons with W.e Wo Social Power aauJ then find the

hest possiblo pursonn to MI thCM, Underlying piescriptions foi stun t; auul

wea ll-dotinod leadership roles are (1) a Conviction that there moot be a1 aptaoq,

advoc'.ate of the sponsors intorest y on board; (2) an aa:a:;itMpLIon that only a An-

gle individual's decision can be last 011OU;'l1 to :+ta3W Off Wrt,"I" dank;ors;

(3) all that C're'w risTers will fee- at Home 004ulw thvY are used to

functioning in hierarchical structures; :and. (a) prva.earod benefits from Malintaain-

inly as form of organization : i mi la ; to one e • e ? tr:monly fecund on Fatt t h . Certain

cor,"pone'nLs of this: raat fo"aal y , howt've°1°, afro open to t cost ion. For vxFltple, not

all potential craw t-ambers will be y osvd to functioning around the clock in foit"i

hierarchical Uruvt,uros, and It has not been proven that a3. npaat'v C"psulo micro-

society ban I:;ooh tV grain rr,n mimicking as form of orga.alivaft ion f t a` }'4 dent on F arch.

1

xx

28

Furthermore, prolonged separation from Earth may undermine Earth's authority

(Chapter 00) .

Influence structures, leadership activit-Le:s, and decision making procesases

have received a fair amount of attention (SCD, 1974), but tlar general area of

leadership remains ", 1de open" for #uturo research. Certain farms of leadership

have received little attention, and many srudies have treated as incompatible

alternatives which might in fact complt,sia( 1 11L and supplement one :another . Tnvesti-

gaxors in this area would do well to entertain a wide range of decision making;

alternatives, and romain .,enOtive to the possibility that a given type of

leadership structure is not likely to be equally Suitable for all kinds of groups.

1. Task and Soci.oc,mcti.onal LeadersHp Activities

Repeatedly, distinction,', have been ruidu Uutwoon. task saetiviLies (11so known

as initiation Of structure and concern for production) which 11c1l) the 11roup get

the. job done or r"aovu Low4ards it:, goals, and sociouoaotional FacLlvities (ii1so kilown

a; showing, cons i.dL r. ,,tioa and concern for people) which promc)to hiarmoalinus rela-

tions within the g;'t'oup. Groisp funcL;ioning requires people. who Lake the initiative

in each of these areas. Socloomotional leadership is seen as at least as impor-

tant is task lu adorship, and pCrhaj)S MOI'V So judging; by soiu , of the resoarrh.

It is not clear Llaat Lhca SM10 individual can satisfactorily fill both task

and ,socloomotionaal leade.r;;hip roles. Thu pioncering re,uarch by Bales and his

.associates (Bales, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1970) found LIVIV sczi; "e people eslg;ag;ed in

more 'task and socioemotion4al activitios than others, and as a result were offered

leadership status. But it was also found that the pursonwho vnp,aged in Lhe mast

task activiL,ic's was not tho same parson who performed the ai.WiL 5oci.oCla.1 ationcal

aCtiVit.icS. There were, in offect, two leaders; LhO L ast; It';i " 1t'l y , who was, rat.od

as 'finving, the bvst iduas, offering; the iiiost guidance, and been, iia)sL influential

29

in forming the group's opinions, and thu socioemotirnal leader, who was the best

liked. The usual explanation for the emergence of the second leader is that a

task leader's sense of purpose: gives vise to heavy-handed activities (unpopular

orders, sharp criticism, etc.) which hurt pcopl.es' feelings. 'The second lender

emerges to smooth things over and restore equilibrium to the group.

But it should be doted that the initinl studies involved emergent group

structures. That is, unacquainted individuals Joined a discuinsi.on, and t:ocial

structure emerged as interaction progressed. 'The task leader took a role of

power and influence, and it may have been his presumptiousnos.. Lhat caused the

internal conflicL.s. According to Burka (1972), when a leader is designnted by

a tii€;her authority and is hence perceived as "legiLi.nate.," group members are

more accepting of heavy-handtyd task arts and the need for a second leader dimin-

ishes. ;'he issue, however, is far from resolved, as Katz and Kahn (1978) have

recently concluded Lhat only under rarer conditions are Lask and SoCioemu^tiotla.l

leadership roles boot filled by the ,;<lU,,Q individual.

Researchers, planners and managers are Lhus confronted with the problem of

ensuring thu optimal distribution of leadership behaviors within the group.

Specifically, to what extent. ,should various task and socio(MI100011al. leadership

behaviors be conconLrotod ill the hands of a specific leader cis compared Lo

distribute=d among d.ifferetu peop -le within the group? Of panic;ulO a.^ttcsr^^5t in

light of Burkc's argumonts is determining, the extent to which a given individual

should attempt to manage both task and socioemotioiial leadoiship roles.

2.• The Coll Li.ngenev Theory of Leadership Effectiveaoss

A prevalent theme i, theL corLain kinds of peop1c will snake batter leaders

than other kinds of people. Sumi-imrizini, the results of scoros• of studies, Mann

30

(1959) reported that intelligence, adjusi'ment, and extraversion bear a substantial

relLtionship to leadership, and that dominance, masculinity, and interpersonal

sensitivity are somewhat Jess closely related to leadership, Observations of

Sealab 11 led padloff and Helmreic.h (1968) to suggest that people under stress

In isolation and confinemont may noL nosed a young, Action-oriented leader as much

as a mature individual who inspires identification and provides reassurance.

Citing; work by Misumi and Shirakashi (1966) and Cooper (1966), Kubis (1972)

derived the following eonlpo.;iLe picture of the effective space crew leader:

...he elicits the best from his ulcn... is himself personally

competent.., is interested primarily in results and ac:llievement•...

but is always aware of the normal human needs, of the group and

attempts to provide opportunity for their satisfaction...

A person who can .lead competently lender one set of condi Liol1S may prove

ineffective under other r,ondiLiolls. Properties of the sit.uaLion and propertivs

of the leader will, combino. to y101d as given level of' p erformance (CarLwria;ht &

7.andor, 1968; Fiedler, 1967, 1971; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Mann, 1959). Perhaps the

most promising t.hoory which sinlultanOOL'Sly consi.dors situational _ Fuld personality

factors is Fiedler'. (1.967, 1971) contingency Lhc;ory of leadership. Concerned

with predicting performance rather thall SaLisfact:ion or allorale, col1tilj^, Ilcv

theory has been tested successftall.y in many military and civilian setLings, and

do,sc'-rve q close fattenLion from splice mission planners. The indopendenr variables

are situational favorableness and leadership style, and the dopendenL variable

is leadership Off c eLivelless.

Situati ons" favor"Iblcnos's refers to structural, and social climate variables

which make a group "ensys " or It difficult" to lead. These inclt;cle (l) t Ile exLunL

to which the lender is accepted and respected by the group; (2) the extc

which the group's goals are clear and structured; and (3) Lbe extent to

the leader has been invested with the: power to reward and punish group members,

Lea orslyAl stX!p refers to the leader's orientation towards tasks and peoples.

Ibis is determined by asking the ieadur to eval.unto the least preforreo coworker

(LPC) with whom he or she has ever worked, High scorers, who tend to give

favorable ratings to the least prof e rred c.o-workor, are relatfve,ly socioomoLional

in, outlook. Low scorers, that is:, people who assign harsh ratings to their least

preferred eo-worker, haves more of a no-nonsonso task orientation.

Leadorsh...iT) effe,ctivcnoss, the dependent variable, is operati,onalited by any

objective measure of task a accomplislumnt.

According to contingvney theory, different degrees of situational favorable-

ness require different types of leader:. 1lndor condILious, of YL-I:X lti i or vIy

low. Situational faavorsablcnoss, the taaSk-Oriented low LPC leader is likely to prove

MOST effective. As Men& so aptly puts it, the la'aadoi can affArd to be

firm when aceepted by the` group, purSoing Clear goals, and invested with power to

reyaard and punish. He or she must bo firm when rejected by the group, grappling

with ambiguous goals, and laackiug the power to reward or punish. Unde=r conditions

of internwdl at t. fsavt^a^al?It'iat'.a^, the interpe'rmonaal se?nsitiVity of the high LPC leader

is likely to be of use for working through the moderately troublvd relations within

the group, Lhervby .frouing the group to continue toward its;' goal.

. Careful planning may he <ah,le to create and maintain a high degree s of sitaalion--

aal favorableness on short term missions, but such conditions may be difficult to

sustain on prolonged flights. For example, it may be relatively easy to link the

leader's evaluation of crow members to the l.a.tter's continuation and aadvaanei'mont

within tho space program. But as notod in the dis cuss) oas of isolation and

32

confinement (Chapter 00) and organization and mnn€agomont (Chapter 00) as the

link with Earth becomes tenuous, traditional bribes and throats may lose force.

Thus, whereas task-oriented, low LPC lcoJors may do bust on carefully planned

short flights, sor.ioemoticnnIly oriented, high LVC leaders may havr an edge on

longer flights. This is assuming, of course, that on .long distance flights ron-

ditions do not drterioraaLe beyond repair.

From Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership flaw many lines for future

research, Efforts rust extend beyond assessing the vlwatJontal favorableness of

a given Mission and than choosing the loader WILh Lhe Mcast proMi ,ing Style. M ►rS ,

it should bo revolt aived that situationaal favorableness way f l auaat y over time.

Second, the possibility that :leadership style: is neither inflexible nor firmly

Ingrained anusL be vxplor.ed, further research is requirod to discovvr if space

Crew leaders could learn Lo Ido"Lify shifts in situational favorableness, and

adapt- their styles arc ordiogly.

B. Cohosjvenc ss

Some groups show more sparkle and verve than do aLhers. In some grout)::,

interaction is spirind anal livvly and mov+vrs aare g highly invo'lvod, both with

each other, and with group artiViLMs. Cobosivonobs rvfars to the solidarity

or "l,roupinons" of a group. Since cohesive groups are* considered "brt:ter" groups,

and Since coNsivonoss has in ►plicationS for group ,funrt.foning, both the Mvice-

dents and coia::uquouvos of cohesiveness are of Merest. Although originally

Intended Lo be a unitary construct, cohesiveness som, lilac' dvO no t fan a group

ON energy, drive, and a strong sense of purpose, and «Lhrr times as group

characterized by inLerpersonial harmony. Whereas drive and aamiabi l i ty often

covary, it is possible for a t ioup to be c•haarneter'lood by one' of those atttriboWs

but not by the other.

I _33

1. Causes of Cohesiveness

In some ceases, adverse conditions and suffering seem Lo increase cohesive-

ness (Gerard & Mathewson, 1966). In effect, undergoing as trying initiation

encourages people to rationalize the discomfort by telling themselves that mem-

bership in the group is extremely desirable. However, most discussions focus

on the rewards or satisfactions of group membership as the major cause of

cohesiveness. Cartwright (1968), for example, has defined cohesiveness as the

sutra of the satisfactions which membership accords all the Porhor a of the group.

SaeisfacLion is likely to be high to the extent that the group (1) engages in

activities Lhat the members find intrinsically Satisfying; k!) pursuers gala of

i.myortanco to Lho members; (3) provide r s social support and emotional gratifica-

tions; and (4) serves ulLerior motive's. Thus, as crew might be expected to be

cohesive when the crow members (t) enjoy flight and adventaar y (2) subsuibe to

the mission's overall. goals; (3) encourage each other, and (4) provide w0come

relief from Wornaativo aaetiVMOS.

Group goals are likely to have as Major impact on the Lone r of interpersonal

relations within Lher group. The isolation and confinement litoraature, for

example, Suggests that individuals mny be able to suppress their d fferoncos in

the interests of group goals, In. Sealab II, for oxamplu, some aquanauts cotamented

that tuamnanLeS who didn't always see eye-to-eye were abl y to e0t .along for the

period of the mission (Raad;lol f & ilelmre A, 1968) . Croup goals deserve careful

notontion when planning; a mission.

First, it should be useful to identify goals A SuperordluaLe Status. As

noted in Chapter fill, a superordinate goal is one which is (l) shaaa & by all

group members, and (b) ovurridos individual goals which, if pursued, might

encourage behaviors dULrlalOnLal to the mission. Sueh goals (1) dt"st be a o e'pter,d

M.

x

34

rather than imposed; (2) require cooperative activity; and (3) represent more

than glowing saogans.

Second, steps might be taken to ensure that group goals are clear and well

understood. Discussing antarctic groups, Natani and Shurley (1974) have noted

that scientists are given a brief inta:oduction to the "big picture" at an orient<n.-

Lion conference, but that their goals remain basically individualistic. Navy

personnel arse given only a minimal undorManding of their science support role,

with the result that they find it difficult to become firmly rommitLced to the,

overall mission. When goals are ambiguous, :;caMMOLional xaotivities are likely

to take precedence over task activities;.

Third, a4leans must be found to maintain aastronnuts' interest. in distant

goals over prolonged periods of time. It may thus be desirable to have a number

of interim t.oaalr which can be pursued and savoro& Perhaps this has been hest

expressed by Solis and Cunderson (1972)

...'Io maintain group inLogrity and motivation of group lnombors, the void

between initiation of a mission and final attaainmou of its goals must be

filled with richly detailed programs of aacLiviLirS that pc'rmiL achievement

Of mceaaninp,ful interim goals. It IS also itaahOrta2nt that both the ultimate

and inLeraWdinte goads isle expressed in a manner that polults assessment of

success in such al way that it is compatible a4iLh supervisory controls,

available rowaards, and individual career growth. , . F

F1.naally, as noted in Chapter 00, RadlOff and Hel.mroich's work suggvstrs that

with each successive mission the rewards for participation aaru likely to dwindle,

with thce result that may also decline (kadlof'f a Holmroich, 1968;

iicela:aac & OL al., 1979).. As noted eaarliors both tha costs of Spoev travel,

SA

35

(risk, discomfort, and so forth) and the rewards (increased feelings of compo-

tence, social recognition, and so forth) may be eXpeatod to decreases as techno-

logical and other fagjors conspires to make space travel safer and more routine.

However, the rat, at Which the costs may btu oXpoaLed to declines is not likely

to be as fast as the rate at which the rewards will decline. For a while, at

least, the risks and discomforts of space travel are likely to become ins rens-

ingly less juvtifi.ed by the benefits, and this is likely* to adversely affect

craw morale.

Many ry yards are associated With the attainment (or 0Xpe'e'tod attainMent) of

group goals. Mission planners and managers must find Wi ay;a to e'ne'ocarago crew

me°hers to endorses goals which require cooperative activity to attain and which

are superordinan, in the sense that they overrido potentially couillctiug

indi.vidurll goals. Of p aVLICellar interest is dGeovering bl ow to establish goals

which r.'1n Sustain enthusiasm over prolonged une've'ntful pe'rivda. Finally, watt's•

must be+ sought to prevent or re.'tord ra decrease in the lvvol ell rowaids (relative

to costs) which Is vxpee'te?d as space travel hetonos comll;onpl000. :+e lme possibi-

litivs have been offcrod in Chapter 00.

2. CiO31aSe'-ell Vj1e;e's tai` CtahVs LvVJjQ s

Cohesive f;rvups area often eftic ent and effective: (Lott & Lott, 1971).

However, the relationship between cohesiveness and perfe)ISY1:inco is not entirelyentire?ly

straightforward. first, successful porlcrmance ean he a c • ausc, rathor than 1311

e'ffe'ct, of cohosivcness. Second, social norms mediate the hi liaLionship between

cohesiveness and performance. If the normative structure supports porformanev—

related sacaivitR OS, then cclosi.veness is likely to improvo pvrformanvo. If, can

the.' other hand, norl .ms support. limiting output or "goofing off," cohos vane s may

undermine performal3ce.

36

C. Conformity

A Certain amount of social activity aimed at eliciting conformity to group

Norms is generally regarded as beneficial, beeauoe it promote, coordination of

efforts and a ;sharing of values within the group. However, such influence pro-

cesses have certain potentially advor o effects which may become pronounced

under conditions of isolation and confinement,

1. Groupthiak,

Some problems that confront groups require novel solutions. Strong confor-

mity pressures can inhibit the flow of creative ideas, pact iculorly in a cohesive

group. Individuals may feat- that unorthodox suggestions will undermine morale

or yield personal rejection. Special "brainstorming" instructions, which dis-

courage censorship, do spur creativity, but there remains a" inhibiting effect

duty to group momOrship, especially in military groups,

. .Tanis has coined the term groupthink to refer to conditions under which

efforts to maintain group harmony undermine cri Licai thought and lead to poor

decisions (.Janis, 1971, 1974; .Tanis & Mann, 1977). Space cruws .appear to be

quite vulnerable, since groupLhink bec¢umvs likely when (l) the group is concerned

with m.cintaining amiability, (2) there is little or no communioat ic'n with people

outride of the group, and (3) We group is confronted with a throotening situa-

tion. Among the most import,ont vharact.vr1stiQs of groupthink "ro:

a. false optimism and a Lack of caution,

b. direct pressures on noncoofornors,

c, a fear of disapproval for expressing now alternatives,

d. an illusion of unanimity,

Q. the emoroonce of "mind guards" who protect the leader from criticism, and

37i'

A efforts to dens= or rationalize all ill-omens.

Safeguards against groupthink include (1) sollciting ext.exnal inputs during

the decision- poking process; (2) appointing a devil's advocate to challenge

majority views and (3) reconsidering decisions before action is takon. It is

not clear Lbaat all of there safeguards aarc. effective; for example, Dennis (1976)

argues that as devil's advocate is ignored bevaause the group recognizes that hesafeguards

or she is merely play ing a social role. Those which afro effective under "normal"

conditions may or may not bid workable under conditions of isolation and confine-

anent. Specifically, some of the rvwvdics proposed for groUpthink presuppose a

social system with a relatively permvable boundary. More research is needed on

the emergence and control of grouhihink under conditions of isolation and

Confinement.

2. The "Lon;; Eyc-" Syndrome

A socond general probloi:i in the area of conformity Is that stro"g conformity

pressures can include as form of ostracism which is unacceptable undcr space

flight conditions. A person who oporaates outside of the group's norms is likely

to trigger a specific series of events (Schachter, 1951). Thi s initial reaction

is an increase in communications intended to bring that person hack into line.

if these aatteMpL9 are unsuccessful, co",municaaLlon ceases and the deviant is

ignored. Under normal conditions, such ostraac.i.sw may simply rosult: in tho

deviant leaving the group.

Under conditions of isolation and confinement, the deviant cannot Wave the

group. The AoJaate may display paatholog , icaal characteristics Associated With

the "long eyv" syndrome (slmeLil:os described an Lho result of a "twelve' foot

stare in as Lon foot room") (Haagtaard, 1964; Rohrer, 1961). Noted primarily in

i

38

i

G

polar camps, this syndrome may involve hallucinations, tears, loss of appetite,

si.lenre, suspiciousness, and sloth. This is not only extremely punishing; to the

rejected individual;-it penalixeS the group by robbing it of the services of

one of its members. This can be a mrjor problem in small craws which begin the

mission only minimally staffed. Ways must be found to prevent or cure the "long*,

eye" syndrome.

U. Interpersonal Conflict

Discussions of intragroup conflict tend to strvss cotifl.ict's adverse or

deleterious; effects. Certainly, conflict which destroys moral:, or makes it

difficult or Impossible to reach group goals, must be averted. iiowover,

conflict is natural and inevitable, and has some functional as well as dysfunc-

tional consequences (Rawls Or al . , 1 9068) .

First, conflict is ni-cossary for establish ing group norms.. SubsegUent

conTlict Lends to a routso nori:ia, and in this wary O.Ontributo to coll e ,,tivolivs4 or

solidarity.

Second, conflict is a rcquirvir ant for change. A cerLain amount of dovia-

Lion and controversy surrounds innovative ideas and the clarification or alter-

ing of g;onls.

Third, several Lhoories of per=onali.ty, pr.edominaLoly the y psycliodynamic

theories, surewst that conflict h.ls a cat WI— tic affect of drawilig-off LOAISioll:i

alid restoring equilibrium. "Thu:,, eonf..licta q should rvLa yd ri,sillg, Lonsions WIL1lin

the x;roup. Furthol-luore, it is 1101iQW0 Lhilt conflict on a small scope can avert

conflict on a large; scale. That is, minor conflicts can prevent, tensions, nrt unt-

a^ng to ttie point that. there is likely to be a mrijor "blow up."

39

A certain amount of conflict is not only inevitable, then, it may be of

some advantage to the group. The question is how to set limits and manage

conflicts in such a wliy that Lhey do not become destructive. To sonic extent,

almost everything that we have touched upon thus far rcln wt ; to this issue.

bar example, crows may bc^ composed in such n way as to minimize initial incompa-

tibi.l, tics, and lenders chosen in part on the basis of nbility to maintain

equilibrium within the group. Here we shall thus consider the additional factors

of-human relations trnininh and the uses of pre-furmod or established groups.

1. Human ite:lraLions Training

Both task and socioento)tional training call bey expecLe±d to help reduce inter-

personal conflicts. First, people who don't knew what to export and don't: know

how to do their jobs are likely to fruSLraate and annoy one anoLher. In addition,

people who arc= unskilled may respond to a poor ovoraall level of performnnee by

acting,, towards ernes another in nogativo ways (Shur.ley, Naatani & Sengel, 1976).

Second, both Kubls (1972) and Berry (1973) have adveao',IL(, d dirue.L Lraain ng in

human relations. Such training may involve the vntire crew, car, if this is

impossible, crew members who are in managerial rules or who arc! to be personnel

support, SpccialissLS. Training in interpersonal relaLloia; wa g s cenn.side-red valuable

by sUb*Q LS in the Douglas s,ianulaation study (SCI?, 1974).

To de'-vise,' s'adUCjU aLe La:a3; fling j)rogriana , more mu-';L be le'.ii'rnod abouL the oil —

board diagnosis mid manage=ment of interpersonal fr ir LionS and cc)aaflic:t s. Such

research would be ainted at uncovering techniques that astronaaits aniplit use Lea

ideaLify and combat. the underlying sources of ialLerpersunal. sLross. It might

address ways of recognizini, and niaanaging one's own rising teus.ions, as well as

tensions in other people. Uaao possibi l i ry is thaat S011,10 sort of "soe'l )e mot ional

4 tl

buddy system" might prove of use, For exar.:ple, cacti person might. be gas's glivil

two othvr crews immberu who are expected to provide emotional a-uppoit and inLer..

vane before minor sgtli 1jb1vr* got out of lintid. (Two buddieu are s.ttl,rzes;ted in cas o

the porson F,.-tat into it ronf liet with one of them.) Satisfactory expt-riential

trainJug In interpor.sonal relations miry reclttire an nuthentic sc-tt'itil, cha m.•tei lled

by laoIntlon, confinement and stivsn.

2. The Use of i sxtahlislivd Croups

Vic; us;o of estaablishod (as comparod to netti*ly formvd) l;roup:s may help mini-

nit a interpersonal Irictl Otis . First, arssvrablinp, LltV t;x utsll we-11 lit-fore Lho

mission provIdos an opp rt,milty Lo activoly rlmervc OIL- ,wparat y personalitieN

III ititerilet.lon Mid Lo take remodial action if tht, nvevs.sary dogrev of compatibil-

ity is not ac°hl.Qvvd. :ttadving tilt- group as as group would provido as back-up to

the inlLial Selectivti process (YLTIN, 1465, 1967). Second, itirmaaLlon

itivulves it nu;:.bwr of .4tap-o, one of t,hieh is c1mr.ii;tt"rJ. *(' d by inLorpersomil con-

flict, ("`Itonaing"). 1`hvrt^ l.i sotnv question at.• to whot. 11( , I , rlti5 sLai);o piec'dos or

fellows Cool-dinatl(ui it) lnarsuit of task ponls (Raythorn (`L ,al., 147;'.,; Smith,

1466), buL 0101:v is al,z'lm.'t'11t Oat. alt So'.to pc+itlL group devolopmolit 1't^clttit'cYti

tI i;.ltine out- norms,, tcst. 111l, limits.., am ro t"t1; - llltie, i t1 LvI-; , ('r:.011=i1 (Iiff(-reI) COS .

Use Of 41 tit-1.1 cstabli,lat'd i;ioup tP1ti0i has alroady pzisssOd thl-otjl lh 010 "sto rming"

phase would kt°t;p sotal of Lllm-W ctatlflit;Ls out of tit( , sp.lCok`raft.

Neat al) tia spaavo will ht° cloe.(-d sti z .tcr... 71ivry is likely to

1w some turnovc-r Ili orbit-itip, hiboraLorivs, or stwttlt.'ttonts. This Tait;es the proh__

lev. of introducing and ai,s imilaiting notr"i ov -,ors illto they group. According to a

rocent roviov by Crandall (1078), Ittatna(sSe net,sco-sons don't s hary the etnnt inuing

nIf'i'bers' ktlowiGadge and attiLude , tit( , %, wire likel y to it)

.k.

pe 41kr

disruptivo ways and to be seen as dialoyaal to the y grouts. Aware of this problem,

nowcomrrs themselves are likely to be .anxious and prone to conform. Crandall.

and Moreland (1978) Qund that gro"ps or newcot;u-ras ,art: likely to treat each other

preferentially, and view then%elveo an a "group within a group," a perception

which would seer; to only aggravate the y aSolmilaLlon problem.

Crandall describers several methods for easing the Integration of neewvomers

Into can-going groups. First, there is tare-ontry therapy, which uncour.agvs

in%iety control and reduces thu ne od to conform. Sve ond, nvwe ovy rs can be

preaisentced nodels in the form of Purre:nt or forr; .wr group a:orbors prier to their .

entry. Third, newcomers may be given candid and realistic (as compared to

gu irded and ieiealistl y) informition about the group. Finally, newcoLars can be

sponsored; that In, an establI aNd group Iremhvr man introdUL e and tutor each

newcomer. All of thuse proct-Ki1 re t . are expected Lo reduce c'e" 110L and :attrition.

In tlae area of persotunel rotatic;n there are many topics for future rvse,arch.

0110 hypothe°:ais is that theeree is an advantage tai using, aar, uowrcaors, people-

svluctvd and trained along with those who h<avo already e rnterod space= . Another

pobsibility is that there is an advantage to letting; thv errvw help select Its

own now r7c'ii. ers. Still :another possibility is that assivilratiean io enh.anood as

a result of telecommunication with the nvwc;oTvr prior to the nvwcoYQr's departure

from Earth. finally, it would be ubeful to know more

about the; kind: of condi-

tions which will result in neewcor.oVn being given an oxttaaNd pe;lod of grace.

How tr,any people should be rotated or replaced at one time? In the military,

piecee;aaC= atl replraeemc L has not ,her on particularly succossfcal. On the° other hand,

introducing large= groups of newcomers means that (1) people have to be

socialized simulti3a1eously and (2) old t:1nors li"y fool p artic"l arty threa7tenoO

)vex also uv0d to l.:ao, Who 5LOUld 1 , 0 replaced during a j0von l s c e a'sonnol Lxctinn"f'.

42

For example, it may be desirable to rotate a small numbs}r of individuals from

each rple category (Chap er 00) rather than simultaneously replace several

people who perform similar functions.

III. Suuummary of Principal Planning and Research Issues

1. At carman rates are poolin€, motivational, and organizational effects likely

to occur?

2: . What is the optimal skill. pool given mission requirements?

3. What steps can be taken to minimize 010 motivaLion.ml losses that are

expected to accompany increasing crew sise?

4.. + Miat are the dynamics within, all-Female and mixed-sex i,soal ted and confined

groups?

a. What can be done to minimize tbo Problems that are expectorm t o result from

overt and covert hoterosexual pairings?•

6. What is the appropriate age range for crew members given mission specifica-

tions?

7.. What is the appLopriate age mix for a crew given mission specifications?

B. ''lmat is the likely impact of devolopmental changes oil CxLelided duration

missions?

9. What types of subcultural differences are likely to generate conflict on

extended duration missions?

10. Mat personal characteristics and nmanner.ismms are likely LO prove distasteful

and annoying to other crew members on e>rmided duration missions?

ll.. What screening devices can minimize the chances that easily Zannoyed and highly

critical individuals will serve on space crews?

i

43

12. What screening devices call minimize the chances that "g,00f (it fs" or

to will servo on space crews?

13. How can Interpersonal or socioem(ltionaj Compaellce. be assessed?

111. What factors determine peer percepL U)Ils of compntencc?

15. What types of social. motive: (otna gain mot<ivatlon, r0laL.tve ^,ai^; 1110Livntion

and joint gain motivation) are desirable givOla mission specifications?

16. What types of a0lie"aement motives (work orientatloth TNI.;tvly orientation

and comp(Aition) ark, deSir lble g iven mission F i } (' t"ific•;lt i.tatl:>^

17. What. procoOuros can be (IL-vised for "t;o1ecting, iri" pursomt; of exceptional

psychological health?

18. What. facLcsrs deLvi Hine iu'er porcept iotis of emoLlonal stability?

19. What types of social versilLility c;ul help reinstate bohravioral opLl: ••'.?

20. What attl.LudL, and values V.-Ax pl- climate;; harillony ldthout intel• fol-hig, with the'

. g,vnvration of innovativo idea.,?

21 . llow dca co111p1e111cInLary or ovc'1°lapping, ;abi liLles lJf(-(, t group c O'Mpatibil9 ty?

22. what faCLorS (III addition to Lhoso studied • by Naythorn and Altman) detcr--

mina. heed comllatibiliLy?

23. What hypes of doejsion-imllang, IIIcicodut-c.-, are desirable g,ivon mIssion spocifi-

ca tions?

211. What is the optimal distribution of leader.;hip boh;avior withila a space el-eta?

25. 3'o What cxL('IlL C;ln forrlally-designated mission loadel°s asstim o both ta:;lc and

SOC.lOL111t1Li01131 :vadersbip role4?

26. lVhilt i8 the liica.11y S i.L uaticulial favorab lelloss given mission s-,pvc.'iflc';ations?

27. Can mission leaders identify shift y in situational flavorabloness and ad;apt

their stylus accordingly?

5

44

28. What superorclinate goals are likely to prove effective for small. crews?

29. what steps can be taken to ensure that mission goals are clear and well

understood?

30. What steps can be Laken to maintain astronauts' interest, in truly distant

goals?

31. What steps can be taken to prevent or retard the expected decreases in

rewards (relative to costs) as missions become routine?

32,. Miat steps can be taken to minimize inbreeding; of thought within encapsulated

microsocaetics?

33. How can the severity of social rejection be limited in isolated and confined

groups?

34. What techniques might astronauts use to identify and combat interpersonal

conflict?

35. What kinds of human relations training programs are likely to prove useful

to tastronauLS?

36. What selection and training; procedures can be used to .achLeve group soli-

, charity prior to mission departure?

37. What techniques will facilitaLe the assimilaatioti of nt;wcoi;wrs into crows?

38. How should personnel rotation proceed?

..

45

IV. REFERENCES

All.port, G. 14. The nature ra! qg ,ju0ve. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Altman, I., & Ilaythorn, W. W. Interpersonal exchange in i:;ol ►axon. Suciclmet^,

1965, 280 411-426.

Altman, I., & Itaythorn, W. W. The ecology of isolated groups, iielaavior Science

1967a, 1.2, 169-182.

Altman, I., & I aythorn, W. W. Vie effects of social isolation and group composi-

tion on herformanc o. llum:ni Roil at i ons, 1967h, 2t1, 313-339.

Altman, L, & Taylor, D. Social ia y ngta - L^lcan: Qly cl o^?I^4_nt_ ciI iLt coU so,1t^al

relati.onshi. :. Now York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

Amir, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. }'sycl^o?1o^i^s^,t Itullotin, 3969,

71, 319-342.

Atkinson, J, lit. (Ed.) Muti^^G+p;^in f^Int ► :.^^,_.It tirnas^Ill^i :.^?c i ► ^t^^. Princet(,rt, N.J.

" Van Nos t rand, 1958.

Bales, R. F. I ►ttrx, ► ctinn -prawn :Inalyjq: A gvthod for thc ;atucl y of smaall

grgpEg . Rond ing, Mass.: Addison-t vs3 ey, 1950.

Bales, R. F. The equilibrium problem in small, groups. In T, Parsons, R, F.

I3nivs & h, A. Shits (Fds.), in Ole thcrrjr' of action.

New York: Free Press, 1153.

Bales, R. F. Task roles and social rolvh in problem solving; groups. In E.

Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. Hartley (Eds.), in :ociaiJ^^5,,4cti^^lcaily.

N'ow fork: Ilolt , Rinehart & Winston, 1958.

Balr.s, h, F. Po clna^li t^s _al2^i interpersonal bohavi or. New York: Volt, Rinoliart

& Winston, 1970,

46

Bennis, W. 't l ►.'acl:^ Witte tin cons cious ccnts rgcX. New York:

AMACUM, 1976.

Bermann, h., & Mill=4 D. R. The matching of mates. In R. As= & S.

Feshback (Eds.), Ct ►l;ttit3ntt, ' ►>rson.tl^^ y tn^l. clinit tl fiy5- . lacy lrs ' San

Francisco: Jossoy-Bass, 1967.

Berry, C. A. A view of human problems to be addressed for long duration space

flight.t. Aerc, tlic^► a: Pic^cii "itnc^, 1973, 44, 1136-3146.

Bu-rke, P. J. I.eaderahip role differentiation. In C. G. MKI—i.ntock (Ed.),

i ► q t r,ta cttctl A^oc^3..a1 „ ? f l^► alc 'L.. New York: Holt, Rinehart: & Winston,

1972.

By.i°ne, D., Gouaaux, C., Criffitt, W., I,amberth, .1., Morakawa, N., Prasad, M.,

Prasac , A., & Ramiro7, M. The ubiquitous relationship; attitude similarity

and attraction. lluni;au hrlat ► c^tt:;, 197x, 14, 201-207.

Cartwright, D. Tho uature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander

(In ds.) , (;t_c^ui> d^ztasz ► a cam• rr ^^aa cf a ► c3 tlit^r^r^^ 3rd cad. Now York: Harper

& Row, 1908.

Cooper, It. Loader 's Lusk relevance and subordinate behavior in industrial work

groups, Ilupan Relatjpj , 1966, 19, 57-84,

Cowan, T. A., & StrickJand, U. A The legal s tuctuic p a onfin vd w c a'usR gacctX

Qrkeloy, Ca.: Space Sciences l oboratory, 1965.

Crandall, R. The assimilation of nowcomors into groups. Under editorial review,

1978,

Crandall, R., & Morol.aud, R. Social, rat,Vgorirat.ion by "now" group mombvrs.

Under editorial reviow, 1978.

Darloy, J., & LatRand, B. hysLandor intervention in omergoncies: diffusion of

responsibil i ty. .cllaaa'n a^i I'l a `+t i^ r (i li`cf1 ^IV 0 )t' 8i }

a,t ^1 L4 1.iat Cl 4ic^l l' +^(1 ^^ 1,.... .,..._... .. ► l mss....--_.,.. ^....-. „,,..a. _.....a_,^.»-., .... ...._. »,—.._..^ W.

377.383.

[4

k47

t

Doty, R. M.Shi}?s_l^tws^^ nc^rraat iv4_ struetl ► rc^Qr 1s l;ttc;d jrouA . }?cart Worth'.

Tx.: Texas Christian university Institute of Behavioral Research, 1969.

DeLamater, J. Intit:tacy in a coed ueatianal c:onutuanity. In A. A. Harrisonk

(Ed. tkx:Oa^t.tt ons, it, y :>vc'hnln = Monterey, Ca.: Drooks/Cole, 1974.

Diener, 1'.. , Din on, J. , Endrosen, K. , Beaman, A. L. , & Yrnsor, S. C. EffeeLs of

faltered responsibility, cognitive :yet, and modeling on physical aggression

and dcindividuatlon. Jot ,I I I L V and Social PgyclaijgaX^ 1975,

31, 328-337.

Diener, 1.., Westford, K. L., Dioncr, C., & Beaman, A. L. Deindividuating effects,

C s t ea li ng \ 1 )UC group presence tint} arou sa l Qll try Ha lloween ti`!.(.k"C11°tr(.^1tCT:a.

Prococd ten ,: c?1; Gtic^ Rlnt Annual t:c^nvc^uticm elf Aaa^a v 1c^ttn i. t v ht^l(as, ii, 1 A:,sociq^-

a Lion, 1973, ,t;, 019-220.

Doll, R. 1:., & Gunderson, E. K. E. Hobby interest. and leisure netivity behavior

among station trio+mbors in Antarctica. U. S. tlhOW Rep. No. 69-31, 3969.^

p &i

pp f :i yDoll, R. K., Gun de rson, E. K. K. Croup ov, occupationa l status, an d psycho-

logical symptomatoJogy in an extreme coviromont. Jouinal of Clinical

I ; c i1u.}c1 ^', 1971, 21l 196-198.-_

Festinger, L., Popitono, A., & Newcomb, T. M. Some cons+.x q"oncog of dc.iudividua-i

Lion in a group. +7C1 U1'a1.a1 of At)ntl aaaal Social^ Oy rtaollc)i,;v, .19K, 47, {

Flvdler, F. E. A the ory of Now York: McGraw-Bill,

1967.

Fiedler, P. E. Validation and extension of the contingency model of Jeader..hxt)i

c,affecLivoness: A review of empirical findings. Psvchnjp a cal Bulletin,

C

1971, 76, 128-148.

48

Drench, J. R. P., Jr., & Rtaven, B. L. The hates of social power. In D.

Cartwright & A. Zander ( gels.) , Grc^lll^ { clvtl:nni cs, rct5^.irc la atad thecary

2nd c,d. New York: Harper and glow, MO,

Gerard, H. B., & Conolley, H. S. Conformity. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.)

xl^c^a 4te14^n1 sots I.ttl Y., i!tyc ljcalp zt . New York: Ilol t, Rinehart & Winston,

1972.

Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. The effect of severity of initiation on

4 liking*, for a group: A replication. Jcaalrn.al caf I:x toaat a1 j :ia^l

Psi chol ly, 1966, :? , 278-287.

Gerathewohl, S. J. Work proficiency in the space cabin Simulator. hyroskjEall

rfecii ,s=3 ► ic^, 1959, ?cI, 7212-735.

Gilluly, R. H. Tektite: Unique observations of men under stress. Seionc:ac

Naga,:,, 1970 ' 9.8" 400-401.

Oundvrson, H. K. Q IsMOLIonal. :YPWtOMS in vxtre mely i.sol;atod groul's. Arcltivc?:a

• of 190:1, 9, '162-368.

Gunderson, C. A E. Mental health prohlelm, in Amami= Arcxhlve s AI fnviron-

ment tl_ 11val j lt, 1 0 68, 17, 558-50 ;^ .

Gunderson, F. K. E., & Mahan, J. L. Cultural and pnychologival differences: among

occupational groups. Journal of 1966, AA, ?87 - 304.

Gunderson, E. K. 1 . , & Nelson, P. D. Adaptation of small groups LO extreme

environments. Aerc ^^aer a^^iirinh, 1963, 4, 1133-IJ15.

Gunderson,, E. A E., & Nelson, P. D. Biographical predictors of performance 1.11

an C?xt:rvmv c'nvirotwWnt. Jisarncal c} I R 1'Syt.laCjlojl \*, 1965, k.l_, 59-67.

Gunderson, E. K. H., & Nelson, P. V. COMM measuresures of Mromoly isolated

g;roup:t, i'c^a;.otanc^l I' 1 tllolpgy, 1 0 66, 11, 67-80.

F

49

Haggard, t,. A. Isolation and personality. In P. Worchel, & D. Byrne (Ads.),

Pc'i• sonalit^}•^clt.atl c'. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Hammes, J. A. , Attc'arny T. R., & Keith, J. F., Jr. A chronolog y of two wooks

fallout shelter confinement. joili n,11 of Cl ini rail P. loty, 1965, 21,

452-x,56.

Hammes, J. A., & Osborne, R. T. Survival. research in group isolation stodivs.

J^aw1n11. of ^1^^?liccl l' ycttnlcl , 3965, Aj, 418-411.

Hariu,os, J. A., & Watson, J. A. Bohavior patterns of groups vxporimontally

1465 ^ 1269^1.i''Confined. 1 ome e p tu.tl^ Ratnti Mot car • : t:11Is ^ > , C,

Haythorn, W. W. The composition of groups. A reviow of thu literature. AM

1' vnc^^lal Prrl, 1968, 18, 97-12S.

Baytht)rn, la. td. Interpersonal stre ss in isolated )groups. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.),

Social and '_^b fees. Now York: BOIL, Rinehart &

Winston, 1970.

Haythora, W. W. The Taintworld of 0010100: laboratory studio's. In J. R.

Ratsmus:am (1'.d.), Ph11a .itt i',ola t it^11 anei c atn^fittt'alenk. New York: Aldine, 1973.

Haythorn, W. W., & Altman, 1. Togvtbvr in isolation. Tran r;,lr~tion, 1967, tt,

18-23.

Haythot'u, 14. 14., Altman, I . , & Myers, T. U. Ettiotlon.al synpLovaatology ,tract subjec--

tJvo st ress in iSoI lied 1 of en. n,aI t'21 ,tin .1 '^pairs 17e ^Ieulr _ e_'.f 1 ^1'. ^... ie .t are^1 n

PvrsonaaitV, 1966, 1, , 290- 305.

11,1ytliorn, W. W. , McGrath, .I. J. , hollatndor', A. P. , 1.ata d, D. , Helmroieh, R.

Raadloff, R. Group proevs8v g and interpersonal interaction. In Sp ave

Science Board-NASA, f'at ttlr:a in 1ott _dlarata c^n s^a1. e f 1i^laC, h'at^:hinl;tt,n,11

1?. C.: Nn ional Acatony of Sciences, 1e172.

Hol ^art:>ich, R. L. Isy<hologicaal considerations in undersea hnhi'aa jon anti

spattto Lolovivatioal. A"st<in, Texas: Unpubli6hvd i`#.31 uncript, 1078.

y

Helmreieh, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., & Runge, T. E. Psychological considerations

in future space missions. To ;appear in S. Chestoa & D. Winter (E s.),

The harIan facLor;, in outvr..'p4qcy 'tc^rlu^Ci=c^.t. Washington, it. C.:

American Assocl ati.on for the Advancement of Science, In press,

Janis, I. L. Groupthink, P ^^^t^lrctic,.T^,,^,a^^, 1971, May, 43.46.

Janis, I. L. Victims of gt-ot ROSLon: Houghton-Mifflin, 1974.

.Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. I)4^ri:;ion a n al,ink ,.. a^?;^^chr?1'c i4%isl^rrY=^1:`^i ^ of conflict,

ch0 1 cc' and.._.,.;. .^ ^-y.^ ,.. i . Q t.%011L. A,'eta York: 't.`lrc a Free Press, 1977.

Kalish, R. A. Late aartutthoead: l`t a:=^?t't t^v^^:. ern lii► ritrn ci^^ti^t7c^^^ct[t. tlonterey, C.-I. I.

Brooks/Cole, 1975.

Was, N. A., & Feddorson, W. H. behavioral, psychiatric, and sociological

pr.dbl.ews of long duration missions. NASA 'Inchnicsal Memorandum X-58067,

1971.

Kat:-, U. L., & Kahn, R. L. `Iho solj yol i(11 2114 ed.

New fork: Miley, 1918.

Korukhoff, A., & Davis, K. E. Value consvnsua and need coin+plemontara ty in Me

select ion. Amer i can S viola Xvia ry

...^ ^.a...... l.ivv^iE.'^ti^ 1962, 17, 295-103

KIvinhans, F., & Taylor, D. A. Group proeeNs, productivity, .anal leadorsbip.

In B. Svdvnberg, & A. Sn adowski (Eds.),Sri i,a7 a^^l^^lrt; ;:^y ^ ,au st^trOdurtLon.

New York: Free Proms, 1976.

Kubis, J. P, Isolation, oonfincavent, and proup dynamics in lonr duration space-

flight. &^,L 1972, 17, 45-7°.

Law, P. Personality probOws in Antarctica. iiccli_ca^l^Jaa^an.^? cif ^1u tr:rl a, 1900,

$, 273-20.

r * ^l

Lotto At & Lott, B. Group celhcnilveness and interpersonal Mravtion: A revivw

of the relationships with antceedant and consequent vaariablos. T';Xc1injg43c, iLl

13illlptin, 1965, 06, 259-305.

Lugg, D. J. The adaptation of a small group to life on an isolated Antraret:ic

station, Zia 0. Go Edholm & E. K. B. Gunderson, Pei .Lcaaad"ll:

William Heinemina, 1973.

Mann, It. D. A review of the relationship between personality and porforma"vo in

... , ,. ., 90 a( _a., small groups. 1► .,tirhe lt^^zta1 _1.1 viicw, 1J a, , ,^a.i, ..G1 ..7t1.

Maruyama, M. Design princil Ivs for extratme4t> Lal c,--,,.munit.in:;, i^"uttaa^^^s^ 1976,

104-1.21.

Negliiatock, C:. t3. Came behavior and social a orivEatlon in interpersonal settings,

In C. C. Mc Clintook (Ed.) , yx1a ,t= y,llW;j 11 r.p^Ja1 1?Ii, t 1teal,c=^ . ;New York: 11oll

Rinehart &Winston, 1972.

McClintock, 0. C. Social values: thoir definition, Loasurernnt and Qvvlol1monL.•

Juuraaal of ltl78, 1.11-137.

Maki, J. B., ThorngaLv, Is'. B., & Mt*Cl1ntoc•b, , C., (', 1 rcdiet. !oil .anti 1ae,rcept°i«ia

of social motives. 1typ l o 1'c-rspu4litr 1979, _37,

203-220.

Mi umi., J., & Shirakashl, S. An experi,i'.IonL al study of IN t'ttc'M of supervisory

behavior on prcaduoLivity" and morale in a hit.*r.archit-al L a iraiii;, iation. 1111P:an=

Itc 1;a_cirnc^, 1966, 19, 297-30€3.

Naatlani, K., & .`lhurley, J. T. Soviophysiologir.al aspects of a winter vigil,

Human adaptability to Antarctic conditions. A pa ric_.l l (loo phV.sical 1,ia l.tii1

AI1tYais.t.^t: ite.^c^larli ^ ^e°ric,=F = 19'r'^i, '^, H9-11'a.

Nelson, P. D. Pcycla+.lo;io al ;aspects of Antarctic Livia',..

1965, 1-301 485-689,

R"

F

C2

O'Neill, C. K. Space colonies: the high frontier. The Futtzixi:;r, 1976, Fvb.,

26-4a.

Perry, C. J. C. Psychiatric selection of candidate's for space missions.

`1s11e .lournal t^f rhea Arc'x`ictn r1e•ct3cal elr.saciatiatl, 1995, !Y4, 99--102.

Perry, C. J. C. A psychiatric "back up systom" for selection of st nee crews.

r11ut^it^.1^1 .loe,, rilalof P yel t at 1 ,, 1967, 123. 821-825.

AMU,, R. , & Halmreich, R. Groups qJ! , t stre-ss: ^' ^ c't^c^lclt r i c°y11 rt^^^^,arcll 3n

Sc^alall TI. hew York: Appleton-Century Croft:, 1968.

NM I J. 'R., 1loppor, A. E., & pawls, D. A Variables thought to determine por-,

sonal space: an opinion sample. fort Worth, 'lx.: Texas Christian Univer-

SAY Institute of Behavioral MM A, 1969.

Rawls, J. R., McGaffexy, C. N., Tre go, R. 1.., & Sella;, S. B. S ome dotermincr: of

inLerporsonn1 elimaw in relation to long Am= spnop nibs ions, Fort

Wo r th, T?t.: Texas G11riKI= UnMrA ty lnSt ltu0 Of 1»e yhnVioral Research,

1908.

Rohrer, J. 11, lntcrpeVKonal relatlelnMpt. in isolatcd small groups. In B. H.

Flaherty (Fc .), 1':ryetlle^ ^h^ ,ie3 n i^' i 1 P t, ..' `'1. `.- 1! O ^ . ^ ^q 1 a s 1 e_ t ,C ^ ^^.c f 1 x h t . Now York:

Columbia Vnivorsity Press, 1961,

Schachter, S. Deviation, rojvrtion, and cou3l:"Mcation. Jo ijttr^l (if^Aln. I rp'g l^ atld

Se g e 31:1 I':.^'che^le, ^., 1951, 46, 190007.

BCD. Studios of »K111'11 ar llp 0y11 1tjg; qQ; tSeSjjLye clnd3 itv Wash gton,1 c t t:s. ^` n

(ScionQvs Communication Division.) The Goorge Washington University

Aleeiieal Canter, 1974.

Sells S. 11. A rtoaol for they social :system for the mult'iman extended duration

space shill. 1966, 37, 1130-1135.

p . p:r

i

53

Sell" O S. B. 0 & Gunderson, Q K. 1:, A social system approach to long-duration

missions, In Spnve ;,c°Kttcc* Board - NASA, factors in._ loni;clu at,l t^

s j.jc-, f I i ht . Washington, D. C.: National Acadorq of Sc ettv es, 1972.

Shears, L. M., Gund=on, U. K. 1s, Stable attitude factorn in natural iso-

fated l;rt)+.ap:. Jctua°n.a1. cif SWt=iio 1'r;.yc hcal«P 1966, 7t3, 199-20'+.

Shurley, J. T., Nat:ani, K., & Songol, R. Ecopsychintric anpects of a first

human space colony. Papor presented at Third Princoon/AIAA Conference

on Spoev Manufacturing Facilities, Princoton, N.J., 1977.

Smith, S. Studies of small groupv in confinevont, In J. P. # u ock (Ed.),

Soiustr^ clrpri^^atiota: flftcen c^tt^:t Y ctf rt^;,a a .ttch. New York: Appleton-

Century-Croft s , 1969.

Smith, S., & Haythorn, k', W. 1.fOrt:: of rompnt ihility, crowding, group size,

and lecadorship seniority can mi t'vab, anxiety, hostility . and annoyance in

isolated proupa. ;tn,l S (*J al 1'^.^^,lt^^lt^^,^^z, 1972, Q

• b7-97.

t. itith, W. 1`1, ObNervations over the lifetime' of ;a smal l isolated group:

Structure, danger, boredom, and vision, 1' y<<ltttic^ f, ,sly Rc^ r?rt y: 1966,___

19, 147;5-:S14.

Spence, J. T., Helmroich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self ""d peers can box role

attrihuton and their relation to svlf-estvom and conceptions of trascu]init

n L^^ f Pt'a':.t^ It 1 t v S ^c x 1 1' _hc^lo flr 197!5 12and fe rc:n^ i .. Jc ttan.al ^ t t i at ^ c i ^." ,

29-39.

Steio, D. D., llaardyck, 3. A., & Smith, M. B. Race and beliv : an open anti :hut

19 65, qcase. ^tc^tarnial li l 1'e^r ;can:alit ♦ att^^ ^t1ca i^1 f^^.^l hc^1C^^, 1, 281-2S9.

Steanor, I. D. Now `(\rlc: AcadeW Press, 197:'.

Sty.+inoi, 1. D. Task performiup groups. In J. W. Thibaut, .i. T. Spence & H. C.

- - --------

Carson (Us.) co -X. MorrisLg^ontetqjSjr^q totertaiji:1 ow N. J.Z1_11Lt^,L jn c._jo

General Learning Prose, 1976.

$trope, W. •,, SchulV.e, D, P-o & Pond, J. I. Preliminary ri•port of the shelter

occupancy test of 25-29 July, 1960. San Francisco: Naval Radiological

De "'ense LnboraLory, 1960.

Strope , 14. R., EUCT 0 11, S., Goldbeck, R. A., lleisl,.ell 0 R. 11. , & Shoard, J. 11.

Preliminary roport on the shelter occupancy Lest of 3-17 December, 3959.

I San Francisto: Naval Radiolog4cal I)vfvnr.c LaborilLory, 1960.

TnInion, Y. Mate SOCCLIOU III colleCOve SOttlerIVIILS. American Sociological

1964, 29, 491-508.

VatidorZandQno J. W, 11uni .-In di-velopi%vnt. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.

Wnijach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bom, 1). .1. Diffusion of respoilsillillLy and level

of risk taking in grotip.s. Journal of Abnormal and 'S(wial

1962, L) , 75-86.

Wiel-.or, A. W. S i :, e of charr Ch tix'11,I)o rsjj 4 1) andd Ine 1,.j ) (, I V, I s up por L o f ch t ir ch b elviv

1

0 r

t-, e t L i ti gs . j ournal of Porsonalit y and Soci-al Psy ch( 1969, 13, 278-288.

0

OF