PubMed1996
The objectives of this study were to investigate the social behavior, interrelations, cohesion, efficiency and team formation of the crew during 60 days of isolation and confinement, to make a critical comparison of a variety of test methods used for this purpose and to formulate recommendations for their applications in selection, training and support for future studies of this kind. The study consisted of three phases: (1) the pre-isolation period, in which initial individual and group assessment were made to understand the motivation, characteristics, and styles of the crew members, the state of the crew, and to make a prognosis for the behavior of the group and its members, (2) the isolation period, with tests and observations to follow and analyze behavior and group dynamics of the crew, and to detect manifestations of stress, and (3) the post-isolation period with final assessment and debriefing. During these three periods individual and group tests were carried out. Direct methods, questionnaires and tests, as well as indirect methods, observations of behavior, were used. These had cognitive, affective-emotional and social components; they were quantitative, qualitative or a combination. Before isolation the crew members expressed strong confidence in the team and in their own personal capability. The leadership of the Commander seemed uncontested. Crew functioning during this period was conflict-free, but was structured in a rather rigid and defensive way (isolation of affects, denial of anxiety). Apparently, the members strongly needed to present a good image image of themselves. The relatively short period of the experiment, and the absence of real risk suggested that the crew would be able to maintain their cohesion, but in a real spaceflight situation this behavior could be inadequate and even dangerous. The pre-isolation prognosis for crew behavior during isolation was validated to a large extent. During isolation there were no clear manifestations of stress. Nevertheless, the confinement and isolation were experienced as the major stress factors. The crew members described themselves as a heterogeneous but harmonious group that was successful in their mission. In fact, the team maintained its cohesion by opposing external authority, using management as a scapegoat. Occasionally, in times of crisis, they also criticized ground crew. The Commander supported this attitude. Strongly differences in personality and behavior were noted. Analysis of the sociometric data showed that the asserted harmony was more apparent than real. It is questionable whether the group cohesion would have persisted in a life threatening crisis or even in a prolongation of the experiment. The most reliable instruments for this type of survey seem to be: group methods, non-obstructive tests, indirect instruments, and qualitative tools. The least reliable are: strictly quantitative methods, self-evaluations, standard debriefing techniques, since these reinforced in most cases subjects' defenses in an unconscious avoidance of criticism. Several recommendations were made for the organization, definition of objectives, experiment selection, crew selection, roles of external management and personnel. In particular, it is felt to be necessary to explain the aims of the mission to the subjects, to give clear and complete information, to establish confident and cooperative relations with the crew. It is essential to allow dialogue, to take opinions and suggestions of the crew seriously, and to establish clear rules of confidentiality.