Crew Size, Composition, and Time: Implications for Habitat and Workplace Design in Extreme Environments

The authors report the results of an ongoing study that investigates the effects of crew size, composition, mission duration, and mission interval on behavior and performance among polar and space expeditions. The standardized rates for a behavior/performance indicator constructed during the pilot study displayed distinctive patterns across different crew profiles and settings. Then, a further analysis over the missions in the pilot sample found compelling information suggesting that several factors created specific differentials between outside (baseline) groups (e.g., mission controllers, “folks back home”) and groups in extreme environments. These differentials reflected how the passage of time was subjectivized by crews and how the expeditionary situation was otherwise defined differently from baseline. These analyses suggest that the definition of the longduration mission, such as a mission to Mars, likely involves more than the issue of real-time duration. Also, crew size and composition of such ventures need to be examined in light of social and behavioral information that can be obtained from the expeditionary record. These analyses hold important implications for habitat and workplace design in extreme environments, such as those to be deployed for Mars surface operations. INTRODUCTION TO THE PILOT STUDY The psychosocial aspects of extreme environments fall in the area of human factors. However, rather than being primarily interested in the human-material culture or human-environment interfaces – which are the classical concerns of human factors science – the psychological and sociological aspects of extreme environments are interested in the human-human interface. Though a number of scientists have produced a compelling body of research at this interface, the realities of short-duration space missions and limited space budgets prevent the footing of any thorough and sustained effort in psychosocial investigation across all space-related organizations. These considerations account for most of the prior neglect in this area of study, and to some degree for the neglect in related biomedical concerns. Tours of duty on the International Space Station and the prospect of long-duration space missions change everything. Various incidents have happened on recent space missions, on recent polar work teams, and in simulations. Actually, such incidents have been happening all along, as the expeditionary record bears out, but the implications of those incidents and sustained working and living on the high frontier have taken on a significance and urgency as never before. Suddenly, the realization dawns that we had better start paying attention to the psychosocial aspects of extreme environments and the related biomedical concerns. This report presents the results of a pilot study investigating the effects of crew characteristics, mission duration, and mission interval on rates of deviance, conflict, and dysfunction among performance crews in extreme environments (i.e., space missions and polar expeditions). This study, which is preliminary to a more extensive project funded by the National Science Foundation, had three basic objectives. They were to: 1. Develop and test protocols for reliably coding deviance/conflict from written records (e.g., logs, diaries, and narratives) of space missions and polar expeditions; 2. Provide preliminary evaluation of a priori hypotheses concerning the impact of demographic features of crews, and of mission duration, on rates of deviance/conflict among performance teams in extreme environments; and 3. Provide preliminary evaluation of the anecdotal hypothesis that rates of deviance/conflict will peak just after mission midpoint (i.e., the “third-quarter phenomenon”). The first phase of the pilot study developed protocols and procedures for identifying and coding instances of deviance/conflict from written records of space missions and polar expeditions. The methodology is reported in Dudley-Rowley (1997, 2000). Multiple coders were then able to produce reliable data for a stratified random sample of crews in extreme environments. Three space missions were examined: Apollo 11 (Aldrin 1973), Apollo 13 (Lovell and Kluger 1994), and Salyut 7 (Lebedev 1988). Four Antarctic expeditions were examined: the western party field trip of the Terra Nova Expedition (Back 1992), an International Geophysical Year (IGY) traverse (Pirrit 1967), the Frozen Sea (Lewis and George 1987) and the International Trans-Antarctica (Steger) (Steger and Bowermaster 1992) expeditions. Three Arctic expeditions were examined: the Lady Franklin Bay (Greely 1886), Wrangel Island (Stefansson 1925), and Dominion Explorers’ (Pearce 1930) expeditions. Coders quite consistently identified the same events and incidents as evidencing deviance/conflict. Multiple rounds of reliability testing prior to the coding process had determined that incidents of deviance, conflict, and dysfunction were characterized by three types of actions and events: 1. Actions and events stemming from mental disorders; 2. Actions and events involving physical violence and verbal abuse; and 3. A broad area of actions and events like hoarding resources, deliberately breaking or not maintaining equipment needed for survival, leaders failing to lead, etc. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The study of these data was informed by the theoretical work of Peter Blau and Bruce Mayhew. Peter Blau outlined a relatively formalized theory of the effects of social structure on rates of intergroup association (1977). He thought that rates of intergroup association were essential determinants of social solidarity and social cohesiveness. Blau’s primary concern was to identify factors that either fostered or hindered contact and interaction among people who occupied different positions in a multidimensional social structure. For Blau’s purposes, the assumption, and oft-observed empirical regularity, that, ceteris paribus, people tend to prefer to interact with others who are socially similar -homophily -is a largely unexamined predicate for his exploration of how, despite this in-group preference or bias, differing distributions of people across social dimensions will, by chance alone, promote different rates of intergroup association. For example, if there are two socially distinguishable groups (e.g., males and females) -a 50:50 distribution will, under the same constraints, promote more intergroup association than a 10:90, or 20:80 distribution. For our purposes, it is worth examining this assumption more closely. Why homophily? The simplest and most straightforward reasons are: time and energy. Other things being equal, communication among people who are culturally and socially similar is quick, and less likely to produce misunderstanding and inadvertent offense than it is among those who are different. Think of a continuum of communication (Figure 1). On one end lies attempted communication among people who speak mutually unintelligible languages and who differently interpret the same physical gestures (e.g., head nodding or hand gestures). On the opposite end is the communication of individuals who are so similar in experiences, education, and familiarity that they can complete each other’s sentences before they are spoken. In general, communication among those on that end of the continuum will be quick and efficient. Communication among those on the former will be difficult, time consuming, frustrating, and fraught with dangers of inadvertent insult and misunderstanding. Figure 1: A Continuum of Communication --------------------------------------------------------------------Attempted communication among those who speak mutually unintelligible languages and interpret physical gestures differently (difficult) Communication among those who are so similar in language and backgrounds that they can complete each other’s sentences (easy) Therefore, although we sometimes enjoy communicating with people of different backgrounds and culture, because it is stimulating and interesting, we typically welcome the return to less problematic communication with people who “understand us.”