It has been just over 41 years since Senior Lieutenant Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Air Force became the first human to fly into space; 44 years since NASA was established by an act of the U.S. Congress; and 13 years since the creation of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). Using Soviet/Russian and American space vehicles, more than 270 astronauts(1) from around the world - including eight Canadians - have flown in space. "The final frontier" has fascinated billions of people who only touched it through their reading or television watching. One of the most frequently asked questions on the websites of both NASA and CSA is, "How do I become an astronaut?"
Aside from the requirements of training, education, physical health and fitness, and a record of outstanding accomplishments in a variety of activities, one common answer to that question is: Pass the psychological assessments. The Soviet space program pioneered these, as it pioneered human space flight itself. Gagarin, for example, "was subjected to extremely rigorous training: physical, mental, and psychological. He underwent long periods in a sensory deprivation chamber, experiments with weightlessness, endurance in heat chambers and test flights under stress with every reaction monitored. One test was to solve difficult mathematical equations while a loudspeaker blasted out answers" (Russian Archives Online, 2002). Similar ordeals were faced by NASA's astronaut candidates (Santy, 1994). The process has also added a phrase to our everyday vocabulary, "the right stuff," (Wolfe, 1978), which is that happy confluence of practical intelligence, emotional imperturbability, coolness under stress, physical toughness, rapid decision-making ability, courage, and indomitability that the selectors were trying to find.
The history of human beings in space is now in a gradual, but crucial, transition. It is evolving from Cold War competition to worldwide collaboration; from up-and-down missions, lasting a few hours or days, to weeks in the Space Shuttle and months on a space station, and soon to years spent completing an expedition to Mars; from male astronauts with a background as military test and combat pilots to crews comprised of both sexes and a wide variety of occupations, nationalities, cultures, languages, and ages.
The issues to be faced have shifted accordingly. With a few - although important - exceptions, we have answered most of the questions about how to keep people alive and physically healthy in space, even for long periods. What we are less certain about is their psychological and social reactions to the changed conditions of space flight, and the relevant agencies are beginning to realize that this issue ranks with the physical and medical dangers of space as a difficulty that must be overcome prior to the extended human exploration of space. Changes in perceptual, motor, and cognitive functioning occur in microgravity; sleep is disrupted in almost all participants, leading to changes in mood and performance; prolonged, repetitive, and fatiguing physical exercise is needed to counteract muscle deconditioning and loss of bone density, but at the same time exerts a price in mental and physical energy; and so on.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence that problems have arisen as a result of the prolonged confinement and other space capsule features involved in some missions and as a consequence of factors having to do with crew diversity. The former include lapses of attention, failures or refusals to carry out scheduled work, irritability toward crewmates and/or mission control staff, and a variety of individual mood and adjustment problems; the latter have been manifested in derogatory comments and discriminatory behaviour on the basis of other crewmates' sex, national origin, or professional specialty, and misunderstandings or negative feelings because of linguistic inadequacy or cultural differences. The interaction of the two factors may exacerbate their joint impact. For example, an astronaut in a crew whose other members are longtime friends from another country, performing the mission's important tasks without including the relative stranger, is likely to experience increasing feelings of isolation, loneliness, and lack of worthwhile work as the mission stretches on (Kanas et al., 2001; Palinkas, 2000; Space Studies Board, 1998; Suedfeld & Steel, 2000; Thagard, 1997).
All space programs have paid some attention to psychosocial issues. The Soviet/Russian program has been especially attentive to these from the beginning. Its emphasis has primarily been on cosmonaut selection, crew composition, and countermeasures to the symptoms of stress. NASA in the past decade or so has increased its involvement after a prolonged period of neglect (Helmreich, 1984), the change being due to a number of factors: the first participation of American astronauts in long-duration flight, as in the now completed Shuttle-Mir program, the current International Space Station project, and the approaching expedition to Mars.
Other national and international programs, dependent on the Americans and Russians for actual transportation into space, have concentrated on selecting astronauts and running ground-based simulation and analogue studies of functioning and group adaptation. Long-duration simulations in specially designed mockups of spacecraft and space stations have involved participants from the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA), as well as NASA, CSA, and Rosaviakosmos, the Russian Space Agency (RSA).
The Canadian Space Agency has an ongoing interest in astronaut selection, but its only engagement in psychological research was as part of a seven-day simulation experiment. Known as the Canadian Astronaut Program Space Unit Life Simulation (CAPSULS), the project used a hyperbaric chamber. Four Canadian astronauts were isolated and kept busy "with workload and living conditions similar to a space mission" (Sullivan, Casgrain, Terrillon, Thirsk, & Williams, 1998, p. 3 - the last two authors being part of the experimental crew). The workload included operational duties, plus a set of physical science, physiological, and psychological experiments designed by a variety of research groups from around the world (Sullivan, Casgrain, & Hirsch, 1998). The major goal of the exercise was to train the participants in how to live and work in a capsule; the research was part of the training, since much of what astronauts do in space is to conduct research designed by other people. Thus, the experimental results were a peripheral rather than central aspect of the project.
The study was considered a success, in that the training objectives were met, the assigned experiments were for the most part completed as intended, and information relevant to future Canadian space operations was collected. However, it was limited along both of the dimensions discussed above: the duration was short, and although one of the participating astronauts was female, all were Canadians.
A new initiative was created in 2000. With the backing of Alan Mortimer, Director of Space Life Sciences, the CSA began to recognize that psychosocial research is not only important to the success of future space missions, but also that Canadian social scientists have relevant expertise. At a small conference that summer, serious consideration was given for the first time to the areas of psychological research in which Canadian expertise might be brought to bear - although the topic was addressed as part of the category of "Neurosciences" (Canadian Space Agency, 2000). The decision to proceed with such research was buttressed by the documented high quality of the research of Canadian psychologists (e.g., GSC-12 Allocation Report, 1984, 1988).
Two central areas were identified. One was the impact of isolated, confined, extreme environments (so-called ICEs). Experimental studies of the effects of restricted environmental stimulation on human beings were first pursued in Donald O. Hebb's laboratory at McGill University in the 1950s. Although many researchers then entered the field, the leader in sophisticated and rigorous research in the 1960s and 1970s was John P. Zubek's laboratory at the University of Manitoba (Zubek, 1969). My own laboratory at the University of British Columbia carried on after Zubek's tragic death, from the 1970s until now (Suedfeld, 1980; Suedfeld & Borrie, 1999; Suedfeld et al., 1994). Extrapolating from the laboratory to the "real" world of isolation and confinement (Suedfeld & Weiss, 2000), Canadian researchers have also studied human behaviour in the Arctic and Antarctic (e.g., Steel, Suedfeld, Peri, & Palinkas, 1997). Canadian psychology is thus well positioned to study this issue in relation to space flight (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000).
The other topic on which Canadian researchers have considerable knowledge is that of multicultural relations and interactions. The presence of two official founding nations, and dozens of aboriginal tribes, followed in the past century by the tremendous expansion of immigration from around the world, has resulted in great numbers of studies concerning intergroup attitudes and relations, communication across linguistic and cultural barriers, perceptions and misperceptions among different groups, and so on (e.g., Bell, Esses, & Maio, 1996; Chartrand & Julien, 1994; Dion, Dion, & Pak, 1992; Kalin & Berry, 1996; Prugger & Rogers, 1993; Punnett, 1991; Taylor, Moghaddam, & Bellerose, 1989; Young & Gardner, 1990). In the context of space-related situations, the sister and brother team of Raye and James Kass (Concordia University) has addressed the problems faced in long-duration confinement by members of multinational groups, and has suggested premission training and during-mission resources that might minimize and alleviate those problems (Kass & Kass, 2001).
The interaction between long-term isolation and confinement on the one hand, and multicultural misunderstanding on the other (and the need for training and preparation to avoid problems), was vividly illustrated by another Canadian, Judith Lapierre, who reported sexual harassment by a Russian teammate in a 240-day simulator isolation study. One Russian response was that Lapierre misinterpreted an affectionate New Year's greeting. The implication was that she had overreacted to a perhaps more intense Russian counterpart of an "Auld Lang Syne" buss. Vadim Gushin, a leading Russian expert on space psychology, attributed the episode to cross-cultural misunderstanding exacerbated by the long period of isolation, confinement, and lack of privacy endured by the crew (Gushin, 2001; Gushin & Pustynnikova, 2001). Dr. Lapierre, incidentally, has recently been named to command a Mars analogue station in Utah, operated by the private Mars Society.
Concern about these sets of issues is not unique. All space agencies have recognized the importance of crew performance and morale, and the need to understand the potential impact of isolation and demographic diversity on those factors. A few years ago, the Space Studies Board of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council identified a list of critical topics to be studied by space science during the near future. The six-person Panel on Human Behavior (with, incidentally, two Canadian members) listed some questions specific to space voyagers and others that also have broader relevance (Space Studies Board, 1998).
Unique to space flight are the psychological and behavioural effects of microgravity, severe pollution of the space vehicle environment, and physiological hazards such as radiation and the degradation of muscle and bone quality. Progress is being made in explaining and preventing some of these problems, and their psychological concomitants will presumably diminish accordingly.
The other issues discussed were the effects of isolation and confinement; circadian rhythms and sleep; stress and emotion; individual psychological and psychiatric problems; crew tension, conflict, cohesion, and leadership; and relations within and between space and ground crews. Accordingly, both NASA itself and a consortium of universities assembled under the label of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute have recently funded and pursued research in the areas suggested by the Space Studies Board. These studies, building upon relevant research in a variety of isolated and confined environments as well as space vehicles themselves, have made useful contributions toward understanding and optimizing the environment and performance of long-duration space travelers (e.g., Kanas et al., 2001; Palinkas, 2000; Sandal, 2001).
Many of the behavioural issues emphasized by the Space Studies Board report involve one or both of the two major focal topics selected by the CSA: the effects of isolation/confinement, and multicultural interactions. Having narrowed the chosen categories to these two, the CSA acted promptly on the decision by offering support for researchers.
A 2001 invitation for researchers to submit proposals had disappointing results. This may have been caused by insufficient publicity, scepticism about the probable cost-benefit ratio (i.e., the amount of effort needed to prepare a credible proposal vs. the perceived likelihood of its being funded), and the novelty of the idea that a government agency would actually be serious about the matter. Most Canadian psychologists were only peripherally (if at all) aware that there is a Canadian Space Agency, which has a real Astronaut Program; if they encountered the call for proposals, they may not have considered it a significant opportunity. It should be noted that previous Canadian participation in space exploration has concentrated on equipment (e.g., the famous Canadarm). Scientific projects supported by the CSA have been in areas other than the social and behavioural disciplines; life sciences support has focused on biology.
To raise the profile of the new enterprise, and to start the generation of new ideas, the CSA convened a workshop at Banff in January, 2002. Two groups of researchers were invited, one whose work was in the general area of multicultural interactions (five participants, coordinated by Lawrence A. Palinkas, a Canadian social anthropologist working at the Medical School of the University of California, San Diego) and one with an interest in stress and coping, including stress resulting from living in extreme and unusual environments (six participants, coordinated by Peter Suedfeld, University of British Columbia). In addition, Alan Mortimer and other science administrators of the CSA attended.
The meeting, which lasted two days, saw lively discussion of the potential for involving Canadian social scientists in space research. In the end, there was consensus that the opportunity was worth exploring further. Some additional strengths for such an involvement were noted.
Perhaps most importantly, a number of specific research topics within the two general categories were identified as particularly appropriate, given the areas of expertise of our disciplines in Canada and the role of Canada in space missions. The Appendix presents a summary of these points.(2)
We may consider a few of these in somewhat more detail. Among the points raised in the context of multicultural crews is the issue of miscommunication. The spacecraft environment can be quite noisy, particularly before entering and after leaving orbit. Voice communication is degraded by loud background noise, which can exacerbate the problem of imperfect understanding of a foreign language, and especially of technical terms and jargon in a foreign language. The ways and degrees of failure to understand each other or distorted radio communications from mission control need to be predictable to avoid serious, and in emergencies potentially lethal, error in issuing and receiving instructions.
On the other hand, the presence of crew members from other cultures may reduce the monotony of long-duration missions. Exploring different ways of thinking, diverse educational and occupational backgrounds, varying tastes in food and music, and at the same time perhaps finding similarities in interests, family life, and values, may enhance esprit de corps within the crew and diminish the negative emotional and cognitive effects of boredom.
Both of these, and other effects of diversity, are related to crew selection and training. In the series of Shuttle-Mir missions, it was customary for American astronauts to receive prolonged training in Russia, learning the language and getting acquainted with their future crewmates in both work and recreational settings. Similar, although less prolonged and intense, efforts were made involving ground support personnel assigned to the joint missions. Although such familiarization programs worked to some extent, dissatisfaction has been expressed by both flight and ground specialists about the amount and effectiveness of their preparation. More mutual training could have eliminated problems such as a predominance of Russian-language news and work-related communications on Mir (Russian "home ground") and conflicting expectations about the relationship between the mission commander and the other two crew members.
Canadian astronauts will almost certainly be a national minority in any future space capsule or ground control crews, and Canada is not likely to build its own manned spacecraft in the foreseeable future. Therefore, our personnel will always be "guests" rather than "hosts." Research to deal with the problems identified during the Shuttle-Mir series would clearly be of specific interest to CSA as well as of more general importance for all multicultural missions.
In the general context of living in an ICE, stress arising from monotony, lack of privacy, and crowding is of obvious concern (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). There are well-known individual and cultural differences in how aversive people find these conditions, but systematic studies of the implications of these particular differences under conditions of long-duration capsule living are scarce. There is also anecdotal evidence that confinement of a small group frequently leads to openness about a variety of personal matters, and that in some cases such self-disclosure later leads to discomfort and regret. These reactions may in turn reduce group morale and cooperation.
One other topic is the relief of monotony. Countermeasures, such as a choice of recreational materials, "surprise" packages, and above all, communication with family and friends on Earth and looking at Earth through windows, all have some ameliorative effect. Many of these will become more problematic, and perhaps futile, on an interplanetary voyage. For example, looking at the Earth from an orbiting capsule is fascinating; looking at it from a spaceship approaching Mars may merely exacerbate the feeling of isolation. The same is true of space-ground contact when the time-lag prevents a flow of conversation. What countermeasures could compensate for the increased sense of remoteness? How could undesirable responses to reduce boredom, such as undertaking risky or ill-considered behaviour (previously reported from both polar and space environments), be prevented?
Another topic discussed in Banff was the scarcity of research and intervention after the astronauts return from space. Many challenging experiences have long-term psychological effects on the participant. People who spend long periods in ICEs frequently engage in intense introspection, which sometimes leads to changes in values, life goals, and social relationships after they return (Suedfeld, 1998). This may make it difficult to reintegrate into "normal" family and work life, and may be exacerbated by the unique features of space flight: "Being an astronaut is a tough act to follow" (Collins, 1974, p. 454). Space agencies do provide support to families while the astronaut is away, but have not adequately considered their postmission responsibilities.
Soon after the Banff meeting, the CSA played host to an International Workshop on Group Interactions in May, 2002. Scientists from a number of space-faring nations presented the results of research projects carried out in actual space missions, as well as in capsule simulators and analogue environments such as Antarctica (see Suedfeld, 2001).
The CSA then issued a second invitation for grant proposals (Canadian Space Agency, 2002). Support was available for up to four years, at a maximum of $50,000 per year, comparing quite favourably with both SSHRC and NSERC grants. The Agency was open to studies using laboratory, simulator, or analogue (but not in-flight) experiments, as well as other data collection approaches such as interviews, questionnaires, archival analyses, etc. "Isolation or multicultural psychology" was one of the nine areas identified as appropriate for submission. Proposals undergo peer review, just as with other funding agencies.
It is to be hoped that the Canadian psychological, and more broadly, social scientific, community will take increasing interest in such funding, and that the CSA will be encouraged by the response to offer the opportunity again. If so, it will be announced each June, with a September submission deadline. Past and future announcements can be found at: <http://www.space.gc.ca/science/space_science/announce_opp/current/ default.asp>
Space flight is both a great adventure and a gateway to yet-unforeseen scientific prospects. Space crews are composed of dedicated and gifted professionals, working under conditions that test the limits of some of our theories and existing knowledge. It would be a pity if we missed the chance to participate in studying such interesting people and making their tasks more feasible and less difficult, while at the same time collecting information of relevance for our own disciplines.
The cooperation of the Canadian Space Agency in providing information for this article is appreciated; so are suggestions and information from various colleagues. However, the opinions and conclusions are solely those of the author. Correspondence concerning the article may be sent to the author at the Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 (Phone: (604) 822-5713; Fax: (604) 822-6923; E-mail: psuedfeld@psych.ubc.ca).
References
Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M. I., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 12-18.
Canadian Space Agency (2000). Space life sciences planning workshop final report. St-Hubert, QC: Canadian Space Agency.
Canadian Space Agency (2001). Operational space medicine report. Accessed August 18, 2002, through: <http://www.space.gc.ca/csa_sectors/human_presence/astronauts/osm/status%20re port/default.asp>
Canadian Space Agency (2002). Announcement of opportunity. Accessible through: <http://www.space.gc.ca/science/space_science/announce_opp/current/ground/def ault.asp>
Chartrand, E., & Julien, D. (1994). Systeme d'Observation des Dimensions d'Interaction (SODI): Validation canadienne francaise de l'Interactional Dimensions Coding System (IDCS). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 319-337.
Collins, M. (1974). Carrying the fire: An astronaut's journeys. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Pak, A. W.-P. (1992). Personality-based hardiness as a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto's Chinese community. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 517-536.
GSC-12 Allocation Report (1984, 1988). Ottawa, ON: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
Gushin, V. (2001). Interview with INTERFAX News Agency, accessed August 18, 2002, through: <http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1033/judith.htm>
Gushin, V., & Pustynnikova, J. (2001). Interrelations in the small isolated group with heterogeneous composition in SFINCSS-99 space simulation study. Presented at the Joint IAF/IAA Symposium on Life Sciences. Accessed August 18, 2002, through: <www.iafastro.com/archives/pap2001/iaf_abstract/IAFG/SympIAFG.htm>
Helmreich, R. (1984). Applying psychology in outer space: Unfilled promises revisited. American Psychologist, 38, 445-450.
Kalin, R., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Interethnic attitudes in Canada: Ethnocentrism, consensual hierarchy and reciprocity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 253-261.
Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E. M., Weiss, D. S., Gushin, V., Bostrom, A., Kozerenko, O., Sled, A., & Marmar, C. R. (2001). Psychosocial issues in space: Results from Shuttle/Mir. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14, 35-45.
Kass, R., & Kass, J. (2001). Team-work during long-term isolation: SFINCSS Experiment GP-006. In Simulation of extended isolation: Advances and problems (pp. 124-147). Moscow: Institute of Biomedical Problems.
Palinkas, L. A. (2000). Summary of research issues in behavior and performance in isolated and confined extreme (ICE) environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71 (9, Suppl.) A48-50.
Prugger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1993). Development of a scale to measure cross-cultural sensitivity in the Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25, 615-621.
Punnett, B. J. (1991). Language, cultural values and preferred leadership style: A comparison of Anglophones and Francophones in Ottawa. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23, 241-244.
Russian Archives Online, accessed August 4, 2002, through: http://www.russianarchives.com/rao/gallery/gagarin/
Sandal, G. (2001). Psychosocial issues in space: Future challenges. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14, 47-54.
Santy, P. A. (1994). Choosing the right stuff: The psychological selection of astronauts and cosmonauts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Space Studies Board, National Research Council (1998). A strategy for research in space biology and medicine in the new century. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Steel, G. D., Suedfeld, P., Peri, A., & Palinkas, L. A. (1997). People in high latitudes: The "Big Five" personality characteristics of the circumpolar sojourner. Environment and Behavior, 29, 324-347.
Suedfeld, P. (1980). Restricted environmental stimulation: Research and clinical applications. New York: Wiley.
Suedfeld, P. (1998). Homo invictus: The indomitable species. Canadian Psychology, 38, 164-173.
Suedfeld, P. (2001). Groups in special environments. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Vol 9 (pp. 6430-6434). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Suedfeld, P., & Borrie, R. A. (1999). Health and therapeutic applications of chamber and flotation Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy (REST). Psychology and Health, 14, 545-566.
Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227-253.
Suedfeld, P., Steel, G. D., Wallbaum, A. B. C., Bluck, S., Livesley, N., & Capozzi, L. (1994). Explaining the effects of stimulus restriction: Testing the dynamic hemispheric asymmetry hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 87-100.
Suedfeld, P., & Weiss, K. (2000). Antarctica: Natural laboratory and space analogue for psychological research. Environment and Behavior, 32, 7-17.
Sullivan, P. J., Casgrain, C., & Hirsch, N. (Eds.). (1998). CAPSULS: A 7-day space mission simulation. St-Hubert, QC: Canadian Space Agency.
Sullivan, P. J., Casgrain, C., Terrillon, F., Thirsk, R., & Williams, D. (1998). CAPSULS, a short duration space mission simulation. In P. J. Sullivan, C. Casgrain, & N. Hirsch (Eds.), CAPSULS: A 7-day space mission simulation (pp. 3-8). St-Hubert, QC: Canadian Space Agency.
Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, F. M., & Bellerose, J. (1989). Social comparison in an intergroup context. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 499-515.
Thagard, N. (1997, May 2). Presentation to the Panel on Human Behavior, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Wolfe, T. (1978). The right stuff. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Young, M. Y., & Gardner, R. C. (1990). Models of acculturation and second language proficiency. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 59-71.
Zubek, J. P. (Ed.). (1969). Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
APPENDIX
Summary of the Conclusions of the CSA Space Psychology Workshop, January, 2002.
Multicultural Crew Composition Working Group Report
Multicultural crews will be an inherent feature of future long-duration missions. Previous evidence suggests that along with other types of diversity, cultural background can affect performance. These effects have not been systematically investigated.
Key Questions:
1) What effect will multicultural crew composition have on behaviour and performance?
- What forms of miscommunication will occur with multicultural crews?
- How will miscommunication affect behaviour and performance?
- How are leadership styles related to culture/background?
- How are cohesion/tension affected by multicultural crews?
- What will be the benefits of multicultural crews in isolation? (e.g., decreasing monotony, fostering learning, increasing chance of needed skill set existing in crew)
- How does tokenism (related to culture and gender) affect behaviour and performance?
- How do differing culturally determined gender roles affect behaviour and performance?
- Do standards (values and expectations) of performance in space vary by culture and what impact does it have on individuals and group behaviour and performance?
2) How do we minimize the potential negative impact of multicultural crews and maximize the potential positive impact of multicultural crews?
- What personal and group characteristics predict for performance in multicultural crews?
- Would crew selection lead to better performance (in a multicultural context) than individual selection?
- What are the most important criteria in leadership selection for multicultural crew composition?
- Would crew training lead to better performance (in a multicultural context) than individual training?
- What are the critical elements for a cross-cultural training program for multicultural crews?
- How do we test and validate those critical elements?
- What types of in-flight support are needed to minimize the negative impact and maximize the positive impact of multicultural crews?
3) How do we assess the effects of multicultural crew composition in a multicultural context?
- How do we measure performance (ability, stability, and compatibility) given potential cross-cultural differences?
- Are the measures used by various agencies for selection and performance assessment valid across cultures?
- What methods are most appropriate for studies of small, culturally diverse groups (qualitative, quantitative, and qualitative/quantitative)?
Canadian Strengths and Capabilities:
- Canada has a long-standing reputation for working with culturally diverse populations as well as with cross-cultural psychology and multicultural studies.
- Canada's role in the international space community makes in uniquely poised to address these issues.
- Canada has several facilities, which could be used as a training and research centre for multicultural crews.
Isolation Working Group Report
General comments:
1. The capsule environment, involving isolation, confinement, limited internal space, etc., is a given in all space research (as well as simulations and many analogues). It is, therefore, unnecessary to specify in each research issue that the characteristics and psychological effects of the capsule are considered. Researchers should justify their choice of environment.
2. Most aspects of capsule environments have potentially positive and negative aspects and effects (e.g., cognitive processes, mood, group interactions, etc.). Researchers should use instruments that can measure both types of impacts rather than focusing on either to the exclusion of the other.
3. The research methodology (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative) should be appropriate to the research questions being asked. Researchers should be aware that in order to establish reliability and generalizability, qualitative data may be subjected to quantitative analyses (e.g., content analysis).
Key Issues:
*Except when noted, all issues may be addressed in ground environments (both analogue and simulation) and/or the flight environment.
- Minority Status
- In numbers
- In task assignment
- In control over mission
- Privacy/Territoriality
- Design issues - habitat space management
- Sharing of resources and information
- Self-disclosure
- Anxiety
- Trust
- Openness
- Team-building
- Adapting vs. adopting existing models leading to effective models that maximize team effectiveness and task accomplishment
- Test in multicultural groups
- Person By Situation Interactions
- Link between situational and person factors as they impact behaviour, performance and adjustment.
- Coping styles
- Re-entry
- Risk-taking
- Anxiety
- Stress
- Mission phase
- Pre- and Postmission effects on astronauts
- Stressors
- Decision patterns
- Goals and motives
- Psychological adjustments
- Family
- Ground & archival studies
- Family Interactions
- During all phases of the mission
- Short- and long-term studies
- Stressors
- Decision patterns
- Goals and motives
- Psychological adjustments
- Ground & archival studies
Canadian Strengths:
1. International assessment of scientific strengths rated psychology as the top Canadian science and is well regarded and respected internationally.
2. In the late 1950s, Canadians pioneered habitat/space and design psychology.
3. Study of isolation and confinement was begun in Canada, in the 1950s, and has been studied by Canadian psychologists continuously ever since. Both laboratory and field research (especially in the Arctic) are conducted.
4. Suitable facilities already exist (e.g., Arctic analogue facilities in weather stations, research facilities, and logistic support system).
5. Many of the suggested areas would involve very cost-effective research (i.e., there are limited requirements for experimental hardware).
(1) The term "astronaut" will be used throughout this paper to refer to all space voyagers, to avoid the awkward repetition of the various other terms used by various national space agencies.
(2) The summary conclusions of the CSA Space Psychology Workshop are reproduced by permission of the Canadian Space Agency.
