Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
SOCIAL STRESS, ~R-HEDLAl~= FORNICATION SYSTEMS, AND IN ~OWC~lIVIrY :~ SPACE STATIONS: A RESEARCH AGE Karen S. Cook INT~DUCT1ON We sheer complexity of the space station program is enough to boggle the mire of any academic trained in a single discipline. Certainly, space station design requires the ultimate In interdisciplinary teamwork and denigration of basic arx] applied pa Trams of research. In this sense, the project demands knowledge an] insights not easily produced An an isolated discipline, be it en~in==rinq, aeronautics or sociology. '~ as a cnalleng mg task and one that shculu call forth the best efforts of those touched by the allure of extending the boundaries of human knowledge. For a sociologist there are a myriad of research problems which come to mind On even a cursory glance into the window of the future as envisioned by those currently Dlanm no the space station program. , _, e ~ _ _ e , ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ J clearly, a wide range of processes and factors must be taken into account when considering the more social aspects of this enterprise. These include technologist constraints, pressures, -physiologic limits, psychological processes (including cognitive capacities and mativationa~ factors), and the many interfaces between tenant' and machine required b~v the intense interdePendenci~= of human and technoloci~1 forces in snare _ _ -_ ~ As__ Such intense interdependencies in this extreme are much less often observed on earth (with the possible exception of certain medical contexts in which life is tenuously maintained by sheer technological support). Given this reality, one cannot extrapolate easily frog what is known about society as we experience it on earth and "life aloft." It has even been said that humans may become a very different species while in space. Similarly, social systems which emerge to support and maintain life in this context may deviate along many dimensions from those social structures an] processes that are a part of our daily existence and often so "routine" that they are taken for granted. ~ Nothing must He considered as Routine An a novel environment. It must be said at the outset that what we transport from earth in the way of social, norms, rules, shared expectations, roles, etc.) may prove much less functional than we envisioned given a ccm-plet~ly altered social and technological environment. Because we have virbnally no scientific evidence psychological and organizational adaptive mechanisms (e.q. 329
330 concerning the parameters of life after eighty-four days in space (that is, there is no U.S. experience to rely ony, one is forced to engage An speculation an] extrapolation despite the potential pitfalls. My reading of the documents we have been supplied with concerning the space station program in the l990s and beyond and my very limited exposure to ROSA through a two-day symposium, lead me to several tentative conclusions regarding the most critical social contingencies (besides the issue of conflict addressed by Michener) confronting NASA as it plans for the extended duration existence of groups of individuals in space with limited opportunity for replacement or exit. These critical contingencies include the social and psychological management of stress (regardless of the nature of the stressors) and determination of the most efficient and socially productive mechanisms for handling interpersonal communications (e.g. within the crew, betwe ~ crews of different modules, and between the crew and the "ground," including family melters and friends). The successful management of both stress and interpersonal communications is critical to individual and y~vup-level performance, productivity and ultimately, 'mission success." While there are many other issues which could be investigated profitably from a sociological Perspective, time and space limit the scope of this first foray into life as currently envisioned on space stations. STRESS, INDIVI1~L ~FORMPNCE AND UP PE%ODUCTIV~ Stress has been identified as a contributing factor in the etiology of certain acute and Manic illnesses (e.g. ulcers, high blood pressure, heart attacks, nervous dis ~ ances, etc.~. It has been demonstrated to have consequent== not only for the hearth status of individuals, but also for individual performance, decision-ma-ding and productivity. With respect to spa~-relat=1 research Foushee (1986) shade= that an important goal is "to under stand and munlmize the effects of acute and long_duration stresses on group functioning." Although there is enormous literature on the effects of stress on individuals, researchers have been slow to address the impact of stress on groups. Furthermore, the bulk of the existing research examines the physiologic and psychological consequences of stress. There is much less work on the antcr=~ents of stress, in particular the stresses creaked by social factors (PearlLn, 1982~. Another limitation to existing research is the tendency for investigators especially in experimental work to focus on single, isolated stressors. This work is extremely important, but it does not inform us about the interactive anchor cumulative effects of ~rn~tiple stresso~. Deficit and Measuring Stress The most commonly city definition of sass is Hans Selye's, "the nonspecific, that is, canon, result of any Planar upon the body, be the effect any or somatic." In the tradition of research initial
331 by Selye (e.g. 1936, 1956, 1974) this "result" or reaction of the body to stress is referred to as the "general adaptation syndromes' LEAS) or "biologic stress syndrome." It consists of an alarm reaction biologically detectable in such organs as the adrenal glands, thymes, lymph nodes and stomach, followed by the stage of resistance accompanied also by marked physiologic responses, then the stage of exhaustion at which point Selye argues the acquired second-stage adaptation is lost. Other researche ~ emphasize the significance of the "cognitive appraisal" of stressors (see Brezn~tz and Goidberger, 1982, etc.), noting the importance of the "subjective, phencmenologi~a~ experience of stress" which lies between the stressor and its effects. Some definitions of stress include reference to cognitive appraisal, others, like Selye's, do not. Currently, there is no agreed upon definition of the term and existing differences reflect major unresolved theoretic=] t~c in the field. Though they disagree on the significance of cognitive appraised, researchers do agree on the common goal of understanding adaptations to stress or the nature of coping mechanisms. Mach of the current research focuses upon specifying the nature of these mechanisms. Before discussing adaptations however, let tic examine the problems associated with the measurement of stress. Varicus approaches have been adopted to the problem of measuring stress; none of them completely satisfactory. One of the most common approaches to Rena DcmcOt, popular over the past two decades because it can be applied outside experim~ta1 settings, is he "life~rents" scale (e.g. Holes and Rahe, 1967) or the modified life events scale (l~hr~ ark Did, 1974a, 1974b). Life~vents typically Ian "bbje~ive events that disrupt or threaten to disrupt the individual's usual activities" (see D ~ end and ~ reran end, 1974b:133, 1984). Events listed on such scales include both he=~th-related (onset of chronic illness, major illness or accident, etc.) and non health-related events such as divorce, separation, increase ~ family income, retirement, death of a spouse, pregnancy or remarriage, etc. (see Thoits, 1981, for a cogent critique of the life-events approach). m e main debate in this research tradition has been over whether or net only undesirable events contribute to stress or whether events that require change either desirable or undesirable produce stress. The latter has been referred to as the "toter change" approach to measuring stress, the former, the "undesirability" approach (Thoits, 1981~. Ihoits (1981) identifies several studies suggesting that only the undesirable changes significantly affect stress levels, although she goes an to critique these studies as well as many of the total change sues for fat ing to include independent indicators of their independent and dependent variables. Her findings also suggest that 'Cohen he~lth-related events are controlled, other undesirable events have small and nonsignificant effects upon psychophysiological distress" (as Measured by reports of psychosomatic symptoms using the MacMillan Health Opinion Survey Index). the main conclusion she draws relevant to current research is that previously well-established correlations between undesirable events and distress may have been inflated *ue to the Operational confounding of hen1th-related items on
332 the indeperxlent and dependent variable scales." A major contribution of new research on sass wed be to refine existing usurp of stress and to develop more sensitive anal reliable ~asur~nt techniques. Iaboratory research employs quite different methodologies than surrey research, however, as Hoir~ and Tea s (1982:26) poirlt OUt, "lab paradigms An biological science have rennet to isolate stress Ins fee he psy~ologi~8~1 ~ 8~ it con ~ ·~' ~ ~ ~ measurement problems are reduced in this way, little knowledge is ~ inert ~ n ~ ~ e ~ ~ lay of physiologic, ~~ologi~s=8 8 _ ~ ~ _ _ _ '8 ~ * -- ~ 8888_8 ·8 8~ ial ~ at · Hol ~yd a ~ ~ z ~ s (1982:30) ~8aJ1 for "field research that exam mes stress in the psychosocial context" and more descriptive work on the sources of stress "that operate in naturalistic settings." m e space station environment is a "natural" laboratory for this type of research. Multiple Stressors in Space m e reality of space station existence includes the potential for canto and intermittent exposure to multiple stressors. In this regard it is not at all clear that much of the existing research, except that done ~ analogous environments, can be extrapolated to apply to the space station. Both the number and the magnitude of stressors in the space environment is likely to be at the high end of existing scales, and quite possibly off the scale. Only research in rare, high stress situations will contain insights of direct relevance. Sources of potential stress in space stations include sensory deprivation, environmental factors like noise level, crawling, spatial arrangements, and invasion of privacy, as well as isolation, confinement, and the possibility of life-threatening dangers or crises situations. Nickerson in his chapter for this volume includes in the category of potential stressors: weightlessness, unfamiliar motion, motion restriction, sensory and perceptual restriction as well as sleep interference and acute medical problems. Work-related factors like variety and intensity of assigned tasks, and workload, etc. may peso be stressors in the space station environment. hoper (1983) indicate that in many work environments work or job overload is a major stressor. There is sane irrigation that working intensity arc time pressure were factors that contributed to the problems experienced by ~ w FINS aboard the Skylab 4 Mission. Accordi~ to Holrgyd and Lazarus (1982:24), "the individual who is constantly challenged by even relatively innocuous occupational and social demands and who is, as a result, repeatedly mobilized for struggle may be particularly vulnerable to certain disorders (Glass, 1977~." Given the duration of planned space station missions, the cumulative physiological, psychological and social impact of intermittent and continue exposure to multiple stressors must be investigated. Another significant factor in space stations related to multiple stressors is the recognition that the stressors will be produced by quite different types of events and forces. Stressor~ may be produced both by the astronaut's home environment, to the extent that s/he has · ~
333 information about significant events occurring on earth (e.g. ~ the lives of his/her close relatives and friends, etc.), and by life aloft. Within the apse capsule, factors contributing to stress are environmentally indho d resulting in both p ysiological and/or psychological distress ~e well as socially induced, created by factors associated with the ~ter~nal ernrir~nt, especially the intense interred of the crew fez. Since both Eibysiologi~al and psychological factors have been given more consideration in the existing literature, ~ will emphasize the social forces likely to indu<::e stress. Identifying Socially Pod - stressors Outside of the life-events tradition and research focusing upon national stress (e.g. Cooper and Payne, 1978), there have been few investigations of stress produced by interpersonal factors in small group sett logs (Levine and Scotch, 1970). Potential causes of stress settings requiring intense interdependence among group members include hectic personality conflicts, incompatibilities in interpersonal orientation an] style, an inefficient or inequitable division of labor, a lack of perceived 1agit;macy cancer m ng the allocation of leadership responsible ities or aubbority, the inequitable allocation of individual or collective rewards, lack of a clear definition of role or task responsible ities, uncertainty regarding the timing, coordination or sequencing of related tasks especially when synchronization is a critical factor, and the arbitrary or inappropriate exercise of authority or influence (i.~. violating role prescriptions or norms conocrning the use of private timed. Many of these factors have been demonstrated to have significant impacts upon group functioning non~ssful situation ~ may or may not be exacerbates ~ si - cations of high Ire. Pearl or ~unta~n~li~bing teams i~icat-= that deer periods of high stress many of then= problems became earthly salient ad ~ some coca= result in aborts attends to reach We summit. Int ~ r ~ 1 conflicts appear to be a major problem for many ~ itions especially when the goal of reaching the summit is highly values by all and where there is a great d=~1 of uncertainty about achieving the goa1. Connors (3985:147) also notes that in s;~3ation roe arch, 'members of isolated and confined groups who were incompatible showoff increased stress, withdrawal, and territorial behavior. ~ Many of these potential stressors have not ~ ermine in the context of group functions primarily Ruse the predominant Ides in this area of ir~ry has In one of ir~ivi~1 functior~ir~. ~ will Dent Are upon the limitations of such a Entice in a s~ibs~erlt section of the paper.
334 Mongering Stress Relate to the problem of measuring stress are identifying the anteents of stress is the prdblen of monitoring sages. Unc~n~sive Romania for anchoring Swiss at bath ~ individual (physiologic and psyc~hologi~1) petrel and the group leered need devel ~ t, given the potential dele~=rious consequences of high levels of stress for individual and group functioning. An important byproduct of such monitoring is that it will give us same insight into the interactive and Negative impact of various stressors. Furthermore, it will enable us to ads issues still urKler Agate r~ardir~ He extent to dish the effects are linear, cUzVil~=r, or approximate a ste~function (or three hold function). It may also be the case that the effects of Canaan stressors are Story given that not all the effects are potentially negative. me positive impact of stress has been given little attention In the literature. Personal ~acter~stics, Crew CXosition and Stress As several authors have suggest, the "right stuff" may be the 'dry stuff" den it Ad; to the selection of crew ~ who will not only have the nectary Animal and professional skills, but w;11 also have the psychological arm social cx~etencies Reid for the creation of effective Ant ~ rsonal relations and relatively s ~ h grasp functioning on space station 'fissions." According to Biersner and Hogan (3984:495), veterans believe that "social compatibility is as important as technical skills for overall Antarctic adjustment" to isolation. Social competence will become even more critical as a basis for selection and training in the future as NOVA envisions shorter training periods for some astronauts (e.g. teacher and congress=embers ~ space programs). me potential for commercial joint ventures with NINA not only increases crew he~enei=, but also beans that same apace station Seers ~ the U.S. Mule will In all lik~ihoa] rx~ have Me benefit of intense N~;A training (and selection). Intriguing research by He~rei~h and his colleagues (e.g. He~ich et al., 1980) on this basic topic suggests that at least one aracteristic typically associated with the "right stuff" constellation of traits, interpersonal competitiveness, may be dysfunctional for producing smooth group functioning depending upon the mix of personnel and the'' traits in any particular crew. As Connors (1985:155) notes, Helmreich et al. (1980) "hypothesize that the combined interests of task accomplishment and social compatibility will be best served if crew Seers straw a strong work and mastery orientation, but relatively little campetitiveness." - Group Decision~ g Ur~=r Stress Relearn of particular interest to 2~;A is Me research on the relationship between stress and decision-makir~ which Eric that
335 the experience of stress generally interferes with psychological processes relater to effective decision-m2Xing. Janis (1982), for example, reports the following reactions associated with stress during decision-making: (~) narrowing of attention span and range of perceived alternatives, (2) reduction in problem-solving capabilities, (3) oversight of long-term consequences, (4) inefficiency In information sear h, t5) premature closure, and (6) with intense fear, there is also temporary loss of perceptual acuity and perceptual-motor coordination (Daffy, 1962). Evidence further suggests that accelerating time pressure greases the probability of these reactions, although clearly more r ~ is needed on the temporal aspects of stress reactions as well as sibilation specific/individual difference interaction effects. (Individuals in certain situations are likely to respond differently both to stress and to the demands of the decision-making tack.) Janis (3982) also specifies five basic patterns of dec~sion-making under stress. The first four patterns in the list represent ''5efective" patterns of response, the fifty is the term Janis uses for the most adaptive respo ~ e pattern. Observed patterns of response under stress delude: (1) unconflicbeJ inertia (2) unconflicted change (3) defensive avoidance (4) hypervigilance, and (5) vigilance. Of the four defective response patterns, hypervigilance is found to be the dc~unant reaction under conditions of high stress or n~ar-panic. As Janis (1982:77) note=, "Ex~=c~ive alertness to all signs of potential brat rats ~ diffusion of attention...one of the main so of cognitive inefficiency whenever scone fines hypervigilant, and it prc}'ably a ~ 3unts for sam of be failures to meet the criteria for effective dec~sion-malci~." R~U1LS also sew est that other problems emerge in high stress situations. "slang with cognitive constriction there is a marked tendency toward stereotyped thinking in terms of oversimplified categories and reliance on Oversimplified decision rules" (Ja m s, 1982:781. Two conditions appear to enhance the probability of hypervigilanoe occurring in stressful situations: unconflicted inertia (or the failure to react to early warrungs) and defensive avoidance (e.g. procrastination). Additional factors identified by Janis as associated with the antecedents of hypervigilan~= are the lack of contact with family members or other support persons, lack of perceived control and lack of preparatory information alcut potential stressful events.
336 The prevention of "defective" patterns of response in threaten mg situations has focused An recent years upon several strategies including "benign preexposure to the threatening situation, stress inoculation via preparatory communications" and various types of relaxation techniques designed to mitigate physiologic reactions (Janis, 1982:82; see also, Janis et al., 1982~. Research on these techniques and the extent to which they are successful under specific circumstance== continua. Extrapolation to situations likely to be encountered in space stations must be done m~reful~y. Some techniques may be effective for single stressors, but less effective in the face of multiple stressors. Aga m, further research is needed. Certainly, however, this research gives us some clues as to problems associated with decision-making in highly stressful contexts. A Comment on the Limits of Medic and Psycho~ogi~1 Models of Stress: The underlying framework a researcher adopts to the analysis of a problem often circumscribes both the nature of scientific inquiry as well as conceptions of potential solutions. Thus it is not surprising that medical research on stress tends to exam me primarily physiologic response patterns and the impact of drugs on the functioning of the individual undergoing stress. Psychologists similarly focus on cognitive and emotional factors, examining individual differences associated with cognitive appraisals of stress and reactions. The solutions they consider include biofeedback, stress "inoculation", and various types of individual training and therapeutic techniques. All of this research is necessary since the problem entails both physiologic and psychologist dimensions. What is missing, however, flus much of the current work is the investigation of the system properties of stress and exam mation of solutions to the problems created by multiple stressors at the group or collective level lasso sometimes called the system level. Inquiry of this type would examine the interpersonal Dynamics related to stress responses and adaptive strategies rather than treating the problem purely from an ~ntraindividual perspective. Adoption of an Interpersonal or system level perspective would lead to quite different conceptions of adaptive mechanisms. In Connors (1985:146) words, "Given that future missions will require increase levels of cooperative functionir~, selection and trainer'; procures ~st not only yield effective individuals, they st yield effective g~vups." The dominant Characteristic of Efface station missions in the near future involving 6-8 crew m ~ cars marooned in space for approximately ninety day intervals of the high degree of interdependence among the group members (and possibly between groups in different Accuses at some point). Stressors which significantly impact any single group member will, of necessity, influence group function~ng--even if it simply entails the reassignment of duties or tasks for brief periods of time or temporary isolation of a group member. IT addition, group members may be impacted similarly by stressors and thus collective solutions should be explored. Strategies might be developed, treating the Group ~~ a social system (as Michener does) of interdependent parts and group members sight be trained in specific response patterns through a division of labor. For example, roles could be assigned such that each
337 attends to a specific problem associated with inefficient decision-ma-ding under high stress. One crew member might be assigned the task of vigilance with respect to only alternatives, another to long-term conseguen~=, etc. and coordination might be achieved either by an assigned group leader or some sort of computerized decision-aide. Ccmputer-a'~ed systems could be developed which help to meliorate common deficiencies observed in cognitive processing during peak periods of stress. Coping strategies of this type are more like Janis' suggestion that an appo~nt=d "devil's advocate" be used to mitigate the negative consequences of "groupthink." They have the possible advantage that "failure" is not localized in a single individual (typically, the "leader") who ~ st assume full responsibility for group decisions in "crisis" or intensely stressful situations. Furthermore, a clean division of labor also reduces the workload on any single individual under stress.The work on distributed decision-m2Xing by Fischhoff and others may well provide models for this ~ of coping mechanism. Relevant work on computer-aided decision-making should alto be explored. Mediators of Stress and Adaptation In the words of Ho~royd and Lazarus (1982:25), "It has been increasingly acknowledged that health Outcomes are a product of effective coping rather than simply a consequence of the presence or absence of stress." Identifying factors that result in effective coping is an important research agenda item, however current investigations focus more on drug therapy, biofeedback and "cognitive-behavioral" interventions to codify responses to stress and facilitate coping. The social and organizational management of stress, as noted above, has not been examined. Psychological approaches take us one step beyond physiologically focused management strategies, but even they have not been evaluated extensively. Coping mechanisms and adaptation responses form one axis of current research, the second axis is extensive work on factors that ' ~ diate" the stress response. Such factors include individual difference= which relate not only to susceptibility, but also to cognitive appraised and effective coping. Variables incorporated into these investigations are ethnicity, age, gender, occupation, income, level of education, marital state=, health status and ares to social support (i.e. personal resources and network supplied resources), among others. Access to social support, for example, has been demonstrated to mitigate some of the effects of stressful entreats (e.g. Caplan arm Killilea, 1976~. Much of this work is useful for general medical and scier~tific pi, kilt caution must be exercised when attesting to generalize these findings to astronauts and the Apace station ~nriror~nent. me range of variation on same of these variables is quite restric ~ In the astronaut population, although increasing heterogeneity must be assumed along many of these dimensions (i.e. gender, age and ethnicity) in the future.
338 Rewarm linking gamer to stems, for example, varied of sties Off wan are more susceptible indicate= ~ a to stress (e.g. Kessler arid MeRae, 1981~; given certain levels of stress they report higher levels of distress as reflect Epically In Apology (prim rily self-reports). Pa ear ~ discussed by Kessler art MbI ~ d (1984) documents that waken ten] to be more affected by undesirable life events than men even though they do not report significantly more _ ~ = ~ To___ ~ a IT ~~= ~ ~ ^^ A ~ ___ ~ ~ TV_ _-D ' _~.L~ ::~U~1 Novell Hi- ~~1~:L Olaf l~l~;L~U \1:70~) ~~W~.~.t,. .L=~ r!3::i ==,~ lot t~ that women are more vulnerable to network' events, events that happen to significant others in their networks' than men, and it is this difference that accounts at least An part for previously observed sex differences in responses to stress. Thus, they argue that waken are not "pervasively more vulnerable than men to stress," but vulnerable specifically to stress linked to the important people in their lives as a result of their "greater emotional involvement in the lives of those around them." P=1le (1983) refers to this fact as the "stress of r~r~g~t There are mans unanswered congestions ~n~rnirm the link between _ _ a, , _ _ ~ _ _~_ _~ ~~_~ ret ~_' - ~ .: ~` p~1 ~ ^~' ___ ~ ^_ it__ qua = 1~1 ~ ~~ ~ 1-11~: AL ~Q WIll=1 L - All ~~VI1=U~ ~ lllL' ~= vulnerable to secrets than Pro e astronauts is an open question. FEW ot the existing stud)'== include in their samples waken On such high stress occupations and it may well be that women with high capacities for coping with stress self-select into these occupations (e.g. as is likely the case for women mountain climbers). It should also be noted that many of these studies reporting sex-related stress differences are based on sample day obtained in the 19SOs, 1960s and early 1970s; little evidence exists hack on more recent data including samples of women In more varied occupations contexts and roles. Impact on Productivity: Individual and Grcup-Level Effects The link between stress and productivity has been demonstrated to be somewhat complex. Mangler (1982:94) argues that "the problem of stress is twofold; both the initial autonomic signals and the conditions that generate these signals require some conscious capaci~y...an] therefore interfere with the performance of targeted tasks." What is not clear is specifically how and under what conditions performance is impaired. An fact, as Mangler (1982:96) indicates, like noise, stress reduces "attentional capacity and narrows it to central t~Sks,t' thus if the target task is central , "then autonomous arousal may improve performance." mis depends upon both the centrality of the target bask and specific characteristics of the task, or bask sequence which requires performance. Early research on this topic seemed to suggest that there is a curvilinear relationship between arc usal and performance such that performance is enhanced by moderate levels of arousal, but impaired significantly at both very low and very high levels of arousal. The generality of this effect is still under debate. Mangler (1982:95) concludes that "understanding the relation between efficiency and stress requires an analysis of specific stressors, an approach to arousal that assigns it definable
339 properties..., and knowledge about the requirements of the task." Research by Baddeley (1972) and others indicates that stress associated with dangerous environments "affects performance through its influence on the subject's breadth of attention...but we still do not know what mechanisms mediate the effect of arc usal" on attention span or even what is entailed in the adaptation to fear. Evidence suggests that problem~solving abilities are affected by stress in much the way Janis indicates that decision-making is impacted. In particular, "if much of problem-solving involves the manipulation in consciousness of alternatives, choices, probable and possible outcomes and consequences, and alternative goals," then stress interferes with efficient problem-solving. Few alternatives are actually considered and the thought process is guided more by habituation and stereotyping than by the conscious weighing of alternative strategies. What is needed, he argues, is "f~ne-gra~ned" analyses of these processes. It; t.?;lh The ',~ ; ~ . . . ~ . . _ --~wu~a~ ~ =11 W401 =~ - ~~ it has restricted experlmenb=1 work on these problems (candler 1982:101). A related shortcoming is the failure to consider the social context of problem-solving behavior. The balk of the research days with individual tasks, not collective or highly interdependent tasks. A Peso arch Agenda: System-Level Responses to Stress In the previous era when highly trained male pal ots were selected as astronauts on the basis of p ysical stem m a, high tolerance for stress, psychological stability and technical competence for space missions involving relatively short-term exposure to multiple stressors in dangerous environments, l ~= attention was paid to research on stress. In fact, Candler (1967) noted in his early sees of highly tra wed astronauts a lack of anticipated stress responses; these men had been "trained to have available response sequences, plans and problem-solving strategies for all imaginable emergencies" thus emergencies were transformed into llrcutine sip mbions't and therefore not experienced as stressful. At this stage in the space program harm was the primary focus of Bach selection and trainer. Even E pace capsule design divisions were not frequency made in order to runi~ze ernrir~rent~lly ironed stress or to impose Inhabitability" (Clearwater, 19851. me future holds form a different scenario. First, astronaut selection procure have changed to include Ron white ones and scientific personnel as well as pilcdcs. m ere ~ greater dived ity among potential astronauts in optional training, gender, age, ethnicity, and personality traits. Given this heterogeneity and the increased oa~lexi~y and duration of space station missions, emphasis most now be placed (as Helmreich, 1983; Foushee, 1984; and other social scientists have argued) on the selection and training of highly compatible crews especially as group size increases to eight or more in relatively small modules. In addition, only recently has habitability become an integrated aspect of the space station design process. Alterations in selection processes to maximize crew compatibility and
340 design decisions to improve habitability are essential ingredients. But as Danford et al. (1983) note in their chapter, "Humane Space Stations", ~ cial and organizational factors must also be considered. Two specific factors have been isolated for consideration in this paper: (1) the social management of stress and development of interpersonal coping mechanisms, and (2) the socially efficient and productive management of interpersonal communications. Development of a specific research proposal is beyond the scope of this chapter, however, research recommendations to NA5A would include examination of existing data on crew interactions especially under stressful conditions to isolate effective interpersonal strategies for coping with stress and to identify particular interaction sequence= which either exacerbated or mitigated stress responses. These data should be examined in relation to individual performance, group performance and interpersonal climate. Variation in interpersonal strategies by type arm Ration of stressors shad also be investigat. :En the early stages of the mission successors may be pr~arninantly ~hysiologi~1 (e.g. resulting friary space adaptation sickness orinitialbodilyr~nsestomicr~gravity, etc.), however, as *oration of the mission progresses psychological and social stressors may bed me more pronounced (i.e. intensification of ache sense of isolation and confinement, monotony of the physical environment, and increased sensitivity to interpersonal incompatibilities, etc.~. The most promising data sources for such analyses are likely to be tapes from the Skylab Missions given that they provide some insight into flights of analogous duration to planned space station missions. Another useful focus of research would be investigation of group decision-making under stress. Existing data could be mined for insights into the Am pact of stress on predicted cognitive and behavioral responses (e.g. the possible occurrence of hypervigilance), in decision-ma-ding situations of varying types. A separate rash arch strategy would be to simulate group decision-making under stressful circumstances. One model for this type of research is the work by Fcushee and his colleagues (e.g. Foushee and Helmreich, forthcoming) on crew performance under stress in aircraft flight simulations. Aga m, the aim would be to identify successful interpersonal strategies for cc ping with critical deficiencies resulting f ~ n stress. One potential byproduct of this research would be identification of the characteristics of computer decision-aides which would facilitate group functioning under conditions of high bank interdependence and high stress. Information-seeking behavior, for example, could be isolated and analyzed for inefficiencies which could be meliorated by the proper use of expert systems or computerized search procedures. As Nickerson concludes in his chapter, "Stress is likely to be an important factor in the Space Station...Exactly how these factors, especially in machination, will affect performance and productivity is not known."
341 MEDIATED CCMM~NIC~TION AND CREW PRODUCTIVITY In a 1983 N~SA-ASF~ final report entitled "Autonomy and the Human Element," the authors state that the "general transmission and processing of information lies at the heart of almost every aspect of space station activity."' And- -~^ --an ~^~-~^ :-~^~-~:^- - ~ ~ :-~ ~ . ~ ~ VV=:1 I= ~~ =~= ~ =~Lll=~lVll ~L~ and communications have engaged more and more of the design capabilities of NASA both In terms of hardware and software development efforts. Rapid advances In technology make this aspect of space station design especially volatile and vulnerable to obsolescence. While cost understandably plays a major role in design decisions, other factors affecting crew morale and productivity must be taken =to account. Ccm~Nnir~tion mcdali~y is also a critical factor in the coordination of activities aboard the space station. An intensive examination of the benefits and disadvantages of different modes of communication for within crew interactions, as well as for interactions between crew members and "grcun5" or mission control personnel, and for crew interactions with significant others is requircl. Morale, efficiency, productivity, the potential for conflict, the exercise of authority and control, and, ultimately, mission "success" are all affected by communication modality, access to information, and the structure of the communication channels. J ~ Ccmput~r-Mediated Communication as Primary Modality As Connors et al. (1985) put it 'mediated ccmmNnication systems must be developed to meet the needs of the crew throughout an extended ~ ssion." Such communication systems are not only vital to the ongoing mission of the space Stanton, nut may also He critical an maintaining social contact between station crew and ground personnel and thus contribute to the reduction ~ stress created by the sense of isolation and confinement. Maintenance of good cc=monication links between the ground staff (e.g. 'emission control" and other base cperations) and the members of the space station crew are essential to the smooth functioning of the space station. Currently, one of the primary modalities for communication processes is computer-mediated interaction (Slmes and Sirsky, 1985). This section of the chapter 1nclud~=.. a brief review of some of the relevant research on the impact of computer mediation on group interaction and decision-making. Other mKdaliti- for mediated communication are mentioned; however, cost factors necessitate heavy reliance upon computer-m£diation. ~ a a ·a ~ _ ha a . a _ a e a a Sues of the Effects of Cc mputer-mediated Interaction Siegel et al. (1986), in experimental studies contrasting the effects of face-~face versus ~rter-~;a~ communication, find that winch certain Apes of group prdblen-solvir~ tasks Where are marked differences bed car~nunication acres. he Apes of c~mr~nic~tion mores were ermines In the shies they report: face-~face,
342 simultaneous ~u~mediat~ discussion and cfluter mail. hide the results are not definitive, they suggest cachet reanimation Mae affect Ache ~ require to reach a group decision, the Italic of participation rat== of group Tiers, fornication x~:, nature of the late ~ rsonal ~ r~nications, as well as Me Merge to which the grcup's decision deviated from indivi*ual's initial choices. The results indicate that there are certain advantage= and disadvantages to c~mputer-mediated communication systems which are relevant to plans for space station ccmmuni~tions, although more systematic research is ~- Specific results of interest include the fact that computer-mediated simultaneous communication appeared to retard group decision-making when contrasted with face-to-face communication. In addition, this - mode of ccmmunication fos+=red greater equality Ln participation rat~s among group members, ~ncr=~=eS the number of inflammatory or "uninhibited" remarks and resulted in group decisions which deviated to a greater extent from initial individual choices than was the case hen ~mn~nication was face-t~fa~. fit shed be not that the subjects ho participate ~ these grads tract no prior association with one another.) Findings frown the condition In Rich subitems communicated - - , - ~ - , ~ by computer mail were similar in most respects to the computer-mediated "conference" mode. Implications for Space Station Communication Systems The implications of the findings of Siegel et al. (1986) for decision-making and grasp problem solving aboard the space station are intriguing, though speculative. First, it would appear that complex problem-solving tasks, especially when time to solution is critical, are facilitated most by face-to-face communications even though this modality increases inequality On participation rates. m e role of video connections in approximating face-to-face communication where physical cc presence is not pass ale (as between crew members and family members or between crew members and mission control) has yet to be fully investigated. Tempted research suggests that video contact (which is available to both parties) reduces perceived "social distance," but the role of perceived social distance in complex group p~blem-solving is not clear. Research varying both the complexity of the task and the degree to which face-to-face contact is mediated is needed. Results Bin ~ the effects of communication mode on participation rates also requires further investigation in relation to task complexity and degree of task interdependence. the greater equality in participation rater fostered by computPr-mediation may be functional for forks requiring creative solutions (or *tiring the "brainstorming" phase of group problem-solving) when maximization of input is essential. Computer-mediation may also mitigate to some extent the effects of scats= differences on participation rates (a wel1-est~hlished finding in the small grc ups literature, see Bales work on the link between status and power and prestige orders and
343 participation rates). mOugh ache findir~ cony the impact of utPr-mediation on participation ratPs am its implications for the reducer effect of status differences is Speculative, it certainly ~ further investigation. Sties in which clear status differences exist among g~up my need to be corx3uct~ prize settlers. _ a _ ~ ~ ~ _ C~uter-~r~iation may facilitate the "hard cry or negative probation or information that challenges the positions of those ~ high status roles in the group. This effect is important since urger time pressure or In stressful situations ~ formation is often critical to effective decision- ki ~ . Experimental research and simulation studies could be oonJucbed on this topic. It appears that computer-mediation may mitigate the inhibiting effects of face-to-face ccmmunication when "subordinates" have across to critical information and may need to challenge authority or the group ts dominant decision strategy (see Foushee, 1982, 1984, etc.~. Connors (1985~174), for example, cites ray indicatir~g that '"correctable pilot errors have gone uncorrected because of unquestioning attires, a lack of assertiveness, or deficient c~rn~nication skills." Another intriguing ray city by Connors (1985:197) was Obtained bar ~ npness (1971) indicating that people are more likely to change their established positions on issues and reach a compromise with other group members when communication is not mediated. This may have important implications for both the process and outcome of group decision-m2Xing aboard the space station. Alterations in the norms surrcun~ing communication content under varying communication modes also need further investigation. The normative rem tra~nts of face-to-face interaction on communication content are lessened in the more anonymous condition in which computers mediate interaction. AS Siegel et al. (1986) note, cc mputer-mediated communications included more inflammatory remarks. If this finding is observed An groups which have a history of interaction, then computer-mediation could foster interpersonal conflict and mechanisms to meliorate this possibility would have to be developed. . .. . . . _ . . . . . A related concern Is the protection of privacy in communications meant for family and friends, especially communications high in socio-emotional content. All forms of mediated = ication raise issues of access as well as privacy which need careful examination in relation to individual morale, group cohesiveness and other dimensions related to the interpersonal environment within the space station. Connors (1985:197) cite= studies indicating that mediated communication contains "reduced socio-emotional content," and thus is less effective for certa m types of tasks such as negotiation or getting acquainted in contract to tasks which require "the giving and receiving of information, asking questions, or exchanging c pinions." Research on space station communications and the impact of comput~r-mediation an the performance of different types of tasks, as well as the nature of the ~nter~sonal Panics within the crew and between crew and Grad is newer.
344 ivi*u~ arm Group Ever Facts of ~uter-M~iated Fornication Networks Herr arm Hiltz (1982) discuss the potential impacts of u~r-m~iated c~nications on individuals and grams focusing on cognitive, affective and b~srior~ dimensions. they are concerned with broad effects at the organizational arm societal lesrels, many of which go for beyond the scope and size of the space station. S we of the hypothesized effects have been verified in research discussed above by Kiesler and her colleagues (Siegel et al., 1986), kilt many of the topics raised by Kerr and Hiltz have not been subjects to systematic ~ rch. harsher ~ re, much of the evidence they cite is anealot~1, based on the experiences of those in positions to evaluate existing camputer-mediat-~ communication networks. Cough cc mput~r-~;ated communication networks of various sizes have existed for at least a decade, research examining the effects on specific variables related to group function m g and organizational effectiveness is fairly recent. With respect to individual performance, Kerr and Hiltz (1982) discuss such issues as information Overload, new skill requirements and improvements, expansion of learning opportunities, etc. as potential cognitive impacts of comput~r-mediated communication systems. Hypothesized affective impacts include: enhancement of the candor of opinions, potential "addiction" and heavy mange, increased network size and possible sources of social support (from kin, friends, and professionals), the ability to maintain friendships despite lack of geographical proximity, etc. Negative potential consequences discussed include ~n~'P=C~ isolation from non-mediat^~ communication relations, new sources of stress related to changes in existing patterns of work and communication as well as alterations in social networks, and the frustration created by the lack of immediate feedback, etc. Hiltz (1979) , however, not== that in same cases, "The desire to have truly synchronous conferences seems to almost tot~1lv disappear as ewnerien~= is gained on the system." Of the individual-level behavioral impacts discussed, several are of primary interest. First, it is clan' that computer-m-~;ated networking increases connecbe~ness among individuals thus expanding the scope and range of social relationships. According to Kerr and Hiltz (1982:114), computer-m£diated communication systems lead to "increased collegial contacts, an increase in the number of contacts that can be maintained, and create the opportunity for regular connections with many people." Expansion of the actual or perceived social network through computer-mediateS communication systems may help mitigate the sense of isolation experienced by space station inhabitants. Results indicate that a major strength of such systems is the ability to "keep ~ touch with others" (see Herr and Hiltz, 1982:114, 31allee et al., 1978:~-115~. In accretion, such systems seem to alter the centrality of individuals by allay ring those geographically (or for other reasons) on the periphery to regain a sense of centrality through Increased communication contact. Grcup-level impacts are especially relevant to space station design. Kiesler's work addresses some of the issues related to group ~ , ~ _ _ ~ ~
345 decision-making contrasting computPr-mediated communication with face-to-face groups. However, Herr and Hiltz (1982:121-122) identify a wide range of other group and organizational level impacts, some of which correspond to Kiesler's concerns. the group-level hypothesized cognitive impacts include: (~) the creation of "on-1ine" groups or 'communities of int~rmSttt, (2) improved group decisions, and (3) an increase in "knowledge-based authority," etc. With respect to group decisions, the findings cited are mixed. On the positive side results suggest that the capabilities of data base searches, increased ads to information and access to decision-aides enhance group problem-solving and decision-making. As Turoff and Hiltz (1980:123) indicate "the cc mputer can aid in gathering subjective estimates within a group" and facilitate the resolution of disagreements. While Kerr end Hiltz (1982) indicate some empirical support for "at least the same qualify of solution" den ~arir~g cc~uter-mediated to face-t~face grumps (Turnoff, 1980; Hiltz et al. 1981~; Kiesler et al. (1984) and Siegel et al. (1986) report a decrement at least with rasped to time to solution for the ~uter-mediat~ grips. Others, Barr and Hiltz (1982) note, (SAC J6hans~ et al., 1979) argue that more conflict may result face the increased access to alternative vim and that a "false sense of Have consensus" mav arise (Barr arm Hiltz 1982:125). ., a. . __ _ ~ ~ , On group prciblem-solving Burr arm Hiltz (1982:124) cite the work of Lipinski et al. (1980:158-159) which suggests that when considering, the "~k-focused c=~cations ~i~ by groups involved in joint prdblen solving, ~uter-bas~ Fornication systems are appropriate in the structuring, evaluating, and locating phases of problem solving, since time delays are acceptable, written rinses are appropriate, ark face-t~face contact is not essential." However, they go on to state thErt He "implementing, s~r~, and conceptualizing stages of problem solving are less amenable to this technology." More resort Is never concerning the phases of prdblern solving and the effects of cc~nputer mediation. The following list includes same of the hypothesized behavioral ilr pacts on grad identified by Burr ark Hiltz (1982:132-133). Many have not been sufficiently investigated to praise definitive evidence. (Adapted fan Burr and Hiltz:) 1. 2. 3. 4. Cauterized Fornication Uses cross~group c~nication. It incises lateral network linkages armors organizations. It incenses Bateau network Mirages within organizations. Catheterized Fornication may Charge social struck from pyramid or hierarchical to net~rk-shap~l. 5. It Ranges He c~tr~ity of fibers within grips. 6. 7. 8. It increases the possible Span of control. It can increase tile effective limits on the size of working grips. It Onuses the Persia of social networks, increasing connect~ness. 9. It increases Opportunities for decentralized c~nication. 10. Winterized Fornication may increase informal cc~nications. 11. It Farces who tows to Awn.
346 12. Groups take longer to reach agreement and consensus is less likely. 13. Computerized communication scmetim£s mats it difficult to focus . . . c 1scusslons. 14. Regularity of indivi*u21 participation is sometimes difficult to enforce. 15. There is greater equality of participation than An conventional media. Communication Network Structure, Centrality and Power Prior research on communication networks In the social sciences provided evidence that the specific configuration or structure of the network affected the efficiency of problem solving groups. But more recent research tents to indicate that these results may not be valid for mandated communication systems. Subjects in various fcur-person network structures, given telephone contact capabilities, were able to come to consensus on group decision problems without much variation in degree of consensus or t;~ to achieve consensus across structures (see Frie~kin ark Cook, 1987). Results freon the co~put~r-mediated version of this e~per;,nent are not yet complete. Centrality has been Tire to ocher in various studio= of communication at in networks in which r~r~ other than information are unharmed (see Furman, 1979; Cook et al., 1983~. ~ c ~ puter-m ~ lath corns nication networks centralizer is lir ~ to ache ss to information an] control over the flow of information. To the extent that computer-mediation alters these parameters decentralization of power may I. Peso arch is needed which examines the relationship between the structure of the communication network an] control over information channels. Certainly as Kerr and Hiltz (1982:150) indicate "opportunities for decentralized communication are increased" in computer-mf~;ated networks, "becalm=- it is easier to keep all those concerned with issues informed and up to date." Thus the efficient flow of information is enhanced. But efficient decision-ma-ding in grc ups in which commune cation is computer-m£diated may require structured access to information rather than open access during the final stages of decision-making. Levels of access to information rather than the availability of communication channels becomes the critical determinant of positional centrality and thus power in this circumstance. Further research on these topics is needed. Communication Networks, Authority and Control Kerr and Hiltz (1982:125), among others, predict that computerized communication increases the "appreciation of knowledge- rather than hierarchical authority." If this result is general, it will be Important to study the conditions under which conflict can arise between knowledge-based and hierarchical authority structures. Efficient group functioning and problem solv m g is likely to be enhanced when there is minimal conflict between these sources of
347 authority. Furthermore, hierarchical authority and command systems must be designed in such a way that information flow is not tightly hierar~hic,~ly stn~cb~. As noted above, in particular, in systems involving highly tra wed professionals the upward flow of critical information must not be circumvented by bureaucratic praceduras or restricted communication channels. Maximization of group productivity and problem solving efficiency is likely to occur under conditions of open access to communication channels rather than strict hierarchical access under conditions of complex tasks, high uncerta sty and a highly professionalized staff. ~ '~ - b~l~lC ~ on opts =~tive authority structures urKler varying animation network stricture are] task conditions is r~i~. With respect to authority anal control in systems using ~uter-mediated communication networks, two additional impacts city by Kay and Hiltz (1982:150-151) are relevant. May argue (p. 150) that "greater delegation of authority is possible winch the capacitor for account~hili~r and reprising decisions ~ a timely and orderly mariner." Secorx], they argue (p. 151) that it "in~ase5 the possible span of control" ark "allayers more centralized control oven geographically disper ~ units." Computerized d~<ision-aid~= have ache potential to alter both accountability and review procedures, but the specific extent and optimum role of these systems ~ human decision-making has yet to be determined. Extension of the span of control and the degree of centralized control over units dispersed in space may become more important considerations Caring the post:-IOC phase of the space station program. Some of these issues am they relate to the potential for intergroup conflict have been addressed by Michener in his chapter in this volume. - me Unpack of ~t~r~iated Interaction: Research Needs Re ~ a ~ on the impacts of ~ te Unmediated interaction on individual and grcup-level functioning is relatively new. There are major limitations to existing knowledge in this area; results are more often based on anecdotal reports than systematic research or are derived from very limited observations aver limited time spans An situations In which there is little control over the relevant variables. A major research program is required. Of particular importance in the design of space station configuration_ and communication systems is research on the links between information access channels and the exercise of authority and control. Varicus factors make the space station unique: the high degree of professionalization of the staff, the complexity of the tasks involved, the high degree of interdependence and uncerta Sty surrounding many of the tasks to be accomplished, the enormous ~ formation requirements, the difficulty and complexity of continual on-line monitoring, the spatial separation of the ground-based crew and command personnel from the space crew, and the potential existence of multiple authority structures. -
348 Existing relearn is focused on earth bash Fornication networks primarily a~r~g colleagues or remote xnb~s of interest gray where the exercise of authority is rarely an issue. Information expunge is frequently the primary or sole goal of the interaction. Thus e~crapolation foam the r ~ ts of s ~ ies on these networks must be treated as highly speculative. New research must be designed around the specific problems and parameters facing crews in space. Simulations could be designed which would mirror some of the most critical circumstances and used to evaluate alternative network structures, systemic of controlled versus c pen access to information, seven different tulles and levels of complex tasks. Problem solving Decency and group productivity woula He a primary focus of the Usury, although other issues sup as increase social c~runi~tion between crew melters an] ground personnel would also need to be addressed ~ terms of the impact on mission success, broadly defined. Priority should be place] on the development an] evaluation of on-~ne data collection systems for post-IOC space station missions and other long-~uration, 'reannex" missions concern mg the multiple impacts of computer-mediated communication systems. _ - . am_ e 8 _ ~ , 8 8, . Summary Statement Concerning Research Needs The 1986 Challenger disaster was as much a failure in organizational decision-m2Xing as a technical failure in the right rocket booster on ache shuttle. This fact atoms to the envy in organizational condoms for scientists and managers to focus attention primarily on the technological aspens of systems rancher then the social aspens of system design. Historically, ~ Me social scions=, as well as the physical sciences, productivity has been viewed furrily as a problem of ~hnim~1 system or organizational design and innovation. those Ho design and evaluate complex systems which rewire human pa~cicipation, hammerer, ~ st eventually recognize the significant role of psychological and social factors in productivity. Human factors are now incorporated in NASA's research program, but this is a recent and fairly ~m~11 beginn mg given the time frame within which research commitments are necessarily made. My recommendations assume that technical and social systems can not be designed in isolation of one another arm that interdisciplinary research High cusses the invisible bouncy between the physical and social sciences is rewired. `=ignir~ apace stations which are maximally habitable and which optimize human comfort, satisfaction and pa ~ ctivity and m ~ Size the sense of isolation ark ache stresses associated with risk and uncerta sty, as well as the potential for ~ntra-grcup and ~nter-group conflict is as critical a goal as the flawless design of structures which will provide the technical support for "life aloft". Research on many critical ~ of social system design is simolv - ~- In Dart this is because the technologies under , _ _ _ , ~ , _ ~ ~ __ _ Be, _~ nck available. _ , ~ -_ _ ~ _ consideration are new (e.g. computer-m£diated networks to facilitate interpersonal ccmmunication are relatively recent); but also in part,
349 this state of the art is a function of national priorities arm budgetary constraints. Hopefully, this situation will change. The quality of life in space in the t~r~ty-first century will hinge upon decisions we may during this decade as to wit reseat is necessary to T~mize not only productivity, the bott~n line for many, but also less tangible qualities such as habitability, sociability and livability. The space station is, after all, a place to be inhabited, a mini-society which at some not too distant time in the future must begin to cope with not only the technologist requirements of its environment, but also the psychological and social newt of its i ~ itants and the social constraints and requirements of an emerging s ~ icily. Recruitment, selection, training, sustenance an] replacement of persons will be as critical as the maintenance and replacement of Pal. The following is an Abbreviated list of research newt (see Table 1) which I have suggested in the text of this report related to social factors involved An space station design during the post-IOC phase. The emphasis in this report has been placed on issues related to stress, its causes and consequence=, and the impacts of c~uter-m~iated c~nication systems (since that is currently the primary Modality envisioned. ) I heave only scratched the surface. In conclusion, it is important to note that as with many of the r~ear~hpr~r~; of NINA ar~Un~versi=-based scientists, the benefits to be derived freon the pry research extend far beyond the limits . . · . . . - purposes of future spa ~ station missions. Improved methods for coping with multiple stressors in hostile environments and a better understanding of the social and psychological effects of computer-m-~;ated communication systems have great potential applicability in a wide range of human social contexts. m e payoffs for society as we know it on earth are potentially even greater than the payoffs for life as we envision it on space stations in the next century.
350 ABLE 1 Self Research New: Social Factors ~ ivity I~-l~ration Space Station Missions Social stress, Eon Activity am Group E~tionir~: (1) Develop more oc~z~sive arm praise neasu~ of stress levels for situations i~lvir~ multiple stressorse (2) Pesear~ arm develop stress Ditorir~ A, on-lir~ data acll~ion pros, arxt more Abusive measures of stress. (3) At r~ ~ ;~rsanal characteristics= (~.g. personality divisions, Gerber, e=.) awl -Pacific responses to str~;s and adaptations to stress on lo duration Span station m, cci=S. (7) (4) Amine gr=2p composition factors Rich maximize efficient group functioning ~ multiple stressors. (5) Prearm ~ Pacific iacts of t ins of multiple str~sors ~ irxtivi~1 arm grow deci_icn-0ci~ pa. Assess the effectiveness of different ocp~ strategies arxt decision aides urger v~yir~ levels of stress arm c~inatia~ of stepsons. (6) E~1 r~ an He camps of stress to in`:lu~ as well as Ecological arx! p~siol~ical faiths social factors such as gram size, gram cc~ositian, division of 1~, workload, Empties of equity in the ~ccignme~ of tasks arm ~;ibilities, styles of leadership, type arm Dane of Stack with significant others, etc. on lam - uratian missions. Begin to develop process wars which relate stress to i*xtivi~ performance and griever h~tionir~ arm specify the asr~itims Sexier whim the ~ of ir~ivi~1 ~rforma~e seriously Apses= group Tinier. iated ~icati~ As, Eon ~ctivit,, arm Alp tianir~: (1) ~ em research cn me social Pacts of a~t~iated = cation gistE; on irxtivi~al decisi~-naki~ and group pmblem solvers. (2) Investigate the effects of cxn~r~iatioa~ in relation to Of phases of group problem solvers, oapplexity of the tasks am variations in the levels of envi~ta1 stress am A. (3) C~ct demean can canp~ter~;~ted Fornication Stems am ~ distribution of poser arm authority. lr~restigate in particular the potential for conflict between knthrledge~ and hieratical authority structure and Off link between centrality arm the exen:ise of pager arm influence. (4) Tr~restigate the E=ter~tial a= of Alter radiated canmu~cation between crew Airs am significant athers ~ earth atter~ir~ to issues of privacy, social support arm the effects on responses to isolation, nfi~rit arm ~ r stressors on apace station missions. In the future, research the differential impacts on individual performance and group functioning of various types of mediated ~`u.uDnication systems (including audio and video channels). (6) Examine factors related to communication Orbits and aortas to cereal mcation channels which inhibit the upward flow of critical information (especially negative information) and mechanisms which circumvent this E,~1em. (7) Consider the effects of computer-mediated communication on the relations between crew members and ground personnel and between crews of different modules With respect to the potential for intergroup conflict and develop mechanisms to mitigate conflict.
351 F~RENGF~ Baddeley, A. D. 1972 Selective attention and performance ~ dangerous environments. British Journal of Psychology 63:537-546. Belle, D. 1982 m e stress of caring: women as providers of social support. Pp. 496-505 in L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, ens., Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and C1 mimal Aspects. New York: The Free Press. Biersner, R. J., and Hogan, R. 1984 Personality correlates of adjustment in isolated work groups. Journal of Research in Personality 18:491-496. Breznitz, S., and Goldberger, L. 1982 Stress research at a crossroads. Pp. 3-6 On L. Goldberger and S. Brezn~tz, eds., Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Cl~nir=1 Aspects. New York: The Free Press. Broadbent, D. E. 1971 Decision and Stress. CaplanJ G. J and Killilea M., -do. 1976 Support Systems and Putual Help: Explorations. New York: Grune and Stratton. New York: Academic. Multidisciplinary Champness, B. G. 1971 Bargaining at Bell Laboratories. Paper E/71270/CH, Communication Sues Group, London, England. Clearwat~r, Y. 1985 A human place ~ cuter space. 34-43. Psychology Today. July, Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., and Yamagishi, T. 1983 The distribution of power in exchange networks: theory and ~ ~ American Journal of Sociology expert 1 results. 89:275-305. Cooper, C. L., ed. 1983 Stress Research: Issues for the Eighties. Chicest~r: John Wiley & Sons.
352 Cooper, C. L., and Payne, 1978 Stress at Work. R. Chicester: J6hn Wiley & Sons. Connors;, M. M., Harrison, A. A., arm Atkins, F. R., - a. 1985 Living Aloft: Iran Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. W~ton D.C., VIA. Danford, G. S., Ericson, J. E., Freeran, H. Lewis Jr., W. C., Sc~hoor~oven, C. K., Sims, Wellens, A. R., and Wise J. A. 1983 humane space stations. Pp. 63-95 in Autonc~7 and the Ivan Elenent In Suace. Final Resort of the ~SA/ASEE: Sammy Faculty Workshop, NASA. Dohre~rend, B. S. and Ddhrer~r~, B. P. J ., Hays , D. G., H. P., Walsh, P. J., 1974a Overview and prompts for r~r~ on stressful life events. Pp. 313-331 ~ B. S. Dohrerw~ and B. P. Dcibr~r~, eds., Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects. Near York: Wiley. Dohrenwend, B. S. and Bohr ~ end, B. P., eds. 1974b Stressful life Events: Their Nature and Effects. New York: Wiley. 1984 Stressful rife Events and Their Contexts. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Duffy, E. 1962 Activation and Behavior. New York: M~Graw-Hill. Foush^=, C. 1982 the role of communications, socio-psychologi~1 and personality factors in the maintenance of crew coordination. Aviation, Soace, and Environmental Medicine 53:1062-1066. 1984 Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: factors affecting group process arxl aircrew perfor~nc-~. American Psychologist 39:885-893 Foushee, C. and Helmreich, R. L. 1987 Group interaction and flightcrew performance. 1b appear in E. L. Wiener and D. C. Nagel, Is., Iran Factors in Modern Aviation. New York: Academic P=ss (forthcoming). Freeman, L. C. 1979 Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:215-239.
353 F~i~ki=, N., and Cook, K. S. 1987 fornication Network Stances and Social Influence Excess== In Small ~oblen-Solving Groups. To be presented at the annual meetir~s of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August, 1987. Glass, D. C. 1977 Behavior Patterns, Stress end Coronary Disease. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Hel~eic h, R. L. 1983 Applying psychology ~ outer Apace: w fulfilled promises revisited. Pp. 445-450 On American Psychologist. April. Helmreich, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., and Range, T. E. 1980 Psychological considerations ~ future space missions. Pp. 1-23 in T. S. Cheston and D. L. Winters, eds., Human Factors of Out ~ Space Production. Boulder' Colorado: Wes~view Press. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, R., and Turoff, M. 981 The quality of group decision-making in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Toronto, Canada. Holmes, T. H., and Rahe, R. H. 1967 m e social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11:213-218. Holroyd, K. A. and Lazarus, R. S. 1982 Stress, Coping, and Somatic Adaptation. Pp. 21-35 ~ - L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, eds., Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Cl Apical Aspects. New York: The Free Press. Janis, I. L. 1972 Victims of Groupthink. New York: E arc curt, Brace. 1982 Decisionmaking under stress. Pp. 69-87 ~ L. Goldberger and S. Brezn~tz, ens., Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: m e Free Press. Janis, I. L., Defares, P. B., and Grossman, P. 1982 Hypervigilant reactions to threat. In H. Selye, ea., Selye's Guide to Stress Research. Vol. 3. New York: Van Nostrand. Johansen, R., Vallee J., and Spangler, K. 1979 Electronic Maatings: Technological Alternatives and Social Choices. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mess.
3S4 Kerr, E. B., and Hiltz, S. R. 1982 Pp. 114-151 ~ ~ter-Miadiated Cation Systems: Sta~-= and Evaluation. New York: Academic Ens. Kessler, R. C. ~ ark Mood, J. D. 1984 Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. American Sociologic Reviser 49: 620-631. Kessler, R. C., ark florae Jr., J. A. 1981 Trots in the relationship between sex and pi hological distress: 1957-1976. American Sociological Reviser 46: 443-452 . Kiesler, S., Siegel J., and M~Guire, T. W. 1984 Social psychological aspects of ccmput~r-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39:1123-1134. Levme, S., and Scotch N. A., eds. 1970 Social Stress. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Lipinski, H., Spang S., and Tydeman, J. 1980 Supporting task-focused communication. Pp. 158-160 in A. R. Benenfeld and E. J. KazlausXas, ens., Communication Information: Proceedings of the 43rd ASIS Annual Meeting. Knowledge Industry Publication: White Plains, New York. Meddler, G. 1967 Invited commentary. In M. H. Appley and R. Trumbull, eds., Psychological Stress: Issues In Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1982 Stress and thought processes. Pp. 88-104 in L. Goldberger and S. Erezn~tz, eds., Handbook of Stress: m eoreti~1 and Clinical ~ s. New York: m e Free Press. Pearl m, L. 1982 The social context of stress. Pp. 367-379 in L. Goldberger and S. Brezn~tz, eds., Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: me Free Press. Selye, H. 1936 A syn~rc=e produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature 138:32. 1956 The Stress of Life. New York: M~Graw-Hill. 1974 Stress Without Distress. Philadelphia: Lipp~ncott. Siegel, J., Dubr~vsky, V., Kiesler, S., and Require, T. W. 1986 Group processes in computer-meSiated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 37:157-187.
355 Simes, D. K., and Sirsky, P. A. 1985 Human factors: an exploration of the psychology of human-cc mputer dialogues. On H. R. Hartson, ea., Advances Human-Computer Interaction 1:49-103. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp. Thoits, P. A. 1981 Undesirable life events and psychophysiological distress: a problem of operational confounding. Review 46:97-109. American Sociological Turoff, M. 1980 Management Issues in Human Communication Via Computer. Presented at the Stanford Conference on Office Automation. Stanford, California. Turoff, M., and Hiltz, S. R. 1980 Structuring ~x~munications for the Office of the Future. Presented at the National Computer Office Automation Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. Valice, J., Jchansen, R., Iipinski, H., Spangler, K., and Wilson, T. 1978 Group Communication Through Computers 4:Rep. R-40. Institute for the Future, Halo Park, California.
