Astronaut organization in spaceflight missions

Selection, training, cohesion and psychosocial adaptation influence performance and, as such, are relevant factors to consider while preparing for costly, long-duration^{[ clarification needed ]} spaceflight missions in which the performance objectives will be demanding, endurance will be tested and success will be critical.

During the selection of crew members, throughout their training and during their psychosocial adaptation to the mission environment, there are several opportunities to encourage optimal performance and, in turn, minimize the risk of failure.

The STS-131 crew members pose for a portrait in the Cupola of the International Space Station while Space Shuttle Discovery remains docked with the station. Pictured counter-clockwise (from top left) are NASA astronauts Alan Poindexter, commander; James P. Dutton Jr., pilot; Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, Rick Mastracchio, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) astronaut Naoko Yamazaki, NASA astronauts Clayton Anderson and Stephanie Wilson, all mission specialists.

Individual selection and crew composition

Evidence linking crew selection, composition, training, cohesion or psychosocial adaptation to performance errors is uncertain. Many NASA-backed studies regarding spaceflight, as well as space analogs, emphasize the need to consider these factors. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} The research on performance errors caused by team factors is ambiguous and currently, no systematic attempt has been undertaken to measure performance errors due to psychosocial team factors during space flight.

As a result, evidence does not help identify what is needed to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. Ground-based evidence demonstrates that decrements in individual and team performance are related to the psychosocial characteristics of teamwork. Also, there are reasons to believe that ground support personnel and crew members experience many of the same basic issues regarding teamwork and performance. ^{[2] [6] [7]}

The study of performance errors implies that human actions may be simplified into a dichotomy of "correct" or "incorrect" responses. It has been argued that this dichotomy is a harmful oversimplification, and that it would be more productive to focus on the variability of human performance and how organizations can manage that variability. ^[8]

There are two particular problems that occur when focusing on performance errors:

• errors are infrequent and therefore, are difficult to observe and record
• the errors do not correspond to failure

Research shows that humans are fairly adept at correcting or compensating for performance errors before such errors result in recognizable or recordable failures. ^[8] Most failures are recorded only when multiple errors occur and are not preventable. ^[9]

Selection

For NASA's purposes, a team is commonly understood to be a collection of individuals that is assigned to support and achieve a particular mission. One way of selecting for teams is to identify those individuals who are best suited to work in teams, ensuring that each individual team member possesses the qualities and skills that lend themselves to optimal teamwork. Many organizations use competency frameworks to select individuals utilizing a "team-working" competency that measures how an individual works with other team members (support, knowledge sharing, etc.). ^[10] These "teamwork" competencies have been shown to help predict individual performance in teams.

Efforts have been made within spaceflight operations to identify factors that are important for selecting individual crew members for long duration spaceflight. ^{[2] [4] [6] [11] [12] [13] [14]} There has also been an analytical study to identify the skills necessary for long and short duration missions to inform the initial astronaut candidate selection process. ^[12] In this study, twenty experts (including astronauts) rated 47 relevant skills on criticality and another 42 environmental and work demands on their probability of occurrence.

This resulted in 10 broad factors that were deemed important for long-duration missions:

• performance under stressful conditions
• mental/emotional stability
• judgement/decision making
• teamwork skills
• conscientiousness
• family issues
• group living skills
• motivation
• communication skills
• leadership capabilities

These factors somewhat overlap with those identified in previous peer-rating studies which suggest both a job competence and an interpersonal dimension for astronaut performance. ^{[15] [16]}

There is a lack of data that related performance to team composition and cohesion due to the evolution of job duties and selection practices over the history of manned spaceflight as well as the limited number of astronauts actually selected (340 U.S. astronauts to date). These issues are relevant to other space agencies as well. In 1990, a European astronaut working group reevaluated selection criteria for the selection of European astronauts as Russian researchers have collected personality data on cosmonauts for a number of years. ^[17] The empirical linking of personality factors to specific performance levels still eludes researchers.

Table 2-1. Summary of Findings Presented for Selection

Source	Predictor	Outcome	Context	Evidence Type
Sandal, 1999 [18]	Teamwork competencies	Improved individual performance in teams	Space flight	Category III
McFadden et al., 1994 [15]	Teamwork competencies	Improved individual performance in teams	Ground-based	Category III
Jones et al., 2000 [19]	Factors: Skilled at training and articulating their roles to others, at compromising, and at helping other team members as well as understanding effective team processes	Higher team performance	Ground-based	Category III
Bell, 2007 [20]	Average team general mental ability	Higher team performance	Ground-based	Category I
Bell, 2007 [20]	Big Five personality factors	Higher team performance	Ground-based	Category I
Barrick et al., 1998 [21]	Team average general mental ability, and extroversion and emotional stability	Higher team effectiveness	Ground-based	Category II
Chidester et al., 1991 [22]	"Right stuff" personality cluster	Increased teamwork ability	Ground-based	Category II
Stuster, 1996 [23]	Personality characteristics (e.g., social compatibility, emotional control, patience, etc.)	Increased teamwork ability	Analog	Category III

Composition

Table 2-2. Summary of Findings Presented for Crew Composition

Source	Predictor	Outcome	Context	Evidence Type
Allen and West, 2005 [24]	Lack of members low in agreeableness or extroversion	Higher-performing teams	Ground-based	Category II
Barry and Stewart, 1997 [25]	High proportion of members who were extroverted	Higher-performing teams	Ground-based	Category II
Harrison et al., 1998; [26] McGrath, 1984 [27]	Deep-level similarity	Increased team cohesion	Ground-based	Category II
Edwards et al., 2006 [28]	Deep-level similarity	Higher long-term performance	Ground-based	Category II
Schmidt et al., 2004 [29]	Perceptions of Leadership effectiveness	Improved general satisfaction of team with work, performance, and each other	Ground-based	Category III

Influences on team performance

Positive influences on team performances

• Select individuals who are more capable of performing well in a team ^[21]
• Different team compositions better facilitate different types of performance ^[30]
• Training individual team skills and training teams together encourages better individual and team performance ^{[31] [32] [33]}
• Teams that are more cohesive demonstrate better performance than less cohesive teams ^[34]
• Better teamwork increases the likelihood of recovery and survival in the event of a malfunction or error ^{[35] [36]}
• Members of more cohesive teams demonstrate better individual performance and report more physical and psychological resilience under duress ^{[37] [38] [39] [40]}
• Individuals and teams perform better and maintain high performance and good health longer when they adapt more quickly and effectively to the stressors that are inherent in a psychosocial environment ^{[35] [41] [42] [43]}
• Psychosocial factors that influence teamwork and performance in traditional work environments appear in the space exploration work environment ^[44]

Negative influences on team performances

• Negative consequences (e.g., incomplete objectives, lost time) that are related to interpersonal stressors such as isolation, confinement, danger, monotony, inappropriate workload, lack of control group composition-related tensions, personality conflicts, and leadership issues have been observed on previous long-duration missions ^[45]
• Interpersonal stressors, which are cumulative over time, pose a greater threat to performance and team success as work duration increases ^{[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]}

Training

Long-duration space flights are so physically, mentally and emotionally demanding that simply selecting individual crew members who have the "right stuff" is insufficient. ^[51] Training and supporting optimal performance is more effective than simply selecting high performers. ^[52] Training team skills and supporting optimal performance entails more than educating astronauts about the technical aspects of the job, it also requires equipping those astronauts with the resources that are needed to maintain psychological and physical health during long-duration spaceflight missions.

Developing the right kind of training for team skills is further complicated by operational issues. Not all tasks that will or may be encountered can be anticipated. Unexpected tasks can, and have, arise suddenly. Team training needs to be broad and flexible enough to support these unexpected performance requirements.

Cohesion

Group cohesiveness has been defined as the strength of members' motivations to stay in the group. ^[53] Leon Festinger cited three primary characteristics that define team cohesion: interpersonal attraction, task commitment and group pride. Studies to determine the strength or willingness of individuals to stick together and act as a unit have most consistently assessed the level of conflict, degree of interpersonal tensions, facility and quality of communications, collective perceptions of team health and performance of the group, and the extent to which team members share perceptions or understandings concerning their operational context.

Researchers at the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) noted in their recent review of cohesion as a construct, that the definitions of cohesion is ambiguous; therefore, the means of measuring cohesion is complex. The ARI authors concluded that "cohesion can best be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of numerous factors representing interpersonal and task dynamics. ^[34] There is a large body of ground-based evidence showing cohesion influences levels of performance, but this evidence is primarily correlational rather than causal.

Cohesive teams are more productive than less cohesive teams. This situation could be because

• more productive teams become more cohesive,

or

• more cohesive teams become more productive.

Teams preserve their cohesion when they succeed rather than fail. Therefore, applied scientists advise it is important to promote three essential conditions for team performance:

• ability (knowledge and skills) - Team members need to have sufficient levels of interpersonal and technical skills to perform their jobs and to attain team objectives.
• motivation - Team members must also be motivated to use their knowledge and skills to achieve shared goals.
• coordination strategy - Team context (organizational context, team design, and team culture) must create conditions to avoid problems such as social loafing, free riding, or diffusion of responsibility.

These kinds of problems undermine team performance and can have detrimental effects on team cohesion (Thompson, 2002).

Research shows that cohesive teams tend to sit closer to each other, focus more attention on each other, show signs of mutual affection, display coordinated patterns of behavior as well as give due credit to their partners. Non-cohesive teams are more likely to take credit for successes and blame others for mistakes and failures. ^[54] It is important to differentiate between team cohesiveness and individual morale. An individual who has low morale can influence team cohesion, but it may be possible for a team to remain cohesive even with low-morale members.

Table 2-3. Summary of Findings Presented for Team Skills Training

Source	Predictor	Outcome	Context	Evidence Type
Guzzo et al., 1985 [55]	Training	Increasing motivation and individual performance	Ground-based	Category II
Guzzo et al., 1985 [55]	Goal-setting	Increasing motivation and individual performance	Ground-based	Category II
Arthur et al., 2003 [56]	Cognitive skills training	Improved job performance	Ground-based	Category II
Arthur et al., 2003 [56]	Interpersonal skills training	Improved job performance	Ground-based	Category II
Bradley et al., 2003 [57]	Interpersonal skills training (includes goal setting, group problem solving, team coordination, etc.)	Good supervisor ratings of team performance	Ground-based	Category II
Baker et al., 2006 [35]	Teamwork training skills	Improved surgical team performance and reduced errors	Ground-based	Category II
Powell and Hill, 2006 [58]	Teamwork and psychosocial skills training	Reductions in adverse patient outcomes, errors, etc.	Ground-based	Category III
Burke et al., 2006 [59]	Teamwork skills training	More adaptive teams	Ground-based	Category III
Marks et al. 2000 [60]	Communication and interaction skills training	Improved team performance	Lab study	Category I
Smith-Jentsch et al., 1996 [61]	Team skills training	Improved team performance	Lab study	Category I
Morgeson and DeRue, 2006 [62]	Knowledge about teamwork	Improved team performance	Ground-based	Category II
Espevik et al., 2006 [63]	Knowledge about team members	Improved team performance	Ground-based	Category II
Edwards et al., 2006 [28]	Time spent working and training as a team	Increased team contribution	Ground-based	Category III
Rasmussen and Jeppesen, 2006 [48]	Time spent training together as a team	Few conflicts and conflict-related performance deficiencies	Ground-based	Category II
Balkundi and Harrison, 2006 [64]	Teams with densely configured interpersonal ties	More committed to achieving performance goals	Ground-based	Category II
Espinosa et al., 2007 [65]	Teams with experience working together	Higher performance	Ground-based	Category II

Psychosocial experts within the spaceflight community have articulated their concern that interpersonal conflicts and lack of cohesion will impede the abilities of crews to perform tasks accurately, efficiently, or in a coordinated manner during long-duration missions. ^{[2] [4] [6]}

From the evidence, it cannot be said that lack of team cohesion is statistically likely to result in numerous performance errors or an observable failure, but it does seem likely that ignoring the relationship between cohesion and performance will result in sub-optimal performance. ^[34] We know that many factors contribute to how cohesion is built and encouraged within a team, and we know that cohesion is positively related to better performance. Research cannot effectively determine in a reasonable amount of time what minimum level of cohesion is required to avoid catastrophic failure. Instead of investing research and time in such an endeavor, funding would be better used to test and identify effective means of building cohesion and promoting optimal performance in a long-duration mission context.

Although the astronaut candidate selection process screens for individuals with personality or mood disorders, certain disorders (i.e. poor psychosocial adaptation) may develop due to poor cohesion and/or support is a concern that could ultimately decrease performance in space flight crews.

Although spaceflight evidence regarding cohesion and performance is limited by the scarcity of objective team performance data, case studies, interviews and surveys have been conducted within the spaceflight community that have provided evidence that issues pertaining to cohesion exist and are perceived as threats to effective operations. For example, breakdowns in team coordination, resource and informational exchanges, and role conflicts (all common indicators of poor team cohesion) were mentioned as contributors to both the Challenger and the Columbia space shuttle accidents. ^{[66] [67]} Likewise, interviews and surveys of flight controllers indicate that mission teams are commonly concerned with team member coordination and communications, and that interpersonal conflicts and tensions do exist. ^{[11] [68]}

Because of a lack of empirical evidence from spaceflight research, much of the evidence surrounding cohesion and performance comes from non-space domains such as aviation, medicine, the military, and space analogs. Some reports have estimated that "crew error" in aviation contributes 65% to 70% of all serious accidents. ^{[7] [69]} The resulting accident investigations and mishap reports note poor teamwork, communication, coordination, and tactical decision-making as significant causal factors in mishap samples ^[70] and team breakdowns are repeatedly implicated in accidents. ^{[71] [72]} Interpersonal conflicts, miscommunications, failures to communicate, and poor teamwork skills have been shown to contribute significantly to the rate of errors in the medical field. ^{[35] [58] [73]}

Meta-analyses conducted in various industries and types of performance teams (work, military, sport, educational, etc.) provide additional ground-based evidence that cohesion is related to performance. The authors of these meta-analyses (Evans and Dion) ^[74] found a positive correlation between cohesion and individual performance, but did not include group performance criterion measures. Mullen and Copper ^[75] found that cohesion positively affects performance. They also found that this relationship was stronger in real teams verses ad hoc teams, in small teams verses large teams as well as in field studies. Mullen and Copper ^[75] also noted that successful performance also promotes cohesion and numerous performance outcomes including individual and group performance, behavioral health, job satisfaction, readiness to perform, and absence of discipline problems.

In the later meta-analyses, it was found that as work required more collaboration, the cohesion-performance relationship became stronger and highly cohesive teams became more likely to perform better than less-cohesive teams. ^[76] This conclusion coincides with Thompson's ^[54] cumulated field study finding that cohesion facilitates team processes and team coordination among work teams in various industrial settings.

Table 2-4. Summary of Findings Presented for Cohesion

Source	Predictor	Outcome	Context	Evidence Type
Thompson, 2002	Cohesive team	Give due credit to members of team	Ground-based	Category II
Hackman, 1996 [2]	Lack of cohesion	Poor performance	Ground-based	Category IV
Merket and Bergondy, 2000 [71]	Lack of cohesion (team breakdowns)	Increased accident frequency	Ground-based	Category III
Baker et al., 2006 [35]	Lack of cohesion (interpersonal conflict, miscommunication, etc.)	Increased medical error	Ground-based	Category III
Mullen and Cooper, 1994 [75]	High cohesion (stronger for real teams)	Increased performance	Ground-based	Category I
Oliver et al., 2000 [77]	High cohesion	High individual and group performance, behavioral health, and job satisfaction	Ground-based	Category I
Thompson, 2002	High cohesion	Increased team coordination	Ground-based	Category III
Ahronson and Cameron, 2007 [78]	High interpersonal cohesion	Decreased psychological distress	Ground-based	Category II
Edwards et al., 2006 [28]	Shared mental models (SMMs)	Increased productivity	Ground-based	Category II and Category III
Bowers et al., 2002; [79] Driskell et al., 1999 [80]	Implicit coordination strategies	More effective teams (more cohesive)	Ground-based	Category I and Category II

A significant positive relationship between performance and the generalized beliefs of team members concerning the capabilities of their team across different situations. ^[81] Although most research on team cohesion and performance concentrate on the positive aspects of team attitudes, some have investigated the level of conflict and negative attitudes concerning the team as indicators of cohesion. De Dreu and Weingart ^[82] noted an important distinction between interpersonal conflict and task conflict (defined, interpersonal conflicts are about relationship issues, whereas task conflicts are about how to handle tasks).

Interpersonal conflict is generally detrimental to team cohesion, and, in turn, is destructive to team performance. While team members may correct each other, offer alternatives and argue about how to solve a problem, some level of task-related conflict can promote optimal performance. ^[83] In contrast, interpersonal and task-related aspects of cohesion are generally found to influence performance positively. A study conducted with Canadian military groups showed that task-related cohesion was positively related to individual job satisfaction, interpersonal cohesion was negatively related to reports of psychological distress, and both types of cohesion were positively related to job performance. ^[78]

Research conducted on Antarctic space analogs investigated conflict, cohesion and performance. It was found that:

• Inter-member hostility was related to the poor ratings of member effectiveness ^[40]
• Team members' perceptions of status contributed to conflicts and reduced perceptions of cohesion ^[84]
• Positive team climate and cohesion helped to reduce interpersonal tensions, contributing to work satisfaction ^[85]

This last point was studied over a ten-year period, modeling individual and group effects on adaptation to life in an extreme environment using multilevel analysis (Category III).

The military and aviation industries have focused more on task cohesion and shared mental models (SMMs) in their cohesion studies. SMMs refer to implicit agreements in team member expectations concerning how things work and what behaviors will result in various conditions and were proposed to characterize cohesive work teams. ^{[28] [31] [35]} Studies that compare performance during simulated operations and training note that

• Members of high-performing teams coordinate with one another frequently to establish, maintain and adapt SMMs as the situation evolves. ^{[28] [63] [86]}
• Teams that have little to no training on developing or coordinating SMMs demonstrate more errors and are less productive as compared to teams that have received training on building SMMs ^{[28] [31] [63]}

Leadership and cohesion

Leadership, or the ability to influence others toward achieving group goals, ^[87] may also play a role in team cohesion. Although there is an abundance of research that exists for this topic, much of it is complex and conflicting and the findings are often mixed. Many studies are at the individual level and may not generalize to the spaceflight setting. Studies have shown a supporting relationship between different types of leadership styles, individual performance and morale. ^{[88] [89]}

Additional information

• Psychological and sociological issues affecting space travel

See also

• Skylab 4

References

1. Ball, John R.; Evans, Jr., Charles H. (2001). Safe passage: astronaut care for exploration missions ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN   978-0-309-07585-5.
2. Hackman, RJ (29 April 1996). Team performance in aeronautical and space environments (PDF) (Report). NASA-CR-200947. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.: NASA.
3. Helmreich, RL (31 May 1985). "Determinants of individual and group performance" (PDF). NASA-Ames Agreement NAD 2-137 (NASA-CR-181178). NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.: NASA.
4. NASA. "Effects of confinement, social isolation, and diurnal disruption of crew adjustment and performance in long duration space missions" (PDF). NASA Order T-1082-K: NASA/JSC-CR-188280. Johnson Space Center, Houston: NASA.
5. Paletz, SBF; Kaiser, M (2007). Behavioral health and performance: technical gap analysis white papers (Report). Vol. NASA-TM-2009-215381. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.: NASA.
6. Vinograd, SP (1974). Studies of social group dynamics under isolated conditions. Objective summary of the literature as it related to potential problems of long duration space flight (PDF) (NASA/JSC-CR-2496 ed.). Johnson Space Center, Houston: NASA.
7. Lautman, LG; Gallimore, PL (1987). "Control of crew-caused accidents: results of a 12-operator survey". Airliner. 56 (10). Air Line Pilots Association: 1–6. OCLC   2251072.
8. Wears, R. L. (2006). Hollnagel, Erik; Woods, David D.; Leveson, Nancy (eds.). "Resilience engineering : concepts and precepts". Quality & Safety in Health Care. 15 (6) (Reprinted ed.). Burlington, VT: Ashgate: 447–448. doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.018390. ISBN   978-0754646419. PMC   2464899 .
9. Dismukes, RK; Berman, BA; Loukopoulos, LD (2007). The limits of expertise : rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Aldershot [u.a.]: Ashgate. ISBN   978-0754649656.
10. Rodriguez, Donna; Patel, Rita; Bright, Andrea; Gregory, Donna; Gowing, Marilyn K. (2002). "Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices". Human Resource Management. 41 (3): 309–324. doi:10.1002/hrm.10043.
11. Caldwell, BS (June 2005). "Multi-team dynamics and distributed expertise in imission operations". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76 (6 Suppl): B145-53. PMID   15943207.
12. Galarza, L; Holland, A. (July 1999). Critical Astronaut Proficiencies Required for Long-Duration Space Flight. International Conference on Environmental Systems. Denver, CO: SAE International. doi:10.4271/1999-01-2096. ISSN   2688-3627.
13. Holland, A (2000). "Psychology of human spaceflight". JHPEE. 5: 4–20.
14. Nicholas, JM; Foushee, HC (Sep–Oct 1990). "Organization, selection, and training of crews for extended spaceflight: findings from analogs and implications". Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 27 (5): 451–6. Bibcode:1990JSpRo..27..451N. doi:10.2514/3.26164. PMID   11537615.
15. McFadden, TJ; Helmreich, RL; Rose, RM; Fogg, LF (October 1994). "Predicting astronaut effectiveness: a multivariate approach". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 65 (10 Pt 1): 904–9. PMID   7832731.
16. Santy, Patricia A. (1994). Choosing the right stuff : the psychological selection of astronauts and cosmonauts (1. publ. ed.). Westport, Conn. u.a.: Praeger. ISBN   978-0275942366.
17. Kanas, N; Manzey, D (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN   978-1402067693.
18. Sandal, GM (1998). "The effects of personality and interpersonal relations on crew performance during space simulation studies". Life Support & Biosphere Science: International Journal of Earth Space. 5 (4): 461–70. PMID   11871456.
19. Jones, R; Stevens, MJ; Fischer, D (2000). "Selection in team contexts". In Kehoe, J (ed.). Managing selection in changing organizations: human resource strategies. San Francisco, Calif: Josey-Bass.
20. Bell, Suzanne T. (January 2007). "Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (3): 595–615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595. PMID   17484544.
21. Barrick, MR; Stewart, GL; Neubert MJ; Mount, MK (June 1998). "Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness". Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (3): 377–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.
22. Chidester, TR; Helmreich, RL; Gregorich, SE; Geis, CE (1991). "Pilot personality and crew coordination: implications for training and selection". International Journal of Aviation Psychology . 1 (1): 25–44. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0101_3. PMID   11539104.
23. Stuster, Jack (1996). Bold endeavors : lessons from polar and space exploration (1st Naval Institute Press pbk. ed.). Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN   978-1591148302.
24. Allen, NJ; West, MA (2005). "Selection for teams". In Evers, A; Anderson, N; Voskuijl, O (eds.). Handbook of Personnel Selection . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. pp.  476–494. ISBN   9781405117029.
25. Barry, B; Stewart, GL (February 1997). "Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 82 (1): 62–78. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.62. PMID   9119798.
26. Harrison, D. A.; Price, K. H.; Bell, M. P. (1 February 1998). "Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion". Academy of Management Journal. 41 (1): 96–107. JSTOR   256901.
27. McGrath, Joseph E. (1984). Groups : interaction and performance (PDF). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN   978-0133657005.
28. Edwards, BD; Day, EA; Arthur W, Jr; Bell, ST (May 2006). "Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 (3): 727–36. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.727. PMID   16737368.
29. Schmidt, LL; Wood, J; Lugg, DJ (August 2004). "Team climate at Antarctic research stations 1996-2000: leadership matters". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 75 (8): 681–7. PMID   15328785.
30. Mannix, E.; Neale, M. A. (1 October 2005). "What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 6 (2): 31–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x . PMID   26158478.
31. Hirschfeld, RR; Jordan, MH; Feild, HS; Giles, WF; Armenakis, AA (March 2006). "Becoming team players: team members' mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 (2): 467–74. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.467. PMID   16551197.
32. Paris, CR; Salas, E; Cannon-Bowers, JA (August 2000). "Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis" (PDF). Ergonomics. 43 (8): 1052–75. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.208.8301 . doi:10.1080/00140130050084879. PMID   10975173. S2CID   41152229.
33. Salas, E; Rhodenizer, L; Bowers, CA (2000). "The design and delivery of crew resource management training: exploiting available resources". Human Factors. 42 (3): 490–511. doi:10.1518/001872000779698196. PMID   11132810. S2CID   20526620.
34. Grice, RL; Katz, LC (2005). Cohesion in sports and organizational psychology: an annotated bibliography and suggestions for U.S. Army Aviation. Arlington, Va.: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Archived from the original on April 8, 2013.
35. Baker, David P.; Day, Rachel; Salas, Eduardo (1 August 2006). "Teamwork as an Essential Component of High-Reliability Organizations". Health Services Research. 41 (4p2): 1576–1598. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x. PMC   1955345 . PMID   16898980.
36. Shapiro, M J (December 2004). "Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum?". Quality and Safety in Health Care. 13 (6): 417–421. doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.005447. PMC   1743923 . PMID   15576702.
37. Kidwell, R. E.; Mossholder, KW; Bennett, N (December 1997). "Cohesiveness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis Using Work Groups and Individuals". Journal of Management. 23 (6): 775–793. doi:10.1177/014920639702300605. S2CID   204320831.
38. Palinkas, LA (1991). Group adaptation and individual adjustment in Antarctica: a summary of recent research. NY: Springer-Verlag.
39. Podsakoff, PM; MacKenzie, SB; Ahearne, M (1997). "Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity". Journal of Applied Psychology. 82 (6): 374–383. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.374. S2CID   145303724.
40. Vallacher, R; Seymore, G; Gunderson, E (1974). Relationship between cohesiveness and effectiveness in small isolated groups: a field study (Report 74-50 ed.). San Diego, CA: U.S. Naval Research Center. Archived from the original on April 8, 2013.
41. Gunderson, EK (March 1966). "Adaptation to extreme environments: prediction of performance. Rep No. 66-17" (PDF). Report - Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit: 1–41. PMID   5938304. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2016.
42. Lugg, DJ (1977). Physiological adaptation and health of an expedition in Antarctica, with comment on behavioral adaptation. Vol. 126. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
43. Riggio, Ronald E.; Watring, Kristin P.; Throckmorton, Barbara (1993). "Social skills, social support, and psychosocial adjustment". Personality and Individual Differences. 15 (3): 275–280. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90217-Q.
44. Kanas, N; Salnitskiy, V; Grund, EM; Gushin, V; Weiss, DS; Kozerenko, O; Sled, A; Marmar, CR (September 2000). "Interpersonal and cultural issues involving crews and ground personnel during Shuttle/Mir space missions". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 71 (9 Suppl): A11-6. PMID   10993303.
45. Kanas, N; Manzey, D (2003). Space psychology and psychiatry. El Segundo, Calif: Microcosm Press.
46. Cropanzano, R; Rupp, DE; Byrne, ZS (February 2003). "The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 88 (1): 160–9. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160. PMID   12675403.
47. Halbesleben, JR; Bowler, WM (January 2007). "Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (1): 93–106. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93. PMID   17227154.
48. Rasmussen, Thomas H.; Jeppesen, Hans Jeppe (April 2006). "Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A review". Work & Stress. 20 (2): 105–128. doi:10.1080/02678370600920262. S2CID   144948780.
49. Staal, MA (2004). Stress, cognition, and human performance: a literature review and conceptual framework (PDF) (NASA/JSC-TM-2004-212824 ed.). Johnson Space Center, Houston: NASA.
50. You, JH; Lee, SJ; Lee, HK (1998). "The influence on individual's emotional characteristics on work-related burnout experience: the emotional intelligence as a mediator to experience burnout feeling". Korean J. I/O Psychology. 11 (1): 23–52.
51. Flynn, CF (June 2005). "An operational approach to long-duration mission behavioral health and performance factors". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76 (6 Suppl): B42-51. PMID   15943194.
52. Holland, A; Hysong, S; Galarza, L (2007). A review of training methods and instructional techniques: implications for behavioral skills training in U.S. astronauts (PDF) (TP-2007-21372 ed.). Johnson Space Center, Houston: NASA.
53. Festinger, L (1950). "Informal social communication". Psychological Review. 57 (5): 175–186. doi:10.1037/h0056932. PMID   14776174.
54. Thompson, JD (1967). Organizations in action . NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN   9780070643802.
55. GUZZO, RICHARD A.; JETTE, RICHARD D.; KATZELL, RAYMOND A. (1 June 1985). "The Effects of Psychologically Based Intervention Programs on Worker Productivity: A Meta-Analysis". Personnel Psychology. 38 (2): 275–291. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00547.x.
56. Arthur, W; Bennett W, Jr; Edens, PS; Bell, ST (April 2003). "Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 88 (2): 234–45. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234. PMID   12731707. S2CID   605711.
57. BRADLEY, JOHN; WHITE, BARBARA JO; MENNECKE, BRIAN E. (2003). "Teams and Tasks: A Temporal Framework for the Effects of Interpersonal Interventions on Team Performance". Small Group Research. 34 (3): 353–387. doi:10.1177/1046496403034003004. S2CID   52841001.
58. Powell, SM; Hill, RK (January 2006). "My copilot is a nurse--using crew resource management in the OR". AORN Journal. 83 (1): 179–80, 183–90, 193–8 passim, quiz 203–6. doi:10.1016/s0001-2092(06)60239-1. PMID   16528907.
59. Burke, CS; Stagl, KC; Salas, E; Pierce, L; Kendall, D (November 2006). "Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 (6): 1189–207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189. PMID   17100478.
60. Marks, MA; Zaccaro, SJ; Mathieu, JE (December 2000). "Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (6): 971–86. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971. PMID   11125660.
61. SMITH-JENTSCH, KIMBERLY A.; SALAS, EDUARDO; BAKER, DAVID P. (1 December 1996). "Training Team Performance-Related Assertiveness". Personnel Psychology. 49 (4): 909–936. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb02454.x.
62. Morgeson, FP; DeRue, DS (2006). "Event criticality, urgency, and duration: understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention" (PDF). Leadership Quarterly. 17 (3): 271–287. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.006.
63. Espevik, Roar; Johnsen, Bjørn Helge; Eid, Jarle; Thayer, Julian F. (1 July 2006). "Shared Mental Models and Operational Effectiveness: Effects on Performance and Team Processes in Submarine Attack Teams". Military Psychology. 18 (sup3): S23–S36. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_3. S2CID   143225277.
64. Balkundi, P; Harrison, DA (2006). "Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and performance" (PDF). Academy of Management Journal. 49 (1): 49–68. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785500. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-10-30.
65. Espinosa, J. A.; Slaughter, S. A.; Kraut, R. E.; Herbsleb, J. D. (July 2007). "Familiarity, Complexity, and Team Performance in Geographically Distributed Software Development". Organization Science. 18 (4): 613–630. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0297. S2CID   12630161.
66. Columbia accident investigation board report. Washington, D.C.: NASA. 2003. Archived from the original on 2006-01-05.
67. Frontiers of space exploration (2 ed.). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. 2004. ISBN   978-0313325243.
68. Parke, B; Oransu, J; Castle, R; Hanley, J (2005). "Identifying organizational vulnerabilities in space operations with collaborative, tailored, anonymous surveys". International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Conference. 599. Nice, France: 577. Bibcode:2005ESASP.599..577P.
69. Sumwalt, R; Watson, A (2001). "What ASRS incident data tell about flight crew performance during aircraft malfunctions". Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, Ohio.
70. NTSB. "A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. Air Carriers, 1978-1990". NTSB Report No. PB 94-917001, NTSB/SS-94/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.
71. Merket, D; Bergondy, M (2000). "Making sense out of team performance errors in military aviation environments". Transport. Hum. Factors. 1 (3): 231–242. doi:10.1207/sthf0103_4.
72. Nagel, D (1988). "Human error in aviation operations". In Weiner, E; Nagel, D (eds.). Human factors in aviation. NY: Academic Press. pp. 263–303.
73. McKeon, LM; Oswaks, JD; Cunningham, PD (Nov–Dec 2006). "Safeguarding patients: complexity science, high reliability organizations, and implications for team training in healthcare". Clinical Nurse Specialist. 20 (6): 298–304, quiz 305–6. doi:10.1097/00002800-200611000-00011. PMID   17149021. S2CID   21805022.
74. Evans, C. R.; Dion, K. L. (May 1991). "Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis". Small Group Research. 22 (2): 175–186. doi:10.1177/1046496491222002. S2CID   145344583.
75. Mullen, Brian; Copper, Carolyn (January 1994). "The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration". Psychological Bulletin. 115 (2): 210–227. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210.
76. Beal, DJ; Cohen, RR; Burke, MJ; McLendon, CL (December 2003). "Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 88 (6): 989–1004. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989. PMID   14640811. S2CID   1342307.
77. Oliver, Laurel W.; Harman, Joan; Hoover, Elizabeth; Hayes, Stephanie M.; Pandhi, Nancy A. (1 March 1999). "A Quantitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature". Military Psychology. 11 (1): 57–83. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1101_4.
78. Ahronson, Arni; Cameron, James E. (2 April 2007). "The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample". Military Psychology. 19 (1): 9–25. doi:10.1080/08995600701323277. S2CID   144041619.
79. Bowers, CA; Salas, E; Asberg, K; Burke, S; Priest, H; Milham, L (2002). Combat readiness and stress: Laboratory investigations of teams. Department of Defense Multidisciplinary Research Program: MURI Operator Performance Under Stress (OPUS).
80. Driskell, James E.; Salas, Eduardo; Johnston, Joan (1 January 1999). "Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective?" (PDF). Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 3 (4): 291–302. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.3.4.291.
81. Gully, SM; Incalcaterra, KA; Joshi, A; Beauien, JM (October 2002). "A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 87 (5): 819–32. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819. PMID   12395807.
82. De Dreu, CK; Weingart, LR (August 2003). "Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 88 (4): 741–9. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741. PMID   12940412. S2CID   16345021.
83. Jehn, KA; Mennix, EA (2001). "The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudunal study of intragroup conflict and performance" (PDF). Academy of Management Journal. 44 (2): 238–251. JSTOR   3069453.
84. Dutta Roy, D; Deb, NC (21 November 2006). Role stress profiles of scientist and defence ersonnel in fifteenth Antarctic expedition. Vol. 13. Goa.: National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Department of Ocean Development. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
85. Wood, J; Schmidt, L; Lugg, D; Ayton, J; Phillips, T; Shepanek, M (June 2005). "Life, survival, and behavioral health in small closed communities: 10 years of studying isolated Antarctic groups". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 76 (6 Suppl): B89-93. PMID   15943201.
86. Wech, Barbara A. (2002). Team-member exchange and trust contexts : effects on individual level outcome variables beyond the influence of leader-member exchange. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services. ISBN   978-0493329956.
87. Avolio, BJ; Sosik, JJ; Jung, DI; Berson, Y; Borman, WC; Ilgen, DR; et al. (2003). "Leadership models, methods, and applications" (PDF). Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organization Psychology. 12. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 277–307. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei1212. ISBN   978-0471264385. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-12-24.
88. Den Hartog, DN; Koopman, PL; Anderson, N; Ones, DS; Sinangil, HK; Viswesvaran, C (2002). "Leadership in organizations" (PDF). Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol 2: Organizational Psychology. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc: 166–187. doi:10.4135/9781848608368.n10. ISBN   9780761964896.
89. Howell, Jane M.; Avolio, Bruce J. (1 January 1993). "Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 78 (6): 891–902. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891.

 This article incorporates public domain material from Human Health and Performance Risks of Space Exploration Missions (PDF). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (NASA SP-2009-3405).