Groups In Special Environments Research Paper

To date, most of the research emphasis has been on the ways in which people react to their experience (Wilson et al. 1988), on methods for preventing, minimizing, or treating negative outcomes (Holland and Curtis 1998), and on how individuals are selected and trained for some special environments, such as space and submarine missions (e.g., Santy 1994). Methods used in these efforts have included some experiments; but the emphasis has been on simulation and analogue studies, questionnaires, interviews, and the content analysis of archival materials.

Although researchers have focused on the individual, the behavior of human beings in special environments is to a great extent the story of groups. Solitary individuals have found themselves in such situations, sometimes by accident (shipwrecked mariners, sole survivors of other disasters) and sometimes on purpose (aboriginal youths on spirit quests, solo mountaineers, hermits, single-handed sailors, early astronauts, and adventurers of various sorts); but the modal inhabitants of EUEs are not alone.

Many aspects of the environment itself strongly influence group relations and behavior. Some of these are: the dangers involved, life-support equipment, duration of the stay, deviation from accustomed physical parameters (temperature, humidity, air quality and pressure, gravity, noise, crowding, comfort, the availability of food and water, and shelter), remoteness from home, the possibility of communication with one’s family and the parent organization, medical care, and rescue if needed. Whether the group is caught up in an extreme environment unwillingly, by accident or superior force, or has volunteered, and its motives for volunteering (excitement, prestige, patriotism, curiosity, money, altruism) are also significant. Last, it is useful to distinguish between organized groups (teams, crews, units) and random conglomerations of individuals who happen to be thrown together in an unusual environment.

Many issues apply only to a subset of EUE situations; for example, polar, space, undersea, and similar missions require a relatively small group to be chosen from a larger number of applicants. This is obviously less true of the recruitment of combat soldiers, and not at all of groups caught up in accident or disaster. Nevertheless, there are concerns that are common to many kinds of groups, in a range of extreme environments. It is these general aspects of group functioning in EUEs that will be covered in the subsequent examination of the existing literature.

2. Cohesiveness

One striking pattern is the deep interpersonal bonding that many groups experience, existing alongside other groups’ very high levels of friction and hostility. In extreme situations, self-sacrifice is not unusual, from Captain Lawrence Oates of Scott’s South Pole team who, when supplies were running too low to sustain the whole group, left their shelter and went off to certain death in a blizzard to the real-life hero of the World War II ballad, Rodger Young, who ‘fought and died for the men he marched among.’ Studies of combat soldiers show that their primary motivation for risking their own safety is identification with their leader and unit, and comradeship with their fellows. Soldiers who have not developed such ties—for example, recent replacements—are much more likely to fail the test of battle (Manning 1991). Even in less organized groups, such as civilians in cities undergoing aerial bombardment or a natural disaster, high levels of mutual helpfulness and feelings of solidarity are commonplace.

In capsule EUEs, being confined in a small space with the same people for a long time, under conditions of danger, discomfort, fatigue, lack of privacy, and other stressors, is a potential source of hostility. Admiral Byrd (1938), among others, reflected on the time when a colleague’s ‘pet ideas become a meaningless drool, and the way he blows out a pressure lamp or drops his boots on the floor or eats his food becomes a rasping annoyance.’ Intimate disclosures, encouraged earlier by loneliness, proximity, and boredom, in retrospect seem embarrassing and regrettable. Violations of personal space or possessions seem contemptuous provocations, irritating habits are perceived as deliberate affronts, and minor disagreements can become infuriating. The results range from vehement arguments through ostracism and physical attacks, to murderous assaults (Suedfeld and Steel 2000).

One of the most pervasive findings in isolated groups is that of dislike and disrespect between subgroups, such as polar scientists and support personnel or people from different cultural or national backgrounds (Kanas 1998). This is a growing problem, as many projects involving EUEs are becoming international and/or multicultural.

3. Workload

One important aspect of EUE groups is that they are often overworked as well as stressed. In many extreme environments, living and working space is limited, facilities are functional and Spartan, and duties are both important and demanding. Survival as well as mission success may depend on everyone’s performance, so that there are superordinate goals—important to all, and unreachable without total effort and cooperation. Social loafing or shirking is, while certainly not unknown, relatively rare and easily detected. In fact, studies have shown that members of submarine, space, and polar crews spend much of their supposed recreational or resting time working, sometimes leading to severe fatigue. In other situations, such as disaster rescue and combat, exhaustion may be the result of extreme physical exertion and danger. Insomnia, which is endemic in many EUEs, exacerbates the problem, as do physical discomforts including noise and duties that interrupt sleep (Stuster 1996).

Even the most dedicated crews may come to resent the demands made on them by the situation or by the organization to which they belong. There have been minirebellions or simple refusals to comply with work schedules by groups in both the American and Soviet space programs, as well as in many other EUE settings (Harrison et al. 1991). Typically, these have been brief and moderate, consisting of a self-declared and temporary ‘time out,’ although in some more extreme cases in wartime and extended sailing voyages they became full-blown mutinies.

4. Boredom

There is a quite opposite situation as well: in many special environments, there may be long stretches of unstructured time when there is little if any important work to be done. This has been true of groups of prisoners of war, ships’ crews on multiyear voyages or frozen into the polar ice, personnel in remote stations, civilians in air raid shelters and refugee camps, troops between active duty deployments, resource extraction workers waiting for equipment repairs, resupplies, or further exploration, emergency workers (firefighters, paramedics) between calls, and so on. Spacefarers spending a year or more en route to their destination and then again on the way back will experience this (in contrast to astronauts in short-term, over-programmed missions such as those of the Space Shuttle) (Stuster 1996).

Under physical and social monotony, free time becomes a time of boredom, lassitude, and apathy. The desire to explore and manipulate—play with— elements of the environment becomes important. The group may manufacture artificial challenges, sometimes taking unnecessary risks either unthinkingly or deliberately. As individuals lose interest and motivation, they may neglect personal hygiene and withdraw from the group. As a result, and because hostile exchanges at least break the monotony, interpersonal arguments and conflict may intensify.

Alert leaders of organized groups make sure that no one has too much free time: initiating systematic recreational activities, getting people to put in extra work on cleaning and maintenance, and introducing novel work assignments such as cross-training crew members. In Arctic whaling and exploring ships of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, sailors and officers put on elaborate theatrical and musical performances, making their own scenery and costumes; competed in athletic events; and published shipboard ‘newspapers’ filled mostly with stories and poetry, since there was very little real news (Johnson and Suedfeld 1996). In the ghettoes of Nazidominated Europe, Jewish authorities arranged elaborate cultural, scientific, religious, and educational programs. Even in lifeboats drifting after shipwreck, officers have organized duty watches, group singsongs, story-telling, and the like. In all of these environments, such strategies help to maintain morale, ensure that necessary work gets done, and divert group members from their danger, deprivation, and fear.

5. Group Culture

Group culture represents an identity, made up of the characteristics of the members and what emerges from their interactions, which identifies the in-group as distinct from all others. This phenomenon is particularly marked in EUE groups: nicknames, jargon, practical jokes, initiation rites, and so on, weld the group together and simultaneously express and improve its morale. So do adornments such as bizarre hair-styles or beards, and special symbols such as badges, patches, pins, special articles of clothing, and other unique identifiers.

This pattern of values, activities, norms, jokes, and general lifestyle characteristics becomes particularly meaningful to isolated groups and frequently incomprehensible to outsiders. Such groups have an awareness of shared hardships and triumphs, and feel removed from the outside. As an example, a group of aquanauts living in an undersea environment came to refer to the rest of humanity as ‘Earth people’ (Radloff and Helmreich 1968), and of course the designation ‘the world’ is widely used among polar personnel and foreign-service soldiers when referring to home. The use of in-group jargon is also a way to deliberately stigmatize newcomers and outsiders (Taylor 1987).

Rituals, special foods, and the celebration of major occasions are important aspects of group culture. For centuries, these have been used to strengthen a feeling of solidarity and continuity, and to exercise everyone’s ingenuity, have fun, and reduce boredom and they continue to do so in the Space Age.

6. Leadership

Leaders of EUE groups have a role that is in many ways more crucial to the group’s success than those normally encountered in most modern organizations. They may be cut off from the parent organization, so that they can not receive advice or instructions from their superiors; even when communication is possible, it may be long delayed. In any case, because of the unique circumstances, supervisors or consultants ‘back home’ may not fully understand all of the relevant factors—or the group may think that they do not, and therefore may be reluctant to follow instructions or advice (Connors et al. 1985). In such cases, the leader on the spot must decide how to handle the uncertainty and conflict.

The leader’s formal rank confers the power of reward and punishment; but the impact of these can be attenuated in long-duration remote work, where any material reinforcers may be trivial or far in the future, and in extremely dangerous environments where any ‘punishment’ may in fact increase the transgressor’s safety (e.g., a court-martial that would involve a transfer to the rear echelon). Even worse, the leader may come to be seen as dictatorial, petty, and unfair, with consequences that can range from the unpleasant to the disastrous. The best EUE leaders are those who use formal authority sparingly but are admired, perceived as holding authority legitimately, seen as a role model to be emulated, and believed to be expert in solving the problems that the group faces (Stuster 1996).

Good interpersonal relations are made even more important by the fact that in EUEs the trappings that normally keep leaders remote and aloof—secretaries and aides, imposing offices, separate facilities, and so on—are drastically attenuated (Kanas 1998). Social leveling occurs even in traditionally hierarchical groups, such as military units. The leader is revealed as having human foibles and faults. If the crew dislikes or disrespects the leader, it has many opportunities to express its feelings. Conflict between the leader and a key subordinate or a clique of group members, is common under stress and requires wise strategies balancing tact and forcefulness. Excessive conscious- ness of rank differences may also lead to disaster for the group: social psychologists have identified a number of airline crashes that could have been avoided if a crew member who noticed that something was wrong had dared to assertively interrupt the captain while the latter was paying attention to something else (Helmreich 1984).

How the leader should function varies with the circumstances. EUE groups have indicated that on matters of a technical nature, like navigation or equipment repair, the leader is expected to make decisions in consultation with the relevant technical experts; on issues of routine policy, like work assignments and recreational schedules, the leader should consult with the entire group in an open way, even if the group’s preferences are not followed exactly; and in emergencies, the leader’s clear, unhesitating, and unilateral decision is appreciated even by those who otherwise resent direction (Stuster 1996, Suedfeld and Steel 2000).

The difficulties related to EUEs are especially severe for the leader: resolving other people’s environmentally caused stresses while one is experiencing the same ones is a true challenge to leadership. One development that arises only too frequently is the leader’s becoming a source of stress for the rest of the group. In an EUE, attributes that can be tolerated in a normal environment become unbearable. Some leaders are too unstable, demanding, threatening, perfectionistic, or inconsiderate—traits that may be part of their personality, or that emerge because they too are under stress. These traits lead to decreased leader influence, and to increased resistance on the part of other group members. In long-duration special environments, it is probably not a good idea to rely too much on a crew’s ability to tolerate the commander (Kanas 1998).

7. Sex And Gender Issues

The presence of growing numbers of women in formerly all-male EUEs has affected morale and performance, and raises some interesting issues. Almost all Western military forces, national Antarctic programs, and space programs have by now included female members and some leaders. These developments have changed group dynamics, in as yet undetermined ways. If a recent all-female Antarctic traverse expedition is typical, a shift toward more emphasis on group cooperation and solidarity may be occurring, perhaps with some decrease in goal orientation, and it certainly seems that women in mostly male groups both provide and are offered more interpersonal support and nurturance than has been usual (Rothblum et al. 1998).

There is a lively controversy among military and polar officials as to whether sexual integration has resulted in additional or reduced sexual tension, and as to just how pair relationships affect the participants and the rest of the group. Some people are less sexually frustrated, but others are not; resentment, jealousy, and envy have surfaced. In at least one Antarctic case, there was a serious drop in station morale when the cook’s romantic partner abandoned him and began a relationship with someone else, and meals became unappetizing. One can only speculate what would happen on a long-duration EUE mission (or in an emergency) if, for example, the group leader were involved in this kind of triangle (Suedfeld and Steel 2000).

8. Selection And Training

This topic applies to only a subset of special environments, but is important in those. There are two phases of selection: selecting out (eliminating applicants below the threshold) and selecting in (picking the best possible crews). The former is done on an individual basis, using biodata, interviews, and tests; in the second stage, both individual and group selection become relevant. The interaction and performance of potential crewmates are observed in analogue or simulation situations (field and laboratory settings respectively, both incorporating some aspects similar to the eventual EUE). For example, candidates may go through a wilderness survival course or (in the exSoviet space program) undertake a long cross-country journey in a small automobile. Many programs choose and train crews as a unit; if for some reason one member must be struck from a mission, the entire crew is replaced (Santy 1994).

9. Future Directions

The number of people exposed to EUEs, fortuitously or deliberately, is not likely to diminish in the near future; and as the sheer technical and physical difficulties are solved, more attention will be paid to psychosocial issues. An emphasis on understanding group reactions, not only individual ones, is emerging. As the connections between EUEs and ‘general’ social science areas become clearer, research will become less atheoretical and applied; EUEs provide unique opportunities for both gathering new knowledge and having an impact on serious real-life problems, which may tempt more social scientists into the field (both literally and metaphorically).

Bibliography:

1. Byrd R E 1938 Alone. Putnam’s, New York
2. Connors M M, Harrison A A, Akins F R 1985 Living Aloft: Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. NASA, Washington, DC
3. Harrison A A, Clearwater Y A, McKay C P (eds.) 1991 From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement. Springer-Verlag, New York
4. Helmreich R L 1984 Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors 26: 583–89
5. Holland A W, Curtis K 1998 Operational psychology countermeasures during the Lunar–Mars life support test project. Life Support and Biosphere Science 5: 445–52
6. Johnson P J, Suedfeld P 1996 Coping with stress through creating microcosms of home and family among Arctic whalers and explorers. History of the Family 1: 41–62
7. Kanas N 1998 Psychosocial issues affecting crews during longduration international space missions. Acta Astronautical 42: 339–61
8. Manning F J 1991 Morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps. In: Gal R, Mangelsdorff A D (eds.) Handbook of Military Psychology. Wiley, New York
9. Radloff R W, Helmreich R L 1968 Groups Under Stress: Psychological Research in SEALAB II. Appleton-CenturyCrofts, New York
10. Rothblum E D, Weinstock J S, Morris J F (eds.) 1998 Women in the Antarctic. Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY
11. Santy P A 1994 Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Praeger, London
12. Stuster J 1996 Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Space and Polar Exploration. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD
13. Suedfeld P, Steel G D 2000 The Environmental Psychology of Capsule Habitats. Annual Review of Psychology. Annual Reviews Press, Chippewa Falls, WI
14. Taylor A J W 1987 Antarctic Psychology. DSIR, Wellington, NZ
15. Wilson J P, Harel Z, Kahana B (eds.) 1988 Human Adaptation to Extreme Stress: From the Holocaust to Vietnam. Plenum, New York