Cultural differences in crewmembers and mission control personnel during two space station programs.

INTRODUCTION: Cultural differences among crewmembers and mission control personnel can affect long-duration space missions. We examine three cultural contrasts: national (American vs. Russian); occupational (crewmembers vs. mission control personnel); and organizational [Mir space station vs. International Space Station (ISS)]. METHODS: The Mir sample included 5 American astronauts, 8 Russian cosmonauts, and 42 American and 16 Russian mission control personnel. The ISS sample included 8 astronauts, 9 cosmonauts, and 108 American and 20 Russian mission control personnel. Subjects responded to mood and group climate questions on a weekly basis. The ISS sample also completed a culture and language questionnaire. RESULTS: Crewmembers had higher scores on cultural sophistication than mission control personnel, especially American mission control. Cultural sophistication was not related to mood or social climate. Russian subjects reported greater language flexibility than Americans. Crewmembers reported better mood states than mission control, but both were in the healthy range. There were several Russian-American differences in social climate, with the most robust being higher work pressure among Americans. Russian-American social climate differences were also found in analyses of crew only. Analyses showed Mir-ISS differences in social climate among crew but not in the full sample. DISCUSSION: We found evidence for national, occupational, and organizational cultural differences. The findings from the Mir space station were essentially replicated on the ISS. Alterations to the ISS to make it a more user-friendly environment have still not resolved the issue of high levels of work pressure among the American crew.

Crewmember and mission control personnel interactions during International Space Station missions.

INTRODUCTION: Reports from astronauts and cosmonauts, studies from space analogue environments on Earth, and our previous research on the Mir Space Station have identified a number of psychosocial issues that can lead to problems during long-duration space missions. Three of these issues (time effects, displacement, leader role) were studied during a series of long-duration missions to the International Space Station (ISS). METHODS: As in our previous Mir study, mood and group climate questions from the Profile of Mood States or POMS, the Group Environment Scale or GES, and the Work Environment Scale or WES were completed weekly by 17 ISS crewmembers (15 men, 2 women) in space and 128 American and Russian personnel in mission control. RESULTS: The results did not support the presence of decrements in mood and group cohesion during the 2nd half of the missions or in any specific quarter. The results did support the predicted displacement of negative feelings to outside supervisors in both crew and mission control subjects on all six questionnaire subscales tested. Crewmembers related cohesion in their group to the support role of their commander. For mission control personnel, greater cohesion was linked to the support role as well as to the task role of their leader. DISCUSSION: The findings from our previous study on the Mir Space Station were essentially replicated on board the ISS. The findings suggest a number of countermeasures for future on-orbit missions, some of which may not be relevant for expeditionary missions (e.g., to Mars).

Lessons learned from Shuttle/Mir: psychosocial countermeasures.

BACKGROUND: During future long-duration space missions, countermeasures need to be developed to deal with psychosocial issues that might impact negatively on crewmember performance and well-being. METHODS: In our recently completed NASA-funded study of 5 U.S. astronauts, 8 Russian cosmonauts, and 42 U.S. and 16 Russian mission control personnel who participated in the Shuttle/Mir program, we evaluated a number of important psychosocial issues such as group tension, cohesion, leadership role, and the displacement of negative emotions from crewmembers to people in mission control and from mission control personnel to management. RESULTS: Based on our findings, which are reviewed, a number of psychosocial countermeasures are suggested to help ameliorate the negative impact of potential psychosocial problems during future manned space missions. CONCLUSIONS: Crewmembers should be selected not only to rule out psychopathology but also to select-in for group compatibility and facility in a common language. Training should include briefings and team building related to a number of psychosocial issues and should involve both crewmembers and mission control personnel. During the mission, both experts on the ground and the crewmembers themselves should be alert to potential interpersonal problems, including the displacement of negative emotions from the crew to the ground. Supportive activities should consist of both individual and interpersonal strategies, including an awareness of changing leisure time needs. Finally, attention should be given to postmission readjustment and to supporting the families on Earth.