NASA/TM-2016-219288
Individual Differences in Adaptability for Long Duration Space Exploration Missions
Paul T. Bartone, PhD Gerald P. Krueger, PhD Robert R. Roland, PsyD Albert A. Sciarretta, MS Jocelyn V. Bartone, MA Bjorn Helge Johnsen, PhD
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058
February 2017
NASA STI Program ... in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics and space science. The NASA scientific and technical information (STI) program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain this important role.
CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected papers from scientific and technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA.
The NASA STI program operates under the auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one of the largest collections of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. Results are published in both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types:
SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, or historical information from NASA programs, projects, and missions, often concerned with subjects having substantial public interest.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of NASA Programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical data and information deemed to be of continuing reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has less stringent limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, working papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and technical findings by NASA-sponsored contractors and grantees.
Specialized services also include creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, and organizing and publishing research results. For more information about the NASA STI program, see the following:
Access the NASA STI program home page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
E-mail your question via the Internet to
[email protected]
Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk at 443-757-5803
Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 443-757-5802
Write to: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 7115 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/TM-2016-219288
Individual Differences in Adaptability for Long Duration Space Exploration Missions
Paul T. Bartone, PhD Gerald P. Krueger, PhD Robert R. Roland, PsyD Albert A. Sciarretta, MS Jocelyn V. Bartone, MA Bjorn Helge Johnsen, PhD
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058
February 2017
Contributors Paul T. Bartone, Ph.D., Professor & Senior Research Fellow, Center for Technology & National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DC; U.S. Army (COL, Ret.), Research Psychology; Adjunct faculty, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and University of Bergen. Gerald P. Krueger, Ph.D., Director, Human Performance Research, Krueger Ergonomics, Alexandria, VA; U.S. Army (COL, Ret.) Research Psychology; Adjunct faculty, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Robert R. Roland, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist, Monterey, CA; U.S. Army (COL, Ret.), Operational Psychology, Selection & Assessment. Albert A. Sciarretta, M.S., Senior Research Fellow, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DC; U.S. Army (LTC, Ret.), Operations Research; President, CNS Technologies Inc.; Member of Board on Army Science and Technology, The National Academies. Jocelyn V. Bartone, M.A., Military Sociologist, independent research consultant, Annapolis, MD. Bjorn Helge Johnsen, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychosocial Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Senior Psychologist, CDR, Royal Norwegian Navy.
Available from:
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 7115 Standard Drive Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Road Alexandria, VA 22312
Available in electronic form at http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
Background/Purpose .............................................................................................................1
II.
General review of the literature on individual adaptability ..................................................1 II.A
Adaptability as task performance ..................................................................................... 5
II.B
Adaptability as changes in cognitive processing.............................................................. 5
II.C
Adaptability as coping ...................................................................................................... 6
II.D
Adaptability as reacting to organizational change ........................................................... 7
II.E
An integrated model of individual adaptability................................................................ 7
III.
Systematic review of the literature on adaptability in ICE environments ..........................12
III.A
Aims and objectives.................................................................................................... 12
III.B
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 12
III.B.1
Search strategy .................................................................................................... 12
III.B.2
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ......................................................................... 13
III.B.3
NASA Database Search ...................................................................................... 13
III.B.4
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment ............................................................ 14
III.C
IV.
Results of Systematic Review .................................................................................... 17
III.C.1
Intelligence and Cognitive ability ....................................................................... 17
III.C.2
Emotional Stability.............................................................................................. 17
III.C.3
Control................................................................................................................. 18
III.C.4
Openness to experience ....................................................................................... 18
III.C.5
Conscientiousness ............................................................................................... 19
III.C.6
Optimism ............................................................................................................. 19
III.C.7
Extraversion - Introversion.................................................................................. 20
III.C.8
Mastery - Achievement Orientation .................................................................... 20
III.C.9
Hardiness ............................................................................................................. 20
III.C.10
Past Experience, Background .............................................................................. 22
III.C.11
Sex - Gender ........................................................................................................ 23
III.C.12
Social support ...................................................................................................... 24
III.C.13
Sleep and shift work ............................................................................................ 25
III.C.14
Physical and biological factors ............................................................................ 25
III.C.15
Coping ................................................................................................................. 26
Operational Interviews ........................................................................................................27
iii
IV.A
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 27
IV.B
Results of operational interviews ............................................................................... 28
IV.B.1
Adaptability - What is it? .................................................................................... 28
IV.B.2
Special Challenges of Long Duration, Extreme Environment Missions ............ 28
IV.B.3
Operational Examples of Adaptability ................................................................ 31
IV.B.4
Individual Factors Contributing to Adaptability ................................................. 32
IV.B.5
Developing and Training Adaptability ................................................................ 33
IV.B.6
Social/Organizational Factors ............................................................................. 34
IV.B.7
Coping with Long Duration Missions ................................................................. 35
IV.B.8
Selection - Measuring Adaptability..................................................................... 36
IV.B.9
Impact of Multinational and Mixed Sex Crews .................................................. 36
IV.B.10
Dimensions of Adaptability ................................................................................ 37
V.
General Findings and Implications .....................................................................................39 V.A Summary of findings on individual differences in adaptability ..................................... 39 V.B
Implications for Assessing Adaptability ........................................................................ 46
V.C
Implications for Enhancing and Sustaining Adaptability .............................................. 48
V.D Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................................... 51
VI.
V.D.1
General Research Recommendations .................................................................. 51
V.D.2
Specific Research Recommendations ................................................................. 53
References ...........................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX A - Summary of studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria for review .......73 APPENDIX B - NASA JTRS Technical Reports Reviewed ......................................................96 APPENDIX C - Operational Interview Guide ............................................................................99
iv
Executive Summary Purpose: As NASA prepares for long-duration, crewed missions into deep outer space, it needs to have a better understanding as to why some individuals adapt and adjust better than others to the extreme demands of space living. Knowing what factors account for individual differences in behavioral adaptability will permit improved selection, training and support programs for astronauts who will perform these missions. Drawing upon evidence from multiple sources, the present report identifies the factors associated with individual differences in adaptability to isolated, confined and extreme (ICE) environments, and discusses implications for selection and sustainment of astronauts on long duration missions. Methods: We begin with a brief overview of existing research and theory on psychosocial adaptability. This provides needed context, and a conceptual model for understanding the processes involved in adaptive responding. Next, we conduct a systematic review of published studies dealing with individual differences in adaptability specifically within ICE and analog environments. Here, we follow standard procedures outlined by the Institute of Medicine (2011) and the PRISMA group (2009). Databases reviewed included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsychINFO. To obtain further evidence, we also interviewed nine operational experts with extensive experience in space or analog ICE environments. Results: 1. The broad literature on adaptability contains four divergent streams of research, each reflecting somewhat different underlying assumptions regarding adaptability. These are: (1) adaptability as task performance; (2) adaptability as changes in cognitive processing; (3) adaptability as coping; and (4) adaptability as reacting to organizational change. Following work by Ployhart & Bliese (2006) that integrates much of this research, we conceptualize adaptability as a compound trait or metacompetency that is a reasonably stable over time, and exerts general influence over how people react to environmental change and challenges. Adaptability in turn is influenced by a number of fundamental individual factors including personality and past experience. 2. The systematic literature review on individual adaptability in ICE environments identified 73 studies that met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies vary widely in terms of methods, populations studied, and fidelity to the space environment. Factors identified as having some influence on adaptability were: intelligence and cognitive ability; emotional stability; control; openness; optimism; mastery/achievement orientation; hardiness; past experience; sleep and shift work; physical - biological factors; and coping. Results were somewhat mixed for conscientiousness, extraversion, and social support, with some studies showing positive effects on adaptation, and others showing negative ones. As regards sexgender, some studies showed that women were better at adapting to ICE environments, while others suggest that women have more difficulties than men. 3. Operational interviews largely confirmed the findings from the systematic review, while providing additional information regarding factors that may contribute to individual adaptability for long duration missions. Operational experts agreed on the importance of intelligence (especially practical intelligence); emotional stability; openness; achievement orientation; optimism; control; hardiness; past
v
experience; sleep; physical - biological factors; and positive coping strategies. They also reinforced the mixed results on extraversion-introversion, indicating it is important to have a balance between introverted tendencies (e.g., maintaining privacy and emotional control), and extraverted qualities (e.g., sociability and working in a team). Subject matter experts also believed it was beneficial to be balanced with respect to achievement tendencies on the one hand, and willingness to accommodate and accept other approaches. These are both facets of the “Big Five” personality factor conscientiousness. Our results thus indicate that in ICE environments, some features of conscientiousness and extraversion have a positive influence on adaptability, while others appear to be negative. Conclusions: This evidence report identifies the key factors associated with individual adaptability in ICE environments. While the present results do not permit a rank-ordering of the relative importance of these variables, we are fairly confident that the most relevant variables are contained within this set. Based on this preliminary evidence, we discuss some implications for astronaut selection and training, and provide suggested countermeasures for preserving adaptability during long duration missions. Additional research is needed to improve measurement strategies, verify causal directions, and understand the complex interactions and underlying processes involved in positive human adaptation to the physical and psychosocial challenges of life in deep space.
vi
I.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
One of the risk areas under NASA’s Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) element of the Human Research Program (HRP) concerns astronaut adaptation to the isolated, confined and extreme (ICE) conditions of long duration space missions. It is known that people differ in how well and quickly they adapt to spaceflight and other isolated, confined and extreme environments. It is important to understand the nature and drivers of these differences, in order to be able to enhance the effectiveness of selection, training and risk mitigation strategies. NASA is actively planning and preparing for Long Duration Space Exploration (LDSE) missions, with an expected manned mission to Mars to take place in the 2030s, just 15-20 years from now (NASA, 2015). This follows NASA’s broad strategic objective 1, to “expand the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and opportunity in space,” and 1.1 to “expand human presence into the solar system and to the surface of Mars to advance exploration, science, innovation, benefits to humanity, and international collaboration” (NASA, 2014). All space missions entail unusual conditions to which astronauts must adapt, including isolation from family and friends, confinement in cramped, small spaces, and having to live and work in extreme environmental conditions where there is a constant danger of serious injury or death, including the possibility that critical life support equipment could fail or essential supplies run out. These demands are expected to be substantially greater for astronauts on LDSE missions. Longer distances from earth and coincident delays in communication will greatly increase the sense of isolation. Crews will have to function more autonomously, without ready advice or assistance from NASA’s Mission Control. Space capsules on LDSE missions will necessarily provide smaller living areas for astronauts, as more payload space is needed for fuel and supplies. Exposure to environmental extremes will be greater, and for longer time periods. Thus, it is critically important that astronauts on LDSE missions be able to adapt quickly and effectively to the range of ICE conditions they are likely to encounter and problems that may suddenly arise. This evidence report examines the current state of knowledge on the nature and most likely influences on individual differences in cognitive and behavioral adaptation to spaceflight and other ICE environments, including reviewing potential methods for qualifying and predicting such differences, and possible mitigation strategies. First, we provide a general overview of the literature on psychosocial adaptability and adaptive performance, focused on the individual level. We then conduct a more focused and systematic review of the literature addressing individual adaptability in ICE environments. In addition, nine subject matter experts (e.g., astronauts and Arctic explorers) were interviewed to gain an operational perspective on these issues. Findings are presented, to include recommendations for improving astronaut selection and training, and suggestions for additional research. II.
GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON INDIVIDUAL ADAPTABILITY
The concept of adaptability has been broadly applied at many levels, from simple biological organisms (Darwin, 1859; Ben-Jacob, 2003) to individuals (Burke, Pierce & Salas, 2006; Bell & Kozlowski, 2008), teams (Hackman, 2002), organizations (Weick & Quinn, 1999; Zaccaro & Banks, 2004), and even entire societies or nations (Ben-Dor, 2004; Gaillard, 2007). Regardless of the unit of analysis, adaptability almost always has to do with changing or adjusting in response to changing conditions (Mueller-Hanson, White, Dorsey & Pulakos, 2005).
1
A recent report by the Defense Science Board (2011) goes somewhat further, defining adaptability as “…the ability and willingness to anticipate the need for change, to prepare for that change, and to implement changes in a timely and effective manner in response to the surrounding environment.” (p. 3). A reasonable definition of adaptability is provided by VandenBos (2007), as follows: “the capacity to make appropriate responses to changed or changing situations; the ability to modify or adjust one’s behavior in meeting different circumstances or different people” (p. 17). As noted by Baard, Rench & Koslowski (2014), the literature on organizational adaptation is quite diffuse, and largely conceptual in nature, with research that relies mainly on case studies (Weick & Quinn, 1999; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). In contrast, research on adaptation at the individual and team levels is more rigorous, mostly based on experimental and non-experimental (observational and correlational) studies conducted with large samples. The present review focuses on studies of adaptability at the individual level, while recognizing that individual adaptability intersects in a number of ways with adaptability at the team level in many work contexts, including space missions. Over the past 25 years or so there has been a dramatic increase in the number of studies examining adaptability, most often in the context of work performance in organizations. This increased interest was largely prompted by the recognition that rapid technological change in the modern era makes it essential for workers and organizations to adjust quickly to new methods and systems for getting things done (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Burke et al., 2006). Also, the movement away from manufacturing to knowledge-based services means that people are more often working in teams that are diverse in terms of expertise and cultural background, again putting a premium on worker adaptability (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Cascio, 2003). Given this history, it is not surprising that most studies of adaptability have been done by social and organizational psychologists. The bulk of these have focused on work performance outcomes, usually termed “adaptive performance” (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999). One of the most empirically rigorous studies in this area was conducted by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon (2000). These authors analyzed over 1,300 “critical incidents” or situations requiring some form of adaptation (“situations in which individuals modified their behavior to meet the demands of a new situation or event or a changed environment”). They identified the following eight dimensions of adaptive performance: 1. Creative problem solving: thinking “outside the box,” innovating to solve a problem with limited resources 2. Dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations: able to focus and be productive despite ambiguous or uncertain situations; not needing things to be “black or white” 3. Learning new technologies, tasks, and procedures: curious, enthusiastic about learning; seeking new methods and technologies in order to accomplish work tasks 4. Interpersonal adaptability: being considerate of other points of view when working in a team to accomplish goals; open and accepting of feedback; gets along well with others 5. Cultural adaptability: being respectful and considerate of people with different cultural backgrounds; willing to adjust to new cultural values and norms 6. Physical adaptability: adjusting to challenging environmental states such as extreme heat, cold, dirt; adjusting physically (e.g., weight, strength, diet) in order to better fit the surrounding environment and perform job tasks 2
7. Handling emergencies and crisis situations: making quick decisions when faced with an emergency or dangerous situation 8. Dealing with stress in the workplace: staying composed and focused when dealing with high demand tasks, staying cool under stress Pulakos et al. (2000) evaluated these dimensions using an instrument of their own creation, the Job Adaptive Inventory (JAI), comprised of 68 items based on critical incidents representing the eight adaptability domains. These dimensions were supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Using a shortened 24-item JAI scale, Pulakos and colleagues replicated this eight factor structure when using self-report data. However, only one general adaptability factor was identified with supervisor rating data (Pulakos, Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad, Hedge & Borman, 2002). This suggests that adaptability is more a general dimension than a collection of separate adaptability factors. However, these results may also be due to halo effects, a source of bias known to afflict observer ratings (Landy & Farr, 1980). This occurs when the observer allows a favorable rating on one dimension to inflate ratings made on other dimensions. Using their eight-dimension framework, Pulakos et al. (2002) sought to identify predictors of adaptability. They found that past experience in areas related to the eight adaptability dimensions predicted adaptive performance as measured by supervisor ratings. In addition, adaptive performance was predicted by general cognitive ability, achievement motivation, and emotional stability. These findings highlight the potential importance of noncognitive variables as well as cognitive ones to influence successful adaptive performance (Rumsey, 1995; Rumsey & White, 2010). Other empirical studies (Ployhart & Bliese, 2006; Neal, Yeo, Koy & Xiao, 2012) also found support for the Pulakos et al. (2000) framework of eight adaptability factors nested under a broad adaptability dimension. The Pulakos 8-factor model emphasizes the task performance side of adaptability, which is to say, behavioral outcomes. This reflects the dominant trend in the industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology literature on adaptability to focus on performance outcomes that can be understood as in some way demonstrating adaptability. However, their eight dimensions do at least imply there are individual difference factors that may influence adaptive performance, such as creativity or tolerance for ambiguity. While providing a useful framework, there are a number of limitations to the Pulakos model when applied to ICE environments. For one, the jobs that Pulakos et al. (2000) analyzed did not include any closely similar to the jobs of astronauts on long duration space missions, with the long-term isolation and confinement this will entail. They did, however, include a range of military jobs including a number of Special Forces groups. LDSE missions will present significant challenges to adaptability not adequately covered in the Pulakos model, including novel day - night cycles and other factors disruptive of sleep, changing work shift schedules, weightlessness, and long communication delays. Another limitation is that Pulakos et al. (2000) tend to emphasize adaptation to short-term “critical incidents,” as opposed to long-term changes in the environment that require adaptation, such as astronauts will face on LDSE missions. Griffin & Hesketh (2003) suggested a more parsimonious, three-factor model of behavioral adaptability. In this framework, reactive adaptability involves the person changing to better fit with a changed environment, and would include new learning, interpersonal, and cultural adaptability. This is the most common form of adaptability. Proactive adaptability
3
happens when the person seeks to change the environment to create a better person-environment fit. This would include for example finding novel solutions to problems, and handling crisis situations. Finally, tolerance adaptability involves simply accepting some degree of personenvironment misfit with respect to situations that cannot be changed. This would include dealing with workplace stress and ambiguity. While Griffin & Hesketh (2003) report some empirical support for their three-factor model, it has not found wide application. A shortcoming of their approach is that, like the Pulakos et al. (2000) model and most of the adaptive performance literature, adaptability is defined in terms of some behavioral - performance outcome, rather than as a quality of individuals. Nevertheless the model provides a useful adjunct to the Pulakos framework. The concept of tolerance adaptability may be particularly relevant when considering human adaptation to isolated, confined and extreme environments as typified by long duration space missions. Also important for future space missions is the concept of team member adaptivity (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). Sometimes called role adaptability, this refers to how well individuals adjust and adapt to changes that affect their roles as team members, particularly in dealing with non-routine events and contingencies. This is similar to the Pulakos et al. (2000) “interpersonal adaptability,” but the emphasis is on being able to shift roles within the team. An example would be the astronaut flight commander who may have to assume a subservient role in a situation where another crew member has the most knowledge and expertise. Team or role adaptability also has application to ground personnel, who may have to adjust their command and control relationships with astronaut crews on long duration missions, granting crews more autonomy and decision making authority as communication time lags increase. In one relevant study by Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, West, Ellis and Porter (2004), the extent to which team members adjusted their roles to align with the external environment was positively related to performance. As to predictors of adaptability, Griffin et al. (2007) in their study of employees in three government and public sector organizations found that team member adaptability was correlated most strongly with openness to change (.33; p
