UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Extreme teams : coping and motive imagery of small, mission-oriented teams in extreme and unusual environments Brcic, Jelena 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2013_fall_brcic_jelena.pdf [ 1.22MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0165587.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0165587-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0165587-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0165587-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0165587-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0165587-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0165587-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

EXTREME TEAMS: COPING AND MOTIVE IMAGERY OF SMALL, MISSION-ORIENTED TEAMS IN EXTREME AND UNUSUAL ENVIRONMENTS by Jelena Brcic BSc. Honours, University of Toronto, 2007 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2009     A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2013  ? Jelena Brcic, 2013  i  Abstract Humans are motivated to explore, investigate, and learn about the world around them; in the process of doing so, some groups work and live in environments described as extreme and unusual. Using thematic content analysis, the goal of this dissertation was to better understand coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) and motive images (Winter, 1994) expressed in narratives of four highly skilled groups: astronauts, high-altitude mountaineers, search and rescue (SAR) crews, and small military combat units. Taken together, the findings provided insight into the similarities and differences among groups that work in extreme environments. All four teams relied on problem-focused compared to emotion-focused coping strategies. Soldiers were least likely to mention Planful Problem Solving and most likely to mention Supernatural Protection and Confrontation when compared to the other groups; on the other hand, mountaineers were least likely to mention Seeking Social Support and most likely to mention Self-Control. In relation to motive imagery, all four groups were primarily motivated by need for Achievement, followed by need for Affiliation and need for Power. Soldiers had the highest level of all three motives; astronauts and SAR crews do not differ on any of the three. Differences across occupational and environment type, leadership status, gender, and mission phases were examined. The study provided the first empirical evidence, across mission phases, on how high-altitude mountaineers and SAR crews cope with problems and express their motives. Implications of the research, limitations, and possible future directions were discussed.       ii  Preface I am the primary author of the work presented in this PhD dissertation. I was responsible for the design of experiments, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.  Chapter 1: Introduction I am the primary author of this chapter, with intellectual contributions from P. Suedfeld.  Chapter 2: Method I am the primary author of this chapter, with intellectual contributions from P. Suedfeld.  Chapter 3: Physiological and Psychological Stressors in EUEs I am the primary author of this chapter, with intellectual contributions from P. Suedfeld.  Chapter 4: Coping in Extreme Teams I am the primary author of this chapter, with intellectual contributions from P. Suedfeld.  Chapter 5: Motivational Profiles of Extreme Teams  A version of this chapter has been published. Brcic, J. (2010). Motivational profiles of astronauts at the International Space Station. Acta Astronautica, 67(10), 1110-1115. I designed the experiment, supervised data collection, conducted the analyses and prepared the manuscript. P. Suedfeld provided intellectual contributions and edited the manuscript.  Chapter 6: Overall Discussion I am the primary author of this chapter, with intellectual contributions from P. Suedfeld.    iii  Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i Preface ............................................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... viii Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Extreme and Unusual Environments ........................................................................................... 1 Teams in Outer Space ................................................................................................................. 5 Teams at High Altitudes .............................................................................................................. 7 Search and Rescue / Relief Workers ........................................................................................... 8 Small Military Combat Squads ................................................................................................... 9 Goals of the Present Research ................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Method ...................................................................................................................... 13 Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) ........................................................................................... 13 Scoring Procedures .................................................................................................................... 15 Subjects and Data Sources ........................................................................................................ 15 Independent Variables ............................................................................................................... 19 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................................. 21 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 3: Physiological and Psychological Stressors in EUEs ............................................. 23 What is Stress? .......................................................................................................................... 23   iv  Is All Stress Bad? ...................................................................................................................... 25 Stress Effects on Space Crews .................................................................................................. 26 Stress Effects on High-Altitude Mountaineers.......................................................................... 32 Stress Effects on Search and Rescue Teams and Relief Workers ............................................. 41 Stress Effects on Military Combat Units................................................................................... 47 Chapter 4: Coping in Extreme Teams ...................................................................................... 58 Differences in Coping Behaviour .............................................................................................. 59 Posttraumatic Distress and Growth ........................................................................................... 60 Coping as a TCA Variable ........................................................................................................ 62 Coping in Outer Space .............................................................................................................. 64 Coping at High Altitudes........................................................................................................... 67 Coping Within the Search and Rescue Domain ........................................................................ 69 Coping in Combat ..................................................................................................................... 71 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 75 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 87 Chapter 5: Motivational Profiles of Extreme Teams ............................................................... 97 Behavioural Correlates of Motives ........................................................................................... 97 Values Versus Motives.............................................................................................................. 99 Personality and Motive Imagery ............................................................................................. 100 Astronaut Personality and Motive Imagery ............................................................................ 100 Elite Mountaineer Personality and Motive Imagery ............................................................... 102 SAR Personality and Motive Imagery .................................................................................... 103 Military Personality and Motive Imagery ............................................................................... 105   v  Leadership and Motive Imagery ............................................................................................. 106 Astronaut Leadership and Motive Imagery ............................................................................. 107 Elite Mountaineer Leadership and Motive Imagery ............................................................... 109 SAR Leadership and Motive Imagery ..................................................................................... 110 Military Leadership and Motive Imagery ............................................................................... 110 Hypotheses .............................................................................................................................. 112 Method .................................................................................................................................... 113 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 117 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 123 Chapter 6: Overall Discussion ................................................................................................. 131 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................... 132 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 136 Future Research in EUEs ........................................................................................................ 138 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 140     vi  List of Tables Table 1    Subdivisions by groups of interest ................................................................................ 3  Table 2    Overall subject breakdown ......................................................................................... 19  Table 3    Coping strategies and definitions ................................................................................ 64  Table 4    Examples of coping strategies from all four samples ................................................. 78  Table 5    Overall coping hierarchy ............................................................................................ 80  Table 6    Differences across occupations ................................................................................... 81  Table 7    Differences across occupational categories ................................................................ 82  Table 8    Differences across environment type .......................................................................... 83  Table 9    Differences across mission phases, Occupational categories ..................................... 84  Table 10  Differences during the mission, Environment types ................................................... 85  Table 11  Overall differences, Leadership status ........................................................................ 86  Table 12  Motive imagery and definitions ................................................................................ 115  Table 13  Examples of motive images from all four samples ................................................... 116  Table 14  Hierarchy of motive images across all mission phases and groups .......................... 117  Table 15  Differences within occupations ................................................................................ 118  Table 16  Differences across occupations ................................................................................. 118  Table 17  Differences across occupational categories .............................................................. 119  Table 18  Differences across environment types ...................................................................... 119  Table 19  Status differences among astronauts, mountaineers, and SAR ................................. 120  Table 20  Status differences in the military sample .................................................................. 120  Table 21  Gender differences .................................................................................................... 120    vii  List of Figures  Figure 1   Changes in nPow across mission phases .................................................................. 121 Figure 2   Changes in nAch from before to during mission by occupational category ............ 122 Figure 3   Changes in nAff from before to during mission by occupational category ............. 122 Figure 4   Changes in nPow from before to during mission by occupational category ............ 123      viii  Acknowledgments First and foremost, I am grateful to Peter Suedfeld. His guidance, belief in my ability, quiet optimism, strong support, and correct advice were always appreciated throughout the years. Thank you for taking a chance on me. I further want to thank Phyllis Johnson and Lawrence Ward for their tremendous support, constructive feedback, and insight.  REST lab labbies, without you this dissertation would not have been possible. I greatly appreciate your dedication, enthusiasm, and extremely hard work. A special thank you to Ryan Cross, Katya Legkaia, Irina Della-Rossa, Lisa Shiozaki, Danyl Beilhartz, Dorothy Ordogh, Ben Archdekin, Shawn Sanders, Syd Burdett, Johanna Mickelson, Deyar Asmaro, Christine Ma, Ksenija Ciric, Kasia Wilk, and many others.  To my parents, Aleksandra and Zlatko, thank you for showing me that anything is possible. Your sacrifice many years ago has led me to become the person I am today. Thank you for your love, support, and belief in me as a daughter, person, and scientist. To my brother, Nikola, thank you for your friendship and willingness to give up your sister for the past six years; I am coming back. And to my loving and soon to be husband Graeme, thank you for being a cheerleader, partner, a shoulder to lean on, and a great idea generator. Because of you I smile every day.  The research presented in this dissertation was funded by a Graduate Doctoral Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and a University Graduate Fellowship (UGF) from the University of British Columbia. Further funding was provided by the Canadian Space Agency grant given to Drs. Peter Suedfeld and Phyllis Johnson.    ix  Dedication For Mama, Tata, Nikola, and Graeme.   1  Chapter 1: Introduction Continuous advances in technology have enabled humans to explore untouched environments and live in places not previously imaginable. In our quest for science, Adventure, rescue, and protection, individuals travel in small groups usually composed of highly skilled members. With an increased interest in going farther and deeper, and for a longer time period, these groups are in need of a leader who can guide them through isolated, dangerous, challenging, and sometimes tedious conditions. Using thematic content analysis (TCA), the present dissertation describes coping strategies and motive images expressed in verbal archives of astronauts, high-altitude mountaineers, search and rescue (SAR) crews, and small military combat units.    The objective of this chapter is to introduce what is known about extreme and unusual environments. Two overarching questions guide this introduction: 1) What aspects of the environment in which one works and lives affect the subjects psychologically? 2) What specific aspects of these four environments make them unique and of interest to psychologists?  Extreme and Unusual Environments  Suedfeld (1987) identified two dimensions of environments (extreme and unusual) that are relevant to the study of the chosen mission-oriented groups. Extremeness of the environment is defined as the presence of physical danger which may result in discomfort or injury; unusualness is defined as the novelty of the environment (Suedfeld, 1987).  All environments can be scaled within these two dimensions. For example, outer space and underwater research stations are both highly extreme and unusual as survival is impossible without advanced technology. Only highly experienced persons are able to survive in the unpredictable   2  circumstances. In contrast, emergency operating room teams are working in an environment that is low on both dimensions; there is no immediate risk to the medical team in their physical environment, the common operating theatre.   There are some psychological, biological, and sociological constructs that emerge within these environments that cannot be studied elsewhere. The responses in these environments to extreme conditions such as weightlessness, hurricanes, and lack of oxygen cannot be simulated easily (Suedfeld, 1998). In addition, the extent to which one displays courage, endurance, and willpower to survive in extreme and unusual environments (EUEs) is almost impossible to study in ?typical? environments (Segal, 1986).   Extreme and unusual environments can be subdivided into Natural or Human-Made. Characteristics such as extreme temperatures, lack of oxygen, radiation levels, lack of food and water sources, and humidity levels endanger the occupant. Living in such conditions is virtually impossible without special equipment and training (Kamler, 2004).  For example, the high altitude mountaineers and SAR crews work in Natural EUE's; both groups work under extreme weather conditions and altitudes. On the other hand, astronauts and soldiers were labelled as working in a Human-Made environment. For astronauts, arrival to space, survival inside and outside the specialized capsule, and return to Earth would be unachievable without human-made technologies. Small military combat units fight in natural environments; however, the man-made aspects of these environments is what makes them extreme and unusual (e.g., lethal and non-lethal armed violence, urban combat situations).  The groups can be further divided into those who explore and engage in science (Science and Adventure) compared to those whose service is needed for public safety and security (Safety   3  and Security). The driving force behind one?s intent to enter a potentially dangerous environment may help explain other individual or group factors such as increased job satisfaction. Therefore, the inspiration and explicit motivation to be in a specific EUE may affect coping strategies and implicit motivations.  Groups who explore for the benefit of Science and Adventure are, but are not limited to, space crews, polar research stations teams, polar expedition teams, cave explorers, and high altitude mountaineers. Examples of groups whose service is essential for safety of others include search and rescue crews, military units, fire-brigades, and police units. The group subdivision for this study can be found in Table 1.   Table 1  Subdivisions by groups of interest Occupational Category / Environment Type Natural Human-Made Science and Adventure High-altitude mountaineers Space crews Safety and Security Search and Rescue / Relief Crews Military combat units    Furthermore, involvement in EUEs may be identified as recreational, occupational, or traumatic. Involuntarily involvement may entail traumatic experiences such as living through natural disasters, or ethnopolitical violence (Suedfeld, 2012). Survivors of such traumatic experiences were not examined in this study. Only groups such as SAR teams, who voluntarily entered such traumatic environments, were examined. Most of the SAR members are part-time volunteers; however, they often see search and rescue work as their second profession (Lois, 2001). With the exception of the mountaineers, all the groups from Table 1 are occupational in   4  nature. High-altitude mountaineers are usually in the EUEs for recreational reasons; however,  leaders of climbing expeditions often venture for profit.   Individual Differences  There are pre-existing individual differences between and within groups that potentially influence coping and motivation. Differences exist in selection and training, experience, education, socioeconomic status, marital status, etc. For example, standardized procedures do not exist for selecting climbing guides, while NASA astronaut selection is composed of a medical examination, three rounds of interviews lasting a year, and candidacy training for two years before astronauts become eligible for flight assignment (NASA, 2006). A similar procedure is observed at other space agencies. This rigorous selection process could a) select in subjects who cope well with stressors, and b) select in those with desired motivations. Lack of a formalized selection and training process for climbers results in self-selection for a variety of reasons. Some climbers may be intrinsically motivated to achieve mastery goals, while other may be extrinsically motivated to achieve performance goals (Burke, Durrand-Bush, & Doell, 2010).  Education is another variable that varies within and between groups. For example, within a SAR team, some members are highly trained and educated, while others have only basic first aid training. Based on an ethnographic study of a SAR team, all members were trained in basic first-aid, and one-third had advanced medical skills that were acquired throughout their career (five emergency medical technicians, one doctor, and two firemen). Education varied from a high school diploma to a medical degree, ages ranged from 22 to 58, and most members were middle to upper class (Lois, 2001). The astronaut sample is more homogeneous regarding education level, as a basic requirement is at least a Master's degree. Most astronauts hold more   5  than one Doctorate or Master's degree and many are medical doctors. Due to higher education requirements, the astronauts in the sample are generally older than 40 years of age, contrasted with a military sample, in which many soldiers hold only high school degrees and are in their twenties or early thirties. Within the military, those with ranks of Lieutenant or higher usually have additional educational training. However, due to the nature of the samples and data collection these pre-existing individual differences are not known. This will be further discussed in Chapter 6 under study limitations.   However, the four groups share commonalities. For instance, all the groups work and live in an extreme and unusual environment, Natural or Human-Made, most enter EUEs for occupational reasons, and are motivated by Science and Adventure or Safety and Security. To understand how these groups cope with work in EUEs and what motivates them, it is essential to explore the structure and function of the four environments. Teams in Outer Space Current astronauts are pilots, research scientists, medical doctors, engineers, and educators. Many have a military background; however this is not as common as it was in the early era of space flight. Selected candidates complete an intensive two-year general training program before they are assigned to a mission (NASA, 2006).  During the training period they learn about the space station systems, as well as meteorology, earth sciences, and engineering. They train in water and land survival, aircraft operations, and scuba diving. Once the training is completed, astronauts are given their mission assignments - commander or flight engineer. For many astronauts it takes years to get assigned to a flight. In flight, common tasks include conducting space walks, piloting robotic systems, and performing space experiments. Mission specific training takes years to complete (NASA, 2006).    6  The International Space Station (ISS) is a low Earth orbit research facility owned by the United States of America (US), Russia, Canada, Japan, and several European countries. Tasks completed by astronauts on the ISS include maintaining and building the station as well as participating in and running scientific experiments. Six astronauts are selected to participate in six month expeditions onboard the station. Prior to Expedition 21, crews were comprised of two or three astronauts. To date, 35 expeditions have flown to the ISS. The first year-long mission aboard the space station will launch in Spring 2015.  Two astronauts, one from the US and one from Russia, will be aboard the space station for the entirety of the expedition, while the other four members will change at shorter intervals.  Psychological research during the early United States space program was minimal. The Western psychology community voiced their concerns and implications, as well as praised the Russian space agency for its involvement in early psychological research (Harrison, 1986; Helmreich, 1984). The space community resisted funding social sciences for several reasons. First, the initial US space program consisted of short flights, and was composed of homogeneous male crews who shared similar professional and national backgrounds. The psychological impact was perceived to be negligible. Hence, human research typically focused on physiological effects of spaceflight. Second, in the past, crews regarded meetings with psychologists as a nuisance and as a threat to dreams of spaceflight (Harrison, 1986). Some astronauts are still reluctant to participate in anonymous, academic, psychological research because of a fear of disqualification from the space program. However, with increasing flight duration and international collaboration of the Shuttle / MIR program, the astronauts in the US space program, along with the Canadian, European, and Japanese astronauts have realized the importance of psychological research (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). The newfound interest in space psychology has resulted in numerous   7  popular books (e.g., Riding Rockets by Mike Mullane) and peer-reviewed publications in journals such as Acta Astronautica, Environment and Behavior, Human Performance in Extreme Environments, and Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.  Studying current space teams will lead to understanding how individuals and groups perform and survive in microgravity and under other EUE conditions.  Furthermore, the ISS provides an off-Earth platform to study the possible psychological effects of long-term missions, such as those to other planets (e.g., Mars). A literature review of physical and social stressors, space flight effects, and astronaut personalities and leadership qualities can be found in the subsequent chapters.   Teams at High Altitudes   Climbing teams are composed of a head guide, a few assistant guides, a team of Sherpas, and the other climbers (often referred to as clients). The leader has usually, but not always, summited the mountain before, and makes the logistical and safety decisions for the team. Companies try to hire experienced guides and Sherpas who assemble strong climbing teams. Often the leader himself is the owner of the climbing company, such as Tim Ripple of Peak Freaks, Gary Bocarde of Mountain Trip, and Guy Cotter of Adventure Consultants. Climbing teams are assigned based on client interest and deposits paid. Members establish remote contact six to eight months prior to a group face-to-face meeting, which typically occurs within weeks of the expedition (Warner & Schmincke, 2009). Hence, no pre-established relationships exist among the team members.   The clients vary in experience level. Some are experienced and have summited high peaks in the past, while others have only trained on local hills and mountains. Due to advances in climbing technology and techniques, the world?s least explored peaks are now accessible and   8  climbed by average-fit climbers and tourism companies (Warner & Schmincke, 2009).  There are many media reports and stories of death of inexperienced climbers on Mt. Everest. Most recently, Torontonian Shriya Shah-Klorfine, 33, died during the descent from Everest during the 2012 climbing season. Shah-Khlorfine, who had only trained by climbing hills in Ontario, Canada, chose a start-up company with inexperienced guides and Sherpas who had also never summited Everest. She chose to disregard advice from other guides and climbers to give up her summit attempt. She was one of six who died on Mt. Everest that year (CBC news, 2012).   Many mountaineers have published their summit stories in form of biographies, memoirs, nonfiction adventure literature, documentaries, and blogs.  However, to date, only a few empirical studies have looked at psychological variables in high-altitude mountaineers (Bonington, 1987; Breivik, 1996; Burke & Orlick, 2012; Egan & Stelmack, 2003; Li, Zhang, You, Zheng, & Gao, 2012; Stuck, Balzer, Hecht, & Schroder, 2005). Most researchers focus on the effects of high altitude on cognitive processes such as decision making and simple arithmetic, and more have examined recreational climbers who climb indoors or on novice terrain.  The aim of the present study was to understand the motivations of the team and individual climbers and their ability to handle and cope with stress. Further understanding of psychological and sociological constructs on the mountain could aid, among other things, with training, communication, and goal attainment.  Search and Rescue / Relief Workers  SAR teams are composed of people with diverse skills such as canine search and rescue, mountain climbing, orienteering, skiing, and advanced first aid. Most SAR teams are made up of volunteers who pay for their own equipment, and often sacrifice their personal lives and responsibilities to aid others. The members know each other well and rely on one another for   9  help and support when in the field. Training sessions are often scheduled on weekends or weekday evenings so that most members can attend and participate in simulated searches. Each SAR unit interviews, selects, and trains members differently, but safely helping others is a common goal across groups (Allner, Rygalov, & Pierce, n.d; Hill, 1993).  Rescues can take place in a variety of ways such as searching for lost persons (on land or in water, in caves, at altitude, in cities), locating and aiding victims of natural disasters, and participating in recovery missions. Time is of an essence, as is quick and reliable communication.   Another group of interest are natural disaster relief workers. SAR and natural disaster relief workers have been combined as a group for several reasons. First, publicly available research for either group is limited. Second, both groups share a common goal. They both search for individuals in harsh environmental conditions. Third, time is critical to both groups. Immediate response to crisis or a lost person is essential to finding victims alive. Time determines if the groups are looking for bodies or survivors. Finally, in many cases, local SAR groups provide relief aid and locate victims after natural disasters. For the remainder of the dissertation, these groups are referred to as SAR teams/crews. Those who provide help after human-made disasters such as famines, terrorism, or war have been studied; but as the focus of this paper is on natural disasters, that literature will not be reviewed. SAR teams are the least studied of the four groups. This is the first study that examines SAR written archives for psychological constructs.  Small Military Combat Squads  When armies are deployed, millions of soldiers are called to combat, where they work and live in hostile and deadly environments. All soldiers in this sample have undergone basic   10  combat training, as well as some advanced individual training. Time to deployment after training is variable. Soldiers get assigned to units; they deploy with those units. The strongest relationships are among squad members, as they work in high proximity and depend on each other for survival. Squads are small military units composed of eight to ten soldiers led by a non-commissioned officer. In countries following British tradition, squads are commonly referred to as sections . All subjects in this study engaged in ground combat.   Psychological research in the military was popularized during World War I with the introduction of intelligence testing as a screening tool for the enlistees. Today, most militaries fund internal and external research programs that examine human performance in extreme environments. In addition to military research centers such as Defence Research and Development Canada, the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, and the Australian Military Research and Development Center, universities and private companies  are subcontracted to investigate human / army performance in extreme environments.  Additionally, both the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association  have sections dedicated to military psychology.   Of the four groups of interest, soldiers are the most studied. According to a recent keyword search in the PSYCINFO database, there are more than 3,000 studies published on military coping and/or leadership. The military sample provides a balance for the understudied samples. It allows for a test of thematic content analysis (see Chapter 2 for details) against findings with other methods and comparable groups. Goals of the Present Research   Most EUE studies are conducted with one group that has worked/lived in the extreme and unusual environment, yielding small sample sizes (e.g., three individuals per mission). Small   11  samples do not allow for standard statistical methods with good power, and researchers are forced to report only effect sizes or raw means. The small samples imply the absence of a control group and only one treatment group. Other than a few simulation studies and early polar work (Suedfeld, 1987), examining the effects of experimental manipulation or pre- and post-mission differences is extremely rare.  Over time, researchers have suggested and recommended improvements on how to build better research (Bishop, 2004; Collins, 2003; Sandal et al., 2006; Suedfeld, 1987; Suedfeld, 2001). Based on the challenges, researchers recommend large, longitudinal, interdisciplinary projects guided by current thinking in psychology. The present study used a consistent measure, and examined understudied aspects of human behaviour in these environmental contexts.  This study has two goals. The primary goal is to examine the same research question across four environments with the same method. As stated above, research with inconsistent methods and small samples is common in this field. This does provide a rich pool of information and the ability to answer a wide range of questions. However, measurement inconsistency limits true comparisons across environments and groups, and leads to inconsistent conclusions. Applying thematic content analysis (TCA) in studying these four environments will ensure consistency. In addition, as opposed to examining a handful of individuals who, for example, attempted to climb Mt. Everest in 2012, TCA allows for a larger group to be examined at a distance.  Second, researchers have addressed a very small proportion of possible questions in extreme and unusual environments. Research focuses on the effect of isolation on well-being, cognitive functioning, sleep-patterns, eating, exercise, crew safety, or solving a specific mission-related problem assigned by a funding agency. There is a vast amount of human behaviour left   12  unstudied in these specialized environments. The current project aims to explore the coping mechanisms and motive images of these rarely studied groups. Coping mechanisms and motive images are important variables, as together they allow the researcher to answer questions regarding the ability of teams to handle and cope with stress, compare the leaders and members to other prominent and studied leaders/groups, and better understand the personality composite of these specialized groups. In addition, a dynamic interplay between coping and motives may allow for future attitude and behaviour prediction. The chosen environments will be examined separately as each has its specific conditions with unique impact on individuals. However, this research as a whole can inform researchers how the environmental commonalities guide and affect human behaviour.  The remainder of the dissertation is organized into five sections. Chapter 2 discusses the primary method of data collection and presents a detailed outline of independent and dependent variables. Chapter 3 describes the physical and social stressors faced in each of the environments. Chapters 4 and 5 examine research findings for coping strategies and motive imagery, and each will present a topic-specific literature review. Finally, Chapter 6 highlights the unique contributions of this dissertation to empirical work in extreme and unusual environments.     13  Chapter 2: Method  First-person, publicly available personal texts such as diaries, blogs, journals, media interviews, government interviews, debriefing responses, video interviews, books, and documentaries were analyzed. The two dependent variables, coping strategies and motive imagery, were scored using thematic content analysis. Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) TCA is an objective and systematic conversion of qualitative materials (e.g., diaries and interviews) into quantitative data allowing for standard statistical analysis (Carney, 1972).  Thematic refers to the examination of verbal material for broad, conceptual concepts called themas (Murray, 1943) or themes (Holsti, 1969). The impartial and consistent assessment of explicitly identified themes yields an objective system and unbiased and reliable results (Smith, 2000). This innovative approach facilitates the assessment at a distance of subjects who would otherwise be extremely difficult or impossible to study in a laboratory (e.g., high-profile political leaders, historical figures, terrorist leaders/organizations, astronauts, etc).  TCA has limitations. The quality of the data depends on the quality of the material. Researchers are only able to score material in the languages in which they are fluent. Importantly, the researcher cannot manipulate the environment, control the independent variables, ask specific questions, or draw cause-effect inferences. However, when the limitations are properly addressed, the advantages of TCA outweigh the negatives.  There are many variables available to be scored by TCA (see, e.g., Gottschalk, 1995; Smith, 1992), and if scoring criteria are not readily available, researchers may create their own scale. Coding categories are created in one of two ways. They may be identified in advance of   14  obtaining the verbal material; the categories are informed by a theoretical or conceptual framework (Smith, 1992).  Otherwise, categories can be created after obtaining the verbal material first and classifying descriptive categories that most of the material falls under (for an example, see Johnson, Asmaro, Suedfeld, & Gushin, 2012).   Thematic content analysis has high external validity. The participants are not influenced by the research questions, as the material is generated while the subject is engaging in everyday activities. Subjects who agree to participate in standard research procedures are aware that the goal is to uncover their beliefs, attitudes, ideologies, etc., and may be motivated to respond in socially desired ways, self-enhance, and/or conform to norms (Suedfeld, Frisch, Hermann, & Mandel, n.d). TCA is an unobtrusive and naturalistic process of data generation (Carney, 1972; Holsti, 1969; Smith, 1992). In addition, ideas expressed in spontaneous thought are more natural and less self-critical than self-report measures. Therefore, information gathered through TCA may capture details that the subject is unwilling or unable to report via alternative methods (Murray, 1943; Smith, 1992; Smith, 2000; Suedfeld et al., n.d).  TCA is a laborious process. Smith (2000) has suggested that using automated systems may make coding data faster and less taxing on the researchers. Automated systems, such as the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) computer software, are effective at looking at some specifics of verbal material (Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001). Unlike TCA scoring systems, most automated programs discount the context, and restrict analysis to dictionaries imported by the program makers. Due to its advantages, TCA is the chosen method for this exploratory study.    15  Scoring Procedures Standard procedures regarding scorer training and inter-scorer reliability were implemented.  All scorers attended a certification workshop for each independent variable. Scorers completed background reading on the theory, attended a workshop on scoring the specific variable, and practiced scoring selected passages according to established manuals. Trainees compared their scores to those of expert scorers, and discussed their answers with the leader and other students. The trainees completed a variable-specific test and achieved a total percent agreement of 85% or higher with expert scorers on test passages. In order to increase intercoder reliability, trainers were specifically taught not to infer beyond the written text. To further ensure reliability, each archival source was scored by a main scorer and an independent reliability scorer. The main scorer was responsible for 100% of the material, while the reliability scorer was responsible for, on average, 25 % of randomly selected passages. The two scorers needed to achieve a total agreement of 85% or higher in order to continue scoring. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the scorers.  Subjects and Data Sources All documents were first-person narratives describing the mission embarked upon by the subject. Volunteers were instructed to search for narratives online and at the local and national libraries. All first-person narratives that were longer than two pages (typed in size 12 Times New Roman font or book pages) were selected. Narratives selected in which a mission(s) was not described were excluded. Document types included debriefing interviews, autobiographies, radio interviews, books, anonymous and identified blogs, and public journals.  For three of the four environments the search was exhaustive (space, high-altitude, and SAR) for available documents. The military environment had a vast selection of available documents. The   16  documents selected were a combination of blogs, newspaper interviews, letters from the war, and a collection of first-person stories from a book composition. Type of material scored did not have an effect on the significant results.  The number of documents scored for each sample does not translate exactly to number of subjects within each sample. Some documents were unscorable for one variable (e.g., coping), but did have scores for another (e.g., motive imagery). In addition, some subjects produced more than one scoreable document; in these cases the data were combined. A list of all sources can be obtained from the author. A full document breakdown for this study can be found in Table 2. The sample size for the two studies is not the same as Table 2 due to the abovementioned unscorable documents. Overall, 166 subjects had scorable narratives for coping, and 171 for motive imagery. Due to the nature of the study, consistent demographic information was not available for all subjects. Gender and leadership status were the only demographic variables used, as others would have yielded low power due to small sample sizes across environments. Below is a detailed list of sources and known demographic information. The astronaut sample consisted of archival materials produced by 46 astronauts who flew on ISS expeditions. Narratives included two NASA oral histories, 88 NASA and media interviews, and 18 diaries. All sources were retrieved online between September 2007 and January 2009. Twenty-three astronauts were American, 20 Russian, two were European, and one was Canadian. Eleven had no prior flight experience, 16 had flown in space once before, and 19 had flown two or more times. On ISS, 12 flew as part of a crew of two, 34 flew in a crew of three. Three of the astronauts were women and 43 were men. Finally, 17 were labeled as leaders while 29 were labelled as team members.    17  The mountaineering sample included first-person accounts of leaders and team members who attempted to summit Mt. Everest, K2, and various peaks of Annapurna. These three mountains are the highest and the most dangerous to climb. There were 69 documents in total. More specifically, we scored 57 climbing blogs, seven media interviews, and five books. Thirty-four climbers climbed Mt. Everest, five K2, and 11 Annapurna. Seventeen of the subjects climbed with a Canadian company called Peak Freaks under the guidance of Tim Ripple. Eight climbers were part of the Xtreme Everest climbing team, a team of medical doctors and climbers conducting high altitude research during the climb. Eleven of the mountaineers were women while 39 were men. Finally, eight of the mountaineers were leaders and the rest (42) were team members. The third sample, search and rescue members, was the smallest of the four, with 30 subjects. All were trained volunteers or professional team leaders who helped during natural disasters or with missing persons in the wilderness. There were 34 files scored in total, 22 media interviews, two blogs, and 10 first-person rescue accounts from health care workers (Harless & Morris, 2009).  Thirteen of the subjects discussed rescues of missing individuals; all were in the wilderness areas. Seven helped victims after an earthquake, specifically in New Zealand and Haiti. Eight of the SAR members were women, 22 were men. Out of the 30 members, seven were leaders while 23 were labeled as team members. Finally, the fourth sample had 60 documents produced by soldiers who engaged in ground combat. All of the soldiers were grouped together regardless of their branch within the military or type of combat they engaged in.  It is important to state that there are notable differences between the military branches and the experiences of the soldiers within each.   18  However due to the small sample in this study and the comparison of this sample to those in other EUEs as opposed to other soldiers, all of the branches were grouped together. Throughout the paper ?soldier(s)? refers to all subjects within the military sample regardless of their branch. Of the 60 documents, 18 were blog posts, and 42 were a combination of interviews and first-person accounts of the most memorable combat experience. This resulted in 60 subjects for the military sample. Additional information was known for a subset of the full sample. Twenty-six soldiers fought in Iraq, 18 in Afghanistan, and 15 fought during World War II (12 in Normandy on D-Day and three at the Battle of Bulge). Fifty-one of soldiers were American, five were Canadian, and three were British. Fifteen of the American soldiers had won a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, or the Silver Star for their acts during combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Of the 60 subjects, 42 were in the Army, seven in the Air Force, seven in the Marine Corps, and three in the Navy. Three subjects are missing demographic information for different categories. Four of the soldiers were female, 56 were male. Finally, 14 were assigned the role of a leader while 46 were labeled team member.   19  Table 2 Overall subject breakdown Variable Category N (total=186) Occupation Astronauts 46  Mountaineers 50  SAR 30  Soldiers 60    Occupational Category Science and Adventure 96  Safety and Security 90    Environment Type Natural 80  Human-Made 106    Status Leader 46  Team Member 140    Sex Men 160   Women 26  Independent Variables Five independent variables were identified from the literature (Table 2). As this is not an experimental study, "independent variables" refers to the categories into which the sample was divided. An additional independent variable was Mission Phase, a repeated measures variable, defined by whether the narrative refers to the time period before, during, or after the mission.  Occupation refers to group membership as well as to the specific environment. For example, coping strategies mentioned by astronauts are interchangeable with coping in outer space. Both terms refer to how astronauts cope in space. The same follows for the other three groups. Astronauts, mountaineers, SAR staff, and soldiers were chosen for a variety of reasons. First, astronauts were the focus of my Master of Arts thesis that inspired this comparison study of comparable groups who also work and live in EUEs. Second, plenty of material was available   20  for the military sample, and significant research has been done with soldiers. The military sample provided consistency and allowed for comparison between current research and published findings. Finally, in the empirical literature, high-altitude mountaineers and SAR personnel are among the least studied and most underrepresented EUE samples. Findings from this study will further contribute to the information known about these groups and environments. Occupational Category refers to the inspiration and goals of the collective group, and the organization/team. For example, organizations such as NASA, CSA, ESA, etc. are guided by the drive for Science and Adventure, but so are the astronauts who also have goals like excitement, fame, personal success, etc. Similarly, the goal of soldiers is to protect and serve their country, as is the goal of the military. The goals of soldiers also include survival, safety, comfort, promotion, etc. The two Occupational Categories used were Science and Adventure and Safety and Security. Environment Type defines the environment within which the subjects reside and work. An environment type may be either Natural such as the terrain up Mt. Everest, or Human-Made such as the ISS.    Status refers to subject?s role as a leader or member of a team. Three of the four groups have a pre-assigned commander or leader. For this study, followers, crew, and (group) member are used interchangeably to refer to members of the group who were not the commander or leader. Status assignment for the military sample was different. In the military there is always a superior officer to any position, hence status was based on qualitative information in the archive. For this study, leadership status was assigned to subjects who, in their archives, explicitly noted their leadership role during specific combat missions. Out of the 15 military subjects assigned the role of a leader, one was a Colonel, one a Major, two were Captains, two were Lieutenants, and the remainder were Sergeants.    21   Mission Phase refers to three phases (time periods) as experienced by the subjects. Pre-mission was the period before the start of a mission. During Mission was the period spent engaged in the mission. Post-mission was the period after the return from mission. The mission phases were based on the time frame the subject referred to, not the time at which the subject produced the narrative. Gender is a self-explanatory variable. Dependent Variables  The two primary variables of interest are coping strategies and motive imagery. Together, these variables address the teams? ability to handle and manage stress, compare the motives and coping strategies of leaders and members, examine unique environmental demands on job roles, and understand the personality composite of the specialized groups. Coping strategies vary across situations; motives, on the other hand, are somewhat consistent and drive individual behaviours (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). More specifically, individuals have a stable motive tendency. However, the motives can change as a result of major life events (Martin, 2000).  Examination of motives across mission phases and across groups allows for studying any changes as well as stable tendencies. The interplay of a fluid and a stable variable provides a balance and understanding of the teams and environments. Each dependent variable and its precise scoring guidelines are explained in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5.  Research Questions The study was guided by the following exploratory research questions: 1. Do groups that work in EUEs differ in coping strategies and motive images they mention? a. Are the top two coping strategies similar or different across environments?   22  b. If the groups are similar in the coping strategies they mention, are motives of the members what differentiates them between EUEs? 2. In what ways are leaders of these extreme teams similar to or different from their group members and each other? 3. What can we learn about teams that work and live in EUEs? Across Occupational Categories? Environment Types? Mission Phases?  General answers to these exploratory research questions will be discussed in Chapter 6. The following three chapters outline the empirical research on stressors in EUEs (Chapter 3), coping strategies employed (Chapter 4), and motive imagery (Chapter 5) of the four mission-oriented groups working in extreme and unusual environments.     23  Chapter 3: Physiological and Psychological Stressors in EUEs What is Stress?  Stress means different things to different people. To a family doctor, stress may mean a form of burden on the patient. To a physicist, stress may be used to describe the internal force of opposing particles. To a single mother, stress may mean a busy day carting her children from appointment to appointment. To psychologists, the definition of stress depends on their area of expertise. This paper uses the definition of stress proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) in Stress, Appraisal, and Coping: "Psychological stress is a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being" (p. 19). The two important parts of the definition are influence of environmental demands, and the individual response to those demands (appraisal). Once stress is experienced, coping with the person-environment relationship appraised as stressful begins. In brief, an interaction between a person and environment undergoes cognitive appraisal to evaluate whether, why, and how the specific interaction is stressful. If the interaction is appraised as stressful, the person begins to cope with the stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).   Stressors within each environment can be acute or chronic. Acute stressors are sudden, novel, intense, and time-limited, and require an immediate response (Elliott & Eisdorfer, 1982). Acute stressors are often encountered in emergency situations when teams need to respond and deal with a sudden change quickly. In EUEs, acute stressors will often be environmental or physiological in nature. For example, a fire on the ISS is an acute stressor. Astronauts must a) put out the fire or b) immediately leave the station via an escape vehicle. Once either of these actions is taken the stressor is removed.    24  Chronic stressors are those in the background of our everyday activities, the "daily hassles" (Elliott & Eisdorfer, 1982). Chronic stressors may be present before the mission or may start during the mission. They can be both physiological and psychological in nature. A soldier experiencing separation stress or crews on the ISS dealing with a heterogeneous make-up must deal with the stress for the duration of the mission. Chronic stress can be 'removed' if the environment is changed. However, that may be difficult or impossible. Continuous stress on the job is a primary example of chronic stress.   Subjective appraisal of the situation determines its significance to the individual (Krohne & Laux, 1982, Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). The stressor can be evaluated in many ways. Two common ways are as a threat or as a challenge (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). When the situation is appraised as threatening, future harm and loss is anticipated, and negative emotions, such as fear, are experienced. This may facilitate planning for the future, and may lead to a pre-emptive coping decision. Another appraisal is to see the situation as challenging. The individual sees the potential for growth; the appraisal is often associated with emotions such as excitement and eagerness. The difference in appraisal of the stress may affect the response to the stressor (Berkun, 1964; Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993).  Challenge and threat are not mutually exclusive categories (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For example, a 9-1-1 call regarding a missing toddler may be appraised as both threatening and challenging by a SAR member. The call may bring feelings of apprehension and fear of not performing well during the search. It may also arouse feelings of excitement and hope of finding the toddler.  There are individual differences in appraisal tendencies; there are also tendencies to appraise some situations as threatening and some as challenging (Driskell, Salas, & Johnston,   25  2000). A break in the radiation shield at the ISS may be appraised as threatening for all on board, whereas an annoying habit of a fellow crew member would more likely be appraised as challenging. Most of the stressors described in the following section have the potential to be appraised as threatening due to the environmental constraints.  Is All Stress Bad?  No, all stress is not bad. Situations appraised as challenging are often accompanied by positive emotions. Successful resolution of challenging situations has a positive effect on self-esteem, pride, and future ability to cope. This type of stress has been termed eustress (Selye, 1978). Eu is the Greek meaning for well or good, hence eustress is stress caused by positive events or circumstances. The appraisal of the stressor determines whether the stress is pathogenic or salutogenic. However, stress appraised as distress can also have a positive impact on performance.  The Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) states that there exists a certain level of arousal at which performance is optimal. Yerkes and Dodson (1908) define arousal as the physiological state of being aware and reactive to stimuli. Performance depends on arousal level, as well as task difficulty. Arousal increases the probability of performing a dominant, learned response. For easy tasks, where the dominant response is easy to retrieve, optimal arousal is higher than for difficult tasks (Hebb, 1955; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). For difficult tasks, high arousal leads to narrowed focus, less cognitive flexibility, and low performance. Thus, high performance is related to task-specific optimal arousal level. Therefore, the discussion of stressors experienced in EUEs is not meant to paint a negative picture of the environments. Some of these stressors are what brings subjects into EUEs and keeps them performing well.    26   Years of experience, observation, and research have identified many psychological characteristics relevant to extreme and unusual environments. They can be subdivided into physical stressor, psycho-environmental factors, temporal factors, and social factors (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). The following section will review environment-specific stressors. Stress Effects on Space Crews  Environmental and Physiological Stressors   Muscle and Bone Mass Atrophy  Exposure to microgravity prevents the normal development and functioning of bones and muscles; the resulting problem is called disuse atrophy. Astronauts can lose up to 1% of their bone mass per month as a result of disuse atrophy (Alkner & Tesch, 2004). The countermeasures to date have involved either treating the cause (weightlessness) by using lower body negative pressure devices to mimic the effects of gravity or by treating the effect with a combination of sex hormones and growth hormones, and other nutritional supplements (Davis & Davis, 2012). The most common countermeasure is physical exercise for approximately two hours per day (Hawkey, 2003).  Astronauts try to make exercise enjoyable and fun. For example, Sunita Williams ran an equivalent of the Boston Marathon during her ISS Expedition. She completed the marathon in four hours and 24 minutes and ran about three times around the world. In order to simulate gravity, Williams was strapped to the treadmill via shoulder and waist straps.   Radiation Ionizing  radiation from the sun and galactic sources can result in life-threatening problems for the astronauts. The type and amount of radiation influence the outcome. Problems   27  can range from nausea and vomiting to central nervous system damage, and potentially death. Other long-term problems are cataracts, cardiovascular problems, and an increase in cancer diagnoses (Cucinotta et al., 2001; Space Radiation Analysis Group: Johnson Space Center, 2012). The space agencies have developed a variety of ways to protect the astronauts from radiation; for example, the material used to construct the space vehicle and station, the altitude and angle the station flies at, and the start time and length of extravehicular activitie (EVA). A team on Earth is dedicated to predicting and measuring radiation exposure from four to 24 hours per day based on the station's rotation angles. Radiation hazard is one of the major potential obstacles to a manned mission to Mars (Jakel, 2004).     Noise and Sleep  The constant humming and background noise of life-support machinery can cause concentration and sleep disturbance (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). Astronaut circadian rhythms are disrupted as the crew sees up to 16 sunrises and sunsets in a 24-hour period (Goel & Dinges, 2012; Schneider et al., 2010). Sleep disturbances take a form of jet lag and shift lag with side-effects such as daytime fatigue, inability to sleep at night, irritability, and slowed physical reflexes (Toby, 1988 as cited in Stuster, 1996). Recent on-board research demonstrated that astronauts slept an average of 6.5 hours a day while in space, reported lower sleep quality than on Earth, and had impaired scores on tests of memory, calculation, vigilance, and coordination (Dijk et al., 2003). Space agencies do provide daily balanced schedules allowing for an appropriate periods of rest.      28    Danger and Confinement  Astronauts live within one of the harshest external environments imaginable. The capsule they inhabit provides them with clean air and water, protection from the outside environment, food, communication, and a way of escape. Nevertheless, the great possibility of equipment malfunctioning, fire, or collision with space debris could result in heightened awareness of one?s personal danger (Stuster, 1996). This anxiety may become pronounced in the confined space of the capsule. Due to the lack of space, exercise is limited. Outside work on the space station is also necessary. Training for an extra-vehicular activity takes years of practice in water and land facilities. The spacewalks usually break the monotony, and expose the astronaut to adventure, challenging work, and beautiful scenery.    Monotony and Sensory Deprivation Monotony is defined as a ?lack of sensory variation and novelty? (Berry, 1973). Due to the limited flow of communication and the unchanging sensory information, inside and outside the station, astronauts can get restless and agitated. The lack of connection to the lifestyle at home can lead to decrease in motivation and crew morale (Johnson, 2010).  In some cases, sensory monotony can lead to hallucinations, which can disrupt one's mental health and performance (Bishop, 2010; Sperber, 1969).  The crews themselves have employed countermeasures such as celebrating holidays and historical space events, personalizing leisure time, connecting Earth viewing with personally important places, and documenting their experiences (Johnson, 2010).   The view of the outside environment is also very important. Astronauts mention being entranced by the view (Harrison, Clearwater, McKay & Gunderson, 1990) and emphasize the   29  importance of large windows. Viewing the Earth, stars, and galaxies is awe-inspiring. Steve McLean (personal communication, October 13, 2009), a Canadian astronaut, mentioned that during an EVA he was able to feel the warmth and glow of Earth giving him a boost of energy and appreciation for his work. Researchers are unsure how sensory reduction will influence the mission to Mars. For the first time ever humans will not be able to see Earth and may experience an ?Earth-out-of-view? phenomenon (Kanas & Manzey, 2008). This would add to the feeling of isolation and the fear of the unknown.   Social Stressors   Social Monotony and Conflict Social monotony is the lack of social variation and novelty. It can result in boredom, as well as risky behaviour as a way to add some excitement and novelty. Visits by other groups who are on shorter missions can break the monotony and improve mood (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). However, these visits may also cause conflict and confusion as the visitors are not aware of the unspoken customs and territorial divisions. This is termed the ?host-guest? situation (Kanas et al., 2006). The visiting group arrives for a short period of time, tasked with many high intensity assignments to complete; their productivity is low while they adjust to the effects of microgravity. This in turn leads the hosts to postpone the completion of their tasks and help the newcomers.  Host members have reported that the visiting group prevents them from doing their job, disturbs their work, and seems unprepared (Kanas et al., 2006; Kozerenko, Gushin, Sled, Efimov, & Pystinnikova, 1999).  Group members differ greatly in personality, social skills, life experiences, education and expertise (Kubis, 1972). These individual differences can lead to chronic stress during the   30  mission. Misunderstandings can fuel long-term serious conflicts. Stuster (1996) writes that most of the interpersonal conflict may not really be caused by the individuals themselves but is due to the inevitable stress and extremeness of the situation. Cosmonaut Valery Ryumin wrote in his diary that ?all conditions necessary for murder are met if you shut two men in a cabin measuring 18 feet by 20 and leave them together for two months? (Ryumin, 1980, quoted in Stuster, 1996, p.165).   Scheduling and Workload The balance between work and leisure time is very important. Astronauts? schedules are usually filled with experiments, routine maintenance, and preparation for future jobs. Work schedules are dramatically altered in preparation for space walks and shuttle/supply ship arrivals. The Sklylab 4 crew organized a protest demanding a reasonable work-leisure balance, as well as more control over their schedule (Douglas, 1991). Over-scheduling can lead to resentment of work resulting in poor performance, mistakes, and exhaustion. Individual stress leads to group stress, which decreases the productivity of the crew. In addition, lack of work also creates problems. With less demand placed on individuals their attention tends to drift, their vigilance degrades, and they become lethargic (Stuster, 1996).   Heterogeneous Crews ISS crews are composed of members of both genders and several nationalities. Cultural and religious differences could be the triggers for crew tension and low morale. Long-duration missions to Salyut and Mir space stations also included mixed crews. These heterogeneous crews flew together on the Space Shuttle to Mir and remained on the station from four to seven months. In 1995, Norman Thagard was the first American crew member on Mir. Even though he was   31  fully trained, he was often left out of challenging, important, and interesting decisions and activities (Thagard, 2007). In 1996, Shannon Lucid spent 179 days aboard Mir. She enjoyed her time in space and was left in charge of the station while her two Russian crewmates did a spacewalk. However, all the controls were taped and she was told not to touch anything (Lucid, 1998)!  There are also reports of high crew cohesion and morale. During ISS Expedition 5, American astronaut Peggy Whitson talked about playing hockey, giving haircuts, watching funny movies, and throwing birthday parties for her two Russian crewmates.  Expedition 3 Commander Frank Culbertson thanked his Russian crewmates and ground control for being very sympathetic after the September 11 attacks. His crewmates completed his tasks, providing him with extra time to speak with his family and NASA. The individual?s capability to share the group?s values, and to build positive rapport and empathetic relationships with the group, could alleviate tension in a heterogeneous crew (Kanas, 2009).  A study examining minority (guest) and majority (host) astronauts, using TCA, found that majority astronauts experienced space differently from their minority crewmates. Contrary to some assumptions, the experiences of the minority astronauts were not fully aversive. Values of Spirituality and Hedonism increased for minority astronauts (Suedfeld, Wilk, & Cassel, 2011). Suggestions for optimal group composition are mixed. Some researchers suggest that similarity between members leads to group cohesiveness (Kanas et al., 2008) while others claim that heterogeneous groups are more likely to experience higher group cohesiveness and creative problem solving (Kraft, Lyons, & Binder, 2003; Hoffman, 1965).  Most space agencies employ women astronauts. Including women has resulted in no negative effect on group performance (Oliver, 1991). Due to differences in the quality of   32  interpersonal relationships between members, consideration has been given to an all-female crew or one with already formed heterosexual couples (Leon & Sandal, 2003).    The Role of Leadership Commanders face additional stressors. These will be discussed in Chapter 5 when motive imagery is examined. In short, the leader is far from the command center and does not have any tactical support. The impact of reward and punishment assigned is diluted due to available space and task restrictions. Also, social leveling between the leader and the crew often occurs (Kanas & Ritsher, 2005; Stuster, 1996).  In summary, astronauts experience physiological and environmental stressors (microgravity, radiation, noise and sleep problems, confinement, sensory deprivation) as well as social ones (social monotony, conflict, workload pressure, team composition, and status differences). Research on how they cope with these stressors will be reviewed in Chapter 4.  Stress Effects on High-Altitude Mountaineers  Physiological and environmental stressors of high-altitude environments are well researched, not by psychologists but by physicians (Schommer & B?rtsch, 2011). Studies are conducted at high altitudes, but also in pressure chambers at specialized laboratories such as the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Fewer studies have been published on social stressors.       33   Environmental and Physiological Stressors   Lack of Oxygen  The most important lesson climbers, as well as those traveling to high altitude areas, learn is that they need to acclimatize their bodies to the lack of oxygen at high altitudes. Failure to do so can lead to acute mountain sickness or other serious conditions such as pulmonary or cerebal edema. Lungs depend on air pressure to force the air inside. The muscles of the lungs expand creating a vacuum of air allowing trachea and bronchial tubes to inflate the air sacs. At Mt Everest base camp (17,500 feet) the air pressure is half of that at sea level; while at the top of Mt Everest (29,000 feet) it is a third (Kamler, 2004).  Common risk factors are (1) absolute altitude (2) speed of ascent (3) individual predisposition, and (4) lack of acclimatization (Schommer, & B?rtsch, 2011). Climbers are most likely to get acute mountain sickness if they ascend too fast to high altitudes (6500 - 10,000 feet). Symptoms consist of headaches, dizziness, nausea, and sleep disturbances. Treatment is simple: descend, acclimatize, and then proceed up at a slower rate (Honigman et al., 1993). Two of the more serious illnesses occur at higher elevations (over 10,000 feet). Pulmonary edema begins after a climber has spent time at an altitude of over 8,000 feet. It is referred to as the high altitude killer and in the early days it was thought to have been "caused by the breath of dragons lurking behind high mountain passes" (Kamler, 2004, p.205).  If a climber ascends quickly pulmonary edema may develop from a cough or after high exertion. The condition gets worse when the plasma spills into the air sacs leading to drowning by one's own fluids (Schommer & B?rtsch, 2011). The worst condition, cerebral edema, is the swelling of the brain. It occurs at elevations over 17,000 feet and is often preceded by acute mountain sickness. Climbers begin to have   34  trouble controlling their motor functions, start to lose consciousness, may develop hallucinations, and fall into a coma. Without descent, the climber is dead within 24 hours of developing it (Roach et al., 2000).   To protect themselves, the climbers climb high and sleep low. Climbers usually take two weeks to climb to Mt. Everest base camp (17,500 feet) and then take an additional month and a half to climb the remaining 11,500 feet. Four camps are set up along the face of Everest. Climbers visit each a number of times before the summit push. After reaching a camp (one, two, and three), the climbers return to the previous one for several days to allow their bodies to properly adjust to the altitude. The summit push is planned from Camp 4 during a window of good weather (Kamler, 2004).    Extreme Temperatures and Wind  Mt. Everest base camp temperatures range from -2 ? C in the summer to -20 ? C during the winter months. On the summit, temperatures range from -30 ? C with wind-chill in the summer to -70 ? C with wind-chill in the winter (Moore & Semple, 2011). Due to the extreme temperatures and winds, all of the major mountains (Mt. Everest, K2, Annapurna) have pre-determined climbing windows. These are usually at the end of spring and beginning of fall. Common physical repercussions of extreme cold are frostbite and hypothermia. A frostbite rate of 366 climbers per 1000 that have attempted to summit Mt. Everest has been reported, with 33% of those at altitudes higher than 15,000 feet. Over 50 % of injuries reported involve hands or feet (Harirchi, Arvin, Vash, & Zafarmand, 2005). Furthermore, at heights greater than 23, 000 feet hypothermia was responsible for over 25% of deaths (Firth et al., 2008).    35   Layers of specialized clothing are the best defense against the frigid temperatures. Materials such as polypropylene and goose-down are essential to maintaining body heat. Climbers wear many layers on their hands, feet, and head. Just like the clothing, the tents and sleeping bags are also designed to keep out some of the wind and snow out (Kamler, 2004).    Ultraviolet Radiation  Snow blindness, the exposure of the cornea to dangerous amounts of ultraviolet radiation, is a condition that develops at high altitudes. The condition is often described as sunburned eyes, and is characterised by extreme pain and photophobia. The climber cannot see for 24 to 48 hours, all the while experiencing pain (Gibson & McKenna, 2011). Loss of vision while traversing technical parts of mountain, at extreme temperature, and at low oxygen levels can lead to fatal mistakes (Coffey, 2004). A simple solution is UV snow goggles that all climbers wear.    Equipment Malfunction  At high altitudes the climber's life often depends on specialized equipment such as climbing ropes, rope anchors, crampons, ice axes, snow ladders, tents, and for many their oxygen tanks. A subject in the sample wrote "Almost simultaneously, my oxygen mask began to disintegrate?the hose connecting the tank to the mask came off, and the strap holding the mask to my face broke... I quickly realized that under the circumstances with my O2 (I had at that point been without O2 for about 40 minutes), I should get down ASAP.  If I ever wanted to get down."  Some climbers do climb without O2 tanks, but for many the fear of equipment malfunctioning can lead the climber to develop anxiety, and feelings of doubt, and uncertainty   36  (Kamler, 2004). Diversion of focus from the climbing process can lead to mistakes that can be very dangerous.     Cognitive Impairment  Lack of oxygen also affects one's ability to think clearly and make sound decisions. A mountain climber and rescuer Ed Viesturs explains it well "There?s so many things that went wrong ? little errors, things that are black and white down here aren?t really black and white up there. You know, the decision-making process is a little bit more muddled" (Rose, 1998).  Adverse effects are experienced in memory, learning ability, perception, speed of processing, and motor flexibility (Regard, Oelz, Brugger, Dipl Biol, & Landis, 1989). Decisions such as when one shall abandon the summit attempt, calculating the amount of oxygen remaining in the tanks, deciding whether to help a fellow climber, or operating a complex set of climbing ropes are all hard to make when not enough oxygen reaches the brain.    A recent study examining highly trained high-altitude Special Forces operators and matched other soldiers (pool of soldiers engaged in routine jobs, including stevedoring, repairing, secretarial work, cooking, and medical care) found that the military operators outperformed the other soldiers at sea level on all cognitive tasks. After five days at 13,000 feet, the performance of both groups decreased significantly but more so for the trained military operators. The authors claim that acute hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) damaged the relevant structures/functions underlying training, dependent neural plasticity. In other words, synapses that are trained for these cognitive tasks lose their plasticity in low oxygen conditions more in those that have highly trained pathways (Li, Zhang, You, Zheng, & Gao,   37  2012).Therefore, highly experienced and trained leaders may not have an obvious cognitive advantage in low oxygen conditions.   Some expedition leaders are aware of their cognitive impairment and reduced ability to make correct decisions at high altitudes. A new practice is to have an experienced climber, sometimes the primary expedition leader, at base camp and in contact with the climbing teams. This person and the leader on the mountain make the decisions for the team.   Social Stressors  First person accounts of mountaineering are filled with a myriad of social stressors at high altitudes. However, these social stressors are rarely discussed in the literature (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Ryn, 1988; Stuck, Balzer, Hecht, & Schroder, 2005; Suedfeld, 1987).    Communication   Miscommunication with base camp from higher up on the mountain, with other climbing teams, among team members at different stages of the climb, and even between team members on the same climbing rope can result in disagreements, shouting matches, and fatal mistakes. No empirical research exists on the topic; however, anecdotal evidence can be found in the literature.    On the way down from the summit of K2, Chris Warner encountered two Italians trying to summit after nightfall. He radioed their leader at Camp 4 and was told that the team had been ordered to turn around three hours prior; the climbers claimed they never got the message. Wanting to summit, they pushed on. At 1:00 am, one of the Italians stumbled into Camp 4, reassuring others that his partner was also on the way down. He fell asleep. At 8:20 am, the leader of the Italian team finally informed Chris that their teammate never got in. "The Italian   38  leader only then tells us that their last teammate never returned to the tents. We are shocked. How could they selfishly ignore his safety to get some sleep? By not telling us until now, the Italians missed any opportunity for rescuing their fellow climber" (Warner & Schmincke, 2009, p. 27).  In the span of 15 hours two miscommunication errors cost a climber his life. The radio message between the leader and the climbers was ignored and the Italian team failed to ask for help early enough, losing all opportunities of rescue.  On their descent from Siula Grande, in the Peruvian Andes, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates were caught in a storm and stuck in a gully. The two developed a rope tug system in order to communicate as the wind made oral communication impossible. Yates was leading the climb down. From above, Simpson saw that the ledge was about to collapse. He tugged a predetermined "stop" command. Yates misunderstood, and that led to both of them falling down a deadly slope. Thankfully, both acted quickly and their ice axes saved their lives (Simpson, 2004).   Miscommunication played a major part in the disaster on Everest on May 10 to 11, 1996. Rob Hall, the leader of a New Zealand expedition, had agreed with the leader of a Taiwanese expedition that the New Zealand and American teams would be the only ones making the summit push on May 10. This was to prevent gridlock in the death zone (altitude higher than 26,000 feet). The Taiwanese leader then ignored the plan and had his team try for summit on the same day. Once all three teams left Camp 4, a series of miscommunications and mistakes resulted in eight people dying, including the leaders of the New Zealand and American teams (Krakauer, 1997).      39  Egoistic Tendencies  "Unfortunately, the sort of individual who is programmed to ignore personal distress and keep pushing for the top is frequently programmed to disregard signs of grave and imminent danger as well. This forms the dilemma that every Everest climber eventually comes up against: in order to succeed you must be exceedingly driven, but if you're too driven you are likely to die...Thus the slopes of Everest are littered with corpses" (Krakauer, 1997, p. 185).   In the above quote, Krakauer (1997) explains how one's ego, as well as the ego of one's fellow climbers, is the most dangerous social stressor. Each member had a goal and would not let anybody stop them. Doug, Krakauer's climbing partner, was denied summit at a previous attempt. Krakauer knew to stay out of Doug's way this time around, even though the two of them were assigned to keep each other safe. The egos of the climbers on the way to the summit is probably the second reason why so many die, the first being the severity of the environment.   During the same 1996 summit attempt, Anatoli Boukreev climbed without supplementary oxygen while also serving as a guide. It is controversial, but many say that Boukreev endangered his clients for his own glory that day.  Talking about a group of 40 climbers who ignored all warnings on Everest and were desperately in need of help descending, Warner says, "We sacrificed our own summit bid to save those who were overconfident that they ignored their own inexperience ... Their arrogance destroyed our summit bid and put them and us in danger" (Warner & Schmincke, 2009, p. 78). Warner also discusses his own overconfidence and stupidity, which almost killed him and his three best friends while climbing Ama Dablam in Nepal.    40    Team Dynamics  Faulty team dynamics may have had a role in the deaths of one Canadian and three Sherpas during the 1982 Canadian Mount Everest Expedition. Climbers were selected based on skill, not how they got along with each other. Many of the team members disliked William March, their leader, and were not afraid to tell him so. On the first day during their first acclimatization climb to Camp 1, on the ice fall, tragedy struck and four members died. The team members argued, and blamed March for the lack of teamwork and support. Six Canadian members abandoned the expedition; the remaining five ignored March's orders and retrieved the body of their fallen members (Patterson, 2007).   Closed communication between client and leader has resulted in indecision on the mountain. Andy Harris, one of the leaders of the 1996 New Zealand Everest expedition, showed signs of hypoxia (which has the potential to develop into cerebal edema). Krakauer writes "On this expedition he had been cast in the role of an invincible guide, there to look after me and other clients; we had been specifically indoctrinated not to question our guide's judgment. The thought never entered my crippled mind that Andy might in fact be in terrible straits - that a guide might urgently need help from me" (Krakauer, 1997, p. 196).  Harris died on the mountain that day.   Team dynamics and leadership qualities of successful groups and leaders will be discussed in the next chapter. The stressors described (low oxygen, weather, equipment problems, communication issues, and teammates) make it seem like climbing to the top of the world is almost impossible. However since 1922, 2972 climbers have summited Everest, a 29% success rate (AdventureStats, 2002).   41  Stress Effects on Search and Rescue Teams and Relief Workers  Environmental and Physiological Stressors  SAR teams work in very diverse environments and require a variety of skills and equipment necessary to properly perform operations. These environments include water rescues (lakes, rivers, ocean), mountain rescues (snow, avalanche risk, ice, rock, high altitude), cave rescues (marine and terrestrial), desert rescues, and natural/human made disasters/accidents (Allner, Rygalov, & Pierce, n.d,).  Teams conducting water rescues vary based on the type of water (lake, river, ocean, pond) and depth of rescue (surface, underwater, deep dive). An underwater rescue in a fast moving river requires different skills and equipment than a surface, missing vessel rescue. All teams face dangers such as limited visibility, low water and surface temperature, high wind, debris, predators (e.g., sharks or crocodiles), and currents (Allner et al., n.d.). Water searches involve, but are not limited to, locating missing vessels, recovering a drowned victim, or  rescuing a person swept out to sea. Many rescues involve the help of the local public who live/work on the water and have their own water craft.   Time of year and elevation of the mountain dictate how a mountain rescue evolves. Teams encounter difficult terrain ranging from rock and mud at lower elevations to ice, snow, frigid temperatures, and avalanches at higher elevations. SAR crew need specialized climbing gear, transportation, communication devices, clothing, etc. Large popular recreational areas such as the Rocky Mountains in BC/Alberta or the Southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado have a number of professional crew members who continuously train and staff their operations with   42  new volunteers. In British Columbia, about 13,000 volunteers are trained to perform mountain and water rescues (Emergency Management BC, 2013).   Cave SAR operations are terrain dependent as cave rescues can occur in both marine and terrestrial environments. Terrestrial caves are called wet caves because they often, but not always have underground rivers and lakes in them. Dangers such as mud slides, tight air spaces, floods, low temperatures, and the possibility of hypothermia present great problems to the victim and rescuers (Burger, 2006). The underground tunnels and rivers are often explored by local cave enthusiasts who provide additional help and guidance to SAR teams (Setnicka, 1980). On the other hand, underwater caves are often very cold, dark, and deep. Knowledge of tidal tables and water patterns is essential for rescue. In this environment, the chance of a rescue is very small and most operations are body recovery operations. Furthermore, the danger to SAR teams is extremely high, as cave diving is a highly technical skill and the probability of escape is often low (Allner et al., n.d.).  Desert SAR teams are faced with vast open spaces where the availability of water and shade is rare. Rescuers and victims must deal with high or low temperatures, face the risk of becoming dehydrated or hypothermic, and manage poisonous wildlife (Armstrong, 2000). Most importantly, SAR teams must know how to navigate open spaces with few landmarks, using only a map and a compass. Victims are often lost hikers and climbers but can also include disoriented individuals who accidentally wandered into the dangerous environment.  Many SAR operations include rescues in areas affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. In these cases, SAR members work in conjunction with the local fire, police, and EMT teams and are usually aided by military units.   43  Rescue tasks depend on time of arrival to the disaster zone. Teams that arrive shortly after the disaster are kept busy by finding and evacuating survivors, performing on the scene first-aid, and establishing shelters. Those teams are replaced by rested SAR crews that continue to perform the same operations but are also responsible for locating and bringing in the deceased, helping to connect lost families, helping to organize animal rescues, maintaining operations at temporary shelters and dealing with after-events such as floodwaters, more storms, aftershocks, etc. (Harless & Morris, 2009). SAR teams face dangers from fallen electrical wires, contaminated water, hypothermia or dehydration, and mental and physical exhaustion. As compared to the other rescue scenarios, SAR teams in disaster situations work for longer periods and see more casualties.   The stressors experienced within each SAR environment can be grouped into physiological-environmental and social stressors. Most of the stressors discussed above fall into the physiological - environmental category. To summarize, stressors such as cold, deep, fast-moving water, extreme cold and hot temperatures, fog, high winds, and the ever-changing environment play major roles during a rescue. The changing environment forces the rescuer and the victim to overcome it in order to survive; however, rescuers must always keep self-rescue principles in mind if they are to help the victim (Allner et al., n.d.).   As with mountain climbers, almost no research has been published regarding social stressors of rescue work. However, SAR training manuals do discuss potential social stressors (Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary - Pacific Region [CCGA], 2011; Canadian Department of National Defence [DND], 1994).      44   Social Stressors  SAR teams respond to reports of missing persons in their geographical area. They could be called to deploy to natural disaster zones, but only if their skills and expertise are relevant to the rescue. For the most part SAR operations involve locating missing persons in any of the circumstances mentioned above. To find a missing person, a fairly small team (three to five members) must cover a large geographical area, often at night (Hill, 1993). To cover the area, teams spread out and keep in touch via light signals or radio. The sense of isolation in a dark and unfamiliar environment, coupled with physical fatigue and fear, affects one's coping with a difficult situation (Hill, 1993). Besides feeling isolated from their team members, individual SAR personnel must always know where they are in relation to other team members, the search area, and to the command center. The mental resources required to keep track of one's spatial orientation and location may compete with resources required for clue vigilance (Webb, Estrada, & Kelley, 2012). This leaves the rescuer in a potentially dangerous situation. Therefore, isolation from one's team members and keeping track of one's position in relation to everyone else can be a major social-cognitive stressor in SAR teams (Hill, 1993).   Differences between the leader and team members, as well as between different leaders can impede the efficiency and effectiveness of search missions (Jones, Lavalla, & Long, 2005). Often, the leaders are experiencing additional stress as they are responsible for most in-the-field decisions. In the field, communication between the team leader and the team occurs via radio; "garbled communications, dead radio batteries, malfunctioning equipment, and fading signals" act as additional stressors in team communication patterns (Hill, 1993, pg. 3). Leadership and team stressors will be discussed in Chapter 5.   45    A search prolonged due to the geography or weather (environmental stressor) could transform into a social stressor. Most searches are over within a couple of hours; however, some stretch for a couple of days, and even weeks. As time passes, the probability of finding the victim alive decreases (CCGA, 2011). The prolonged search attracts the attention of the local media agencies, which places an additional burden on the rescuers. If the rescuers do not find the victim, the media often portray the efforts of the SAR members as weak, disorganized, and insufficient (Hill, 1993). The reality of not finding the victim alive, coupled with negative media attention, can have detrimental effects on small local SAR teams. Most of the team that helped look for Andrew Warburton, a missing 9-year old boy from Nova Scotia, resigned from their roles as SAR members once Andrew's body was found. Andrew had 200 meters to travel between his cousin's house and the swimming hole where he was meeting his friends. He was found three kilometers away from the swimming hole seven days after he went missing. The area was perceived to be small and easy to search. The public thought that if the boy had been found earlier he would not have died from the elements. The case attracted negative national media attention and resulted in unfavourable documentaries, news reports, and magazine articles during the search (Cornell & Hill, 2006; Hill, 1993).  Victims sometimes die; a reality especially hard for the SAR member who located them. Additional stress occurs when the victim is a child, a co-worker, or has been found in an area previously searched (CCGA, 2011; Hill, 1993). Searchers are likely to falsely assume responsibility for the death of the victim, entering a thought cycle of what they could have or should have done. These cases are the ones most likely to result in critical incident stress (Michael, 2007).    46   A critical incident is " an event outside the range of normal experience that is sudden, unusual, and unexpected, disrupts one?s sense of control, involves the perception of a threat to life, and may include elements of physical or emotional loss" (DND, 1994, pg. 1).  North American firefighters, police officers, EMTs, SAR personnel, relief workers, and UN Peacekeepers are trained in critical incident stress (CIS) management (DND, 1994).    Common Immediate and Delayed Physical, Cognitive, and Emotional Reactions to Critical Incident Stress (CIS)  A SAR member who encounters a stressful situation (e.g., finding a dead child or co-worker, being injured or lost on the job, etc) may hyperventilate, sweat, feel nauseated, have chills, and become dizzy. Later reactions may involve fatigue, exaggerated startle response , and sleeping difficulties. Immediate cognitive reactions may include confusion, impaired problem solving and decision making, and memory loss; delayed responses are similar with an addition of attention impairment and flashbacks. Finally, they may experience anger, anxiety, fear, hopelessness, grief, resentment, and numbness (DND, 1994). These are very similar to acute post-traumatic stress symptoms.   The severity of the above CIS reactions depends on the situation and the individual SAR member. Situational factors include severity of the incident, duration, onset speed, intensity, and social support available. Individual factors include the perception of threat or danger, previous experiences, status, available coping resources, and behaviours of others in the team (CCGA, 2011; DND, 1994). The chance of CIS is the greatest when the event is long, severe, intense, and has progressed quickly combined with high perceived danger, unpleasant past experiences, high responsibility, and highly taxed coping resources.    47  Stress Effects on Military Combat Units  The Nature of Military Environments   Military combat units perform under life-threatening conditions; the environment has been described by some as one of the "most extreme environments imaginable" (Lampton, Clark, & Knerr, 2003, p. 57). Due to the large number of stressors on the job, modern military training incorporates many of the stressors, designed to harden and prepare the soldiers. Progress in weaponry and communication devices, as well as the urban combat environment, has made modern warfare stressful and taxing. Technological advances contribute to the information load placed onto the soldiers, leading to increased performance errors and risk-taking behaviour (Orasanu & Backer, 1996).  The decision of whether to fire one's weapon or not comes with consequences. A correct decision results in an eliminated enemy, while an incorrect one may lead to the death of innocent bystanders, one's comrades, or oneself. The pressure of this decision has had negative effects on many soldiers. For example, a subject in this study reported "And the worst part about it all was that's where I shot my bullets, when I went to see what I'd shot at, there was an 8-year-old girl there. I tried my best to bring her back to life, but there was no use." The soldier further discusses why he chose to shoot and what the alternative could have been.  The new communication systems are fast and connect more people, but place a higher cognitive load on the receiving end. Commanders are in radio contact with many others at the same time, which leads to partial or contradicting information received at faster rates.  Communication devices have started to play a major role in how the enemy engages in battle. A subject describes "And I had to shoot the position-caller before I could shoot the actual shooter.   48  He didn't have a gun, but I knew what he was doing. He was on the phone. So I sent a shot up 20 feet above him and below him and to the side of him. And he just stood there. Innocent people run. The bad guys stay and fight. So I shot him. You have to start making these moral decisions. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. You're caught in the fucking middle of it." On the surface, modern technology seems to advance the ability of the soldiers to track, evaluate, and engage in battle. However, the additional stressors placed on soldiers by modern warfare and communication systems may have unexpected consequences on combat performance and coping.  Urban combat is common; the most recent examples include combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Urban combat environments can include small villages, shanty towns, old and torn down cities, or large and modern cities (Helmus & Glenn, 2005; Lampton, Clark, & Knerr, 2012). Large modern cities present additional challenges, with underground tunnels and high-rise buildings. In addition, the high chance of civilian casualties and the low likelihood of getting backup and additional military and medical support, often modify battle plans. The new communication devices and positioning equipment may also malfunction due to interfering signals. A subject writes "We were moving into a city with a population of 5.5 million and we knew the hardest fight of the war was going to be in Baghdad. We would be surrounded the whole time. We couldn?t evacuate wounded or broken vehicles. We didn?t have air support. We didn?t have artillery support. We were alone."  Compared to the other three samples, ample research has been done with military units, specifically with combat units. A full review is beyond the scope of this dissertation and would include thousands of official reports, government projects, and empirical research articles in fields of psychology, biology, medicine, etc. Major stressors are discussed briefly below. For a   49  comprehensive review see Backer and Orasanu (1992), Michel and Solick (1983), and Orasanu and Backer (1996).   Environmental and Physiological Stressors   Noise  The most common and negatively impactful stressor is noise. During deployment, noise is a signal for the proximity of danger and threat. Following deployment, noise is a major stressor and reminder of combat (Gupta, 2013). Not only is it a stress trigger, but due to a high level of noise on the job, hearing problems and hearing loss are common among soldiers (Yankaskas, 2013). Tinnitus and hearing loss are the two most common claims for disability compensation in the US military (Saunders & Griest, 2009).  Noise can act as a distractor during combat; it increases attentional selectivity (Orasanu & Backer, 1996). Noise hinders performance in detail-oriented tasks. If focus is only needed on select parts of the task, noise may increase arousal, and in turn improve performance on that task.     Temperature  As with the other environments discussed, extremes of temperature at either end have a significant influence on performance (Ramsey, Burford, Beshin, & Jensen, 1983).  In controlled simulator conditions after long exposure (longer than 20 minutes) at temperatures of 38 C + , military pilots showed impairment in memory, attention, situational judgement, and complex calculations (Blockley & Lyman, 1951; Ramsey, Dayal, & Ghahramani, 1975). These effects varied greatly between subjects, with some not showing any effects after 4 hours of heat exposure.    50   Seventy-four percent of the subjects in the current study fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, where daytime temperatures are known to be extremely high. Some were specifically trained in similar conditions to get the feel for the equipment and hardship of high temperatures. One of the soldiers mentioned the temperatures that he trained in: "First and foremost, you must understand it is very, very hot here.  The forecast for the next 4 days is 103, 105, 103, 105.  My mind reels at such numbers, what little of my mind is left anyway.  Anyone who says, ?But it?s a dry heat,? will be shot. Clear?  An oven is also a dry heat.  Do you sit in yours? OK, if it were big enough, would you sit in it?  I think not. At least we'll know how it feels once we get there."  As with SAR crews and mountaineers, hypothermia and frostbite are possible with prolonged exposure to extremely low temperatures. The most common problem with cold temperatures in the military is the loss of dexterity in one's fingers. Significant errors in a complex knot tying task occur when one's hands have been cooled down to a temperature of 13 ? C (Clark & Cohen, 1960). Errors were greater when hands were cooled down over time as opposed to quickly. This has a dangerous effect on a soldier's ability to manipulate weapons, communication devices, and other equipment. In addition, exposure to cold stress can have an influence on vigilance, reaction time, target tracking, memory, and complex cognitive functioning (see Hoffman, 2001 for a full review). However, these reactions are greater after cold water stress (more heat loss) than cold air stress.    Load  Soldiers are required to carry a load during training and operations. As some divisions have limited transportation possibilities, the soldier must carry on oneself everything needed for survival and combat (Knapik, Reynolds, & Harman, 2004). Three types of load configurations   51  exist: fighting load (lightest of three, mission related equipment and basic needs), approach march load (fighting load plus additional ammunition, water, food, etc.), and sustainment load (the heaviest, approach load plus sleeping bag/tent and additional food/clothing) (Polcyn, Bensel, Harman, Obusek, & Pandorf, 2002). Over time the loads have increased in weight due to 1) heavier and new equipment and 2) the average size of a soldier. The weight of an average load carried by the US Rangers in Kuwait was over 55 kilograms compared to about 28 kilograms carried by the British during WWII (Knapik et al., 2004). Overloading soldiers with equipment and ammunition can lead to fatigue and can impair one's ability to fight (Knapik, 1989). As the weight of the load increases, the speed of the soldiers decreases. The weight also results in higher rates of injury, gait changes, and less efficiency while marching (Polcyn et al., 2002). All these can have an effect on whether the soldier can successful engage in combat shall the situation present itself.   Cognitive Stressors   Danger, Threat and Lack of Control  The perception of danger and threat to one's life plays a major role in the life of a deployed soldier. Throughout the narratives, evidence of soldiers developing their own strategy of how to judge whether they were safe or not was plentiful. Some used the noise level of artillery fire to estimate its distance, others developed interesting strategies such as using the number of casualties that day to estimate threat during the night, number of days since last attack, etc. These were all coping strategies developed by the soldiers.   Several studies directly examined the effect of perception of threat and danger on performance. Berkun (1964) examined the effect of a simulated aircraft emergency in a real   52  aircraft, asked soldiers to fix a radio under nearby artillery fire, and looked at the effect of nearby explosions on specific job tasks. Overall, perceived threat and danger did influence job performance and memory. In the condition where soldiers had to fix a broken radio while simulated artillery shells were firing, 8 out of 24 soldiers abandoned their post and disobeyed the commands of their superiors. In the same set of studies, Berkun (1964) found that experienced soldiers were less affected by stress during all tasks. Control over one's fate may mediate the effect of stress on performance. Novice parachutists who rated themselves higher on self-control were seen to perform better under high compared to low stress and anxiety conditions (Gal-or, Tenenbaum, Furst, & Shertzer, 1985).    Sleep Deprivation and Fatigue  Fatigue plays a major role in all four environments studied; however, it probably plays the greatest role in space and during military combat. Fatigue and lack of sleep have both been proposed as causes of mishaps during Operation Desert Storm and the Challenger accident (Hirschhorn, 1990; Neville, Bisson, French, Boll, & Storm, 1994). Sleep deprivation negatively influenced performance of pilots during Desert Storm. During the Operation requirements for rapid deployment and the reliance on the 6000 mile air bridge for food, supplies, and ammunition resulted in some C-141 pilots staying awake and performing operations for periods of over 24 hours along with rest periods less than 10 hours in length (Neville, Bisson, French, Boll, & Storm, 1994). The Space Shuttle management team was on-duty for more than 19 hours when they made the decision to let Challenger fly (Hirschhorn, 1990).  A recent study found that  80% of US Army officers who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan were not briefed on standard sleep management techniques (frequent napping, quiet   53  and dark areas, and careful use of stimulants such as coffee) (Miller, Shattuck, & Matsangas, 2010). Furthermore, 82.6 % of respondents reported feeling sleep-deprived during increased operational tempo.    Reviews have been published on the effect of continuous operations on performance in combat (Belenky, Balkin, Krueger, Headley, & Solick, 1987; Mackie, Wylie, & Evans, 1991; Harrison, & Horne, 2000; Comperatore, Rivera, & Kingsley, 2005; Miller, Matsangas, & Shattuck, 2008). Interestingly Mackie et al. (1991) reviewed over 500 studies and concluded that due to methodological problems, no conclusions could be drawn. However, across the reviews, some trends were seen: 1) there is a positive correlation between task length and sensitivity to sleep loss, 2) tasks requiring physical skills are very resistant to sleep loss, and 3) cognitively demanding tasks are influenced by sleep loss.  Sleep-deprived teams can experience group motivational losses or group motivational gains, depending on the task (Baranski et al., 2007; Hoeksema-van Orden, Gaillard, & Buunk, 1998). Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) had teams of four undergo 20 hours of sleep deprivation during which they continuously completed tasks. All participants worked independently on the same task and individual scores were pooled to get a team score; a bonus was given to 'good' performing teams. Sleep deprivation affected all subjects. Social loafing was seen in the experimental groups and was accentuated by sleep loss. Baranski et al. (2007) believed that the nature of the task influenced whether sleep deprivation had a positive or negative effect on group performance. In their study, each individual provided a unique contribution to the team output. This set-up reduced social loafing and provided motivational   54  gain to sleep-deprived teams. Working in teams was not sufficient to fully reduce the effect of fatigue, but those working in teams outperformed individuals completing the same tasks.   The effect of sleep deprivation varies by task, by individual, and by the group context. Sleep deprivation is an important stressor and has varied negative effects on performance in the military.  Social Stressors  Much as with the physiological and cognitive stressors, there are decades of work regarding social stressors within the military. The following section is not exhaustive in nature, but it does capture some of the most prevalent stressors experienced by military combat groups. For  recent military reviews on psychological stressors that affect the military see Helmus and Glenn (2005) and Kavanagh (2005).     Combat Stress  Combat stress is the umbrella term used to describe the normal physiological, behavioural, and psychosocial reaction to stressors experienced prior, during, and after combat (Kavanagh, 2005). More specifically, it is often the exposure of a soldier to a variety of stressful situations during combat. These include being ambushed or attacked, receiving hostile fire, killing enemy combatants, handling human remains, knowing someone who was injured, being wounded, the presence of civilians in the battlefield, hidden obstacles, and high casualty toll (Adler, Vaitkus, & Martin, 1996; Helmus & Glenn, 2005; McCarroll, Ursano, & Fullerton, 1995; Hoge et al., 2004). One of the most stressful is handling human remains. One year after returning from deployment, those who handled more remains were more likely to show symptoms of post-  55  traumatic stress, as well as to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This relationship was not moderated by special training nor combat exposure (McCarroll et al., 1995, 2001).   In addition, 26% of soldiers who experienced various forms of combat stress reported fear of death. Experiencing fear of one's death was significantly correlated with anxiety reactions and psychic numbing during and after deployment (Solomon, Mikulincer, & Benbenishty, 1989). While this fear may not be fully debilitating, it does contribute to susceptibility to PTSD (Adler et al., 1996).   Additional factors that may contribute to the severity of the experience during combat are anticipation of the battle (fear of the unknown), combat intensity, duration of combat, type of battle, and physical hardships (Helmus & Glenn, 2005). Rookie and veteran soldiers differ in the time period when the risk of psychological breakdown is the highest (Beebe & Appel, 1958).   Many support systems, including a buddy system, have been developed within the military to recognize adverse reactions to the stressful situations. Buddies are encouraged to look out for soldiers who suddenly become quiet, exhibit a change in behaviour such as excessive drinking or sleeping, start performing poorly, have faced recent discipline, begin talking about ending their lives, or seem very depressed or sad (United States Army Public Health Command [USAPHC], 2008).    Lack of Privacy and Boredom/Isolation  In many capsule environments, lack of personal space and waiting for the next assignment/mission is a source of stress (Stuster, 1996). A military combat unit may not at first glance resemble teams in capsule environments, but at a closer look, there are many similarities.   56  During times of combat, soldiers are often housed in small run-down buildings that have been transformed into barracks. A small area may be dedicated for their private use. They face times of boredom and inactivity between assignments. Military personnel, especially those in the Navy who work on submarines, feel isolated from the normal world and from their friends and families. Personnel on NATO submarines identified three categories of stressors during their 10-day and 40-day missions. They were social stressors (lack of privacy and forced interactions with other members), leadership and workload stressors (leadership style of their leader, schedules, amount of sleep), and homesickness/feeling isolated stressors (Sandal, Endresen, Vaernes, & Ursin, 1999).   The feeling of isolation and loneliness is not only the result of the environment in which the soldiers are housed, but it is magnified by separation stress from one's friends and family (Wexler, & McGrath, 1991).    Separation Stress  A military family is a unit unlike many others. Families move frequently and are sometimes deployed to dangerous areas. They are separated for long periods of time, are far from their extended family social support systems, and are on average younger than the average family (Hunter, 1982). In Canada, staff of the Military Family Resource Center help soldiers and their families through initial separation, deployment, and reintegration periods. Pre, during, and post deployment help is offered to all families who are separated for 30 or more days. In the United States, similar but larger programs exist to help military families.   As deployment progresses, soldiers may become homesick (Sandal et al., 1999). Not only are they missing their family, but they are worried about how their families are dealing with   57  everyday problems such as paying the bills, fixing a broken car, or dealing with bad report cards. These worries are not unique to soldiers. All four occupational groups experience some form of mission separation. For example, a qualitative analysis of oral histories, pre-flight interviews, and journals of residents of Skylab, Mir, and the ISS demonstrated that there are ways that the astronauts create a home in space helping them to handle separation better (Johnson, 2010).   This chapter outlined the stressors experienced by members from the four environments: outer space, high altitude mountains, wilderness and natural disaster areas, as well as combat zones. Even with the stressors present, why then do many individuals choose to work in these environments? They are challenging, exciting, and meaningful in the work they provide. Most of the stressors can be appraised as challenging and are often accompanied by positive emotions. More importantly, all of these individuals have a variety of coping mechanisms at their disposal to handle the stress they experience.   58  Chapter 4: Coping in Extreme Teams In the socio-psychological framework, coping is defined as a dynamic physiological and psychological process in response to perceived environmental stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). More specifically, it is "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). It functions to restore physiological homeostasis and reduce negative affect (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Suedfeld, Brcic, Legkaia, 2009).  Coping strategies can be divided into two types, problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem-focused or task-oriented coping emerges when individuals perceive that their actions can and will change the situation. Most problem-focused strategies are oriented towards modifying the environment. Examples include creating detailed plans to solve a problem or seeking help from others. Emotion-focused coping is more likely to occur if there has been an appraisal that nothing can be done to modify the environmental conditions. In this case, the individual may reframe the problem, reinterpret it, selectively pay attention to certain aspects of the problem, or deny the problem?s existence. These are also referred to as person-oriented coping strategies (Endler & Parker, 1990). Some coping mechanisms are more stable across situations (e.g., positive reappraisal) than others (e.g., seeking social support) (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). In other words, positive reappraisal is more likely to be used across a variety of situations compared to seeking social support, which is more dependent on the situation and the resources available. Again, the success of a mechanism depends on the situation. Problem-focused mechanisms are optimal for dealing with the stress at hand; however, if they fail they   59  may leave the person at high physiological arousal for long periods of time (Holroyd & Lazarus, 1982). Emotion-focused strategies may be more adaptive when the situation is unchangeable and inescapable. Nevertheless, problem-focused mechanisms tend to lead to more satisfactory outcomes than emotion-focused ones, as the stressor is dealt with directly (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).  Differences in Coping Behaviour Coping is situation dependent and individual dependent. Different coping mechanisms work better in different situations and for different people. Some researchers have assumed that coping changes over the life course; the current view is the stressful situations change over one's life, hence demanding different coping strategies (Aldwin, 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Individual difference variables do influence which coping behaviours are used (Bolger, 1990; Costa, Somerfield, & McCrae, 1996; Watson, David, & Suls, 1999). The correlations between the Big Five (five broad domains of personality) and coping strategies are small (highest 0.30) but are robust. For example, a person high in Extraversion frequently copes by seeking social support, those high in Conscientiousness often use problem-focused coping strategies, while those high in Neuroticism tend to use emotion-focused coping strategies (Brebner, 2001; Costa et al., 1996). However, behavioural and coping styles are more malleable than personality traits, and changes in coping strategies do occur even though one's personality remains stable (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000).   The choice of using problem-focused compared to emotion-focused strategies is not dichotomous. Individuals are able to use both types of strategies simultaneously as well as alternate between the two types while coping with a single problem.  Middle-aged men and   60  women and college students have reported using both types of coping in over 95% of stressful situations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Research suggests that those with a more variable repertoire of coping behaviours have a better chance of resisting stressors and eliminating emotional distress (Perlin & Schooler, 1978). Individuals shift between the available mechanisms across and within situations.  Factors exist that aid and constrain which coping mechanisms are used.  First, the coping style used depends on the available resources. Individuals with higher economic status and education employ mechanisms that lead to more favourable outcomes (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Second, social skills tend to facilitate problem-solving with other individuals. Above average social skills allow for the creation and maintenance of trust and cooperation with others. Third, internalized cultural values and beliefs affect which coping mechanisms are used (Aldwin, 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).  Cultural upbringing, and the social system within which the culture is embedded, influence how situations are appraised and the available coping resources.  Posttraumatic Distress and Growth  Extreme and traumatic stress can and does lead to PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). In Canada,  for those who experienced a major stressor, an estimated rate of lifetime PTSD prevalence is 9.2 % (Van Ameringen,  Mancini, Patterson, & Boyle, 2008).  In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), PTSD is in the category of disorders labeled trauma and stressor-related disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). There are six criteria for diagnosing PTSD. The first is the stressor: the person must have been exposed to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation. The next three criteria are related to the symptoms and are clustered into three categories: re-experiencing, avoidance/numbing, and increased arousal. Re-experiencing refers to symptoms such as   61  nightmares, flashback, hallucination, etc. Avoidance/numbing symptoms include feelings of dissociation from family and friends, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, resistance to participating in previously enjoyed activities, etc. Finally, increased arousal refers to difficulty falling and staying asleep, hyper-vigilance, difficulty in concentrating, etc. The final two criteria refer to the duration of the symptoms (more than one month or not) and the functional ability of the individual. Most diagnoses are acute: the individual experiences the full range of symptoms for more than two days but less than four weeks (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Research in the military and search and rescue contexts is focused on PTSD and post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms. However, the recent popularity of positive psychology has had an influence on the field.   Ideas about positive change following a traumatic experience have interested researchers (Antonovsky, 1987; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). There are areas of study with a focus on successful coping such as research on resilience (the individual returns to the same level of functioning as prior to trauma), sense of coherence and hardiness (personality constructs), stress inoculation and toughening (building resistance) (Tedeschi, Park, & Calhoun, 1998).  Posttraumatic Growth (PTG) is unique as it is both a process and an outcome; it is defined as a positive psychological change as a result of psychological struggle ensuing trauma. Changes can be experienced in perceptions of self, changes in interpersonal relationships, and in the philosophy of life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).  PTG is a process as it requires cognitive restructuring and many attempts at dealing ineffectively and effectively with the trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) theorise that the initial response is characterized by overwhelming feelings of inability to deal with the trauma. This triggers some form of coping, usually an emotion-focused strategy   62  such as rumination. The following step may involve seeking social support and asking for help with additional coping mechanisms. This help from others results in initial growth (stress seen as manageable, goals revisited, cognitive schemas altered). During this initial growth, people may start to trust in their own personal strength and build appreciation for those who helped them. Finally, higher-level growth, such as finding and experiencing new possibilities in life, is experienced. This final growth is the outcome of the whole process and termed PTG.  Are PTSD and PTG related in any way? Several patterns have been documented. A negative relationship between PTS symptoms and PTG suggests that those with high levels of PTS symptoms are less likely to experience PTG (Frasier, Conlon, & Glaser, 2001). This suggests that they are on opposite ends of the same continuum. However, other findings show that the two are positively related. This co-occurrence may be linear (Taku, Calhoun, Cann, & Tedeschi, 2008) or curvilinear (Solomon, & Dekel, 2007) in nature. Overall, researchers agree that PTS symptoms and PTG can co-occur in the same person. To develop PTG, one must go through periods of cognitive restructuring and unsuccessful coping attempts. However, cosmonauts have reported positive growth following their space careers without experiencing a traumatic event (Suedfeld, Brcic, Johnson, & Gushin, 2012).  Coping as a TCA Variable A standard set of coping mechanisms (Table 3) was adapted from Folkman et al., (1986). The Ways of Coping checklist is one of the most widely used and validated measures, hence the current measure was based on it (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Further, the strategies examined by the Ways of Coping checklists spontaneously appeared in 57%-100% of coded HIV patient narratives (Moskowitz & Wrubel, 2000). Supernatural Protection was added as an extra coping mechanism, as it was used in previous studies in our laboratory with Holocaust survivors and   63  astronauts (Suedfeld, Krell, Wiebe, & Steel, 1997; Suedfeld et al., 2009). See Table 3 for strategies and definitions.    64  Table 3 Coping strategies and definitions  Coping in Outer Space  To date, there is only one published study that closely examines coping patterns of astronauts (Suedfeld, Brcic, & Legkaia, 2009). The authors found that SSS, PPS, Endurance / Effort, Positive Reappraisal, and Confrontation were the top five strategies utilized by astronauts. Escape / Avoidance, Denial, and Distancing were the least used strategies.   Problem-Oriented 1. Planful Problem-Solving Deliberate (rational, cognitively-oriented) effort to change or escape the situation  2. Confrontation Effort to resolve the situation through assertive or aggressive interaction with another person  3. Seeking Social Support Effort to obtain sympathy, help, information, or emotional support from another person or persons  4. Escape/Avoidance Efforts to escape or avoid the problem physically 5. Endurance/ Obedience / Effort Trying to persevere, meet demands Emotion-Oriented 6. Distancing Effort to detach oneself emotionally from the situation 7. Self-Control Effort to regulate one's own feelings or actions 8. Accepting Responsibility Acknowledging that one has a role in the problem 9. Positive Reappraisal Effort to see a positive meaning in the situation 10. Compartmentalization Encapsulating the problem psychologically so as to isolate it from other aspects of life  11. Denial Ignoring or minimizing the seriousness of the problem, not believing in its reality  12. Supernatural Protection Invocation of religious or superstitious practices; efforts to gain such protection (e.g., prayer, amulets)   13. Luck Reliance on luck, chance   65   As research on coping strategies in space is scarce some additional research from analogue environments such as polar expeditions, winter over crews in Antarctica, simulation, and capsule like environments will be summarized. The most prominent finding is that problem-focused strategies are most commonly used by members of teams venturing into EUEs (Lester, 1980; Leon, McNelly, & Ben-Porath, 1989; Palinkas, 1986; Palinkas & Browner, 1995, Suedfeld et al., 2009).  Leon, Kanfer, Hoffman, and Dupre (1991) found that Planful Problem Solving (PPS), Seeking Social Support (SSS), Self-Control, and Accepting Responsibility were prominently used by the international Bering Strait trek team. The least used coping strategies were Escape/Avoidance and Distancing. A positive relationship between SSS and high stress reactivity as well as a negative relationship with well-being was found. The authors concluded that social support should differ between groups based on their function and structure.  Palinkas and Browner (1995) found that members of the United States Antarctic program were most likely to use PPS but were also likely to seek information, a subtype of SSS. Information-seeking was related to depressive symptoms in Palinkas and Browner (1995). They suggested that coping may be more related to ongoing circumstances and the resources at hand than stable personality factors. For example, in both Leon et al. (1991) and Palinkas and Browner (1995) the crews were not consistently able to contact family and friends to seek support. Due to the lack of resources to contact home, those who still tried to seek support from family were creating greater conflict for themselves.  SSS can be a successful coping strategy if support is sought from an appropriate source and if the resources are available. On the ISS, astronauts are able to communicate with their families and ground control whenever they like. Some operational psychology services and   66  countermeasures while in-flight include two-way video conferences with family, friends, celebrities, and important political figures. Further, behavioural health monitoring occurs during private one-on-one conferences (Sipes & Vander Ark, 2005). Therefore, the resources and appropriate sources are available on ISS for successful use of seeking social support.   Spaceflight has a long and lasting salutogenic effect (Suedfeld et al., 2012). Initial evidence for the salutogenic effect was in the form of anecdotes. Among others, John Glenn, Marc Garneau, Jack Swigert, Jake Garn, and Harrison Schmitt set their sights on politics while Russell Schweickart founded the Foundation for Space Explorers. Others were spiritually inspired: Edgar Mitchell led two expeditions to search for Noah's Ark and founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences to study human consciousness and its potential for expansion. Until recently, the space community ignored positive psychology.   Thirty-nine active astronauts and cosmonauts completed the Positive Effects of Being in Space (PEBS) Questionnaire (based on the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) developed by Tedeschi and Calhoun) (Ihle, Ritsher, & Kanas, 2006). Every subject reported at least some positive change as the result of flight, with greatest changes being in Perception of Earth, Perception of Space, and New Possibilities.   More recently, a comprehensive study with 20 retired cosmonauts found similar results (Suedfeld, Brcic, Johnson, & Gushin, 2012). The cosmonauts completed both the PTGI and PEBS. Comparing retired cosmonauts to the active astronauts and cosmonauts (Ihle et al., 2006), Suedfeld et al. (2012) found that retired cosmonauts reported a higher degree of change in six out of eight subcategories of PEBS. Furthermore, when compared to population norms (PTGI scores from 926 participants who experienced various forms of trauma) the cosmonaut sample scored higher on scales of New Possibilities, Personal Strength, and Overall growth.    67   Based on the research, planful problem solving and seeking social support should be the most mentioned coping strategies in the astronaut sample. The ability to almost always communicate with ground control and family/friends should allow for healthy use of SSS.  Coping at High Altitudes  How mountaineers cope with the changing mountain situations is eloquently described in popular non-fiction pieces such as Into Thin Air (Krakauer, 1997), but systematic analyses of the matter are sparse. Breivik (1996) studied the Norwegian Everest expedition of 1985 and found that the subjects scored lower in anxiety, worry, and other avoidance factors when compared to elite athletes. In another group, anxiety negatively predicted and reward responsiveness positively predicted summit status and altitude attained by 42 Mt. Everest climbers (spring 2008 season). The sample was subdivided into two groups; independent climbers and those climbing as part of a guided expedition. In the self-guided group, higher drive and higher fun-seeking (attraction to novel rewards and spur-of-the-moment goal pursuit) were related to lower altitude attained; higher drive and higher fun-seeking were related to higher altitude attained for the guided climbers (Feldman, Zayfert, Sandoval, Dunn, & Cartreine, 2013). The current sample is composed of only climbers in guided groups.    Burke and Orlick (2012) conducted interviews with ten successful Mount Everest summiteers and identified themes/strategies that led to success and strategies that created difficulty on the mountain. During the ascent, successful strategies mentioned were maintaining focus, setting short-term goals, remaining mentally tough, believing in oneself, connecting with one's body, receiving help from other climbers, and drawing on past climbing experiences. On the descent, maintaining focus and short-term goal setting were mentioned as most important. Some of these map onto the coping strategies of interest in the present study. Getting help from   68  fellow climbers is the same as seeking social support, setting short-term goals is related to planful problem solving, remaining mentally tough resembles the endurance and effort strategy, and focus and belief in oneself have aspects of the self-control strategy. These coping strategies will be mentioned within the top five strategies in the present sample.   Research with recreational mountaineers may shed further light on elite mountaineers. Most of the research focuses on sensation-seeking behaviour (Zuckerman, 1983), but some researchers have been interested in performance and anxiety. In recreational mountaineers, climbing reduces anxiety; it specifically increases experiences of flow (Castainier, Le Scanff, & Woodman, 2011). Inducing anxiety by increasing the difficulty of the climbing route resulted in increased effort by the leaders, which in turn translated into enhanced performance. However, at the highest levels of cognitive anxiety, performance deteriorated (Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007). This is consistent with findings that a task-specific moderate dose of stress (or anxiety) is beneficial for optimal performance (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).    How does guiding mountaineering expeditions affect the guides? Posttraumatic stress, sense of coherence (one's enduring level of confidence that the environment is predictable, that resources are available to handle the challenges, and that these life demands are worthy of pursuit and engagement) (Antonovsky, 1980)) and general health were assessed in over 1300 Swiss mountain guides. Posttraumatic stress scores were very low and sense of coherence scores fairly high suggesting that mountain guides are psychologically healthy and may benefit psychologically from their extreme and unusual career (Sommer & Ehlert, 2004). As well, climbing seems to lead to optimal or flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Delle Fave , Bassi & Massimini, 2003).    69  Coping Within the Search and Rescue Domain  The complexity of the environments within which they work is mirrored in the empirical work on the coping of SAR personnel. One reason for diverse findings may be that when researchers say they study rescue workers, they may refer to a collection of individuals from a variety of occupations such as firefighters, paramedics, nurses, ambulance personnel, etc. Even though firefighters are not the target group of the present study, they are generally considered rescue workers, and some of the research with the group is relevant. Among firefighters, problem-focused coping has been found to be related to both high (Marmar, Weiss, Metzler, Delucchi, Best, & Wentworth, 1999) and low (Brown, Mulhern, & Joseph, 2002) distress. Brown et al. (2002) found emotion-focused coping strategies were related to lower distress but seeking social support for emotional reasons was not (Clohessy & Ehlers, 1999).  Hence, no reliable conclusion can be drawn.  The relationship between coping and quality of life outcomes was assessed in a group of 463 Italian rescue workers. Participants were instructed to remember how they coped with their most recent stressful work experience. Use of problem-focused coping positively correlated with satisfaction with life; religious coping and self-blame were negatively related to burnout; seeking emotional and instrumental support was positively related to fatigue (Prati, Pietrantoni, & Cicognani, 2011). In a previous study with the same group, self-efficacy buffered the effect of stress on both positive and negative aspects of quality of life (Prati, Pietrantoni, & Cicognani, 2010). Furthermore, volunteer rescue workers enjoyed a higher quality of life, were better prepared to cope with stressors, and saw the organization as more capable than did full-time rescue workers (Cicognani, Pietrantoni, Palestini & Prati, 2009).    70   The National Search and Rescue Secretariat holds an annual conference for all search and rescue groups in Canada. Most of the information presented at the conference is for search and rescue staff?s personal knowledge and most of it is never published in academic journals. However, a few presentations do help to inform the present study. Cargnello (2010), a psychology consultant at National Centre for Operational Stress Injuries, discussed the importance of peer support as a coping mechanism and its benefit in programs for search and rescue workers.   The focus on negative effects of SAR occupations on mental health is prominent. A move towards a more balanced approach with discussion of both positive and negative effects, has been urged (Paton, Smith, & Violanti, 2000; Suedfeld, 2012). Thormar et al. (2010) reviewed the literature on stress and SAR work. Four out of five studies reviewed examined PTSD among volunteer relief workers. Almost all concluded that high levels of empathy with the victims, lack of experience with previous disasters, and anxiety during the situation led to PTSD symptoms (Armagan, Engindeniz,  Devay, Erdur, & Ozcakir, 2006; Cetin, Kose, Ebrinc, Yigit, Elhai, & Basoglu, 2005; Hagh-Shenas, Goodarzi, Dehbozorgi, & Farashbandi, 2005; Paton, 1994).  Karanaci (2005) examined PTG in earthquake disaster volunteers; problem solving, optimism, fatalistic coping, and previously having disaster training were all related to the possibility of experiencing PTG.   Kirby, Shakespeare-Finch and Palk (2011) examined correlations between coping strategies, PTG, and PTS factors in emergency medical technicians. Approach (planful problem solving), accommodation (similar to positive reappraisal and endurance/obedience/effort) and self-help strategies were strongly related to the five subcategories of PTG (Personal Strength, New Possibilities, Relating to Others, Appreciation of Life, and Spiritual Change), while   71  avoidance (similar to denial) and self-punishment strategies were strongly related to PTS symptoms. The same research team, working with the same sample, also found a mediating effect of adaptive coping on the relationship between some personality traits and PTG. Extraversion had an effect on PTG, with higher Extraversion scores leading to more growth (Shakespeare-Finch, Gow, & Smith, 2005). It appears, once again, that social support and planful problem solving are essential in coping with work in these extreme and unusual environments.   The search and rescue workers who helped after the 2003 Binglo, Turkey earthquake experienced great distress: 25% of them were diagnosed with PTSD (Ozen & Sir, 2004). Similarly high rates of diagnosed PTSD are found with other search and rescue crews: 21.4% after the 1999 Taiwan earthquake (Chang, Lee, Connor, Davidson, Jeffries, & Lai, 2003) and 23.6% after the 1999 Marmara and 1999 Duzce earthquakes (Bayam, Okay, Dilbaz, & A??kg?z, 2002). These were reported two to five months after the disaster. Search and rescue workers who were deployed to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake were slightly better off three months post-event. Compared to the day of deployment, the rescuers showed fewer symptoms of depression and less interpersonal sensitivity (van der Velden, van Loon, Benight, & Eckhardt, 2012). The authors engage in a lengthy discussion of why their results are different from those of their peers. Level of experience of the rescue workers, the protective factors of support from friends, family, and the agency, as well as helping in someone else's neighbourhood (physical and psychological distance) may act as protective factors. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of rescue work on psychological functioning. Coping in Combat  Over 150 articles on coping in the military have been published in the past year; in North America, an additional 45 dissertations were defended on the same topic. Therefore, the topic of   72  coping, especially posttraumatic stress disorder, within the military context is well researched. This can be attributed to many ongoing world conflicts, especially those with heavy United States presence, and the need to understand their psychological impact.  In a simulated, stressful military exercise, problem-focused coping was positively related to performance evaluation and self-efficacy; emotion-focused coping was negatively related to performance evaluation (Delahaij, van Dam, & Soeters, 2011). Among Israeli soldiers who helped evacuate civilians during the summer of 2005, emotion-focused coping and avoidance negatively predicted performance evaluation, while mental preparation (planful problem solving) positively predicted performance evaluation (Gilbar, Ben-Zur, & Lubin, 2010).  It appears that among recruits and active soldiers problem-focused strategies are related to positive performance, while the opposite is true of reliance on emotion-focused coping strategies.   Within another sample of recruits, perceived social support was related to the sense of belonging, while coping adaptability was related to less difficulty in dealing with stressful situations, higher self-reported performance, and higher sense-of-belonging (Overdale & Gardner, 2012). Similarly, within a sample of British military stationed on the Falkland Islands, perceived social support (from close others, fellow soldiers, and the organization) was positively related to general health. Acceptance of their situation and positive reinterpretation/growth were related to higher job satisfaction (Limbert, 2004). In conclusion, perceived social support is related to overall well-being in these samples.   Similar results are seen with veteran soldiers. Retrospective reports of problem-focused coping during the war were related to life satisfaction and adjustment approximately ten years after combat. The effect was the strongest for those who experienced moderate combat exposure.   73  On the other hand, emotion-oriented coping was negatively related to life satisfaction, adjustment, and adaptation; however, this effect was most pronounced in those who experienced low or high (as opposed to moderate) levels of combat exposure (Suvak, Vogt, Savarese, King, & King, 2002). Researchers who studied PTG and PTSD also focused on combat exposure and its importance on adjustment.   Due to high levels of stress and combat exposure in the military, attempts have been made to train soldiers to deal with such situations. Hardiness training has been used in some military contexts. Soldiers attend several small group sessions with a focus on adaptive coping strategies and the importance of social support; overall health strategies are also taught, such as proper nutrition, sleep, and exercise regimes (Sharma & Sharma, 2012). The Penn Resilience Program (PRP)  has been designed to teach resilience and growth; it has been validated in over 21 replications worldwide and has recently been implemented in the US Army (Reivich, Seligman, & McBride, 2011). The goal of the program in the military is to train drill-sergeants who then become teachers themselves. The program lasts ten days and is composed of three parts. In the first part, trainees learn about resilience; in the second part, the soldiers learn about skills that increase resilience, specifically mental toughness. Finally, soldiers learn to identify their strengths, see strengths in others, and learn how to overcome challenges by acknowledging those strengths.  A recent army review of the program with over 17,500 soldiers found that PRP affected soldiers' optimism and adaptability, which in turn led to fewer mental health diagnoses. Those who attended the program developed fewer substance abuse problems (Harms, Herian, Krasikova, Vanhove, & Lester, 2013).    74   As discussed earlier, the relationship between PTS and PTG is complex; a longitudinal study is an optimal method of studying its complexity. In a 30-year study of Israeli soldiers who were ex-prisoners of war (POWs) of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, researchers examined the relationship between PTS and PTG (Dekel, Mandl, & Solomon, 2011). Within this sample, PTS and PTG were curvilinearly related: those who experienced moderate levels of PTS symptoms experienced highest PTG. Additionally, high active coping and high self-control during captivity predicted PTG later in life. Those who were young, had a low level of education, did not use active coping, and experienced a great loss of control during captivity, were more likely to develop PTSD.   Combat stress affects the relationship between PTSD and PTG. In a sample of Air Force medical personnel, PTSD was linearly related to combat stress and had a curvilinear (inverted-U) relationship with total workplace stress (McLean et al., 2013). Coupled with findings from Suvak et al. (2002), it appears that moderate levels of combat stress and workplace stress, along with the use of problem-focused coping strategies, result in growth and resilience post-combat.  In a sample of U.S. Army combat soldiers, Escape / Avoidance, Confrontation, Self-control, and Accepting Responsibility were positively related to PTS symptoms (Klim, 2009).  Finally, among veteran soldiers in residential programs for PTSD, high avoidant coping and low active coping were related to more PTS symptoms at time of discharge (Boden, Bonn-Miller, Vujanovic, & Drescher, 2012).   In summary of the military findings, problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., active coping, seeking social support) during combat are important for well-being, growth and   75  satisfaction. Further, problem-focused strategies are essential for good performance. The relationship between coping and growth is moderated by combat exposure. Hypotheses  Hypotheses were constructed across the four environments and two occupational categories. Status-related results will be discussed; however, a review of EUE leadership literature can be found in Chapter 5. In summary, the hypotheses of this study were: 1. Subjects within all groups will mention more problem-focused strategies than emotion-focused coping strategies (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Delahaij et al., 2011; Marmar et al., 1999; Suedfeld et al., 2009).  2. Planful Problem Solving and Seeking Social Support will be the two most frequently mentioned coping strategies among all groups (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Gilbar et al., 2010; Leon et al., 1991; Palinkas & Browner, 1995; Prati et al., 2011; Sharma & Sharma, 2012).  3. Endurance and Luck will be among the top five mentioned strategies (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Suedfeld et al, 2009).  4. Safety and Security teams will mention more Seeking Social Support and Supernatural Protection due to the nature of their work (e.g., witnessing death and experiencing the potential to death on a daily basis) when compared to Science and Adventure teams. 5. Science and Adventure teams will mention more Planful Problem Solving, compared to Safety and Security teams, as their work requires that they solve ongoing problems in order to complete scientific/personal mission objectives.    76  6. Due to the nature of the missions, Planful Problem Solving, Seeking Social Support, Accept Responsibility, and Self Control will be mentioned the most during the mission when compared to pre- and post- mission phases.   Due to the scarcity of previous research, no specific hypotheses were proposed for environment type.   Method  Subjects and Data Sources Please refer back to Chapter 2 for a full review of data collection techniques and variables, as well as the overall subject breakdown.  A list of all sources can be obtained from the author.   Scoring Thirteen coping strategies were scored as per established guidelines (Suedfeld et al., 2009; Suedfeld, Krell, Wiebe, & Steel, 1997) (Table 3). Initially, all of the material was divided into paragraphs and each paragraph was labelled for the appropriate mission phase (pre-mission, during the mission, post-mission). Coping was only scored when there was an external or internal demand that presented a problem and was identified by the subject. Any number of coping strategies could be scored per problem.   A reliability scorer was responsible for, on average, 25 % of randomly selected paragraphs. Reliability was assessed by percentage of absolute agreement between two independent scorers. Across the four samples, percentage agreement was 85%. More specifically, the absolute percentage agreement was 85%, 83%, 82%, and 89% for astronauts,   77  mountaineers, SAR members, and soldiers, respectively. Examples from the narratives used in this study can be found in Table 4. For each subject, the number of coping mentions was added per category and per mission phase. For each strategy, the total for the strategy was divided by the total of all strategies in a specific mission phase. The above score was then multiplied by 100 to arrive at the percentage of instances a strategy was used.     78  Table 4 Examples of coping strategies from all four samples  Scored as Passage Planful Problem Solving A truck coming from the other direction splashed a wave of water in front of it that eventually broke over the hood of my small SUV. I remembered my first sergeant from the military yelling at me as we were doing the same thing through a creek bed. ?Don?t take your foot off the gas,? he would shout. I didn?t and came out the other side. (Military)  Confrontation But I have also found that it is important to let the others know when something bothers you, because just like any other relationship?whether with a friend or spouse?if you let things go all the time, they will collect inside and always come out at the wrong time. (Space)  Seeking Social Support I started there and the staff showed me around and helped look at the possibilities. They were an incredible help. I couldn't have done it without them. (SAR)  Escape/Avoidance  On the Sunday, a week after our arrival, the nurses mentioned that an ?English TV crew? wanted to see us. We rushed down to reception, eager for any distraction, even an interview. It was ITN. They thought they were there to do a short interview, while we saw their presence as a way of escape. (Space)  Endurance/Obedience/Effort  Everest and the rotations to acclimatize have allowed me to use my basketball background as a valuable strategy: Survive and Advance. Just survive and keep on moving, don't stop! (Mountaineering)  Distancing I started to humanize the bodies, and I didn?t like it. I had to avoid thinking about it, otherwise I couldn?t survive to do the job. (Military)  Self-Control  It seemed like my body was making an excuse to not go up anymore. I had worked myself to the point of making myself nauseous in order to convince my brain to keep going up. (Mountaineering)  Accept Responsibility  That was my section to cover. I was responsible for those people. I needed to help them. Whatever happened I had a role to play. (SAR)  Positive Reappraisal  As I began to read I suddenly realized that this was not the good news that I was expecting to hear. The first two letters told me all that I wanted hear for the time being. My mother had died on December 15,1944 and the news was coming to me by letter over a month later. I had a little difficulty understanding this, but later I knew that it was best not to have received the message during the past several weeks. (Military)  Compartmentalization So it's been a tremendous volume of work, and, you know, we've tried to really   compartmentalize but we've had a lot of time also. I think the other thing that we've prepared for, we spent more time thinking about how best to psychologically prepare not only for ourselves but for our families. (Space) Denial  I find myself working longer and harder without even realizing it because it?s exciting, it?s getting close. But at the same time, 9? years is a long time to wait. Maybe this is healthy, but a part of me still doesn?t believe it?s really happening. (Space)  Supernatural Protection As if God himself descended to fight the opposition for the life of the three souls inside, Calling All Angels, I need you now. Myself and the two porters got ready, the expedition was over. We need to descend in the storm. The first porter was out of the tent, I was next, then the second porter. As soon as he stepped out of it , it was ripped free and in a blink of the eye, it disappeared into the raging storm. (Mountaineering) Luck And what happened yesterday was luck happened. The very first time we?re able to search peaks, these two guys went along the peaks and they finally hit this track south of the search area on black mountain.(SAR)        79  Independent Variables All independent variables were explained in Chapter 2. Coping strategies were examined as a product of specific occupation (space, high altitude, SAR, and military), occupational category (Science and Adventure vs. Safety and Security), and environment type (Natural vs. Human-Made). Finally, the effects of status (leader vs. group member) and gender on coping strategies were explored.   Results  Data were analyzed via the General Linear Model (Univariate ANOVA). In case of assumption violations, such as the homogeneity of variance, the Welch correction was applied (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) or Games-Howell post-hoc tests were used depending on the assumption violation. Repeated Measures ANOVA was used when differences across mission stages were analyzed.       80  Table 5 Overall coping hierarchy Coping Strategy (n = 166) Mean (%) Std. Dev Orientation Planful Problem Solving 25.03 25.84 Problem Seeking Social Support 20.70 22.79 Problem Endurance / Obedience / Effort 14.06 21.96 Problem Positive Reappraisal 9.26 19.27 Emotion Escape / Avoidance 5.84 16.77 Problem Luck 5.72 15.06 Emotion Accept Responsibility 4.39 10.52 Emotion Supernatural Protection 4.04 8.93 Emotion Self-Control 3.94 11.48 Emotion Confrontation 2.15 8.27 Problem Distancing 1.98 6.73 Emotion Compartmentalization 1.47 6.79 Emotion Denial 1.41 5.67 Emotion Problem Focused Strategies 67.78 28.23  Emotion Focused Strategies 32.19 28.16    Overall Pattern Differences As seen at the bottom of Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8, all subjects mentioned problem-focused coping strategies (M = 67.78 % , SD = 28.22) significantly more than emotion-focused coping strategies (M = 32.19 %, SD = 28.16), [t (165) = 8.13, p < .001]. This result holds true across all four environments, as well as across the two types of occupations (Science and Adventure vs. Safety and Security) and environment type. In the overall hierarchy (Table 5), the order of the top five strategies mentioned was PPS, SSS, Endurance/Obedience/ Effort, Positive Reappraisal, and Escape/Avoidance.        81   Differences Across Occupations, Occupational Categories, and Environment Types  Table 6, 7, and 8 show differences across occupations, across the two occupational categories, and across the two environment types, respectively. Table 6 Differences across occupations Coping Strategy Astronauts  (n = 42) Mountaineers (n = 42) SAR (n = 29) Soldiers (n = 53) Planful Problem Solving * 26.43 % (24.21)a 38.66 % (29.24)b 22.62 % (24.90) 14.45 % (19.49)a,b Seeking Social Support * 27.69 % (21.49)a 10.93 % (14.66)a,b 31.14 % (30.99)b 17.21 % (20.21) Endurance / Obedience / Effort 8.80 % (12.35) 14.11 % (24.53) 16.93 % (28.04) 16.62 % (21.88) Positive Reappraisal 9.40 % (14.17) 9.30 % (20.36) 13.69 % (27.75) 6.67 % (16.13) Escape / Avoidance 2.61 % (8.41) 5.08 % (17.45) 2.21 % (9.55) 10.98 % (22.45) Luck 9.57 % (21.17) 2.66 % (6.59) 4.62 % (15.42) 5.68 % (13.56) Accept Responsibility 7.01 % (14.10) 2.62 % (8.66) 1.57 % (6.39) 5.28 % (9.99) Supernatural Protection * 0.98 % (4.08)a 4.10 % (8.67) 0.69 % (2.79)b 8.24 % (12.02)a,b Self-Control * 3.61 % (8.91) 7.97 % (18.56)a 0.72 % (2.86)a 2.77 % (7.71) Confrontation * 0.51 % (1.83)a 0.41 % (1.93)b 0.28 % (1.49)c 5.85 % (13.77)a,b,c Distancing 0.81 % (3.60) 0.71 % (2.93) 4.97 % (12.22) 2.26 % (6.25) Compartmentalization 1.49 % (7.77) 2.58 % (9.82) 0.24 % (1.30) 1.24 % (4.46) Denial 1.13 % (4.61) 0.91 % (3.10) 0.48 % (2.60) 2.53 % (8.49) Problem Focused Strategies 66.03 % (29.17) 69.19 % (28.51) 73.17 % (32.65) 65.11 % (24.80) Emotion Focused Strategies 34.00 % (29.16) 30.86 % (28.54) 26. 93 % (32.58) 34.70 % (24.60)      Note. * = p < .05,  Means with the same subscripts within rows are significantly different at p < .05 based on Games-Howell post hoc paired comparisons. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.33.   In reference to Table 6, Astronauts (M = 26.43 %, SD = 24.41) and Mountaineers (M = 38.66 %, SD = 29.24) mentioned PPS at higher rates than Soldiers (M = 14.45 %, SD = 19.49) , F(3,79) = 7.85, p < 0.01 while Astronauts (M = 27.69 %, SD = 21.49) and SAR personnel (M = 31.14 %, SD = 30.99 ) mentioned SSS at higher rates than Mountaineers (M = 10.93 %, SD = 14.66), F(3,78) = 7.03, p < 0.01.  Soldiers mentioned Supernatural Protection (M = 8.24 %, SD = 12.02),  F(3,88) = 7.78, p < 0.01 and Confrontation (M = 5.85 %, SD = 13.77),  F(3,88) = 5.64, p   82  < 0.05 at higher levels than astronauts (0.98 % and 0.51 % respectively) and SAR members (0.69 % and 0.41% respectively). Self- Control was mentioned the more by Mountaineers (M = 7.97 %, SD = 18.56) than by SAR (M = 0.72 %, SD = 2.86), F(3,84) = 2.76, p < 0.02. Table 7 Differences across occupational categories Coping Strategy Science and Adventure (n = 84) Safety and Security (n = 82) Planful Problem Solving * 32.54 % (27.38) 17.34 % (21.76) Seeking Social Support  19.31 % (20.13) 22.13 % (25.28) Endurance / Obedience / Effort 11.45 % (19.49) 16.73 % (24.07) Positive Reappraisal 9.35 % (17.43) 9.16 % (21.09) Escape / Avoidance 3.84 % (13.67) 7.88 % (19.31) Luck 6.12 % (15.97) 5.30 % (14.16) Accept Responsibility 4.82 % (11.84) 3.95 % (9.02) Supernatural Protection * 2.53 % (6.91) 5.57 % (10.43) Self-Control * 5.79 % (14.64) 2.05 % (6.48) Confrontation * 0.46 % (1.87) 3.88 % (11.39) Distancing * 0.76 % (3.26) 3.22 % (8.85) Compartmentalization 2.03 % (8.82) 0.89 (3.69) Denial 1.02 % (3.90) 1.80 % (7.04) Problem Focused Strategies 67.61 % (28.71) 67.96 % (27.90) Emotion Focused Strategies 32.43 % (28.72) 31.95 % (27.74) Note. * = p < .05. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.20.     As seen in Table 7, PPS (M = 32.54 %, SD = 27.38), F(1,157) = 15.64, p < 0.01 and Self-Control (M = 5.79 %, SD = 14.64), F(1,114) = 4.50, p < 0.04 were mentioned more by Science and Adventure groups, while Supernatural Protection (M = 5.57 %, SD = 10.43), F(1,140) = 4.90, p < 0.03, Confrontation (M = 3.88 %, SD = 11.39), F(1,85) = 7.36, p < 0.01, and Distancing (M = 3.22 %, SD = 8.85), F(1,102) = 5.68, p < 0.02 were mentioned more by Safety and Security groups.     83  Table 8 Differences across environment type Coping Strategy Natural (n = 71) Human-Made (n = 95) Planful Problem Solving * 32.10 % (28.49) 19.75 % (22.39) Seeking Social Support  19.18 % (24.70) 21.84 % (21.32) Endurance / Obedience / Effort 15.26 % (25.87) 13.16 % (18.62) Positive Reappraisal 11.09 % (23.57) 7.88 % (15.28) Escape / Avoidance 3.90 % (14.73) 7.28 % (18.09) Luck 3.46 % (11.02) 7.40 % (17.35) Accept Responsibility * 2.17 % (7.78) 6.05 % (11.94) Supernatural Protection  2.71 % (7.07) 5.03 % (10.02) Self-Control  5.01 % (14.76) 3.14 % (8.22) Confrontation * 0.36 % (1.75) 3.50 % (1.65) Distancing  2.45 % (8.32) 1.62 % (5.27) Compartmentalization 1.62 % (7.65) 1.35 % (6.11) Denial 0.74 % (2.89) 1.91 % (7.04) Problem Focused Strategies 70.81 % (30.10) 65.52 % (26.68) Emotion Focused Strategies 29.20 % (30.09) 34.38 % (26.57)    Note. * = p < .05. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.33.    As shown in Table 8, Accept Responsibility (M = 2.17 %, SD = 7.78), F(1,161) = 5.68, p < 0.02 and Confrontation (M = 0.36 %, SD = 3.50), F(1,100) = 6.01, p < 0.04 were mentioned more by teams in Human-Made environments while PPS (M = 32.10 %, SD = 28.49), F(1,129) = 9.80, p < 0.01 was mentioned more by those in Natural environments.  Changes Across Mission Phases  In the whole sample, only one significant change emerged across the three phases of the mission. Mentions of Positive Reappraisal followed a curvilinear trend across mission phases (Pre-mission M = 5.41 %, SD = 13.31; During Mission M = 2.86 %, SD = 7.63; Post-mission M = 17.01 %, SD = 31.00), F (1,21) = 6.48, p < 0.02. Data could not be analyzed by individual occupation as sample sizes were less than eight per group.     84    Differences by Mission Phase  Tables 9 and 10 list all significant differences across the three mission phases: pre-mission, during-mission, and post-mission. More specifically, Table 9 describes differences between Science and Adventure versus Safety and Security groups, while table 10 lists differences among the four occupations. No significant differences were found between Natural and Human-Made environments across mission phases.  Table 9 Differences across mission phases, Occupational categories Coping Strategy Science and Adventure Safety and Security Pre-Mission    Self-Control 2.66 % (6.87) 0.30 % (1.44) Positive Reappraisal 10.01 % (19.54) 2.71 % (9.46) During Mission   PPS 37.11 % (33.11) 17.57 % (26.32) Confrontation 0.80 % (2.84) 3.85 % (11.09) Distancing 0.40 % (1.76) 3.67 % (3.73)    As seen in Table 9, during the pre-mission phase Science and Adventure teams mentioned Self-Control (M =2.66 %, SD = 6.87), F (1,71) = 3.69, p < 0.01 and Positive Reappraisal (M =10.01 %, SD = 2.71), F (1,90) = 3.86, p < 0.02 more than Safety and Security teams (M =0.30 %, SD = 1.44 and M =2.71 %, SD = 9.46 respectively). During the mission Science and Adventure teams mentioned PPS (M =37.11 %, SD = 33.11), F (1,98) = 13.62, p < 0.01 more and Confrontation (M =0.80 %, SD = 2.84), F (1,83) = 3.86, p < 0.03 and Distancing (M =0.40 %, SD = 1.76), F (1,74) = 3.03, p < 0.05  less than Safety and Security teams (M =17.57 %, SD = 26.32, M =3.85 %, SD = 11.09, and M =3.67 %, SD = 3.73 respectively). Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.28.There were no differences in the post-mission phase.    85  Table 10 Differences during the mission, Occupations Coping Strategy Astronauts (n = 20) Mountaineers (n = 34) SAR (n = 22) Soldiers (n = 50) Planful Problem Solving 25.10% (29.80) 44.18 % (33.32)a 24.77 % (34.84) 14.40 % (21.21)a Seeking Social Support 37.18 % (33.22)a,b 12.35 % (20.73)a 35.82 % (37.76) 15.84 % (22.92)b Accept Responsibility 6.41 % (15.64) 2.29 % (6.00) 0.59 % (2.77)a 6.48 % (12.68)a Escape / Avoidance 1.90 % (6.16)a 5.05 % (18.00) 0.64 % (2.98)b 11.70 % (25.86)a,b Endurance / Obedience / Effort 5.25 % (11.55)a 12.53 % (22.68) 10.95 % (24.86) 18.54 % (26.36)a Supernatural Protection  3.83 % (11.60) 4.77 % (10.05) 0.64 % (2.98)a 6.60 % (11.54)a Luck 0.15 % (0.67)a 4.06 % (10.63) 7.59 % (19.78) 5.42 % (13.06)a      Note. Significant omnibus F test for all; Means with the same subscripts within rows are significantly different at the p < .05 based on Games-Howell post hoc paired comparisons. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.29.   Across occupations, there were no significant differences in the pre-mission or post-mission phases. As shown in Table 10, during the mission Mountaineers (M =44.18 %, SD = 33.32) mentioned PPS more than Soldiers (M =14.40 %, SD = 21.21), F(3,48) = 7.25, p < 0.01, while Astronauts (M =37.18 %, SD = 33.22) mentioned SSS more than Mountaineers (M =12.35 %, SD = 20.73) and Soldiers (M =15.84 %, SD = 22.92), F(3,48) = 6.20, p < 0.01.  Soldiers mentioned Escape/Avoidance (M =11.70 %, SD = 25.86), F(3,57) = 2.32, p < 0.03, Endurance (M =18.54 %, SD = 26.36), F(3,59) = 1.72, p < 0.04, and Luck (M =5.42 %, SD = 13.06), F(3,51) = 1.27, p < 0.04  more than Astronauts (M =1.90 %, SD = 6.16, M =5.25 %, SD = 11.55, and M =0.15 %, SD = 0.67 respectively). Finally, Soldiers mentioned Accept Responsibility (M =6.48 %, SD = 12.68), F(3,54) = 2.24, p < 0.02 and Supernatural Protection (M =6.60 %, SD = 11.54), F(3,54) = 1.80, p < 0.04 more than SAR members (M =0.59 %, SD = 2.77 and M =0.64 %, SD = 2.98 respectively).    86   Status Differences  Table 11 Overall differences, Status Coping Strategy Leader (n = 46) Rank Team Member (n = 120) Rank Planful Problem Solving  27.32 % (29.15) 1 24.16 % (24.53) 1 Seeking Social Support  19.90 % (26.05) 2 21.06 % (21.53) 2 Endurance / Obedience / Effort 16.29 % (21.30) 3 13.20 % (22.24) 3 Positive Reappraisal 7.12 % (14.99) 6 10.08 % (20.67) 4 Escape / Avoidance 4.62 % (16.57) 7 6.30 % (16.89) 5 Luck 8.63 % (19.18) 4 4.60 % (13.07) 7 Accept Responsibility * 7.22 % (12.91) 5 3.30 % (9.28) 9 Supernatural Protection * 2.36 % (5.77) 9 4.68 % (9.82) 6 Self-Control  2.49 % (6.76) 8 4.50 % (12.82) 8 Confrontation  2.17 % (8.04) 10 2.14 % (8.39) 11 Distancing  1.09 % (4.11) 11 2.32 % (7.49) 10 Compartmentalization * 0.03 % (0.22) 13 2.02 % (7.93) 12 Denial 0.75 % (2.63) 12 1.66 % (6.46) 13 Problem Focused Strategies 70.30 % (28.16)  66.82 % (28.31)  Emotion Focused Strategies 29.69 % (28.14)  33.16 % (28.22)       Note. * = p < .06. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.16.      Across all mission phases, leaders mentioned Accept Responsibility (M =7.22 %, SD = 12.91), F(1,63) = 4.71, p < 0.06 more, and Supernatural Protection (M =2.36 %, SD = 5.77), F(1,136) = 2.27, p < 0.06 and Compartmentalization (M =0.03 %, SD = 0.22), F(1,119) = 2.85, p < 0.01 less, than team members (M =3.30 %, SD = 9.28,  M =4.68 %, SD = 9.82, and M =2.02 %, SD = 7.93 respectively).   Comparing the leaders of each group to each other, one significant difference emerged, Mountaineering guides (M = 67.92 %, SD = 35.44) mentioned PPS the most, significantly more than ISS commanders (M = 19.32 %, SD = 20.81) and military leaders (M = 15.64 %, SD = 15.19), F (3,16) = 10.37, p < 0.01.    87   Gender Differences  The complete sample is composed of 140 men and 26 women. Analyses for all independent variables were done with the complete sample as well as only the male subsample. Results did not differ; therefore females are included in all previously mentioned analyses. Across all four groups differences emerged in three coping strategies: men mentioned Confrontation [F (1,153) = 1.74, p = 0.01], Endurance/Obedience/Effort [F (1,69) = 2.33, p < 0.02], and Accepting Responsibility [F (1,162) = 4.30, p < 0.01] at higher levels than women. No gender differences were observed during the pre-mission or post-mission stages. During the mission, the same three coping strategies differed.  Discussion  Hypothesis 1 was supported: across all subjects, problem-focused coping strategies were mentioned significantly more often than emotion-focused strategies. This finding was consistent with published literature on the four groups (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Delahaij et al., 2011; Marmar et al., 1999; Suedfeld et al., 2009).  When presented with a problem, these subjects were more likely to perceive that they can influence/modify the situation to help minimize the effects of stressors. In addition, across subjects, all coping strategies were mentioned to some degree (Table 5). As there was no measure of success, based on previous findings documenting the positive relationship between problem-focused strategies and well-being, coping success, and growth (Delahaij et al., 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Prati et al., 2010, 2011), we can tentatively conclude that these subjects were coping successfully with the challenging environmental demands.    88   Hypothesis 2 was also supported. Looking across all subjects, PPS and SSS were the top two mentioned strategies (Table 5). However, slightly different results emerged when hierarchies were compared (Table 6). PPS was not among the top two strategies for the military sample, and SSS was not one of the top two strategies used by mountaineers. Limitations such as retrospective accounts of the mission, small sample size, lack of individual difference variables, and possibility of impression management will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. It is important to keep those in mind while interpreting the current results.   Soldiers are taught to follow orders; this may translate into having one's combat problems solved by others, hence the need for PPS is not as great in this sample. As a reminder, in this study soldiers were assigned leadership based on qualitative information within the narratives, not on the basis of rank. Therefore, it may follow that higher-ranking soldiers are more likely to mention PPS. In the current sample, a trend is seen in that direction. In addition, a Colonel in the sample mentioned PPS 84% of the time he referred to a coping strategy.  Colonels are usually the highest ranking field officers and are in charge of several thousand soldiers.   The soldiers reliance on other problem-focused strategies during combat may help explain the difference in PPS (Table 10). During combat, soldiers face life and death situations on a regular basis; Escape/Avoidance and Endurance/Obedience/Effort may be the more adaptive coping strategies in that environment and within the specific occupation. Enduring the stressors in order to perform assigned duties and carry out the deployment order is of high importance to the soldiers. Escaping and avoiding the problem is hard during deployment; however, subjects mentioned removing themselves from situations in which they may see bodies of fellow soldiers.     89   SSS was not among the top two strategies mentioned by mountaineers. They were the only group that did not work together for months or years prior to the mission. Climbers may not feel as comfortable seeking support from their teammates, and as contact with home and other friends is sometimes limited on the mountain, their perceived social network was small (Kamler, 2004). Further, their mission is fairly short when compared to the other groups. Need for SSS may not arise in short missions; reliance on oneself could be more adaptive (Burke & Orlick, 2012). Mountaineers do in fact mention Self-Control more than other groups (Table 5). Moreover, there may be competition within the group reducing opportunities for seeking or wanting social support.   Endurance but not Luck was among the top mentioned strategies partially supporting Hypothesis 3 (Tables 5 and 6). This was true across all groups and when each group was examined separately. Many subjects mentioned needing to push through physical and mental barriers in order to cope and deal with their problems. They often attributed survival or success to pure luck. This finding was previously documented with a group of Holocaust survivors (Suedfeld, Krell, Wiebe, & Steel, 1997). In the current study, many of the subjects mentioned being at the right place at the right time, for example when a victim shouted for help, a bomb went off, flights were assigned, etc.   Safety and Security teams mentioned more Supernatural Protection than Science and Adventure teams. A trend towards more mentions of SSS was found (Table 7). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was also partially supported. Finally, Science and Adventure teams did mention PPS more, lending support to Hypothesis 5 (Table 7).     90   Overall Coping Patterns  As mentioned, across all subjects, PPS, SSS, Endurance, Positive Reappraisal and Escape/Avoidance were the five most mentioned coping strategies. All but Escape/Avoidance were previously documented in most of these groups (Brcic, 2011; Burke & Orlick, 2012; Gilbar et al., 2010; Leon et al., 1991; Palinkas & Browner, 1995; Prati et al., 2011; Sharma & Sharma, 2012; Suedfeld et al., 2009). Highest mentions of Escape/Avoidance were in the post-mission phase and most often by soldiers. Compared to the other three groups, soldiers have the most unpleasant memories from the mission. Escaping and avoiding remainders of negative events, such as not sharing deployment pictures or videos with families and friends, could help in the short term. The reminder of the discussion examines differences between occupations, occupational categories, status level, gender, and mission phase.   Differences Across Occupations and Occupational Categories  A few differences emerged when all four groups were compared to each other (Table 6). Astronauts and mountaineers mentioned PPS at higher rates than soldiers, while astronauts and SAR members mentioned SSS at higher rates than mountaineers. Soldiers mentioned Supernatural Protection and Confrontation at higher levels than others. The differences in PPS, SSS, and Supernatural Protection were discussed above and are attributed to different task demands and value structures of the specific organizations.  The fact that Confrontation was mentioned at higher rates by the soldiers can be attributed to higher levels of masculinity and assertiveness in the military compared to civilian populations (Kurpius & Lucart, 2000). The soldiers are more likely to be assertive and aggressive when exposed to stress and hence are more likely to use Confrontation than the other groups. Due to the nature of military work,   91  coping by Confrontation could be adaptive. Furthermore, soldiers tend to be younger and of lower socioeconomic status than the civilian population (Jackson, Thoemmes, Jonkmann,  L?dtke, & Trautwein, 2012). Young, lower-class soldiers were more likely to develop PTSD and use coping strategies, such as Confrontation and Self-Blame as opposed to older, experienced, and more educated soldiers (Fairbank, Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991).  Aside from the already discussed differences across occupational categories, Self-Control was mentioned more by Science and Adventure teams than Safety and Security teams (Table 7). More specifically, elite mountaineers mentioned it the most. This is in line with research by Burke and Orlick (2012), who found that Mt. Everest climbers mentioned self-control as very important in keeping them safe and successful on the mountain. Within the present sample, many climbers mentioned needing to take it easy, control how fast and how far they go in a given day, and regulate their emotional reactions to other climbers. The physical and mental control as well as self-discipline are very important in the mountaineering sample.    Finally, teams in Natural environments mentioned PPS at higher rates than those in Human-Made environments (Table 8). The natural environment is unpredictable and always changing (Suedfeld, 1998). The reliance on PPS may be due to changing environmental demands and the need to modify plans as the environment changes.   Pre-Mission Differences  Self-Control and Positive Reappraisal were mentioned more by Science and Adventure groups compared to Safety and Security groups (Table 9). Astronauts and elite mountaineers prepare for a specific mission with specific objectives and goals (NASA, 2006; Warner & Schmincke, 2009), while SAR and soldiers train for a variety of missions that may happen   92  (Allner et al., n.d). Controlling one's emotions and positively evaluating situations may be what keeps the Science and Adventure teams mentally healthy and prepared for a very specific and precise mission. Similar results were found with students getting ready for an important examination: emphasizing the positive in the anticipation and preparation phase accounted for over 28% of variance in grades. In addition, students who viewed the upcoming exam as a challenge rather than a threat did better (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Therefore, if astronauts and mountaineers emphasize the positive about their upcoming missions and see it as a challenge, they may fare better during the mission.   Differences During the Mission  Science and Adventure teams mentioned more PPS and less Confrontation and Distancing during the mission (Table 9). The differences in PPS and Confrontation were explained above. Distancing during the mission was higher in Safety and Security teams. These individuals needed to remove themselves emotionally from a difficult situation during the mission. For example, SAR teams are trained not to get attached to the person they are searching for, to leave their emotions behind, and to remain clear and focused (DND, 1994). The need to detach and distance oneself from the mission in order to keep functioning at a high level is an important skill to learn. Even though these groups are mentioning Distancing at high rates and are trained not to get attached to the victims or their families, Lois (2001) reported empathetic relationships between SAR members and victims. It may be that long-term members are better able to detach themselves from the mission and remain resilient to the demands of the job. Further research examining the relationship between the rescuer and the victim, as well as the influence of that relationship on rescue efforts, is necessary.     93   A large number of differences emerged when the four groups were compared (Table 10). The results for PPS, SSS, Escape/Avoidance, and Supernatural Protection were the same as for overall coping differences. However, an additional three strategies differed during the mission. Soldiers mentioned Accepting Responsibility, Endurance, and Luck at higher rates than astronauts. These findings warrant further investigation.  Changes Across Time  Across all subjects, only one significant difference emerged. Mentions of Positive Reappraisal followed a U trend. Positive Reappraisal was mentioned the least often during the mission. In dangerous environments and where a misstep can cause death, it could be that dealing with the situation then and there is vital. Hence, use of Positive Reappraisal is not advantageous during the mission. However, seeing the positivity in unexpected situations when one is getting ready for the missions or seeing the silver lining after the mission can keep the individual positive, optimistic, and functioning at a higher level.   Status Differences  Overall, leaders mentioned Accept Responsibility more and Supernatural Protection and Compartmentalization less than other team members. As the leaders are responsible for a larger number of tasks and decisions it would follow that they would have a greater role in solving problems concerning the mission. In addition, leaders who assume responsibility for an issue, compared to those who pass the blame onto other group members, had higher ratings of respect and followership from subordinates (Dvir & Shamir, 2003).    94   Leaders mentioned Supernatural Protection less often than team members.  This finding may be due to differences in locus of control. An internal locus of control refers to the belief that environmental events are contingent upon one's own behaviour, and external locus of control is when individuals attribute such events to things outside their power such as luck, chance, fate, or powerful others (Rotter, 1966). Johnson, Luthans, and Hennessey (1984) found that leaders were more influential and had more satisfied subordinates when they had an internal locus of control. In the current study, leaders may be more likely to have an internal locus of control and are therefore less likely to use Supernatural Protection as a coping strategy. Followers, on the other hand, may have an external locus of control; hence will be more likely to look for explanations outside their control.   Leaders from the four groups differed in their use of PPS. Mountaineering guides mentioned PPS at higher rates than astronauts and soldiers. In a mountaineering mission, the focus is on climbing a single peak in a specific amount of time. For the leader, the preparation to climb a specific peak takes years of training and preparation. Burke, Durrand-Bush and Doell (2010) reported that elite mountaineers (those who are often guides) spent significantly more personal and professional time preparing for the climb (planning routes, creating safety plans, identifying potential problems with their team) than did novice or intermediate climbers. Further, leaders on the mountain are frequently owners of the climbing company as well (Warner & Schmincke, 2009). The additional task of running the organization, as well as leading the climb, presents additional stressors and opportunities for problem solving.      95   Gender Differences  Across all groups, men mentioned Confrontation, Endurance, and Accepting Responsibility at higher rates than women. Confrontation is a more direct, masculine strategy consistent with reported gender differences on the use of confrontation and aggression between men and women (Burton, Hafetz, & Henninger, 2007). Hence, the results from this specialized sample correspond to results from norm samples. Women mention Accepting Responsibility less than do men. Women are the minority group in these environments, as are members of certain nationalities, race, socioeconomic status, etc. Minority astronauts (those with "guest" status who were a minority among a majority "host" nation)  mentioned Accepting Responsibility less often than did majority astronauts (Suedfeld et al., 2011). It may be that minority members are not comfortable assuming responsibility for problems in groups in which they already stand out. An alternative explanation is that majority teammates do not let them assume responsibility.  Further, women and minorities are less likely to lead with dominating tactics (Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller, 2003). There was only one female leader in this sample; she never mentioned Accept Responsibility. Finally, there were only 26 women in this sample compared to 160 men. This is representative of the demographical divisions in these populations; however, caution should be used when drawing conclusions about the female sample due to the small sample size.  Conclusion  The subjective perception of the environment is critical to how stressors are experienced. Astronauts, mountaineers, SAR staff, and soldiers use various coping mechanisms to handle extreme and unusual stressors. All groups used more problem-focused than emotion-focused strategies. This attests to an ability to view extreme situations as manageable and malleable.   96  Overall,  the groups differed in the strategies they mentioned; however, the top five strategies were consistent across the environments studied. Therefore, the ability to use planful problem solving, seek social support, endure harsh situations, emphasise the positive, and rely on luck/chance, appear to lead to effective coping in extreme and unusual environments.    97  Chapter 5: Motivational Profiles of Extreme Teams Motives drive, orient, select, and help explain behaviour (McClelland, 1985). This chapter examines how frequently members of the four extreme and unusual groups referred to three major motives (need for achievement, nAch; need for affiliation, nAff; and need for power, nPow). Need for achievement is defined as a concern for excellence and unique accomplishments, and the desire to compete. Affiliation is described as establishing, maintaining, or restoring friendships, and encompasses affiliative and nurturant acts toward others. Power refers to the goals of exerting impact, control, or influence on another entity (Winter, 1994).  Historically, motives were measured using the projective Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Murray, 1938). The TAT was designed to reveal personality domains below the level of consciousness. Subjects were shown a set of pictures in which one or more persons were engaged in an activity. The subjects were asked to describe the picture, characters, and the further development of events and the outcome of the scenario. It is believed that their responses would have had personal relevance to the motives that underlie how respondents themselves relate to others and how they think a similar situation in their own life may be resolved.  The above procedure was slightly modified by David McClelland by focussing on what the TAT approach can tell us about one?s nAch (McClelland, 1958). The process was further adapted by David Winter to make it possible to score the three major motives from a variety of archival material, such as speeches, diaries, and audio/video media clips (Winter, 1994).  Behavioural Correlates of Motives Among other findings, research on nAch has revealed a connection between nAch and task performance, personal responsibility, and occupational success. Researchers found that   98  individuals with a high nAch were more likely to prefer tasks of medium difficulty; they also performed better at these tasks (French, 1955). Tasks that were too easy presented no challenge while those that were difficult had a low probability of success and were not attractive to those with high nAch. The ideal task would be intrinsically motivated and have a moderate probability of success. During such tasks, those who were high in nAch were more likely to take personal responsibility for task completion (Horowitz, 1961 as cited in McClelland, 1985). Also, it was found that those high in nAch were more likely to take calculated risks such as driving without a licence or overloading the car, but were less likely than those low in nAch to be in car accidents (Hoyos, 1965 as cited in McClelland, 1985). Regarding occupational success, those with high nAch were more likely to set their goals on occupations for which they were qualified in terms of education and abilities (Mahone, 1960). They were also more likely to report higher satisfaction with work and did not see their work interfering with their family relations (Veroff, 1984).   Based on the above findings, it is predicted that members of all four groups will be high in nAch. For example, many astronauts mention that they receive adequate training for tasks they have to complete in space, but that the novelty and unpredictability of the environment stimulates interest and participation. In addition, many had to apply to the Astronaut Corps a few times before becoming successful. SAR members and soldiers mention working past the point of exhaustion in order to save a missing person or an injured fellow soldier.  There are strong relationships between nPow and aggressiveness, negative self-image, risk-taking, and occupational selection. Researchers have found that those with a high nPow when compared to those with low nPow were more likely to act aggressively (Veroff, 1984). Those planning to enter occupations such as teaching, journalism, or ministry were higher in need for power than those wanting to be doctors or lawyers. The latter group was said to   99  influence through skill as opposed to personal power (Winter, 1973). In the current study, it is predicted that astronauts, mountaineers, and SAR staff will be low in nPow. Most of these subjects are highly trained in a specific skill necessary for survival and success in their respective environments. Hence, they choose to influence others through their skills, not dominance. However, due to the nature of military tasks and mission objectives, it is predicted that soldiers will have higher nPow than the other three groups.  Research focussed on nAff has revealed that those high in nAff were more likely to learn about social relationships quickly, engage in more dialogue with others, and maintain better connection with family and friends (McClelland, 1985). For all four groups, it is expected that the scores on Affiliation will be fairly high, but not as high as the scores for Achievement. Due to the nature of the missions examined, Achievement ought to be mentioned more than Affiliation. Subjects must overcome challenges and handle extreme environmental situations; the drive to push forward should be more effective than the drive to get along.  Values Versus Motives It is important to distinguish between values and motives, as some values studied have the same label as the three motives in question. Motive imagery or implicit motives provide a ?general orientation toward certain types of goals? (McClelland, Koestner, Weinberger, 1989). On the other hand, values are closely related to self-attributed motives. The self-attributed motives are measured via self-reports, define one?s explicit goals, and reflect goal-oriented social norms (McClelland et al., 1989).  For example, students with high nAch did better in a course than those with low nAch, but only if they saw success in that particular course as an important sub-goal to their overall success (self-attributed motive). Therefore, assessing both implicit and self-attributed motives increases our understanding of the individual?s personality (McClelland,   100  1958; 1985). Finally, implicit motives have shown significant changes throughout one?s life as a function of occupation and/or important life experiences (Jenkins, 1987; Martin, 2000).  Personality and Motive Imagery   Among other constructs, motive imagery has been used as a measure of personality (Hermann, 1968; Winter, 1991). As already mentioned, motives are related to the goal-directed aspects of our personality and are often stable relative to each other, but can be modified to some extent by circumstances and life changes (Veroff, Reuman, & Feld, 1984).   Astronaut Personality and Motive Imagery Past research has identified a number of features that predict performance among diverse high-performance crews based on the Personality Characteristics Inventory (PCI) (Chidester, Helmreich, Gregorich, & Geis, 1991); results have been grouped into clusters labelled the ?Right Stuff?, the ?Wrong Stuff?, and ?No Stuff? (Chidester et al., 1991; Palinkas, 2001). These clusters are explained via two constructs, Instrumentality and Expressivity. Instrumentality relates to achievement and goal orientation, while expressivity describes positive interpersonal dynamics (Musson, Sandal, & Helmreich, 2004). Characteristics of the ?Right Stuff? include positive instrumentality (achievement goal-orientation and independence), positive expressivity (interpersonal warmth), mastery (excellence and engagement in challenging tasks), work (working hard towards completion), and low negative expressivity (arrogance, hostility) and verbal aggressiveness.  These traits predict job performance among astronauts (McFadden, Helmreich, Rose, & Fogg, 1994; Musson et al., 2004), aircrews (Chidester et al., 1991), submariners (Sandal, Endresen, Vaernes, & Ursin, 1999), and Norwegian military recruits (Sandal et al., 1998). Characteristics of the ?Wrong Stuff? cluster include elevated positive and   101  negative instrumentality along with low levels of positive expressivity; the "No Stuff" cluster is characterized by low positive instrumentality and expressivity.  Mussen et al. (2004) found that Extraversion and Conscientiousness were positively related and Neuroticism negatively related to the ?Right Stuff? profile among astronaut recruits. In addition to PCI, these may be the key personality characteristics of effective high performance crew members. Finally, Brcic (2010) examined implicit motives of ISS astronauts using TCA. Astronauts were motivated primarily by nAch, followed by nAff, and nPow. nAch was mentioned significantly more than the other two motives. Based on the positive instrumentality factor of the ?Right Stuff? profile, the high score on Conscientiousness among the most successful astronaut recruits, and previously reported high nAch scores in this sample, it is predicted that astronauts will be high in the need for Achievement (Brcic, 2010; Moon, 2001; Musson et al., 2004) . Astronauts should also be high on the need for Affiliation, as predicted by the positive expressivity factor in the ?Right Stuff? cluster, the high level of Extraversion, high mentions of the value Benevolence, and previously reported motives in astronaut samples (Brcic, 2010; Musson et al., 2004, Suedfeld et al., 2010).  Finally, the predictions for nPow cannot be guided by previous research. Early astronauts had military or naval careers in which they were accustomed to giving and following orders. Many current astronauts are scientists; they have careers in which power is often less valued than achievement. However, some current astronauts also have military backgrounds where both progress upwards and ahead is valued. As none of the personality traits described above relates to nPow, and since the group is heterogeneous regarding background, it is hypothesized that nPow will be lower than nAch or nAff.         102   Elite Mountaineer Personality and Motive Imagery  An elite mountaineer is typically profiled as an individual who is physically fit, enjoys adventure, and is willing to take risks. This description would fall under the personality predisposition approach initially used to explain why some people voluntarily seek risky activities (Ewert, 1994; Lyng, 1990).  A comprehensive study of persons engaged in high-risk activities, some of whom were elite mountaineers, revealed a common personality profile (Freixanet, 1991). When compared to the norm, the sportsmen were more extraverted, emotionally stable, likely to conform to social norms, and sought more thrill and excitement. They were lower than the norm on scores of Neuroticism. This profile was partially confirmed by Sleasman (2004). When compared to the norm, members of an Alpine Club scored low on Neuroticism and high in Openness, Conscientiousness, competitive drive, and sensation seeking.   Sensation seeking is a common trait studied in populations that engage in risky behaviours. As initially proposed by Zuckerman (1983), elite mountaineers generally do score higher on measures of sensation seeking than controls (Fowler, von Knorring, & Oreland, 1980; Freixanet, 1991; Sleasman, 2004; Robinson, 1985). A closer look at the components of sensation seeking reveals that mountaineers do not score higher on the subscale of impulsivity (Cronin, 1991; Freixanet, 1991; Jack & Ronan, 1998; Sleasman, 2004). They enjoy seeking out new experiences and avoiding boredom.  Climbers are intrinsically motivated to seek new challenges, escape boredom, gain confidence, and experience "flow" (Asci, Demirhan , & Dinc, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Fave, Bassi, & Massimini, 2003; Kerr & Mackenzie, 2012). Compared to novice climbers, elite mountaineers tend to score lower on trait anxiety and explain finding serenity on the mountain (Burke, Durand-Bush, & Doell, 2010; Robinson, 1985).    103   Robinson (1985) examined need for Achievement and need for Affiliation in a sample of 30 elite mountain climbers. These two motives were not significantly different from the control group but were both moderately high. Variability was low on the measures of nAch and nAff, with most climbers scoring moderately high. As opposed to scoring low, the moderately high nAch and nAff may contribute to the desire to achieve personal goals and aid others in their pursuit. This combination of motives may be what identifies those who will develop long-term commitment to the sport and life-style.   Based on the personality characteristics of elite mountaineers, a similar motive distribution as that of the astronaut sample is hypothesized. Mountaineers are motivated to reduce boredom and seek new challenges, are higher than the norm on Conscientiousness and competitive drive, and seek excitement; all of these are traits that correlated with high achievement drive and motivation (Fowler et al., 1980; Freixanet, 1991; Robinson, 1985; Sleasman, 2004). Furthermore, traits such as high Extraversion and low Neuroticism are correlated with the need for Affiliation (Freixanet, 1991; Sleasman, 2004). In addition, Robinson (1985) reported moderate need for Achievement and Affiliation scores in an elite mountaineer sample. As with the astronaut sample, mentions of traits related to Power are not common. As controlling, impacting, or influencing others is not a mandatory ability of a typical climber, it is predicted that the need for Power will be the least expressed of the three motives.   SAR Personality and Motive Imagery  Based on Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), Mitchell (1983) and Mitchell and Bray (1990) compiled characteristics referred to as a Rescue Personality. Individuals with a Rescue Personality are calm and measured (low Neuroticism), easily bored and outgoing (high Extraversion), and traditional and socially conservative (low Openness). They also have high   104  standards of performance and detail orientation (high Conscientiousness), are empathetic, have a strong need to help people, and are highly dedicated . Additionally, they are performance and action oriented. The Rescue Personality was meant to describe all who enter professions where life and death are at stake (rescue work), such as police officers, fire-fighters, and paramedics. Empirical evidence in support of this profile is sparse. However, a recent study examining 173 emergency medical technicians (including SAR members) did find initial support for the proposed profile (Klee & Renner, 2013). Overall, members were higher than the norm group in Conscientiousness and achievement drive, and lower in Neuroticism and Openness. Higher Extraversion and Agreeableness were not found. Within the subgroup of SAR personnel, there were no differences between volunteer and professional SAR members.   Empirical research on personality traits of SAR members is minimal (Bradley, Weaver, & Hancock, 2003). Lois (1999, 2001) spent five years conducting enthnographic studies while working with the Peak Volunteer Search and Rescue (PVSR) team. Relevant to this study are her findings that SAR members form close relationships with the rescued person as well as with the rescued person?s family and friends (Lois, 2001). In addition, the PVSR team thought it was unnecessary and counterproductive to talk to media or gain social approval for their work with SAR (Lois, 1999). Based on this sparse evidence, the motive profile of SAR staff would appear similar to that of astronauts and mountaineers. High scores on Conscientiousness and achievement drive in the published studies suggest high need for Achievement in the present sample. Low scores in Neuroticism and the high incidence of forming close relationships with the people they help rescue suggests a high need for Affiliation. Based on one study of group values and work perception (Lois, 1999), the need for Power is expected to be low. The desire to avoid publicity and recognition suggest higher nAff and nAch than nPow.    105   Military Personality and Motive Imagery  The connection between personality and military performance has been thoroughly studied. Neuroticism was negatively, and Extraversion and Conscientiousness were positively, correlated with effective performance among Canadian, Singaporean, American, and Australian soldiers (Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau, & Meyer, 2002; Johnson & Hill, 2009; McCormack & Mellor, 2002; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). Ployhart et al., (2001) examined over 1,200 Singaporean military candidates in basic training. They found that high Extraversion and low Neuroticism predicted performance and leadership ability as rated by peers and military assessors. Similarly, Bradley et al. (2002) found that nPow measured during basic training of Canadian Forces candidates predicted peer ratings of performance three years after selection. Contrary to Bradley et al. (2002), Australian Army commissioned officers who were selected for a leadership promotion course, compared to those who were not, scored higher on Conscientiousness but lower on Extraversion (McCormack & Mellor, 2002). Finally, across two meta-analyses with cross-cultural samples and over 45,000 participants, only high Conscientiousness and low Neuroticism were related to job performance (Darr, 2011; Salgado, 1998).   The Personality Characteristics Inventory (PCI) has also been administered to military samples (Sandal, Gr?nnings?ter, Erikson, Gravraakmo, Birkeland, & Ursin, 1998). As mentioned earlier, the Right Stuff profile consists of positive expressivity and instrumentality and is often associated with superior performance. Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy cadets who experienced less physiological arousal during a stressful exercise had the Right Stuff profile.  Looking at facets of PCI, NATO submarine crew members scored higher on Mastery and Positive Expressivity than other military recruits (Sandal et al., 1999). The military context   106  may be higher in situational strength (compared to a civilian lifestyle) and hence the association between personality dimensions and performance is most likely to be group specific (Darr, 2011; White, Young, Hunter, & Rumsey, 2008).    Needs of military pilots were measured using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). The EPPS measures sixteen needs, including achievement, affiliation, and dominance (power). Across five studies and two cultures, military pilots reported dominance, achievement, endurance, order, and heterosexuality as the top five needs (Ashman & Telfer, 1983; Fry & Reinhardt, 1969; Joseph & Kochhar, 2011; Novello & Youssef, 1974; Reinhardt, 1970).   The above research leads to the hypothesis that successful soldiers are high in need of Achievement (due to high Conscientiousness and Mastery) and Affiliation (due to high Emotional Stability). Even though military pilots experience combat differently from field-based combat soldiers, evidence regarding power and dominance among the pilots guides the following hypothesis: soldiers in this study will be high in nPow.  Leadership and Motive Imagery  Those successful in leadership positions display a specific leadership motive pattern (LMP). These individuals are moderate to high in nPow, and low in nAff. High nAch predicts long-term success only for those at lower levels, where individual performance is more important (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). Success for high-ranking leaders who achieved the position via technical skill or due to specific subject knowledge is not predicted by the LMP. In a subsample of first-line managers, it was high nAff that predicted success and subordinate ratings, not high nPow (Cornelius & Lane, 1984). The present study is an exploratory study examining the motive pattern of leaders in EUEs; there is no measure of success, hence prediction analyses will not be conducted.   107   Astronaut Leadership and Motive Imagery A profile of an effective leader in spaceflight has been proposed based on a review of successful leaders in analogue environments (Nicholas & Penwell, 1995). The overall suggestion, based on findings in aviation, polar stations, submersibles, and expeditions, is for a leader who is achievement motivated, optimistic, respects the other members of the crew, assumes a flexible task management style, is usually supportive and sensitive to the crew?s needs, reduces rivalries, and does not become aligned with crew cliques.  Brcic (2011) used TCA to examine universal values, coping strategies, types of social support sought, motive imagery, Eriksonian life-stages, intimacy, and trust-mistrust of ISS crews. Overall, the commanders and the crew (flight engineers) were more similar than different. The pattern that emerged across all variables was that during the pre-flight and in-flight stages, the commanders were more other-oriented than the flight engineers. The value hierarchies suggest that the commanders are similar to the lay individual, while the flight engineers are more like other adventure enthusiasts. Further, commanders relied on their crew and the space agencies for social support most, while flight engineers needed communication and support from their families and friends. The recurring pattern across all eight variables led to the conclusion that the commanders were assuming the role of an emotion-oriented leader as opposed to a task-oriented one. During the Shuttle / MIR program, it was found that cosmonauts and astronauts differed significantly on perception of Leader Support, with cosmonauts reporting more support from their commander (Kanas et al., 2000). Second, it was found that leaders on the spacecraft exhibited more Leader Control than leaders of normative groups on Earth (Kanas et al., 2001). Third, a significant positive relationship was found between Leader Support and group cohesion,   108  but not between Leader Control and cohesion (Kanas & Ritsher, 2005). Research aboard the ISS missions replicated the trend from the Shuttle/Mir missions (Kanas et al., 2006; Kanas et al., 2007). This was true for both Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts. Therefore, it appears that a supportive role of a leader led to most cohesion within space crews studied. On the other hand, there was a significant drop in Leader Support (but not Leader Control) during the second half of the Shuttle / MIR missions (Kanas & Ritsher, 2005); there was no change in Cohesion during either half of the mission. The authors attribute this finding to the very structured nature of space missions. The commander had to maintain focus on task completion, as the tasks did not get easier or less demanding later in the mission. During the first half of the mission the crew learned, with the commander's support, how to cope with the social and psychological burdens of spaceflight. Therefore, the commander did not need to focus on both aspects of leading his team throughout the whole mission. This echoes the suggestions that an effective leader in these environments must be flexible and able to support the work and personal progress of his members.  Most important is flexibility in decision making (Kubis, 1972; Nicholas & Penwell, 1995; Palinkas, 2001; Stuster, 1996; Suedfeld, 1995). Leaders must know how to make situation-dependent decisions in order to avoid conflict and maintain safety. First, if the problem at hand has a non-emergency technical or skill-specific basis, the leader is expected to consult with the team member who is an expert in that domain. Second, if the decision concerns the whole crew and is about general routine work, the crew expects the leader to consult all of them and make a democratic decision. Finally, if the problem is severe, significant, and demands immediate action, the crew expects the leader to step up and make the important decisions (Nelson, 1973; Stuster, 1996).  Leaders must always remain aware of their responsibilities and actively   109  participate in all decisions. In addition, leaders who seek opinions from others are said to use participative decision making; those who do not seek opinions are using autocratic decision making. Whether one should seek opinions from others depends on the problem, the personalities of the members, the knowledge, the skills, the size, and organizational structure of the group. Matching leadership style to characteristics of the group members leads to higher team cohesion (Collins, 2003).  Elite Mountaineer Leadership and Motive Imagery  No previous study has directly examined qualities of mountaineering leaders. However, researchers have compared elite and novice mountaineers to each other. As leaders of missions to Everest, K2, and Annapurna are usually extremely experienced and are the elite of the elite, these studies may give us a glimpse into leadership on the mountain. Burke et al. (2010) compared two recreational to two elite climbers (both attempting to climb Everest). The recreational climbers were motivated by the desire to get to the top; they set small achievable goals and used imagery to accomplish them. The elite climbers spiritually felt one with the mountain and were motivated to push through physical, mental, and environmental barriers. They spent a significant portion of time prior to the climb in planning, which resulted in greater confidence on the mountain, as well as more fun while climbing. It appears that both groups exhibited Achievement motivation but in different ways; the recreational climbers may have been externally motivated, while the elite were internally motivated.   Ewert (1994) divided his sample into novice, intermediate, and advanced climbers. The novice climbers were motivated to develop their mountaineering skills, reach self-set objectives, and enhance their self-image. Intermediate climbers were driven by the complexities of the decisions they had to make on the climb, exhilaration, and excitement. The elite, and most   110  advanced, were motivated by the exhilaration of the climb, helping others achieve their goals, and experiencing flow during the climb. It may be that elite climbers are the ones who were initially intrinsically motivated, or that those who continue to climb become personally invested and intrinsically motivated.   SAR Leadership and Motive Imagery  No researcher has examined leaders of SAR groups. Manuals have been published on how SAR leaders should behave and how to work with various leaders (CCGA, 2011; DND, 1994; Jones et al., 2005). For example, the Canadian reference manual for SAR teams specifies two dimensions for leader categorization: performance and people (CCGA, 2011).  This is the same as the task and group orientations mentioned previously. Leaders high in both performance and people skills are ideal. These leaders are loyal to their teams, take responsibility for their actions, are confident in a crisis situation, love challenges, believe in people, and are focused on high accomplishment. However, no matter the qualities of the leader, he must know how to adapt and be flexible. Leaders are cautioned against thinking of themselves as heroes, as this can become a burden on the team. All members must have a genuine interest and desire to help people.  A Mountain Rescue Leader Manual lists concern for team and concern for safety as the primary two dimensions used for leader classification (Jones et al., 2005). This style is described as democratic with genuine consultation. As with other writings on leadership, the authors discuss the importance of a flexible style that adapts to the stage of the operation.    Military Leadership and Motive Imagery  Leadership in the military is explicit. Leaders are needed to plan, coordinate, decide, influence, and guide. There are thousands of studies published on military leadership; some   111  researchers suggest that the military has pioneered leadership research (Taylor & Rosenbach, 2005). Military leaders must be able to engage socially across cultures. They must learn how to build trust, create alliances, and understand the motivations of the people (McFate, 2007). As with coping research, a boom in the literature on military leadership has been seen during and after every major war. Modern military leaders need to be able to lead in battle but also understand when it is appropriate to have tea and smoke with the locals (Earley & Ang, 2003; McFate, 2007). Therefore, the military needs flexible leaders, a common factor among EUEs.    The military structure requires that personnel of various ranks and expertise levels work closely together. Knowledge and advice are shared among soldiers. The presence of those who have been leaders in previous missions or are experts in their field may create problems in conflict or time-pressured situations. Under extreme psychological and physical stress these individuals may find it hard to resist giving their opinions to the appointed leader, especially if there has been interpersonal conflict in the group. These actions would serve as an indicator to the other members that there are problems, which then may lead to more reactance (aversive affective reaction in response to regulations that impose on one's sense of autonomy) (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Stuster, 1996). If group cohesiveness does falter, reactance from group members may occur. The group members may become resistant to following orders if they feel that their freedom and safety are in danger (Suedfeld, 1995).   Transformational leaders "transform" groups by focusing on the followers and motivating them to achieve high levels of performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000). The focus of military leadership research is on personality correlates of successful leadership and/or prediction of performance based on transformational leader traits (Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau, & Meyer, 2002; Ivey & Kline, 2010; Lim & Ployhardt, 2004). Transformational leaders lead   112  through charisma, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Judge & Bono, 2000). Within the framework, unit-level accomplishment as opposed to individual successes is valued.  In a large sample of 39 combat units from the Singapore Armed Forces, transformational leadership was positively related to Extraversion and negatively related to Neuroticism and Agreeableness. Leaders who exhibited more transformational traits had units that performed better, especially in a maximum performance context (where performance is brief, requiring maximum effort, and where failure leads to severe consequences) (Lim & Ployhardt, 2004). In a longitudinal study of Canadian recruits, dominance, energy level, and internal control predicted transformational leadership traits years after entering the military (Bradley et al., 2002).   Frequency of perceived transformational leadership behaviour increased with rank in a Canadian military sample (Ivey & Kline, 2010). However, leaders at all ranks exhibited traits associated with transformational leadership. Similar findings were obtained in a large scale study with over 3200 subjects across six USA Army posts (Kane & Tremble, 2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate job motivation increased as a function of leadership level. Therefore, leaders' frequency of transformational leadership behaviours is positively related to their status and to subordinate performance.  Hypotheses  Specific hypotheses were made only in relation to occupation-level motives. No hypotheses were made for occupational category, environment type, or status, as these independent variables are exploratory in nature. Furthermore, no gender differences are expected due to the small female sample size.   113   (1) Astronauts will mention nAch the most, followed by nAff, and nPow (Brcic, 2010; Moon, 2001; Musson et al., 2004).   (2) Mountaineers will be highly motivated by nAch followed by nAff and nPow (Fowler et al., 1980, Freixanet, 1991; Robinson, 1985; Sleasman, 2004).   (3) SAR members will mention nAff the most, followed by nAch and nPow (Lois, 1999; 2001).  (4) Soldiers in this study will mention nPow the most, followed by nAch and nAff (Darr, 2011; Joseph & Kochhar, 2011). Method As with the previous chapter, the primary method of analysis was thematic content analysis (TCA). Across all four environments, agreement between raters was 89%. More specifically, it was 85 %, 92 %, 90 %, and 91 % for astronauts, mountaineers, SAR members, and soldiers respectively. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the scorers.   Scoring Winter (1994) developed a detailed manual for scoring nAch, nAff, and nPow in written and oral material (Table 12). Currently, this is the only measure for assessing motives in such material. Each sentence is a unit for scoring motive imagery. A single sentence can be scored only once for a particular motive, but it can be scored for two or more motives. However, if two mentions of the same motive in one sentence are separated by a different motive, then all three can be counted. If two consecutive sentences contain the same motive, the motive cannot be scored in the second sentence; if the third consecutive sentence contains the motive, then the motive can be scored in the first and third sentences. Motive imagery examples from the narratives scored in the current project can be found in Table 13.   114  To calculate a motive score, the number of times a motive was mentioned is divided by the total number of words in the material. That score is multiplied by 1000 to arrive at the ?number of motives per 1000 words?. Calculating the motive score in the above manner is believed to yield the highest correlation with behaviours that researchers are interested in predicting (Winter, 1994).   115  Table 12 Motive images and definitions  Motive  Definition Basic Forms Achievement Scored for any indication of a standard of excellence. 1. Adjectives that positively evaluate performances (or the outcomes of implicit performances) such as ?good,? ?better,? or ?best.? 2. Goals or performances that are described in ways that suggest positive evaluation.  3. Mention of winning or competing with others. 4. Failure, doing badly, or other lack of excellence. 5. Unique accomplishment.  Affiliation Scored for any indication of establishing, maintaining, or restoring friendships or friendly relations among persons, groups, nations, etc. 1. Expression of positive, friendly or intimate feelings toward other persons, nations, etc. 2. Sadness or other negative feelings about separation or disruption of a friendly relationship or wanting to restore it. 3. Affiliative, companionate activities. 4. Friendly nurturant acts.  Power Scored for any indication that one person, group, institution, country, or other person-like entity has impact, control or influence on another person, group, institution, country, or the world at large.   1. Strong, forceful actions, which inherently have impact on other people or the world at large. 2. Control or regulation. 3. Attempts to influence, persuade, convince, make or prove a point. 4. Giving help, advice, or support that is not explicitly solicited. 5. Impressing others or the world at large; mention of (or concern about) fame, prestige, reputation. 6. Any strong (positive or negative) emotional reaction in one person (group, nation, etc.) to the action of another person, etc.     116  Table 13  Examples of motive images from all four samples  Scored as Passage Achievement I believe I did something right that helped everyone perform the way they did on summit night. I think we were stronger because of it and well acclimatized. (Mountaineering) Affiliation Later they were demonstrating hockey technique and Valery was being the goalie in the hatchway. To demonstrate that he was the goalie, he put his hand over his face, with his fingers separated so that he could see as Sergey shot the puck at him. I was having problems holding the camera still, I was laughing so hard. Since we had just watched the movie ?Alien? together the previous weekend, I thought Valery looked a lot like one of the victims of an alien attack! (Space) Power By time we left the land of the two rivers we had slashed insurgent activity and laid the groundwork for local self government (Military)   Subjects and Data Source  Narratives from all four environments were in forms of interviews, blogs, book chapters, and debrief accounts. A breakdown of the number of documents per environment is available in the Subjects section of Chapter 2. As a reminder, the total number of narratives does not equal the number of subjects because some subjects were represented by more than one document and some materials included narratives from more than one subject. The number of subjects also varied across mission phase, as not every narrative addressed all three phases. Full list of subject characteristics is available in Table 2.   Independent Variables Five independent variables were indentified from the literature (Table 2). As this is not an experimental study, "independent variables" refers to the categories into which the sample is divided. An additional independent variable was Mission Phase, a repeated measures variable, defined by whether the narrative refers to the time period before, during, or after the mission.      117   Data Analysis  Data were analyzed via the General Linear Model (Univariate ANOVA). In case of assumption violations, such as the homogeneity of variance, the Welch correction was applied (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) or Games-Howell post-hoc tests were used depending on the assumption violation. Repeated Measures ANOVA was used when differences across mission stages were analyzed.  Results Across all mission phases and occupational categories, the Achievement motive was mentioned most frequently, followed by the Affiliation motive, and finally the Power motive (Table 14). All pairings of motives (e.g., nAch compared to nAff, nAch compared to nPow, etc), across all mission phases were significantly different from each other at p < 0.02. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.14. Table 14 Hierarchy of motive images across all mission phases and groups Motive Overall  Pre-Mission During-Mission Post-Mission M (SD)  M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Achievement 5.60 (4.65) 5.01 (5.39) 5.91 (4.69) 7.85 (10.06) Affiliation 5.03 (4.94) 4.36 (5.52) 5.26 (5.01) 7.26 (9.52) Power 3.52 (5.17) 2.61 (5.46) 3.73 (4.91) 4.96 (9.66) n 171 99 144 72    118  Table 15 Differences within occupations Motive Astronauts (n = 46) Mountaineers (n = 43) SAR (n = 25) Soldiers (n = 57) Achievement 2.73 (2.01)a,b 5.18 (3.40)a,b 2.57 (2.74)a 9.50 (4.90) Affiliation 2.01 (2.78)a,c 4.01 (3.55)a,c 1.66 (1.56)b 9.66 (4.68) Power 0.15 (0.21)b,c 0.70 (1.08)b,c 0.43 (0.95)a,b 9.66 (4.64)      Note. Sig. omnibus F test,  Means with the same subscripts within columns are significantly different at the p < .01 based on Games-Howell post hoc paired comparisons. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.44.   As seen in Table 15, all motive pairings among astronauts and mountaineers were significantly different from each other at p < 0.01. In other words, nAch significantly differed from nAff and nPow, and nAff significantly differed from nPow. Among SAR members, nAch significantly differed from nAff, and nAff differed from nPow; nAch and nAff were not significantly different. None of the soldiers' motives differed from each other.  Differences Across Environments   Tables 16, 17, and 18 display differences across specific occupations, occupational categories, and environmental type respectively. Table 16 Differences across occupations Motive Astronauts (n = 46) Mountaineers (n = 43) SAR (n = 25) Soldiers (n = 57) Achievement 2.73 (2.01)a 5.18 (3.40) 2.57 (2.74)a 9.50 (4.90) Affiliation 2.01 (2.78)a 4.01 (3.55) 1.66 (1.56)a 9.66 (4.68) Power 0.15 (0.21)a 0.70 (1.08)a 0.43 (0.95)a 9.66 (4.64)      Note. Sig. omnibus F test, Means with differing subscripts within rows are not significantly different at the p < .05 based on Games-Howell post hoc paired comparisons. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.59.   In Table 16, differing subscripts across rows identify factors that are not significantly different. Due to many significant differences between groups, this was the most comprehensible method of result presentation.  All other pairs significantly differ from each other at p < 0.001.    119  Table 17 Differences across occupational categories Motive Science and Adventure (n = 89) Safety and Security (n = 82) Achievement * 3.91 (3.01) 7.44 (5.39) Affiliation *  2.98 (3.31) 7.29 (5.43) Power * 0.42 (0.81) 6.93 (5.77)    Note. * = p < .01. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.47.   As seen in Table 17, Science and Adventure teams significantly differ on all three motives from Safety and Security teams. All three comparisons were significant at p < 0.01. Table 18 Differences across environment types Motive Natural (n = 68) Human-Made (n = 103) Achievement * 4.24 (3.40) 6.48 (5.13) Affiliation *  3.17 (3.19) 6.24 (5.48) Power * 0.60 (1.03) 5.42 (5.86)    Note. * = p < .01. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.36.   As seen in Table 18, teams in Natural environments significantly differed on all three motives from teams in Human-Made environments. All three comparisons were significant at p < 0.01.  Status Differences No overall status differences were observed. Due to the very different profile of the military sample, Table 19 summarizes differences between leaders and team members for all groups except the military. Table 20 presents only the findings from the military sample. None of the status differences in Tables 19 and 20 is significant, but will be discussed.   120  Table 19 Status differences among astronauts, mountaineers, and SAR Motive Leader  (n=38) Team Member  (n=75) Achievement  3.85 (3.43) 3.51 (2.77) Affiliation  2.57 (3.05) 2.77 (3.10) Power  0.51 (1.08) 0.37 (0.68)  Table 20 Status differences in the military sample Motive Leader  (n=15) Team Member  (n=42) Achievement  8.51 (3.00) 9.85 (5.40) Affiliation  8.59 (2.78) 10.04 (5.17) Power  8.71 (2.48) 10.00 (5.18)   Further examining status differences by occupation, within the space community, commanders expressed higher nPow than flight engineers, F (1, 45) = 6.12, p = 0.02.  Gender Differences  As with the coping analyses, analyses for all independent variables were done with the complete sample as well as only the male subsample. Results did not differ; therefore females are included in all analyses. Table 21 lists overall gender differences. The same pattern as that in the table was found across all three mission phases.  Table 21 Gender differences Motive Male  (n=145) Female  (n=26) Achievement * 5.96 (4.74) 3.64 (3.60) Affiliation  5.20 (4.99) 4.15 (4.60) Power * 3.84 (5.32) 1.81 (3.96)    Note. * = p < .02. Mean rpb across all comparisons is 0.24.    121    As seen in Table 21, male subjects mentioned nAch and nPow more than did female subjects.  Changes Across Mission Phases For all groups, Power was the only motive that significantly changed across mission phases. Overall, there was a U-shaped quadratic trend F (1, 36) = 4.36, p = 0.04 (Figure 1). Due to the small number of subjects with scores for all three stages (n = 37), only changes from before to during mission were analyzed. These were examined by Occupational Category; significant changes can be found in Figures 2 to 4; all are significant at p < 0.01.   As seen in Figure 2, Safety and Security teams decreased in nAch from pre to during mission while Science and Adventure teams increased. The same pattern is seen with nAff in Figure 3. Need for Power decreased from pre to during mission for Safety and Security teams and no change was observed for Science and Adventure groups.  Figure 1 Changes in nPow across mission phases    122   Figure 2 Changes in nAch from before to during mission, occupational category     Figure 3 Changes in nAff from before to during mission, occupational category     123  Figure 4 Changes in nPow from before to during mission, occupational category   Discussion  Across all four groups and across all mission phases, subjects were primarily motivated by Achievement, followed by Affiliation and Power (Table 14).   Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported (Table 15). Astronauts and mountaineers mentioned nAch significantly more than nAff and nPow; they mentioned nAff significantly more than nPow. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. SAR teams did not mention nAff more than nAch, nAch was mentioned more than nAff; however this difference was not significant. Finally, Hypothesis 4 was also not supported. In military groups, there was no motive hierarchy, all three motives were mentioned at about the same level, a level significantly higher than the motives of the other three groups. The focus of the army is on teamwork, mission success, and defeating the enemy. For example, a USA Army slogan, used for twenty or so years, was "Be All You Can Be", an explicit encouragement of high achievement. The current slogan is "Army Strong"; the focus of this slogan is power and ability (Jackson et al., 2012). The current motto of the Canadian army is "One Army, One Team, One Vision"; here the focus is on achieving as a team. Canadian   124  veterans report that the military has provided them with a supportive peer group and a place to belong to a strong team (Westwood, Mclean, Cave, Borgen, & Slakov, 2010). Accordingly, soldiers are motivated by all three drives. Alternatively, the military sample is the most heterogeneous of the four. The sources span different conflicts, nationalities, rank, and type (Chapter 2). Further detailed within-sample research may help answer some of these questions.  The type of material scored may have had an effect on the results. As mentioned in Chapter 2, a large subset of material scored was from American soldiers who have won the highest, second highest, and/or third highest USA decoration for valor in combat. It may be that the best of the best combat soldiers, but not all others, are high in need for all three motives. One of the limitations, no direct contact with the subjects, plays a major role in data type. This and other limitations are further discussed in Chapter 6.   Differences Across Occupations  Astronauts and SAR members did not differ from each other on any of the three motives. However, Mountaineers mentioned nAch and nAff at higher rates that the other two groups; they did not differ in nPow (Table 16). The higher nAch may be due to the intense and specific focus on reaching a summit. Astronauts have many goals throughout their careers and missions (NASA, 2006) but the goals of SAR missions change as the environment changes and as time passes (Prati et al., 2011). Mountaineers, on the other hand, have only one goal, to reach the summit (Burke & Orlick, 2012)! In normative models of goal orientation, mastery goals refer to learning and mastery of a specific task or construct, while performance goals relate to one's performance and ability relative to others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).  During the mission, mountaineers are in a competitive environment. They climb to the summit in conjunction with others who are aiming for the same goal. Therefore, mountaineers may be motivated by   125  performance goals, with a focus on doing better than others and achieving personal dreams, while astronauts and SAR members may be motivated by mastery goals. Learning about and mastering specific scientific procedures or rescue techniques can be of more value than outperforming others.  Higher mentions of nAff among the mountaineers is puzzling. It may be that the nature of the organization and the group explains this finding. Astronauts, SAR members, and soldiers have an established hierarchy and defined roles. These roles are defined from the beginning of the mission; they are defined to the members themselves and to the organization. Further, the organization exists prior to the mission and after the mission to offer support and structure. The groups often train together for years and understand their role and positioning. They are a team and know that they belong together (Ihle et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2012; Lois, 2001) .  On the other hand, aside from the leaders, expedition climbers do not have different roles (Krakauer, 1997). They must spend the short period of time before and during the mission establishing and maintaining many different relationships as they try to find their position within the group. The need to develop one's social identity and in-group status may be vital during the early stages of the climb. Establishing oneself as part of the in-group can help buffer the negative effects of stress (Haslam, 2004), as well as lead to higher well-being and health (van Dick & Wagner, 2002). Most importantly, humans are more likely to offer help to those in their in-groups (St?rmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Therefore, the high nAff exhibited by the mountaineers may be a response to the need to belong and obtain help if necessary. The need to unite and feel like a team in any high stress, threatening situation is important (Marlowe, 1979).  Mountaineers may be developing these cohesive ties to help prevent breakdown in team dynamics during the mission.    126  Finally, soldiers mentioned all three motives significantly more than the other three groups (Table 16). This was explained above in the discussion of Hypothesis 4.   Differences Across Occupational Categories  There were no specific hypotheses for occupational categories, environment type, status, or gender. Teams entering EUEs for the sake of Safety and Security of others mentioned all three motives at higher rates than teams engaged in Science and Adventure (Table 17). Further analyses revealed that this was the result of significantly higher scores for the military sample on all three motives, compared to the other three groups. SAR subjects did not mention the three motives at higher rates than astronauts and mountaineers combined; however, soldiers did. Study limitations regarding conclusions based on few groups will be further discussed in Chapter 6.  Differences between soldiers and Science and Adventure teams may be based on different training programs.  Military training is specifically designed to change behavioural patterns (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978). New recruits are immersed in a training program designed to break down their civilian status and build up their military status. This process is designed to encourage and create a strong team mentality, suggesting high nAff (Jackson et al., 2012).  Most valor awardees are those who risked or gave up their lives in order to see their squad mates survive.  For example, USA Army Sergeant Thomas Baker was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts during WWII on the Mariana Islands. Sgt. Baker fought valiantly, helping his company knock out strong points in the enemy line. He was wounded and at his request, so as not to hold back his friends from getting to safety, was left behind with a pistol in his hand. When his body was recovered, the gun was empty and there were eight dead Japanese soldiers lying in front of him. This desire to help one's friends even at the risk of one's own life could be the result of high nAff, as well as of military training.    127  Soldiers are trained to win battles. Those with high nAch are oriented towards personal and military success. Throughout history there are many instances of soldiers manifesting their high achievement drive. For example, during WWII, Brigadier General Anthony C. McAuliffe famously responded "Nuts" to a German surrender ultimatum. The Americans were able to hold off the Germans until help arrived. At the time General McAuliffe was acting commander as his Major General was absent. General McAuliffe's willingness to take charge, win, and outperform the German army contributed to the victory.  Status Differences Overall, no significant status differences were found (Tables 19-20). As the military context appears to be very different from the other three, status trends are presented separately. Leaders who were astronauts, mountaineers, or SAR exhibited a trend toward higher nAch and nPow, and lower nAff, than the other team members. One significant difference emerged: commanders on the ISS exhibited a higher need for Power than flight engineers. The Leadership Motive Profile (LMP) states that those in high-ranking roles who are moderate to high in nPow and low in nAff are likely be successful in their positions (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). LMP is not predictive of success in those who achieved their positions through knowledge and technical skill. In three of the groups, leaders show a slightly higher nPow and lower nAff than the other group members. However, both leaders and group members have high nAch. It could be that those high in nAch are the ones selected for roles in EUEs or who choose to enter them. Once selected, however, those with higher nPow scores may be more likely to be appointed as leaders. An alternative explanation may be that once a leader is selected, the environmental demands foster high nPow.    128  Military leaders show a trend toward a lower level of all three motives when compared to other team members. This finding may be the artifact of how the leader was selected for this sample. Selecting a 'leader' for the other three groups was easy as they were either the commander of the mission, a climbing guide, or a team lead for a specific call-out during SAR operations. Selecting a military leader was different as 'leadership' during a single combat mission may change. Those who were in a leadership role during a specific combat episode described in the archive were labeled as 'leader' even if they were not the highest ranking soldier on the field at the time. Examining rank as opposed to the imposed ?leader? status could help explain some of these differences.   Gender Differences Gender differences were consistent across all three mission phases (Table 21). Men mentioned nAch and nPow at higher rates than women. This is contrary to findings with university samples. In those, women mentioned a higher nAff than men and no differences were found on nAch and nPow (Pang & Schultheiss, 2005; Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2001). This result may be due to the fact that more stereotypical men and less stereotypical women enter the professions studied here. In other words, men high in nPow and nAch are more drawn to high risk and high reward positions; while women not high in nAff are drawn to the same positions. However, as the sample of females is fairly small (n = 26 across all groups) these conclusions are only educated speculations at this time. Changes Across Time Across all subjects, need for Power changed significantly throughout the mission. Need for Power was at the highest peaks before and after the mission, with a dip during the mission (Figure 1). High pre-mission nPow may have been due to constant preparation for the mission.   129  nPow is reflected in carrying out orders, giving orders, and making sure all is well planned and prepared. High nPow is unnecessary as plans get executed during the mission. The post-mission increase in need for Power is interesting. The subjects may feel that they have gained valuable life and job experience during the mission, and they expect to share and pass these experiences on to their peers and superiors, as well as the public. They may also be preparing for the next mission (Brcic, 2010). As there were only 37 subject with data for all three mission phases, Occupational Category changes from before to during the mission were examined. nAch decreased for Safety and Security teams, but increased for Science and Adventure teams from pre to during stages (Figure 2). The need for Affiliation motive increased for Science and Adventure teams and decreased for Safety and Security teams from before to during the mission (Figure 3). At the current time these findings are unexpected and not interpretable in relation to the existing literature.  Finally, the need for Power remains relatively the same across mission phases for Science and Adventure teams, but decreases for Safety and Security teams (Figure 4). Further analyses reveal that the trend for nPow across all three mission phases for Science and Adventure teams is not significant. Hence, the overall nPow trend for all samples is due to the drop in nPow for Safety and Security teams.  Conclusions  This study is the first ever to assess implicit motives of elite mountaineers, SAR members, and soldiers.  More specifically, it adds to the very small empirical literature on elite mountaineers and SAR. We now know that both of these groups are primarily motivated by nAch followed by nAff and nPow. Mountaineers were higher in nAch and nAff than SAR and   130  astronauts; however, mountaineers, SAR, and astronauts did not differ on nPow. In addition, this is another study adding support for the finding that TCA is a valuable tool for studying personality of hard to reach, specialized populations.      131  Chapter 6: Overall Discussion  This study enhances our understanding of human behaviour in four extreme and unusual environments. On average, individuals who work in EUEs can handle and do cope with the stressors they encounter. These groups are primarily motivated by a very high drive and need for achievement. Further, there are many commonalities regarding individual characteristics in the different EUEs; however, the nature of the mission and values of the organization play an important part in who gets attracted to and how they behave in the specific EUE.   Overall, four out of ten hypotheses were fully supported, four were partially supported, and two were not supported. The reliance on problem-focused coping strategies compared to emotion-focused ones was consistent with previous research (Burke & Orlick, 2012; Delahaij et al., 2011; Marmar et al., 1999; Suedfeld et al., 2009). All coping strategies were mentioned at all mission phases and by all groups. It has been documented that comfort with problem-focused strategies and flexibility to modify them based on situational demands results in resilience and well-being (Cassidy, 2000). As there is no measure of success or performance in this study, claims about healthy, successful, optimal strategies cannot be made. However, the findings suggest that in general, those in EUEs have both consistent and variable mechanisms at their disposal. Major stress or failure to cope with problems was not found after qualitative examination of the narratives.    Based on previous research, PPS and SSS should be the most mentioned coping strategies. This was true when examining the sample as a whole; however, a look at specific occupations demonstrates that the organizational structure of the profession and knowledge of one's teammates do influence the top two strategies.   132   Consistent with previous research, all subjects were most motivated by the need for Achievement, followed by the need for Affiliation, and finally the need for Power. Once again, the nature of the mission and team structure led to differences between mountaineers and astronauts/SAR members. The ultimate focus to reach the summit and quickly develop and maintain friendships by high-altitude mountaineers led to higher nAch and nAff. Interestingly, soldiers differed from the other groups on all three motives. The difference is attributed to the specific sample (35% of whom won some of the highest US military awards) and the values of the military.   An important contribution to the literature may be that of a leadership motive profile for extreme and unusual environments. Leaders in three out of four environments (space, mountains, and SAR situations) exhibited a high to moderate need for power, low need for affiliation, and high need for achievement. High nAch is not predictive of success in politics. However, achievement does predict leadership in small research and development enterprises where one has control and responsibility (McClelland, 1961; Winter, 2002).  Leaders in EUEs are motivated by both achievement and power.  Taken together, one can conclude that, on average, subjects in EUEs are able to deal with the special environmental stressors and are primarily motivated by the desire to succeed.   Limitations of the Study  The TCA methodology used can only analyze what the subjects choose to say, and in some cases, what the interviewers choose to ask. There was not a direct way of assessing coping strategies in response to differing stress levels or implicit motivations. An imperfect improvement could include adding additional detail to the qualitative content around a specific coping strategy. For example, when a subject seeks social support, what kind of support does he   133  or she seek, and from whom? This has been done with a subset of the astronaut sample (Legkaia, Brcic, & Suedfeld, 2009).   Although the total sample size for the study was large (N = 186), more subjects in some cells would have improved the reliability of the conclusions. For example, having more leaders, female subjects, or SAR members would add to the ability to confirm the results. More specifically, individual differences in a variety of demographic variables such as one's nationality, ethnicity, age, social economic status, education, etc., were not known. Any of these variables could affect the experience of individual in the selected EUEs. For example, Roscosmos cosmonauts were more likely to mention Planful Problem Solving prior to the flight when compared to NASA astronauts and those from other space agencies (Suedfeld et al., 2009). This may reflect cultural differences in training and selection practices. Due to the lack of such information across the four selected groups, questions about individual differences could not be answered. Similarly, only 37 subjects had data across all three mission phases. This was too small a sample for reliable conclusions. As seen in Table 14, most subjects discussed the mission itself; the fewest discussed what happened after the mission.  Other problems with the reliance on retrospective accounts are the variability in length and detail of the material, as well as the temporal gap between the mission and the creation of the narrative. An attempt was made to score as many real-time online diaries/journals/blogs as possible. This was successful with the mountaineering and military samples, some of which we were scoring while the subjects were on the mission.   Real-time narratives avoid some of the bias in retrospective accounts; however, they present another interesting challenge. Access to post-mission information becomes a problem. For example, many climbers ended their 'climbing' blogs the day they reached base camp. Other   134  subjects who blogged during a mission waited for months before posting their reflective thoughts. This was often the case with the military sample.   Subject data were selected based on the opportunity of available narratives and were not collected through random selection nor evaluated through the process of random distribution. Therefore generalizations of findings to other similar small mission-oriented groups should be made with caution. However, as mentioned previously, the study contributes positively to the collection of findings from EUEs.   Sometimes individuals engage in strategic actions to create and maintain a certain image of themselves (Goffman, 1959). This is called impression management. We manage our impressions via a variety of media and across many situations. As the present study relies on published first-person narratives, impression management could be an issue when interpreting results. The subjects may have modified their narratives by excluding any situation where their coping efforts were unsuccessful or failed to mention motives they see as unworthy. Impression management is a serious limitation that is addressed by the study method, TCA. As mentioned in Chapter 2, TCA has high external validity. Subjects are not influenced by the research question, as the material is generated while the subject is engaged in an activity independent of the study (Smith, 1992). In addition motive imagery, more so than coping, examines an implicit construct that individuals are not aware they hold (McClelland et al., 1989). Therefore explicitly managing an implicit construct would be difficult. Finally, different sources of narratives, such as autobiographies, published journals, media interviews, blogs, etc., may hold differing levels of impression management. Sources such as anonymous blogs or journals could be the least affected by impression management.    135  Conclusions regarding the differences between leaders and team members cannot tell us anything about their initial differences. Selection or assigned roles may be influencing some significant changes. Hence, a longer study following the members of a group prior to its formation all the way throughout the group mission could help to identify which differences were in response to the environment and added responsibility and which could be attributed to stable individual differences. The answer is most likely a combination of the two. Members with a specific personality and leadership profile demonstrate potential during selection and training. Once they are assigned a role, the pre-existing personality traits and the new role interact to influence how the individual experiences their mission. Furthermore, a closer examination of the ISS commanders revealed that ten of the 17 had military backgrounds. Hence not only can the assigned role influence one?s personality but demographic differences and past experiences may have also affected the obtained results.  Mission success and performance were not assessed.  There were no appropriate measures applicable across the groups. For example, how does one define a successful space mission? Was it whether the astronauts completed most or all scientific experiments? Was it whether they returned safely? If so, are all then successful? But what are the equivalents in the other three environments? Does personal success differ from meeting organizational goals? Additional data on training, performance evaluation, experience, etc., would have been useful in accessing success. However, the present data set did not allow for such analyses.   Finally, the lack of a normative group with which to compare the data could be seen as a weakness of the research. This study was the first step in examining more than one group in an extreme and unusual environment with the same method. Follow-up studies should and will   136  include a control group. For example, astronauts who have not yet flown or have been selected for flight specific training would be a good control group to those who have flown to space. As the current military sample is primarily composed of decorated soldiers, a control sample could include non-decorated soldiers. The selection of a control group in the other two environments isn't as clear cut. One solution for SAR teams is to compare busy teams (such as those in the Canadian Rocky Mountains) to teams who are called upon less often (only a couple of times per year as opposed a couple of times per week). As far as mountaineers are concerned, those who paid deposits for the following climbing season could be used as controls for individuals who climbed the current/previous season. The suggested control groups would not control for all aspects of one's experience/personality/life style but would allow for examining the effect of the mission itself on the individual. Implications  Keeping the limitations in mind, implications can be drawn regarding selection and training. When dealing with everyday stressors, individuals are more likely to use problem-focused coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The fact that across four EUEs the subjects also relied on problem-focused strategies suggests hardiness and resourcefulness on their part. The situations and the stressors they encounter on a daily basis are objectively more extreme that those encountered by the norm individual. It appears that the extreme stressors are appraised as challenges and not threats; they appear to be subjectively less extreme to the subjects.   The reliance on problem-focused strategies can be the result of training. Most of the subjects were taught to have a plan A, B, C, etc. when entering a challenging situation. The logical problem-based training could have led to higher reliance on, and comfort with, problem-  137  focused coping. A study examining coping strategies of applicants prior to selection, during training, and during the mission would help answer to what degree does training influences coping.  Understanding differences between these EUE groups leads to knowledge regarding environmental factors that affect members psychologically. More importantly, understanding how members cope with problems and the motivations behind their goals within an environment can lead to implications in selection and training.   In the current sample, astronauts flew on long-duration missions, in heterogeneous crews, and were responsible for research and upkeep of the ISS. Compared to Earth-bound sites, the ISS is an ideal platform for simulating the trip to Mars. Therefore, the findings from the present study can inform future researchers about the coping strategies employed on the ISS and about future training programs that may have to be put in place to maintain or modify those strategies. For example, astronauts are least likely of the four groups to mention Endurance/Obedience/Effort during the mission. Continuous attempts to endure and meet demands may be of most importance on a strenuous and long mission to Mars. Therefore mental and physical endurance and perseverance training could prove useful.  These studies were the first to examine coping and motives of more than ten high-altitude mountaineers. The knowledge gained can inform leaders of the challenges they may face with their clients, as well as how to motivate the clients to accomplish their goals. Further, the leaders on the mountain may have to modify their style when leading experienced versus inexperienced clients. Inexperienced clients may need more direction and firmer guidance. For example, high-altitude leaders were low in nPow when compared to soldiers. Soldiers are taught how to follow and give orders; the high nPow among soldiers may enable them to give and follow through with   138  objectives. Therefore the mountaineering community may do better with some leaders who are good at giving orders. In other words, a selection of leaders with high nPow may be necessary. No such work exists with SAR teams. The findings from these studies are especially important to the selection of SAR members as standardized training or education is not needed to volunteer with one of these groups. Together, the current studies add empirical as well as practical knowledge.  Finally, the military samples are well researched by the military organizations and by university academics. However, including the military sample allowed for comparisons across a variety of environments with a consistent method following a suggestion made by those conducting research in EUEs (Bishop, 2004; Collins, 2003; Sandal et al., 2006; Suedfeld, 1987; Suedfeld, 2001).   Future Research in EUEs  Conducting large, longitudinal, interdisciplinary projects with a consistent method is important to the field of extreme and unusual environments. Studying narratives at a distance begins to address some of these prescriptions. Building upon this study future work will use TCA to examine, by TCA, coping and motive imagery in additional groups, specifically deep-sea divers, cave and modern-day polar explorers, firefighters, and doctors in rural and war torn areas.  As mentioned, studies in EUEs are usually conducted with small samples, by individuals with very different backgrounds (Navy support personnel, medical teams, biologists, and rarely psychologists), and sometimes as an afterthought. The international community of psychologists who do work in these environments have expressed a great need for a meta-analysis of the findings (Bishop, 2004; Collins, 2003; Sandal et al., 2006; Suedfeld, 1987; Suedfeld, 2001). Future work will involve collecting published findings on leadership, well-being, coping,   139  personality, etc. and summarizing the findings across fields, groups, and measures in a meta-analysis. This will provide a framework for conducting future research.   Individual difference variables have an effect on coping, motive imagery, values, personality, etc.  Within-group studies examining some of the individual factors would better establish the variability of variables assessed. For example, examining rank, deployment length and location, squad size, etc., could help explain why soldiers do not mention planful problem solving as frequently as the other groups. Within-group studies with a focus on individual difference variables will be conducted.   Addressing the issue of commonality between environments and replicating findings in more accessible teams is important. In conjunction with the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, a study focusing on resilience on the job and the positive personal and group effects of being a firefighter or search and rescue member will be conducted. Further, with advances in technology experience sampling studies in EUEs are becoming a possibility (Musson & Helmreich, 2004). With the help of members from PeakFreaks, an adventure company leading climbers on Mt. Everest expeditions, an experience sampling study addressing the positive aspects of climbing and team dynamics will be conducted. These two studies will further inform our understanding of SAR teams and mountaineers.       140  Bibliography Adler, A. B., Vaitkus, M. A., & Martin, J. A. (1996). Combat exposure and posttraumatic stress symptomatology among US soldiers deployed to the Gulf War. Military Psychology, 8(1), 1-14. Aldwin, C. (2011). Stress and coping across the lifespan. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 15-34). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Alkner, B. A., & Tesch P, A. (2004). Efficacy of a gravity-independent resistance exercise device as a countermeasure to muscle atrophy during 29-day bed rest. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 181, 345?357. Allner, M., Rygalov, V., & Pierce, J. (n.d.). Search and Rescue operations. Unpublished manuscript. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-V-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Antonovsky, A. (1980). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Antonovsky, A. (1998). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Stress, coping, and health in families: Sense of coherence and resiliency, (pp. 21-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.   141  Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 43-51. Arkin, W., & Dobrofsky, L. R. (1978). Military socialization and masculinity. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 151?168. Armagan. E., Engindeniz, Z., Devay, A. O., Erdur, B., & Ozcakir, A. (2006). Frequency of post-traumatic stress disorder among relief force workers after the tsunami in Asia: Do rescuers become victims? Prehospital Disaster Medicine, 21, 168 ?172. Armstrong, L. E. (2000). Performing in extreme environments. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. A??I, F. H., Demirhan, G., & Din?, S. C. (2007). Psychological profile of Turkish rock climbers: an examination of climbing experience and route difficulty. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104(3), 892?900. doi:10.2466/pms.104.3.892-900 Ashman, A. & Telfer, R. (1983). Personality profiles of pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 54, 940-43. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 72, 441?462. Backer, P. R., & Orasanu, J. M. (1992). Stress, stressors, and performance in military operations: A review (Contract No. DAAL03-86-D-001). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute. Baranski, J. V., Thompson, M. M., Lichacz, F. M. J., McCann, C., Gil, V., Past?, L., & Pigeau, R. A. (2007). Effects of sleep loss on team decision making: Motivational loss or motivational gain? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics   142  Society, 49(4), 646?660. doi:10.1518/001872007X215728 Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in army reserve forces. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51, 72?82. Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6), 498?521. doi:10.1108/01437730910981908 Basner, M., Dinges, D. F., Mollicone, D., Ecker, A., Jones, C. W., Hyder, E. C., ? Sutton, J. P. (2013). Mars 520-d mission simulation reveals protracted crew hypokinesis and alterations of sleep duration and timing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(7), 2635?2640. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212646110 Bayam, G., Okay, T., Dilbaz, N., A??kg?z, ?. (2002). The Levels of anxiety, hopelessness and learned resourcefulness and the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in the civil defence union personnel. Kriz Dergisi, 10(1), 1-10. Beach, M. (2007). Volunteer search and rescue and the American Red Cross: A Katrina Response Experience. Journal of Professional Nursing, 23(6), e1?e7. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.08.001 Beebe, G. W., & Appel, J. W. (1958). Variation in psychological tolerance to ground combat in World War II. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Belenky, G. L., Krueger, G. P., Balkin, T. J., Headley, D. B., & Solick, R. E. (1987). Effects of continuous operations (CONOPS) on soldier and unit performance: Review of the literature and strategies for sustaining the soldier in CONOPS (No. WRAIR-BB-87-1). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.    143  Berkun, M. M. (1964). Performance decrement under psychological stress. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 6(1), 21-30. Berry, C. A. (1973). View of human problems to be addressed for long-duration space flights. Aerospace Medicine, 44, 1136-1146. Bishop, S. L. (2004). Evaluating teams in extreme environments: From issues to answers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(7, Suppl.), C14-C21.  Bishop, S.L. (2010). Moving to Mars, there and back again: Stress and the psychology and culture of crew and astronaut. Journal of Cosmology, 12, 3711-3722. Blockey, W. V., & Lyman, J. (1951). Studies of human tolerance for extreme heat: IV, Psychomotor performance of pilots as indicated by a task simulating aircraft instrument flight (tech Rep. No. 6521). Washington, DC: US Air Force.  Boden, M. T., Bonn-Miller, M. O., Vujanovic, A. A., & Drescher, K. D. (2012). A prospective investigation of changes in avoidant and active coping and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among military veteran. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(4), 433?439. doi:10.1007/s10862-012-9293-6 Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 525-537. Bonington, C. (1987). The Everest years: A climber?s life. New York, NY: Viking. Bose, K. S., & Sarma, R. H. (1975). Delineation of the intimate details of the backbone conformation of pyridine nucleotide coenzymes in aqueous solution. Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 66(4), 1173?1179. Boyd, J. E., Kanas, N. A., Salnitskiy, V. P., Boyd, J. E., Kanas, N. A., Salnitskiy, V. P.,...  Marmar, C. R. (2009). Cultural differences in crewmembers and mission control   144  personnel during two space station programs. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 80(6), 532-540. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2430.2009  Bradley, J. P., Nicol, A. M., Charbonneau, D., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Personality correlates of leadership development. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 92-103. Bradley, K. A., Weaver, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2003). A research agenda for the United States Coast Guard. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(2), 31-33. doi:10.7771/2327-2937.1031 Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press. Brcic, J. (2010). Motivational profiles of astronauts at the International Space Station. Acta Astronautica, 67(10), 1110-1115.  Brcic. J. (2011, April). Leaders in space: Mission commanders and crew at the International Space Station. Presented as symposium at 18th IAA Humans in Space Symposium, Houston, United States. Brebner, J. (2001). Personality and stress coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(3), 317-327. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00138-0 Breivik, G. (1996). Personality, sensation seeking and risk taking among Everest climbers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27(3), 308-320. Brown, J., Mulhern, G., & Joseph, S. (2002). Incident-related stressors, locus of control, coping, and psychological distress among firefighters in Northern Ireland. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 161-168. Burger, P. (2006). Cave exploring: The definitive guide to caving technique, safety, gear, and trip leadership. Guilford, CT: Falcon Guides.   145  Burke, S, M.. & Orlick, T. (2012). Mental strategies of elite high altitude climbers: Overcoming adversity on Mount Everest. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(2), 15-22. Burke, S. M., Durand?Bush, N., & Doell, K. (2010). Exploring feel and motivation with recreational and elite Mount Everest climbers: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8(4), 373?393. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2010.9671959 Burke, S., & Orlick, T. (2012). Mental strategies of elite high altitude climbers: Overcoming Adversity. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(2), 15-22. doi: 10.7771/2327-2937.1029 Burton, L. A., Hafetz, J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(1), 41-50. Carney, T.F. (1972). Content analysis: A technique for systematic inference from communication. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Cassidy, T. (2000). Stress, healthiness and health behaviours: An exploration of the role of life events, daily hassles, cognitive appraisal and the coping process. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(3), 293-311. doi:10.1080/09515070010028679 Castanier, C., Le Scanff, C., & Woodman, T. (2011). Mountaineering as affect regulation: The moderating role of self-regulation strategies. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 24(1), 75-89. CBC News. (2012, September, 13). Canadian Everest victim used inexperienced company, lacked oxygen. Senior Sherpa expressed fears about climber dying in summit attempt.   146  CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/13/shriya-canadian-everest-fifth-estate.html Cetin, M., Kose, S., Ebrinc, S., Yigit, S., Elhai, J. D., & Basoglu, C. (2005). Identification and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in rescue workers in the Marmara, Turkey, earthquake. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 485?489. Chang, C.-M., Lee, L.-C., Connor, K. M., Davidson, J. R. T., Jeffries, K., & Lai, T.-J. (2003). Posttraumatic distress and coping strategies among rescue workers after an earthquake. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191(6), 391?398. doi:10.1097/01.NMD.0000071588.73571.3D Chidester, T. R., Helmreich, R. L., Gregorich, E., & Geis, C. E. (1991). Pilot personality and crew coordination: Implications for training and selection. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 25-44. Chidester, T. R., Kanki, B. G., Foushee, H. C., Dickinson, C. L., & Bowles, S. V. (1990). Personality factors in flight operations: Volume I. Leader characteristics and crew performance in full-mission air transport simulations (NASA Tech. Memorandum 102259). Moffett Field, CA: NASA - Ames Research Center.  Cicognani, E., Pietrantoni, L., Palestini, L., & Prati, G. (2009). Emergency workers? quality of life: The protective role of sense of community, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 449?463. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9441-x Clark, R. E., & Cohen, A. (1960). Manual performance as a function of rate of change in hand skin temperature. Journal of Applied Physiology, 15(3), 496-498. Clohessy, S., & Ehlers, A. (1999). PTSD symptoms, response to intrusive memories and coping in ambulance service workers. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 251-265.   147  Coffey, M. (2004). Where the mountain casts its shadow: The personal costs of climbing. New York, NY: Arrow. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, D. L. (2003). Psychological issues relevant to astronaut selection for long-duration space flight: A review of the literature. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(1), 43-67. Comperatore, C. A., Rivera, P., & Kingsley, L. (2005). Enduring the shipboard stressor complex: A systems approach. Aviation, Space, And Environmental Medicine, 76(6, Suppl.), B108-B118. Cornelius III, E. T., & Lane, F. B. (1984). The power motive and managerial success in a professionally oriented service industry organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 32-39. Cornell, E. H., & Hill, K. A. (2006). The problem of lost children. In C. Spender & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and their environments: Learning, using, and designing spaces. (pp. 26-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Costa, P. T., &  McCrae, R. R. (1992).  NEO PI-R professional manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.  Costa, P. T., Jr., Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Personality and coping: A reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 44-61). New York: Wiley. Cronin, C. (1991). Sensation seeking among mountain climbers. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 653-654.   148  Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of play in work and games. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cucinotta, F. A., Manuel, F. K., Jones, J., Iszard, G., Murrey, J., Djojonegro, B., & Wear, M. (2001). Space radiation and cataracts in astronauts. Radiation Research, 156(5), 460-466. Darr, W. (2011). Military personality research: A meta-analysis of the Self Description Inventory. Military Psychology, 23(3), 272?296. doi:10.1080/08995605.2011.570583 Davis, A., & Davis, B. (2012). Exercise equipment used in microgravity: Challenges and opportunities. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 11(3), 142-147.  Dekel, S., Mandl, C., & Solomon, Z. (2011). Shared and unique predictors of post-traumatic growth and distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(3), 241?252. doi:10.1002/jclp.20747 Delahaij, R., van Dam, K., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Soeters, J. (2011). Predicting performance under acute stress: The role of individual characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(1), 49?66. doi:10.1037/a0020891 Department of National Defence [Canada]. (2004). Preparing for critical incident stress (Canadian Forces Health Services Document A-MD- 007-144 JD-004). Ottawa, ON: Department of National Defence. Dijk, D., Neri, D. F., Wyatt, J. K., Ronda, J. M., Riel, E., Riz-De Cecco, A., ... Czeisler, C. A. (2003). Sleep, Circadian Rhythms and Performance During Space Shuttle Missions. In J. C. Buckey & J. L. Homick (Eds.), The neurolab spacelab mission: Neuroscience research in space, results from the STS-90, neurolab spacelab mission (pp. 211-222).   149  Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Doll, R. E., & Gunderson, E. K. (1969). Occupational group as a moderator of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 359-361. doi:10.1037/h0028099 Douglas, W. K. (1991). Psychological and sociological aspects of manned spaceflight. In Harrison, A. A., Clearwater, Y. A., McKay, C. P (Eds.). From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (2000). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective?. Human Performance In Extreme Environments, 5(1), 69-76. Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 327-344. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Earley, P. C.,& Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Egan, S., & Stelmack, R. M. (2003). A personality profile of Mount Everest climbers. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1491-1494. Elliott, G. R., Eisdorfer, C., & Institute of Medicine (US) (1982). Stress and human health: Analysis and implications of research: A study. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.   150  Emergency Management BC. (2013). EMBC Strategic Plan 2012-2015. Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia. http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/Emerg_Mgmt_BC/EMBC-Strategic-Plan.pdf Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Stress and anxiety: Conceptual and assessment issues. Stress Medicine, 6, 243-248. Ewert, A. W. (1994). Playing the edge: Motivation and risk taking in a high-altitude wilderness like environment. Environment and Behavior, 26(1), 3?24. doi:10.1177/0013916594261001 Fairbank, J. A., Hansen, D. J., & Fitterling, J. M. (1991). Patterns of appraisal and coping across different stressor conditions among former prisoners of war with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 274-281. Fave, A. D., Bassi, M., & Massimini, F. (2003). Quality of experience and risk perception in high-altitude rock climbing. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 82-98. Feldman, G., Zayfert, C., Sandoval, L., Dunn, E., & Cartreine, J. A. (2013). Reward responsiveness and anxiety predict performance of Mount Everest climbers. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 111?115. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.001 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Fiedler, F. E. (1955). The influence of leader-keyman relations on combat crew effectiveness. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 227. Firth, P. G., Zheng, H., Windsor, J. S., Sutherland, A. I., Imray, C. H., Moore, G. W. K., ? Salisbury, R. A. (2008). Mortality on Mount Everest, 1921-2006: Descriptive study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337(7684), 1430?1433. doi:10.2307/20511613   151  Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150-170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003. Fowler, C. J., Knorring, L. V., & Oreland, L. (1980). Platelet monoamine oxidase activity in sensation seekers. Psychiatry Research, 3(3), 273-279. Frazier, P., Conlon, A., & Glaser, T. (2001). Positive and negative changes following sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1048?1055. Freixanet, M. G. (1991). Personality profile of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(10), 1087-1093. French, E. G. (1955). Some characteristics of achievement motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 232-236.  Fry, G. E. & Reinhardt, R. F. (1969). Personality characteristics of jet pilots as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Aerospace Medicine, 40, 484-86. Gal-Or, Y., Tenenbaum, G., Furst, D., & Shertzer, M. (1985). Effect of self-control and anxiety on training performance in young and novice parachuters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60(3), 743?746. doi:10.2466/pms.1985.60.3.743 Gibson, A., & McKenna, M. (2011). The effect of high altitude on the visual system. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 157(1), 49-55.   152  Gilbar, O., Ben-Zur, H., & Lubin, G. (2010). Coping, mastery, stress appraisals, mental preparation, and unit cohesion predicting distress and performance: A longitudinal study of soldiers undertaking evacuation tasks. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(5), 547?562. doi:10.1080/10615801003640023 Goel, N., & Dinges, D. F. (2012). Predicting risk in space: Genetic markers for differential vulnerability to sleep restriction. Acta Astronautica, 77, 207?213. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.002 Gottschalk, L.A. (1995). Content analysis of verbal behaviour: New findings and clinical applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gupta, M. A. (2013). Review of somatic symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder. International Review of Psychiatry, 25(1), 86?99. doi:10.3109/09540261.2012.736367 Hagh-Shenas, H., Goodarzi, M. A., Dehbozorgi, G., & Farashbandi, H. (2005). Psychological consequences of the Bam earthquake on professional and non-professional helpers. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 477? 483. Hardy, L., & Hutchinson, A. (2007). Effects of performance anxiety on effort and performance in rock climbing: A test of processing efficiency theory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 20(2), 147?161. doi:10.1080/10615800701217035 Harirchi, I., Arvin, A., Vash, J.H., & Zafarmand,V.(2005). Frostbite: Incidence and predisposing factors in mountaineers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(12), 898-901. Harless, N. L., & Morris, K.-A. (2009). To the rescue: Stories from healthcare workers at the scenes of disasters. New York: Kaplan Publishing. Harms, P. D., Herian, M. N., Krasikova, D. V., Vanhove, A., & Lester, P. B. (2013). The comprehensive soldier and family fitness program evaluation. Report # 4: Evaluation of   153  resilience training and mental and behavioral health outcomes. Monterey, CA: Research Facilitation Team, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army. Harrison, A. A. (1986). On resistance to the involvement of personality, social, and organizational psychologists in the U.S. space program. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 1(3), 315-324. Harrison, A. A., Clearwater, Y. A., McKay, C. P (Eds.). From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: A review. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 236?249. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Hawkey, A. (2003). The importance of exercising in space. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28(2), 130-138. Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychological review, 62(4), 243. Heil, N. (2008). Dark summit: The true story of Everest?s most controversial season. New York: Henry Holt. Helmreich, R. (1980). Psychological considerations in future space missions. In T.S. Cheston & D. I. Winter (Eds.), Human factors of outer space production. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Helmreich, R. (1984). Applying psychology in outer space: unfulfilled promises revisited. American Psychologist, 38, 445- 450.   154  Helmus, T. C., & Glenn, R. W. (2005). Steeling the mind: Combat stress reactions and their implications for urban warfare (Vol. 191). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Arroyo Center. Hermann, M. G. (1968).  Indirect methods of assessing personality. Research Bulletin report.  Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service. Hill, K. A. (1993). Preventing stress in Wilderness SAR. The Journal of Search, Rescue, and Emergency Response, 12, 6 - 9. Hirschhorn, L. (1990). The Work Place Within: Psychodynamics of Organizational Life (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hoeksema-van Orden. C. Y. D.. Gaillard. A. W. K., & Buunk. B. P. (1998). Social loathing under fatigue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75. 1179-1190. Hoffman, L. R. (1965). Group problem solving. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol II). New York: Academic Press.  Hoffman, R. G. (2001). Human psychological performance in cold environments. Medical Aspects of Harsh Environments, 1, 383-410. Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13?22. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa040603 Holroyd, K.A., & Lazarus, R.S. (1982). Stress, coping, and somatic adaptation. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, eds. Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: The Free Press. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.   155  Honigman, B., Theis, M. K., Koziol-McLain, J., Roach, R., Yip, R., Houston, C., et al. (1993). Acute mountain sickness in a general tourist population at moderate altitudes. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118, 587?592. Hourani, L., Bender, R. H., Weimer, B., Peeler, R., Bradshaw, M., Lane, M., & Larson, G. (2012). Longitudinal study of resilience and mental health in marines leaving military service. Journal of Affective Disorders, 139(2), 154?165. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.01.008 Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891?902. Hullander, D. & Barry, P. L. (2001, Oct 01). Space Bones. The Science and Technology Directorate at NASA. Retrieved April 04, 2009, from http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01oct_1.htm.   Hunter, E. J. (1982). Families under the flag: A review of military family literature. New York: Praeger. Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Transformational and active transactional leadership in the Canadian military. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 246-262. Jack, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (1998). Sensation seeking among high-and low-risk sports participants. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(6), 1063-1083. Jackson, J. J., Thoemmes, F., Jonkmann, K., L?dtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2012). Military training and personality trait development: Does the military make the man, or does the man make the military? Psychological Science, 23(3), 270-277. doi:10.1177/0956797611423545 J?kel, O. (2004). Radiation hazard during a manned mission to Mars. Zeitschrift f?r medizinische   156  Physik, 14(4), 267?272. Jenkins, S. R. (1987). Need for Achievement and women?s careers over 14 years: Evidence for occupational structure effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 922-932. Johnson, A. L., Luthans, F., & Hennessey, H. W. (1984). The role of locus of control in leader influence behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37(1), 61-75. Johnson, J. L., & Hill, W. R. (2009). Personality traits and military leadership. Individual Differences Research, 7(1), 1-13. Johnson, P. J. (2010). The roles of NASA, U.S. astronauts and their families in long-duration missions. Acta Astronautica, 67(5-6), 561?571. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.05.001 Johnson, P. J. (2010). The roles of NASA, US astronauts and their families in long-duration missions. Acta Astronautica, 67(5), 561-571. Johnson, P. J., Asmaro, D., Suedfeld, P., & Gushin, V. (2012). Thematic content analysis of work?family interactions: Retired cosmonauts? reflections. Acta Astronautica, 81(1), 306-317. Jones, A. S. G., Lavalla, P. H., & Long, C. (2005). Leadership in Land Search and Rescue. Olympia, Washington: ERI International.  Joseph, C., & Kochhar, R. (2011). Personality and motivational needs in Indian military pilots. International Journal Of Applied Aviation Studies, 11(2), 37-47. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765. Kamler, K. (2004). Surviving the extremes: a doctor?s journey to the limits of human endurance (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin?s Press.   157  Kanas, N. (Ed.) (2009). Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. France: International Academy of Astronautics.  Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry. Dordrecht, London: Springer.  Kanas, N., & Ritsher, J. (2005). Leadership issues with multicultural crews on the international space station: lessons learned from Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica, 56, 932-936. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E. M., Gushin, V., Weiss, D. S., Kozerenko, O., et al. (2000). Social and cultural issues during Shuttle / Mir space missions. Acta Astronautica, 47, 647-655. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E. M., Weiss, D. S., Gushin, V., Kozerenko, O., et al. (2001). Human interactions in space: results from Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica, 49, 243-260. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Ritsher, J. B., Gushin, V., Weiss, D. S., Saylor, S. A., et al. (2006). Human interactions in space: ISS vs. Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica, 59, 413-419. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Ritsher, J. B., Gushin, V., Weiss, D. S., Saylor, S. A., et al. (2006). Human interactions in space: ISS vs. Shuttle/Mir. Acta Astronautica, 59, 413-419. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Ritsher, J. B., Gushin, V., Weiss, D. S., Saylor, S. A., et al. (2007). Psychosocial interactions during ISS missions. Acta Astronautica, 60, 329-335. Kane, T. D., & Tremble, T. r. (2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the Army. Military Psychology, 12(2), 137-160. doi:10.1207/S15327876MP1202_4 Karanci, N. A. (2005). Post-traumatic growth among Marmara Earthquake survivors involved in disaster preparedness as volunteers. Traumatology, 11, 307?323. Kavanagh, J. (2005). Stress and performance: A review of the literature and its applicability to the military. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.   158  Kayes, D. C. (2004). The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: The breakdown of learning in teams. Human Relations, 57(10), 1263?1284. doi:10.1177/0018726704048355 Kerr, J. H., & Houge Mackenzie, S. (2012). Multiple motives for participating in adventure sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(5), 649?657. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.002 Kirby, R., Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Palk, G. (2011). Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies predict posttrauma outcomes in ambulance personnel. Traumatology, 17(4), 25?34. doi:10.1177/1534765610395623 Knapik, J. (1989). Loads carried by soldiers: historical, physiological, biomechanical and medical aspects. (Tech. Rep. T19-89). Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Knapik, J. J., Reynolds, K. L., & Harman, E. (2004). Soldier load carriage: historical, physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Military Medicine, 169(1), 45-56. Klee, S., & Renner, K.-H. (2013). In search of the ?Rescue Personality?. A questionnaire study with emergency medical services personnel. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 669?672. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.006 Klim, B. (2009). The effect of coping style and combat-related media on United States service members personnel with posttraumatic stress disorder. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70, 4217.  Kozerenko, O. P., Gushin, V. I., Sled, A. D., Efimov, V. A., & Pystinnikova, J. M. (1999). Some problems of group interaction in prolonged space flights. Human performance in extreme environments: the journal of the Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 4(1), 123.   159  Kraft, N. O., Lyons, T. J., & Binder, H. (2003). Intercultural crew issues in long-duration spaceflight. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 74(5), 575?578. Krakauer, J. (1996).  Into Thin Air?: A Personal account of the Mt. Everest disaster. New York: Anchor Books. Krohne, H. W., & Laux, L. (Eds.). (1982). Achievement, stress, and anxiety. Victoria: Hemisphere Publishing. Kubis, J. F. (1972). Isolation, conflict, and group dynamics in long-duration spaceflight. Acta Astronautica, 17, 45-72. Kurpius, S. E. R., & Lucart, A. L. (2000). Military and civilian undergraduates: Attitudes toward women, masculinity, and authoritarianism. Sex Roles, 43(3-4), 255-265. Lampton, D. R., Clark, B. R., & Knerr, B. W. (2003). Urban combat: The ultimate extreme environment. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(2), 57-62. Larson, C. (2009). Heroes among us?: Firsthand accounts of combat from America?s most decorated warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York, N.Y.: NAL Caliber. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. Legkaia, K., Brcic, J., & Suedfeld, P. (2009, June). What kinds of social support do astronauts seek? Presented as symposium at 17th IAA Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russia. Leon, G. R., Kanfer, R., Hoffman, R. G., & Dupre, L. (1991). Interrelationships of personality and coping in a challenging extreme situation. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(4), 357-371. Leon, G. R., & Sandal, G. M. (2003). Women and couples in isolated extreme environments: applications for long-duration missions. Acta Astronautica, 53, 259-267.   160  Leon, G. R., McNally, C., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1989). Personality characteristics, mood, and coping patterns in a successful North Pole expedition team. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 162-179. Lester, J. (1980). A psychologist on Mt. Everest. In .I. F. Meier, T. W. Morash, & G. E. Welton (Eds.), High adventure outdoor pursuits (pp. 91-106). Salt Lake City: Brighton Publishing. Li, P., Zhang, G., You, H., Zheng, R., & Gao, Y. (2012). Training-dependent cognitive advantage is suppressed at high altitude. Physiology & Behavior, 106(4), 439?445. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.002 Lieberman, H. R., Castellani, J. W., & Young, A. J. (2009). Cognitive function and mood during acute cold stress after extended military training and recovery. Aviation, Space, And Environmental Medicine, 80(7), 629-636. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2431.2009 Lieberman, H. R., Castellani, J. W., & Young, A. J. (2009). Cognitive function and mood during acute cold stress after extended military training and recovery. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 80(7), 629?636. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2431.2009 Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 610-620. Limbert, C. (2004) Psychological well-being and job satisfaction amongst military personnel on unaccompanied tours: The impact of perceived social support and coping strategies. Military Psychology, 16(1), 37-51. Lois, J. (1999). Socialization to heroism: Individualism and collectivism in a voluntary search and rescue group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 117-135.   161  Lois, J. (2001). Managing emotions, intimacy, and relationships in a volunteer search and rescue group. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30(2), 131?179. doi:10.1177/089124101030002001 Lucid, S. W. (1998, May). Six Months on Mir. Scientific American, 46-55. Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (4), 851-886. Mackie, R. R., Wylie, C. D., & Evans, S. M. (1991). Fatigue effects on human performance in combat: A literature review. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. Mahone, C. H. (1960). Fear of failure and unrealistic vocational aspiration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 253-261. Marmar, C. R., Weiss, D. S., Metzler, T. J., Delucchi, K. U Best, S. R., & Wentworth, K. A. (1999). Longitudinal course and predictors of continuing distress following critical incident exposure in emergency services personnel. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 187, 15-22.  Martin, K. A. (2000). Self-narratives across time: A study of personality consistency and changes in adults. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 4287. McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., & Fullerton, C. S. (1995). Symptoms of PTSD following recovery of war dead: 13-15-month follow-up. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(6), 939?941. McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fullerton, C. S., Liu, X., & Lundy, A. (2001). Effects of exposure to death in a war mortuary on posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms of intrusion and avoidance. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(1), 44-48.   162  McClelland, D.C. (1958).  The use of measures of human motivation in the study of society.  In J.W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society (pp. 518-554).  Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The leadership motive pattern and long term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702. McFadden, T. J., Helmreich, R. L., Rose, R. M., & Fogg, L. F. (1994). Predicting astronaut effectiveness: A multivariate approach. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 65, 904?909. McFate, M. (2007). Socio-cultural knowledge for counterinsurgency. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses. McLean, C. P., Handa, S., Dickstein, B. D., Benson, T. A., Baker, M. T., Isler, W. C., ? Litz, B. T. (2013). Posttraumatic growth and posttraumatic stress among military medical personnel. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(1), 62?68. doi:10.1037/a0022949 Michel, R. M., & Solick, R. E. (1983). Review of literature on the effects of selected human performance variables on combat performance. Fort Leavenworth: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.    163  Miller, N. L., Matsangas, P., & Shattuck, L. G. (2008). Fatigue and its effect on performance in military environments. In P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress (pp. 231?250). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Miller, N. L., Shattuck, L. G., & Matsangas, P. (2010). Sleep and fatigue issues in continuous operations: A survey of U.S. Army Officers. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 9(1), 53?65. doi:10.1080/15402002.2011.533994 Mitchell, J. T. (1983). When disaster strikes. The critical incident stress debriefing process. Journal of Emergency Medical Service, 8, 36?39. Mitchell, J. T., & Bray, G. P. (1990). Emergency services stress: Guidelines for preserving the health and careers of emergency services personnel. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mitchell, J.T. (1983). When disaster strikes. The critical incident stress debriefing. Journal of Emergency Medical Services, 13 (11), 49-52. Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 533-540. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.535 Moore, G. W. K., & Semple, J. L. (2011). Freezing and frostbite on Mount Everest: New insights into wind chill and freezing times at extreme altitude. High Altitude Medicine & Biology, 12(3), 271?275. doi:10.1089/ham.2011.0008 Murray, H. A. (1938).  Explorations in personality.  New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.   164  Musson, D. M., Sandal, S. M., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Personality characteristics and trait clusters in final stage astronaut selection. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 342-349. Neville, K. J., Bisson, R. U., French, J., Boll, P. A., & Storm, W. F. (1994). Subjective fatigue of C-141 aircrews during Operation Desert Storm. Human Factors, 36(2), 339?349. Nicholas, J. M., & Penwell, L. W. (1995). A proposed profile of the effective leader in human spaceflight based on findings from analog environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 66, 63-72.  Novello, J.R. & Yousseff, Z.l. (1974) Psycho-social studies in general aviation: Personality profile of male pilots. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 45,185-188. Oglesby, J. M., & Salas, E. (2012). The issue of monotony and low workload in spaceflight: Considerations for the mission to Mars. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1782?1786. doi:10.1177/1071181312561358 Oliver, D. (1991). Psychological effects of isolation and confinement of a winter-over group at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In Harrison, A. A., Clearwater, Y. A., McKay, C. P (Eds.). From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Orasanu, J. M., & Backer, P. (1996). Stress and Military Performance, In J. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.) Stress and Human Performance (pp. 89-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. Overdale, S., & Gardner, D. (2012). Social support and coping adaptability in initial military training. Military Psychology, 24(3), 312?330. doi:10.1080/08995605.2012.678243   165  Ozen, S., & Sir, A. (2004). Frequency of PTSD in a group of Search and Rescue workers two months after 2003 Bingol (Turkey) Earthquake. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(8), 573?575. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000135573.47316.67 Palinkas, L. A. (1986). Health and performance of Antarctic winter-over personnel: a follow-up study, Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 57, 954-959. Palinkas, L. A. (2001). Psychosocial issues in long-term space flight: Overview. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14, 25-33. Palinkas, L. A., & Browner, D. (1995). Effects of prolonged isolation in extreme environments on stress, coping and depression, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 557-576. Palinkas, L. A., Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (1995). Psychological functioning among members of a small polar expedition. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 66, 943-950.  Pang, J. S., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2005). Assessing implicit motives in US college students: Effects of picture type and position, gender and ethnicity, and cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(3), 280-294. Paton, D. (1994). Disaster relief work: An assessment of training effectiveness. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 275?288. Paton, D., Smith, L., & Violanti, J. (2000). Disaster response: risk, vulnerability and resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(3), 173?180. doi:10.1108/09653560010335068 Patterson, B. (2006). Canadians on Everest?: The courageous expedition of 1982. Canmore, Alta.: Altitude Publishing. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2-21.   166   Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., & Booth, R.J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001.  Mahwah, NJ:  Erlbaum Publishers (www.erlbaum.com). Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54, 809-844. Polcyn, A. F., Bensel, C. K., Harman, E. A., Obusek, J. P., & Pandorf, C. (2002). Effects of weight carried by soldiers: Combined analysis of four studies on maximal performance, physiology, and biomechanics. (Tech. Rep. TR 02-010). Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Cicognani, E. (2010). Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between stress appraisal and quality of life among rescue workers. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(4), 463?470. doi:10.1080/10615800903431699 Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies and collective efficacy as mediators between stress appraisal and quality of life among rescue workers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1(S), 84?93. doi:10.1037/2157-3905.1.S.84 Ramsey, J. D., Burford, C. L., Beshir, M. Y., & Jensen, R. C. (1983). Effects of workplace thermal conditions on safe work behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 14(3), 105?114. doi:10.1016/0022-4375(83)90021-X Ramsey, J. D., Dayal, D., & Ghahramani, B. (1975). Heat stress limits for the sedentary worker. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 36, 259-265. Regard, M., Oelz, O., Brugger, P., & Landis, T. (1989). Persistent cognitive impairment in climbers after repeated exposure to extreme altitude. Neurology, 39(2), 210?210. doi:10.1212/WNL.39.2.210   167  Regehr, C. (2005). In the line of fire:Trauma in the emergency services. Oxford?; New York: Oxford University Press. Reinhardt, R.F. (1970). The outstanding jet pilot. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 732-736. Reivich, K. J., Seligman, M. E., & McBride, S. (2011). Master resilience training in the US Army. American Psychologist, 66(1), 25. Ritsher, J. B. (2005).  Cultural factors and the International Space Station. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 76, 135-144. Roach, R. C., Maes, D., Sandoval, D., Robergs, R. A., Icenogle, M., Hinghofer-Szalkay, H., et al. (2000). Exercise exacerbates acute mountain sickness at simulated high altitude. Journal of Applied Physiology, 88, 581?585. Robinson, D. W. (1985). Stress seeking: Selected behavioral characteristics of elite rock climbers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(4), 400-404. Rose, C. [Transcript # 2122]. (1998, March 23). Climbers describe expedition to Everest as ?triumph?. New York, NY: Rose Communications. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. Ryn, Z. (2008). Psychopathology in mountaineering : Mental disturbances under high-altitude stress. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 09(02), 163?169. doi:10.1055/s-2007-1024998 Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensions and job performance in army and civil occupations: A European perspective. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 271-288. Sandal, G. M., Endresen, I. M., Vaernes, R., & Ursin, H. (1999). Personality and coping strategies during submarine missions. Military Psychology, 11(4), 381?404.   168  doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1104_3 Sandal, G. M., Gronningsaeter, H., Eriksen, H. R., et al., (1998). Personality and endocrine activation in military stress situations. Military Psychology, 10, 45-61. Sandal, G. M., Leon G. R., & Palinkas, L. (2006). Human challenges in polar and space environments. Review of Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 5, 281-296. Saunders, G. H., & Griest, S. E. (2009). Hearing loss in veterans and the need for hearing loss prevention programs. Noise and Health, 11(42), 14. Schneider, S., Brummer, V., Carnahan, H., Kleinert, J., Paicentini, M.F., Meeusen, R., & Struder, H.K. (2010). Exercise as a countermeasure to psycho-physiological deconditioning during long-term confinement. Behavioral Brain Research, 211, 208-214. Schommer, K., & B?rtsch, P. (2011). Basic medical advice for travelers to high altitudes. Deutsches ?rzteblatt International, 108(49), 839. Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). Assessment of implicit motives with a research version of the TAT: Picture profiles, gender differences, and relations to other personality measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 71-86. Segal, J. (1986). Winning life's toughest battles: Roots of human resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill. Setnicka, T. J. (1981). Wilderness Search and Rescue: A Complete Handbook. Boston, Massachusetts: Appalachian Mountain Club. Selye, H. (1978). The stress of life. (Rev ed). Oxford England: Mcgraw Hill. Shakespeare-Finch, J., Gow, K., & Smith, S. (2005). Personality, Coping and Posttraumatic Growth in Emergency Ambulance Personnel. Traumatology, 11(4), 325?334.   169  doi:10.1177/153476560501100410 Sharma, S., & Sharma, M. (2012). Low Intensity Conflict Stress in Soldiers: Building Coping Skills and Resources. Psychological Studies, 57(3), 260?268. doi:10.1007/s12646-011-0142-6 Simpson, J. (2004). Touching the void (1st Perennial ed.). New York: Perennial. Sinha, V., & Singh, R. N. (2009). Immunological role of hardiness on depression. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 31, 39?44. Sipes, W. E., & Vander Ark, S. T. (2005). Operational behavioral health and performance resources for International Space Station crews and families. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 76(Supplement 1), B36-B41. Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, (pp. 313-335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Smith, C.P. (Ed., in association with J.W. Atkinson, D.C. McClelland, & J. Veroff) (1992).  Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Solomon, Z., & Dekel, R. (2007). Post-traumatic stress disorder and post-traumatic growth among Israeli ex-POWs. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(3), 303?312. Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Benbenishty, R. (1989). Combat stress reaction?Clinical manifestations and correlates. Military Psychology, 1(1), 35-47. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0101_3 Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist,   170  55(6), 620?625. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.6.620 Sommer, I., & Ehlert, U. (2004). Adjustment to trauma exposure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(4), 329?335. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.01.010 Space Radiation Analysis Group: Johnson Space Center. (2012, September 21). Why is space radiation an important concern for human spaceflight? Retrieved from http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/ Sperber, M. A. (1969). Sensory deprivation in autoscopic illusion, and Joseph Conrad's ?The Secret Sharer?. Psychiatric Quarterly, 43, 711-718. Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1992). Temporal patterns of affect in an isolated group. Environmental Behaviour, 23, 749-765. St?ck, M., Balzer, H., Hecht, K., & Schr?der, H. (2005). Psychological and psychophysiological effects of a high-mountain expedition to Tibet. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 8(1), 11-20. St?rmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-Motivated Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943-956. doi:10.1177/0146167206287363 Stuster, J. (1996).  Bold endeavors: Lessons from space and polar exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Suedfeld, P. (1987). Extreme and unusual environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 863-886). New York: Wiley. Suedfeld, P. (1998). What can abnormal environments tell us about normal people? Polar stations as natural psychology laboratories. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 95-102.   171  Suedfeld, P. (2001). Groups in special environments. In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes. (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of the social and behavioural sciences, (pp. 6430-6434). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Suedfeld, P. (2006). Space memoirs: Value hierarchies before and after space missions -- A pilot study. Acta Astronautica, 58, 583-586. Suedfeld, P. (2008). Salutogenic and pathogenic consequences of isolated, confined, and extreme environments. Unpublished manuscript. Suedfeld, P. (2012). Are we still indomitable? Homo Invictus fifteen years later. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53(1), 21?31. doi:10.1037/a0026045 Suedfeld, P. (2012). Extreme and unusual environments: Challenges and responses. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 169-178. Suedfeld, P. & Steel, G.D. (2000).  The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 237-253. Suedfeld, P., Brcic, J., Johnson, P. J., Gushin, V. (2012). Personal growth following long-duration spaceflight. Acta Astronautica, 79(2), 118-123. Suedfeld, P., Brcic, J.,& Legkaia, K. (2009). Coping with the problems of space flight: Reports from Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Acta Astronautica, 65, 312-324.   172  Suedfeld, P., Frisch, S., Hermann., M., & Mandel, D. R. (2013). Assessing leaders? personality and cognitive processes at a distance: Alternative content analyses in the forecasting of political events. Manuscript in preparation. Suedfeld, P., Krell, R., Wiebe, R. E., & Steel, G. (1997). Coping strategies in the narratives of Holocaust survivors. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 10(2), 153-179. doi:10.1080/10615809708249299 Suedfeld, P., Legkaia, K., & Brcic, J. (2010). Changes in the hierarchy of value references associated with flying in space. Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1411-1436. Suedfeld, P., Wilk, K. E., & Cassel, L. (2011). Flying with strangers: Postmission reflections of multinational space crews. In D. A. Vakoch On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological perspectives on human spaceflight (pp. 185-209). New York: Springer. Suvak, M. K., Vogt, D. S., Savarese, V. W., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2002). Relationship of war-zone coping strategies to long-term general life adjustment among vietnam veterans: Combat exposure as a moderator variable. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 974?985. doi:10.1177/014616720202800710 Taku, K., Calhoun, L.G., Cann, A., & Tedeschi, R.G. (2008). The role of rumination in the coexistence of distress and post-traumatic growth among bereaved Japanese university students. Death Studies, 32(5), 428?444. Taylor, R. L., & Rosenbach, W. E. (2005). Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma & transformation: growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.   173  Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of traumatic stress, 9(3), 455-471. Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C. L., & Calhoun, L. G. (Eds.). (1998). Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tetlock, P. E., & Tyler, A. (1996). Churchill's cognitive and rhetorical style: The debates over Nazi intentions and self-government for India. Political Psychology, 17, 149-170. Thagard, N. (2007, 2 May).  Lessons from Mir. Interview with the Panel on Human Behavior, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary - Pacific Region. (2011). Search and Rescue Crew Manual. Victoria, BC: The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary - Pacific Region. Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2001). Values predicting leader performance in the U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps Assessment Center: Evidence for personality-mediated model. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 181-196. Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 248. Pandolf, K. B., Burr, R. E., & United States Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon . (2001). Medical aspects of harsh environments. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Borden Institute, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Uriely, N., Schwartz, Z., Cohen, E., & Reichel, A. (2002). Rescuing hikers in Israel's deserts: Community altruism or an extension of adventure tourism? Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 25-36. Van Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., Patterson, B., & Boyle, M. H. (2008). Post-traumatic stress   174  disorder in canada. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 14(3), 171?181. doi:10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00049.x Van der Velden, P. G., van Loon, P., Benight, C. C., & Eckhardt, T. (2012). Mental health problems among search and rescue workers deployed in the Ha?ti earthquake 2010: A pre?post comparison. Psychiatry Research, 198(1), 100?105. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.02.017 Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 129?149. Veroff, J., Reuman, D., & Feld, S. (1984). Motives in American men and women across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1142?1158. Warner, C., & Schmincke, D. (2009). High altitude leadership: What the world?s most forbidding peaks teach us about success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Watson, D., David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Personality, affectivity and coping. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 119-140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Webb, C. M., Estrada III, A., & Kelley, A. M. (2012). The effects of spatial disorientation on cognitive processing. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(3), 224?241. doi:10.1080/10508414.2012.689211 Westwood, M.,  McLean, H., Cave, D., Borgen, W. & Slakov, P.  (2010). Coming home: A group-based approach for assisting Canadian military veterans in  transition.  Journal for Specialists in Group Counselling. 35 (1), 44-68.    175  Wexler, H. K., & McGrath, E. (1991). Family member stress reactions to military involvement separation. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 28(3), 515-519. White, L. A., Young, M. C., Hunter, A. E., & Rumsey, M. G. (2008). Lessons learned in transitioning personality measures from research to operational settings. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 291-295. Winter , D.G. (1994).  Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text, Version 4.2.  Unpublished manuscript. MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York, NY: Free Press. Winter, D. G. (1978). Navy leadership and management competencies: Convergence among tests, interviews, and performance ratings. Boston, MA: McBer and Company. Winter, D. G. (2002). The motivational dimensions of leadership: Power, achievement, and affiliation. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 119-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yankaskas, K. (2012). Prelude: Noise induced tinnitus and hearing loss in the military. Hearing Research, 295, 3-8.  Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology & Psychology, 18, 459-482. doi:10.1002/cne.920180503 Zuckerman, M. (Ed.). (1983). Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.    


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items