Interpersonal and group processes in long-term spaceflight crews: perspectives from social and organizational psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issues of interpersonal and group processes in long-term spacecrews from the perspectives of social and organizational psychology are considered here. A contrast between the Amundsen vs. Scott expeditions to the South Pole 90 yrs. ago highlights the importance of personnel selection and attention to interpersonal and group dynamics in expeditions to extreme and dangerous environments, such as long-term spaceflights today. Under the rubric of personnel selection, some further psychological "select-in" and "select-out" criteria are suggested, among them implicit measures of human motivation, intergroup attitudes ("implicit" and "explicit" measures of prejudice, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism), attachment styles, and dispositional hardiness. The situational interview and the idea of "selection for teams," drawn from current advances in organizational psychology, are recommended for selecting members for future spacecrews. Under the rubrics of interpersonal and group processes, the social relations model is introduced as a technique for modeling and understanding interdependence among spacecrew members and partialling out variance in behavioral and perceptual data into actor/perceiver, partner/target, and relationship components. Group cohesion as a multidimensional construct is introduced, along with a consideration of the groupthink phenomenon and its controversial link to cohesion. Group composition issues are raised with examples concerning cultural heterogeneity and gender composition. Cultural value dimensions, especially power distance and individual-collectivism, should be taken into account at both societal and psychological levels in long-term space missions. Finally, intergroup processes and language issues in crews are addressed. The recategorization induction from the common ingroup identity model is recommended as a possible intervention for overcoming and inhibiting intergroup biases within spacecrews and between space- and groundcrews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".