Esa advanced concepts 06 03 20
- 1. Monitoring and supporting psychological function in isolated, confined and extreme environments Dr Nathan Smith (@DrNathanJSmith) Nathan.smith@Manchester.ac.uk European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team: 06/03/20
- 2. Background Formerly: • PhD University of Birmingham • Lecturer in Sport and Performance Psychology, University of Northampton • Senior Research Scientist, MOD Science & Technology Laboratory • Scientific advisor, MOD Whitehall Currently: • Research Associate in Psychology, Security & Trust at University of Manchester • Honorary Lecturer University of Exeter Medical School (Extreme Medicine MSc) Research • Extreme and high-risk occupations e.g., military • Collaborations on ESA projects in analog environments and on ISS
- 3. Isolated, confined and extreme (ICE) environments Settings that possess a combination of extraordinary physical, psychological, and interpersonal demands that require significant human adaptation for survival, performance and health (Kanas & Manzey, 2008; Smith & Barrett, 2018)
- 5. Demands • Physical: temperature, terrain, weather conditions, habitat • Psychological: uncertainty, sleep deprivation, high/low workload, monotony/boredom, danger • Interpersonal or social: team tension, conflict, separation from friends and family, proximity
- 6. Physical conditions e.g., tem p eratu re, weath er con d ition s, dark n ess Habitability and life support e.g., sp ace, noise, fa cilities Crew characteristics e.g., size, sim ilarity, person a l ch aracteristics, cu ltu re M ission or expedition attributes e.g., task s, work load , com m u n ica tion Individual psychological adaptation & tim e Cognitive Performance, error m anagem ent, safety Group dynam ics Health & wellbeing Objective features Adaptation factors Sa n d al et al., 2 0 0 6
- 7. “All the conditions necessary for murder are met if you shut two men in a cabin measuring 18x20 feet and leave them together for two months.” Valeriy Ryumin
- 9. Landon et al., 2018 Current landscape
- 10. Landon et al., 2018 Current landscape
- 11. Landon et al., 2017 Current landscape
- 12. Psychological research - Sandal, Leon, & Smith, 2017
- 13. Psychological research - Sandal, Leon, & Smith, 2017
- 14. The ICE literature • There have been a lot of psychological studies in ICE environments, many of these connected to human spaceflight (Harrison et al., 1991; Suedfeld, 2018) • Specifically for long space missions, key studies in Mars500 (e.g., Basner et al., 2014) and HISEAS (e.g., Goemaere et al., 2019) • Some broad problems with these studies (beyond lack of microgravity and radiation): • Timeframe of assessment (e.g., monthly, weekly) is too wide to truly understand antecedents of behaviour, performance and psychological health (a lot can happen in a month!) • Relatedly, limited attempt to test processes – how do we know where to intervene?! • Lack of real risk – arguably Antarctic stations different but still relatively benign!
- 15. In this presentation… Theoretical and evidence-based approach to understand dynamics related to behaviour, performance and psychological health in ICE settings: 1. Ecological momentary assessments (diaries) 2. Passive analysis of linguistics 3. Digital monitoring and support tool
- 16. Cognitive appraisal theory Lazaru s & Folk m a n , 1 9 84 E ven t/D em a n d Ap p ra isa l 1 = Ch a llen ge / harm / th rea t / ben ign 2 = con trolla b ility E m otion s / p hysiologica l rea ction C op in g stra tegies H e a lth , we llb e in g, cogn ition s, affe ct, be h aviou r Person a lity & in d ivid u a l d ifferen ces Ta sk E nviron m en t H a b ita t C rew Te m p oral un certa in ty, stress ha b itu a tion /n orm a lisation
- 17. Regulatory flexibility theory Bon n a n o & Bu rton , 2 01 3 M on itor an d m od ify as n eed ed ‘Fee d ba ck ’ E va lu a te d em an d s an d op p ortu n ities ‘C on text sen sitivity’ Se lect regu latory strategy ‘Rep ertoire’ Ad ju st M a in ta in Ce a se Se le ct new strategy Re eva lu a te de m a n d s/op portu n itie s Health
- 18. Participants • 38 participants (17 = female, 21 = male; Mage = 36.12 years, SD = 11.30 years) • Mix of nationalities, educations and professional backgrounds • 7 expeditions; polar, desert, maritime environments ranging from 7 – 67 days
- 19. Method • Pre-expedition survey (2 weeks prior to departure) • Demographics • Personality (Big Five Inventory; John et al., 1991) • Affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson et al., 1988) • Daily expedition diary (interval-contingent) • Affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson et al., 1988) • Event and coping strategy checklist (Atlis et al., 2004; Leon et al., 1989) • 852 days of expedition data • Hierarchical linear modelling with fixed effects • Indicator waves with standardised residuals
- 21. PAN AS E ven ts & Cop in g GE Q H ea lth & Perform a n ce
- 22. Affect example 3 4 5 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 2831 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 5861 64 67 Positive Affect (PA) Positive Affect 1 2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 2831 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 5861 64 67 Negative Affect (NA) Negative Affect
- 23. Personality x affect Daily NA (M = 1.23; SD = 0.38; Range = 1.00 – 3.50) Daily PA (M = 3.63; SD = 0.90; Range = 1.00 – 5.00) Model 0 Model 1 Model 0 Model 2 Mean / Sum Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Gender (M = 1; F = 2) N/A 0.37**(.08) -0.32 (.25) Pre Negative Affect 1.76 0.09 (.08) -0.18 (.27) Pre Positive Affect 4.10 0.11 (.07) 0.24 (.24) Extraversion 3.62 -0.19**(.06) -0.04 (.21) Agreeableness 4.08 -0.38**(.09) -0.40 (.30) Conscientiousness 3.98 -0.08 (.06) 0.07 (.21) Neuroticism 2.12 -0.05 (.08) 0.03 (.27) Openness 3.77 0.16 (.10) 0.27 (.32) Nested variance 49% 58% -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 482.29 424.76 1597.69 1555.12 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood (Model 0 – Predictor Models 1 & 2) 57.53** 42.57**
- 24. Event x affect Daily NA (M = 1.23; SD = 0.38; Range = 1.00 – 3.50) Daily PA (M = 3.63; SD = 0.90; Range = 1.00 – 5.00) Which events were encountered today? Model 0 Model 3 Model 0 Model 4 Mean / Sum Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Gear Problems 260 0.07 (.02)** 0.10 (.04)* Injury Fear 154 0.02 (.03) 0.01 (.06) Teammate Concern 205 0.07 (.02)** 0.09 (.05)* Enjoy Environment 576 -0.05 (.02)* 0.29 (.04)** Lonely 89 0.11 (.04)** -0.15 (.07)* Satisfied Progress 516 -0.05 (.02)* 0.25 (.04)** Safety Concern 47 0.15 (.05)** -0.06 (.09) Stressed Teammate 40 0.30 (.05)** -0.05 (.10) Weather Worries 178 0.02 (.03) -0.03 (.05) Camaraderie 488 -0.00 (.03) 0.16 (.05)** Worried Friends Family 109 0.17 (.04)** 0.11 (.07) Teamworking Concern 77 -0.02 (.04) -0.09 (.07) Hygiene 176 -0.04 (.03) 0.03 (.06) Privacy 71 0.01 (.04) -0.05 (.08) Teammate Tension 51 0.21 (.04)** -0.02 (.09) Satisfied Equipment 242 -0.03 (.03) 0.05 (.05) Satisfied Cope 466 -0.11 (.02)** 0.19 (.05)** Muscle Joint Pain 299 0.02 (.02) -0.05 (.05) Nested variance 49% 58% -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 482.29 316.35 1597.69 1448.41 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood (Model 0 – Predictor Models 3 & 4) 165.94** 149.28**
- 25. Event dynamics example -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 FirstHalf SecondHalf Social events Camaraderie ConcernTeamEffectivenees ConcernTeamWellbeing DownStressedTeammate Tension WorryFriendsFamily
- 26. Coping strategy dynamics example -1.5 -1.0 -.5 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 FirstHalf SecondHalf Emotion-focused FeelingsToSelf GoalInSight NegativeFeelingsSelf NegativeFeelingsTeammate PleasantThought PositiveAttitude PositiveWay -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 .0 .1 .2 .3 FirstHalf SecondHalf Social-focused DiscussedPersonalConcern DiscussedTaskConcern
- 27. Event x coping strategy Broke it down, took it one day at a time Tried to think of somethin g pleasant Discusse d task concerns Prayer Cried Kept the goal in sight Kept my feelings to myself Had negative feelings about teammate Discuss personal and emotional concerns Tried harder, put in more effort Saw the situation in a positive way Tried to keep a positive attitude, used humour Relaxed, meditated or daydream ed Tried to solve the problem Had negative feelings about myself Yelled, stomped, threw things around Injury Fear 0.1 0.3 1.0 -1.2 2.0 0.4 0.9 -1.3 -1.5 0.9 -1.1 -0.5 0.4 -0.7 0.4 1.1 Teammate Concern 0.3 -0.9 2.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.4 -1.0 -1.1 -1.5 -0.5 1.1 0.1 Enjoy Environment -1.1 1.3 -0.7 -1.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.1 0.5 0.1 -1.4 1.0 2.1 1.2 -0.9 -1.1 -0.8 Lonely 0.1 -1.6 -1.7 13.7 0.4 -1.3 0.1 -1.3 -0.1 0.0 -1.6 -1.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 Satisfied Progress 0.0 1.7 -1.5 -1.7 -1.3 0.7 -0.5 -1.0 -1.2 -0.6 0.4 1.4 1.3 -0.7 -1.4 -0.7 Safety Concern -0.4 -1.0 1.7 -0.1 1.8 -0.7 0.5 -1.0 2.3 1.1 -1.3 -1.0 -1.5 1.3 2.9 -0.7 Stressed Teammate 0.4 -1.2 0.2 -0.4 6.0 -0.8 2.2 1.2 2.7 -0.3 -1.6 -0.7 -1.8 -0.3 2.0 1.0 Weather Worries 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.1 0.3 1.2 -1.1 -0.8 0.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1 -1.2 -0.6 -0.3 2.0 Camaraderie 0.5 0.0 0.6 -1.2 -1.3 0.4 -1.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.2 1.9 1.3 -0.3 -1.2 -1.3 -0.6 Worried Friends Family 1.8 -0.4 0.5 -2.7 -1.0 -0.4 1.4 -1.9 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.9 -1.1 Teamworking Concern 0.0 -1.6 -0.1 -1.2 1.1 -1.0 1.4 5.3 3.2 0.3 -2.1 -2.1 -2.2 3.2 2.9 1.1 Hygiene 0.7 0.7 0.6 -3.0 -0.3 0.3 0.4 -1.6 0.0 0.9 -0.5 0.6 0.7 -1.8 -0.8 0.2 Privacy 0.8 -0.9 0.1 -2.6 0.8 -1.1 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.3 -0.8 -1.3 0.1 3.5 -0.8 -0.9 Teammate Tension -1.1 -1.5 0.9 0.3 1.8 -1.1 0.0 6.8 3.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.5 -3.1 2.6 3.7 2.2 Satisfied Equipment -0.6 -0.7 1.0 3.5 -0.6 0.2 -0.7 -1.1 -0.2 0.7 0.6 -1.5 0.5 -0.5 0.5 -1.0 Satisfied Cope -0.2 0.4 -0.8 0.1 -1.7 0.9 -0.1 -0.7 -1.1 -0.1 1.6 0.3 0.5 -0.7 -1.9 -1.1 Muscle Joint Pain -1.4 0.4 -2.4 -1.2 0.3 0.3 -0.7 0.9 -1.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.0 Gear Problem 1.0 0.0 0.6 -0.6 0.8 -0.2 0.4 -0.4 -1.7 -0.1 -0.9 -0.3 -0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6
- 28. Coping strategy x affect Daily NA (M = 1.23; SD = 0.38; Range = 1.00 – 3.50 Daily PA (M = 3.63; SD = 0.90; Range = 1.00 – 5.00) Which strategies did you use to cope with stressful demands today? Sum Model 7 Est (SE) Model 8 Est (SE) Broke it down, took it one day at a time 366 0.06 (.03)* -0.18 (.05)** Tried to think of something pleasant 526 -0.08(.02)** 0.10 (.05)* Discussed task concerns 200 0.05 (.03)* 0.02 (.05) Prayer 95 0.08(.07) -0.09 (.16) Cried 18 0.45 (.07)** -0.37 (.15)* Kept the goal in sight 455 0.01 (.02) 0.01 (.05) Kept my feelings to myself 245 0.05 (.02)* -0.12 (.05)* Had negative feelings about teammate 112 0.01 (.03) -0.05 (.07) Discussed personal and emotional concerns 114 0.17 (.03)** -0.02 (.06) Tried harder, put in more effort 265 0.02 (.03) 0.14 (.06)* Saw the situation in a positive way 404 -0.05 (.02)* 0.26 (.05)** Tried to keep a positive attitude, used humour 506 -0.03 (.02) 0.13 (.05)** Relaxed, meditated or daydreamed 340 -0.11 (.03)** 0.05 (.06) Tried to solve the problem 177 0.04 (.03) 0.01 (.05) Had negative feelings about myself 94 0.22 (.04)** -0.33 (.07)** Yelled, stomped, threw things around 7 0.55 (.11)** -0.52 (.22)* Nested variance 49% 58% -2 Restricted Log Likelihood Model 0 482.29 1597.69 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood Predictor Model (7/8) 293.84 1492.94 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood (Model 0 - Model 7/8) 188.45** 104.75**
- 29. Discussion points • Large amount of variance in perceptions of affect at the within-person level - this is a personalised experience! • Both dispositional (personality) and situational factors (daily events) were associated with daily fluctuations in affect • Personality/daily events have unique contribution when included in same model • Certain events associated with PA, whilst others associated with NA • Initial evidence that expedition demands activate different regulatory pathways –coping strategies have their own associations with affect • Directionality not established > prior suggestion that affect may be both an antecedent and outcome of self-regulation (Lazarus, 1991; Ntoumanis et al., 2009) and NA may have important informational value – would we want to get rid of it?! • Most commonly used techniques were associated with PA • Strategies associated with NA may be appropriate to situation but need to be used selectively and adjusted or ceased when no longer required – chronic NA is the problem
- 31. Affect, team cohesion and performance • Anecdotal feedback from several expedition teams suggested that affective experiences might be directly impacting upon other important indicators of function • Because teams are interdependent in ICE environments and rely on each other for safety, survival and wellbeing identifying variables that impact how people cooperate and complete work is important • Interested in the impact of affect upon markers of team cohesion and individual performance • Consistent with broaden-and-build theory (Fredericksen, 2001) we expected PA to be a +ve predictor of task and social cohesion and performance and NA to be a -ve predictor
- 32. Participants • 15 participants (9 = female, 6 = male; Mage = 33.19 years, SD = 5.75 years) • Mix of nationalities, educations and professional backgrounds • 4 Arctic ski expeditions (North Pole,Greenland, Iceland, Norway)
- 33. Method • Daily expedition diary previously discussed (interval-contingent) • Used the health and performance and cohesion items • 178 days of data • Hierarchical linear modelling with fixed effects
- 34. Affect, cohesion & performance Daily NA Model 1 Daily PA Model 2 Task cohesion Model 3 Social cohesion Model 4 Performance Model 5 Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Est (SE) Sleep (M) -0.11 (.03)** -0.12 (.04)** 0.11 (.04)* -0.09 (.04)* 0.04 (.06) Current Mood (M) 0.00 (.04) 0.16 (.05)** 0.01 (.06) -0.03 (.05) -0.07 (.08) Current Mood (E) -0.18 (.04)** 0.14 (.06)* -0.03 (.06) -0.05 (.05) 0.52 (.08)** Physical Health (M) 0.14 (.05)** 0.06 (.07) -0.10 (.07) 0.15 (.06)* 0.16 (.09)+ Physical Health (E) 0.00 (.04) 0.09 (.06) 0.14 (.07)* 0.10 (.06) -0.07 (.09) Daily NA - - -0.29 (.11)* -0.44 (.11)** -0.32 (.16)* Daily PA - - 0.26 (.08)** 0.30 (.07)** 0.51 (.10)** Task Cohesion - - - - -0.05 (.11) Social Cohesion - - - - -0.14 (.09) Nested variance (%) 38% 41% 46% 83% 27% -2 Restricted Log Likelihood Model 0 255.15 382.75 388.99 376.85 571.31 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood Predictor Model (1 – 5) 228.29 359.58 369.99 356.29 465.47
- 35. Discussion • Daily PA and NA had a positive and negative impact upon daily reports of cohesion and performance respectively • Interestingly, overall assessments of mood (morning/evening) did not predict cohesion – suggests that affect might capture something different • Findings suggest that affect could be a target of interventions designed to promote team cohesion and performance in extreme teams (Wagstaff & Leach, 2015)
- 36. Reflections on studies • Expeditioners tend to have a positive experience in the expedition setting • Events most often reported include camaraderie, satisfaction with progress, satisfaction with being able to cope and enjoying environment • Coping in ICE settings is a dynamic experience, evidenced by the temporal changes in strategy use observed in both our own and others’ research • What theoretical frameworks may enable a deeper insight to the motivation and coping, and performance and health experiences of expeditioners in ICE settings? • Important for providing effective support and to develop appropriate person-centred countermeasures
- 37. A needs based perspective • The fact the expeditioners are a self-selecting population means that we should consider motivation when examining performance and health • Many quotes refer to why expeditioning satisfies some need/provides a release from daily life • Prior work on the motives (Barlow et al., 2013; Woodman et al., 2019) and values (Smith et al., 2017; in preparation) of people involved in extreme and high risk activities has been instructive • Motives such as agency and emotion regulation, and values including self-direction, stimulation, benevolence and universalism, have been identified as important by people choosing extreme settings • We think that these motivational sources compel people to enter extremes with the implicit/explicit aim of satisfying their innate psychological needs – motives/values previously identified closely align with autonomy, competence and relatedness needs in SDT, which are proposed as being universally important for optimal human function
- 38. A needs based perspective • The fact the expeditioners are a self-selecting population means that we should consider motivation when examining performance and health • Many quotes refer to why expeditioning satisfies some need/provides a release from daily life • Prior work on the motives (Barlow et al., 2013; Woodman et al., 2019) and values (Smith et al., 2017; in preparation) of people involved in extreme and high risk activities has been instructive • Motives such as agency and emotion regulation, and values including self-direction, stimulation, benevolence and universalism, have been identified as important by people choosing extreme settings • We think that these motivational sources compel people to enter extremes with the implicit/explicit aim of satisfying their innate psychological needs – motives/values previously identified closely align with autonomy, competence and relatedness needs in SDT, which are proposed as being universally important for optimal human function Basic psychological needs: Autonomy: a sense of volition and ownership over decisions Competence: a sense of effectiveness and mastery Relatedness: a sense of connection and belonging
- 39. A needs based perspective • The fact the expeditioners are a self-selecting population means that we should consider motivation when examining performance and health • Many quotes refer to why expeditioning satisfies some need/provides a release from daily life • Prior work on the motives (Barlow et al., 2013; Woodman et al., 2019) and values (Smith et al., 2017; in preparation) of people involved in extreme and high risk activities has been instructive • Motives such as agency and emotion regulation, and values including self-direction, stimulation, benevolence and universalism, have been identified as important by people choosing extreme settings • We think that these motivational sources compel people to enter extremes with the implicit/explicit aim of satisfying their innate psychological needs – motives/values previously identified closely align with autonomy, competence and relatedness needs in SDT, which are proposed as being universally important for optimal human function Basic psychological needs: Autonomy: similar to being able to cope Competence: similar to satisfaction in making progress Relatedness: similar to camaraderie, enjoying environment
- 40. Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013 Need supportive social environment Task and environmental demands Need thwarting social environment Need satisfaction Need frustration Maladaptive affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes Adaptive affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes
- 42. Self-regulation • Because ICE are demanding and dynamic, coping and self-regulation is important (aligned with earlier findings) • Self-regulation refers to efforts to influence, modify, or control own behavior (including thoughts and feelings)…(Freund & Hennecke, 2015) • Findings from extremes suggest that flexible self-regulation and matching of strategy to demand is critical for performance, health and team function (Blackadder-Weinstein et al., 2019; Kjaergaard et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2019; Wagstaff & Weston, 2014)
- 43. Integrated approach Duda et al., 2005; Ntoumanis et al., 2009 Need supportive social environment Task and environmental demands Need thwarting social environment Need satisfaction Need frustration Maladaptive affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes Adaptive affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes Flexible self- regulation
- 44. Physical and psychological needs and flexible self-regulation in extremes • Diary study project in collaboration with NASA’s Human Behaviour and Performance team (Landon, L., & Roma, P.) • Studying ‘real’ teams in both simulation chambers and high risk expedition settings to examine the role of psychosocial variables in individual and team performance and health • Testing the integrated needs and self-regulation model presented earlier (due to complete end of 2020)
- 45. Psychological needs in extremes • Most SDT research has been conducted with Western populations in developed countries • Small body of literature examining basic needs in countries where physical safety and security needs are at risk – though this work has tended to be cross-sectional (e.g., Chen et al., 2015) • In initial studies we have found expeditioners have reported high levels of need satisfaction in extremes (consistent with earlier non-SDT diary work) • We were interested in testing whether psychological needs have the same impact upon performance and health when physical needs are truly called into question • Important question for people in extreme and dangerous environments like encounter in ICE conditions
- 46. Study 1 (in progress) Need satisfaction Behavioural health Mood Fatigue Need frustration Personality Big 5 Values Schwartz’s values Performance Individual Team Desirability Mission type Isolation/confinement vs. expedition
- 47. Study 1 (in progress) Need satisfaction Behavioural health Mood Fatigue Need frustration Personality Big 5 Values Schwartz’s values Performance Individual Team Desirability Mission type Isolation/confinement vs. expedition
- 48. Study 1: preliminary findings • 6 teams (N = 27; 275 days) • Mont Blanc, Greenland, Jules Verne Lodge, Atlas Mountains, Tanzania, MDRS FR E S H R E AD Y M E N TAL FATIGU E P H YSIC A E XH AU ST STR E S S E D SL E E PY SE L F P E R F O R M AN CE TE AM P E R F O R M AN CE SAM E TE AM AU T SAT 0.1 2 2 0.0 5 9 -.2 0 4 * -.3 51 ** -.1 6 9 * .4 07 ** .2 3 6 ** .2 4 0** CO M P SAT .3 91 ** -0.0 41 -.4 6 8** -.47 0** -.3 47 ** .6 3 3 ** .2 2 4 ** 0.1 3 5 R E L SAT .31 5 ** 0.0 5 4 -.31 8** -.2 9 6 ** -.2 6 4 ** .41 5 ** .2 4 4 ** .2 1 2 * AU T TH W -0.0 6 6 .2 1 6 ** .31 0** .2 1 4 ** 0.0 3 6 -.1 86 * -.1 86 * -.2 01 * CO M P TH W -.2 6 2 ** 0.01 9 .37 7 ** .51 9 ** .2 1 8** -.6 4 0** -.2 1 9 ** -0.1 6 3 R E L TH W -.24 0** 0.0 5 .31 1 ** .27 2 ** .2 0 2 * -.2 3 3 ** -.27 3 ** -.27 7 **
- 49. Studies 2 & 3 (in progress) Psychological need frustration Behavioural health Mood Fatigue Intentions Performance Individual Team Desirability Flexible self- regulation Context sensitivity Repertoire selection Physical need satisfaction Psychology need satisfaction
- 50. Discussion • Very preliminary findings from study suggest that basic need satisfaction and frustration explains day-to-day variability in behavioural health, perceptions of individual and team performance and desirability for same team • Above relationships observed in settings where physical need fulfilment may be restricted (testing this directly in study 2) • See if the findings replicate in study 2 and if flexible self-regulation mediates the relationship • Examine the moderating effects of personality and values, which might add new insight into selection factors relevant for in-environment function in ICE settings
- 54. Linguistic analysis • 6 solo Antarctic expeditioners (1 to be added from this season) • Ski coast to South Pole or across Antarctica (days range = 19 – 61) • 3 aborted, 3 successful • Data • Social media updates, blog posts, video and audio diaries • Method • Analyst coding • Automated linguistic analysis • Questions: • What are the most frequently mentioned demands, methods of regulating behaviour, performance and health • Do analyst ratings predict automated linguistics?
- 56. • Complexity • F-Score: derived from two summary measures: precision and recall. • Communicative Development Inventory (CDI): measures vocabulary size and growth. • Type Token Ratio (TTR): tells you how rich or "lexically varied" the vocabulary in the text is. • Glasgow Norms: a set of normative ratings for 5,553 English words on nine psycholinguistic dimensions • Warriner et al. Norms: a more extensive affective norms corpus, collecting ratings for approximately. 14,000 words. • Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): gold standard for computerized text analysis Linguistic analysis
- 57. Sum Std. Deviation BadWeather 106 0.5 TaskScale 99 0.497 RequiredEffort 96 0.497 Conditions 88 0.489 EnjoyEnvironment 61 0.441 Nutrition 58 0.436 PeopleConnection 57 0.431 UnexpectedEvents 50 0.414 PeopleContact 43 0.391 HabitatComfort 35 0.367 Fatigue 31 0.34 FutureWeather 29 0.335 EquipmentSatisfaction 21 0.292 EquipmentFailure 19 0.28 MissingHome 17 0.261 SomaticHealth 14 0.239 NutritionConcern 14 0.245 PhysicalFitness 13 0.231 Monotony 13 0.233 Scared 12 0.221 Pain 11 0.213 Sleep 11 0.214 WeightLoss 11 0.213 Lonely 9 0.193 HabitatDifficulties 8 0.188 Emergency 7 0.174 MedicalProblem 4 0.131 Stress 3 0.113 Hygiene 2 0.093 SensedPresence 2 0.093 PeopleIrritation 1 0.074 PeopleDisagreements 1 0.074 PeopleConcern 1 0.065 Privacy 0 0 Sum Std. Deviation AcknowledgeAchievement 140 0.486 BigGoal 86 0.485 TriedHarder 78 0.478 ImportanceSupport 63 0.446 PersonalItems 63 0.449 SetGoals 58 0.436 PleasantThought 57 0.431 PositiveReappraisal 56 0.436 HistoryMemory 50 0.411 ProblemSolve 48 0.416 Routine 44 0.396 Audio 42 0.39 PastExperience 41 0.383 PositiveAttitude 38 0.37 Planning 37 0.368 Humour 35 0.36 Immeersion 33 0.354 RegulateFeelings 32 0.35 CreateImages 32 0.344 NegativeFeelingSelf 30 0.335 ObjectsPersonified 29 0.332 Acceptance 27 0.323 Detachment 15 0.25 ActiveDistraction 15 0.251 SelfTalk 12 0.222 Compartmentalise 8 0.186 RelaxationMeditation 8 0.182 SeekSupport 6 0.16 Avoidance 5 0.148 Luck 4 0.13 DiscussProblem 3 0.115 Activation 3 0.113 NegativeFeelingOTher 1 0.065 DownplayProblem 1 0.067 Faith 1 0.065 ConfrontPerson 0 0 Analyst
- 58. Preliminary findings: Linguistics y = 0.0217x + 2.6561 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Posemo BS SS LR COB JD EL Mean Linear (Mean)
- 59. Discussion • Codebook offers an evidence based and systematic way to code the experiences of expeditioners using biographical material • Automated linguistic analyses capturing variability in expeditioner experience • Test the relationship between codebook scores and linguistics • Could offer a useful tool for those in mission control to evaluate the health and wellbeing of those operating in ICE environments
- 62. Advancements of DRiFT 1. Digital library expansion 1. Explorers, adventurers 2. Expert scientists 2. Intelligent virtual assistant 1. Archive research 2. PhD studentships 3. Expanded monitoring metrics 1. Wearables 2. Linguistics 4. Smart solutions 1. Matching demographics to insights & other solutions 5. DRiFT-U 1. Community platform for logging solutions – vetted by users 2. Personalised repertoire toolbox
- 63. Summary • Presented some of our innovative research work focused on understand the situational experience of people in isolated, confined and extreme environments • We use a range of methods to examine day-to-day function in extremes, offering a triangulated perspective of behavioural and psychological function • When integrated, cognitive-appraisal, regulatory flexibility and basic needs theories offer a promising framework to understand and intervene to keep people happy and health in ICE settings • Our new work focuses on applying this integrated theoretical frame into a smart digital tool that will enable users to monitor and self-regulate their psychological function to promote resilient performance in ICE environments • Broadly, the DRiFT project offers a vehicle for answering outstanding questions related to the situational experience of expeditioners, including those on space missions, and a way to personalize training and support for people operating independently in those remote settings
- 64. Monitoring and supporting psychological function in isolated, confined and extreme environments Dr Nathan Smith (@DrNathanJSmith) Nathan.smith@Manchester.ac.uk European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team: 06/03/20
- 65. Basic needs during transition from extremes • Based on findings of daily diary work (camaraderie, coping control) and qualitative post-expedition interviews, we were interested in testing whether changes in need satisfaction/frustration during transition can explain how people respond upon their return from extreme settings Method • Surveying expeditioners who have returned from overseas expedition within last 12 months (all 7 continents) • N = 105 • Cross-sectional survey examining social environment, basic psychological needs on expedition and when returning home and mood, vitality, reintegration (+ve and –ve) experiences
- 66. Basic needs & social environment during and after expedition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 67. Needs Supportive Environment Needs Thwarting Environment Needs Support Needs Thwart Affective disruption (during transition) Tiredness (during transition) * p <.05, ** p <.01, ***p <.001 χ2 = 6.16, p = .29, RMSEA = 0.05, RMSEA 95% CI = 0.00 – 0.15, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .04 .74*** .97*** .35** .42** .30* .48*** -.41*** .11 -.22 INDIRECT EFFECTS: Needs supportive to affect = .26, p = .001, tiredness = .22, p = .02 Needs thwarting to affect = .46, p < .001, tiredness = .41, p = .001 During
- 68. Needs Supportive Environment Needs Thwarting Environment Needs Support Needs Thwart Affective disruption (during transition) Tiredness (during transition) + p < .10, * p <.05, ** p <.01, ***p <.001 χ2 = 4.08, p = .54, RMSEA = .00, RMSEA 95% CI = 0.00-0.12, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .1.02, SRMR = .02 .72*** .59*** .09 .40** .18 .78*** -.65*** -.11 -.22 INDIRECT EFFECTS: Needs supportive to affect = .06, p = .52, tiredness = .12, p = .23 Needs thwarting to affect = .46, p < .001, tiredness = .23, p = .01 After
- 69. Discussion • When expeditioners are asked to reflect on their need experiences and social environment during and after return from expedition, they tend to report less supportive and more frustrating experiences when back in home environment • Supports the idea that people are compelled and are able to fulfil some basic psychological desire in expedition settings • Need satisfaction/frustration (and associated social environmental factors) both on and after return from expedition predicted the transition experience, reflected in both affective responding and tiredness/fatigue • Data suggest that the need satisfaction/frustration pathways uniquely contribute e.g., both need satisfaction and need frustration during expedition +vely predicted disruption upon return • Need to test this prospectively and understand need dynamics in the expedition setting