Researchers from a variety of disciplines are currently working with NASA to prepare for human exploration of Mars in the next decades. Such exploration will take scientific discovery to new heights, providing unprecedented information about the geology, atmosphere, and potential for life on Mars, including previous life, current life, and perhaps even our own lives in the future. To make these unparalleled discoveries, however, astronauts will need to undertake a novel and unprecedented journey. Moreover, the mission to Mars will require a team of crew members who will have to endure and sustain team performance requirements never seen before. Multidisciplinary teams of scientists have begun to provide the needed steps to address this challenge. The purpose of this article is (a) to illustrate the kinds of new conceptual frameworks and paradigms needed for teams in space exploration, (b) to delineate promising research paths to ensure that a robust team science can emerge for long-duration space exploration (LDSE), (c) to showcase initial findings and insights from studying astronauts now, and (d) to outline a plan of action for team-effectiveness research in LDSE.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. A review of the team-effectiveness literature.
2.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams (Monograph). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. An integration and review of team-effectiveness theories and research.
3.
MathieuJ. E.MaynardM. T.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2008). (See References). A review and integration of work conducted from 1997 to 2007 and recommendations for future investigations.
4.
SalasE.GoodwinG.BurkeC. S. (Eds.). (2010). Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. An edited book with chapters on the science of team effectiveness.
5.
SalasE.TannenbaumS.CohenD.LathamG. (Eds.). (2013). (See References). An edited book that contains evidence-based best practices and advice for ensuring team effectiveness.
6.
AlligerG. M.CerasoliC. P.TannenbaumS. I.VesseyW. B. (in press). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics.
7.
BaardS. K.BraunM. T.RenchT. A.PearceM.BoD.PioletY.. . . KozlowskiS. W. J. (2012, July). Monitoring team collaboration and cohesion in real-time. Symposium conducted at the 7th annual conference for INGRoup, Chicago, IL.
8.
BaardS. K.KozlowskiS. W. J.DeShonR. P.BiswasS.BraunM. T.RenchT. A.. . . PioletY. (2012, April). Assessing team process dynamics: An innovative methodology for team research. Symposium conducted at the 27th annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
9.
BallJ. R.EvansC. (Eds.). (2001). Safe passage: Astronaut care for exploration missions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
BealD. J. (in press). ESM 2.0: State of the art and the future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Behavior.
11.
BorsboomD.CramerA. O. J. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.
12.
BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. W. (Eds.). (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R.TodorovaG. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612.
14.
EddyE.TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66, 975–1008.
15.
FestingerL. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychology Review, 57, 271–282.
16.
ForsythD. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
17.
FriborgO.BarlaugD.MartinussenM.RosenvingeJ. H.HjemdalO. (2005). Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 14, 29–40.
18.
GalarzaL.HollandA. W. (1999, July). Critical astronaut proficiencies required for long duration spaceflight (SAE Document 1999-01-2097). Warrendale, PA: SAE International. doi:10.4271/1999-01-2096
19.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.AmazeenP. G.FouseS. (2011). Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Human Factors, 54, 503–517.
20.
GuastelloS. J. (2010). Nonlinear dynamics of team performance and adaptability in emergency response. Human Factors, 52, 162–172.
21.
GullyS. M.DevineD. J.WhitneyD. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.
22.
KanasN. (2011). From Earth’s orbit to the outer planets and beyond: Psychological issues in space. Acta Astronaut, 68, 576–581.
23.
KanasN.ManzeyD. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry. El Segundo, CA: Microcosm Press.
24.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2012). Groups and teams in organizations: Studying the multilevel dynamics of emergence. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 260–283). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (in press). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review.
26.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London, England: Wiley.
27.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In SchmittN.HighhouseS. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, 2nd ed., pp. 412–469). London, England: Wiley.
28.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChangC.-H.BiswasS. (2013). Measuring, monitoring, and regulating teamwork for long duration missions. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
29.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335–354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
30.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.ChangC.-H.FernandezR. (in press). Team dynamics: Using “big data” to advance the science of team effectiveness. In TonidandelS.KingE.CortinaJ. (Eds.), Big data at work: The data science revolution and organizational psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
KozlowskiS. W. J.DeShonR. P.BiswasS.ChangC. H. (2012, February). Capturing the dynamics of team cohesion and collaboration. Presented at the 2012 NASA Human Research Program Investigators’ Workshop, Houston, TX.
LuggD. J. (2005). Behavioral health in Antarctica: Implications for long-duration space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 76, 74–77.
34.
MathieuJ.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
35.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2013). Achieving optimal team composition for success. In SalasE.TannenbaumS. I.CohenD.LathamG. (Eds.), Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines (pp. 520–551). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 126–156. doi:10.1177/0149206313503014
37.
McPheeJ. C.CharlesJ. B. (Eds.). (2009). Human health and performance risks of space exploration missions. Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
38.
MillerC.RyeJ. (2012). Power and politeness in interactions: ADMIRE—A Tool for Deriving the Former From the Latter. In Proceedings of the ASE International Conference on Social Informatics. (pp. 177-184). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
39.
OlguinD. O.GloorP. A.PentlandA. (2009, March). Capturing individual and group behavior with wearable sensors. In Proceedings at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Human Behavior Modeling. Stanford, CA: AAAI Press.
40.
PalinkasL. A. (2003). The psychology of isolated and confined environments: Understanding human behavior in Antarctica. American Psychologist, 58, 353–363.
41.
QuwaiderM.BiswasS. (2010). Wireless body area networks: A framework of network-integrated sensing and energy-aware protocols for resource-constrained applications in wireless body area networks. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
42.
RomaP. G.HurshS. R.HienzR. D.BrinsonZ. S.GasiorE. D.BradyJ. V. (2013). Effects of autonomous mission management on crew performance, behavior, and physiology: Insights from ground-based experiments. In VakochD. A. (Ed.), On orbit and beyond: Psychological perspectives on human spaceflight (pp. 245–266). New York, NY: Springer.
43.
RosenM. A.WildmanJ. L.SalasE.RayneS. (2012). Measuring team dynamics in the wild. In HollingsheadA.PooleM. S. (Eds.) Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 386–417). New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
SalasE.BenishekL.CoultasC.DietzA.GrossmanR.LazzaraE.OglesbyJ. (in press). Team training essentials: A research-based guide. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
45.
SalasE.FrushK. (Eds.). (2012). Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
SalasE.StaglK. C.BurkeC. S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 47–92.
47.
SalasE.TannenbaumS.CohenD.LathamG. (Eds.). (2013). Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
48.
Schmer-GalunderS.SikströmS. (2007, April). How LSA can be used to find underlying biases in published texts, for example “gender biases”: Measuring value systems in large text corpora. Poster session presented at the Psychology and Social Justice Conference, New York, NY.
49.
SchmidtL. L.KeetonK.SlackK. J.LevetonL. B.SheaC. (2009). Risk of performance errors due to poor team cohesion and performance, inadequate selection/team composition, inadequate training, and poor psychosocial adaptation. In McPheeJ. C.CharlesJ. B. (Eds.), Human health and performance risks of space exploration missions (pp. 45–84). Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
50.
SchmidtL. L.WoodJ.LuggD. J. (2004). Team climate at Antarctic research stations 1996–2000: Leadership matters. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75, 681–687.
51.
ShufflerM. L.DiazGranadosD.SalasE. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365–372.
52.
Smith-JentschK. A.Cannon-BowersJ. A.TannenbaumS. I.SalasE. (2008). Guided team self-correction impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–327.
53.
SomersS. (2009). Measuring resilience potential: An adaptive strategy for organizational crisis planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17, 12–23.
54.
StevensR. H.GallowayT. L.WangP.BerkaC. (2011). Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: What can they contribute to the study of teamwork?Human Factors, 54, 489–502.
55.
StusterJ. (2011). Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
56.
TannenbaumS. I.CerasoliC. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231–245.
57.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.AlligerG. M.DonsbachJ. S. (2013, April). Composing long-duration space flight teams. In VesseyW. B. (chair), Looking forward to Mars: Researching teams for future exploration missions. Symposium conducted at the 28th annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.
58.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing—Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 2–24.
59.
TausczikY.PennebakerJ. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. doi:10.1177/0261927X09351676
60.
VesseyW. B. (2014). Multiteam systems in the spaceflight context: Current and future challenges. In SalasE.ShufflerM.RicoR. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Pushing the boundaries (pp. 135–153). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
61.
VesseyW. B.PalinkasL.LevetonL. B. (2013, May). Supporting teams and individuals under conditions of communication delay: Lessons learned from NEEMO 16. Symposium presented at the Aerospace Medical Association 84th Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
62.
WuP.RyeJ.MillerC.Schmer-GalunderS.OttT. (2013). Non-intrusive detection of psycho-social dimensions using sociolinguistics. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 1337–1344). New York, NY: ACM.
