With increasing attention on Lunar and Martian missions, understanding the effects of Isolated, Confined, and Extreme (ICE) environments on human teams becomes critical. Conducting ecologically valid research on team dynamics within these contexts poses challenges due to the unique challenges they operate and stemming scarcity and inaccessibility of such teams. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, this study answers the call for more research to understand the nuances of teams operating in these conditions. Leveraging archival data collected from 36 Antarctic winteroverers, the relationships between challenge characteristics, team dynamics, affective states, and individual differences are investigated. The data’s nuanced nature shows the effect of task challenges on teamwork outcomes and the related increased negative affect. Furthermore, the strong effect of within-person factors on the ICE experience is illustrated in the qualitative and quantitative data. In line with this variability, the study reveals how both higher-level personality facets, as well as their subscales, influence individuals’ experiences in ICE environments. Exploring the connections between a set of challenges characteristics on three affective variables and eight discreet emotions, nine component variables of two latent teamwork constructs, and a suite of individual differences variables, the study contributes to the field by demonstrating the value of combining qualitative and quantitative data within small samples, allowing for in-depth insights into teamwork experiences in ICE. The manuscript also provides insight into temporal aspects of key relationships in ICE and how a set of individual differences relate to the use of journaling as a research methodology.
AlfanoC. A.BowerJ. L.ConnaboyC.AghaN. H.BakerF. L.SmithK. A.SoC. J.SimpsonR. J. (2021). Mental health, physical symptoms and biomarkers of stress during prolonged exposure to Antarctica’s extreme environment. Acta Astronautica, 181(February), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.051
2.
AlfanoC. A.BowerJ. L.CowieJ.LauS.SimpsonR. J. (2018). Long-duration space exploration and emotional health: Recommendations for conceptualizing and evaluating risk. Acta Astronautica, 142, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.11.009
BellS. T.BrownS. G.MitchellT. (2019). What we know about team dynamics for long-distance space missions: A systematic review of analog research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00811
8.
BellS. T.FisherD. M.BrownS. G.MannK. E. (2018). An approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2740–2765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316653805
9.
BoydR. L.AshokkumarA.SerajS.PennebakerJ. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. The University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app/contact.
10.
BurkeC. S.FeitosaJ. (2014). Team culture issues for long-duration exploration missions (project- #NNJ13HF08P). Final report. University of Central Florida.
11.
CabonP.CoblentzA.MollardR.FouillotJ. P. (1993). Human vigilance in railway and long-haul flight operation. Ergonomics, 36(9), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967974
12.
CaputoA. (2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported wellbeing measures: Evidence from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
13.
ChristianJ. S.ChristianM. S.PearsallM. J.LongE. C. (2017). Team adaptation in context: An integrated conceptual model and meta-analytic review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 62–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.003
14.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
15.
DécampsG.RosnetE. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of psychological adaptation during a winter-over in Antarctica. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504272561
16.
De La TorreG. G.Van BaarsenB.FerlazzoF.KanasN.WeissK.SchneiderS.WhiteleyI. (2012). Future perspectives on space psychology: Recommendations on psychosocial and neuro behavioural aspects of human spaceflight. Acta Astronautica, 81(2), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.08.013
17.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE.HughesS. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: Development of an individual differences measure. Human Factors, 52(2), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809359522
18.
DriskellT.SalasE.BurkeC. S.DriskellJ. E. (2021). A lexical approach to assessing stress: Development and proof-of-concept. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 65(6), 1105–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211045167
19.
EarleyP. C.GibsonC. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A new perspective. In Christopher EarleyP.GibsonC. B. (Eds.), Multinational work teams (p. 352). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604859
20.
EhmannB.AltbäckerA.BalázsL. (2018). Emotionality in isolated, confined and extreme (ICE) environments: Content analysis of diaries of Antarctic Winteroverers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 112–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2018.09.003
21.
EhmannB.BalázsL.FülöpÉ.HargitaiR.KabaiP.PéleyB.PólyaT.VarghaA.LászlóJ. (2011). Narrative psychological content analysis as a tool for psychological status monitoring of crews in isolated, confined and extreme settings. Acta Astronautica, 68(9–10), 1560–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.01.021
GesineA.TempM. (2018). Exploring the explorers: Studying the mood, mental health, cognition and the lived experience of extreme environments in a small isolated team confined to an arctic research station. The University of Edinburgh.
24.
GoldenS. J.ChangC. H. D.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2018). Teams in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments: Review and integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2288
25.
GrantI.EriksenH. R.MarquisP.OrreI. J.PalinkasL. A.SuedfeldP.SvensenE.UrsinH. (2007). Psychological selection of Antarctic personnel: The “SOAP” instrument. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 78(8), 793–800.
GrossJ. J.JohnO. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
28.
HałgasE. A.van EijndhovenK. H. J.GeversJ. M. P.WiltshireT. J.M WesterinkJ. H. D.RispensS. (2023). A review of using wearable technology to assess team functioning and performance. Small Group Research, 54(1), 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221125717
29.
HareliS.RafaeliA. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.007
30.
HeinickeC.PouletL.DunnJ.MeierA. (2021). Crew self-organization and group-living habits during three autonomous, long-duration Mars analog missions. Acta Astronautica, 182, 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.049
31.
HeldalF.AntonsenS. (2014). Team leadership in a high-risk organization: The role of contextual factors. Small Group Research, 45(4), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414533617
32.
HoeglM.GemuendenH. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
33.
JohnsG. (2018). Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104406
34.
JohnsonJ. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
KanasN.SalnitskiyV.GrundE. M.WeissD. S.GushinV.BostromA.KozerenkoO.SledA.MarmarC. R. (2001). Psychosocial issues in space: Results from shuttle/mir. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14(2), 35–45.
37.
KanasN. A.SalnitskiyV. P.RitsherJ. B.GushinV. I.WeissD. S.SaylorS. A.KozerenkoO. P.MarmarC. R. (2007). Psychosocial interactions during ISS missions. Acta Astronautica, 60(4-7), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTAASTRO.2006.09.001
38.
KangJ. M.ChoS.-J.ChoS.-E.BangT.ChaeB. D.YiE.BaeS. M.NaK.-S.JungJ.KangS.-G. (2022). Mood and sleep status and mental disorders during prolonged winter-over residence in two Korean antarctic stations. Nature and Science of Sleep, 14, 1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S370659
39.
KäosaarA.Marques-QuinteiroP.BurkeS. (2022). Fantastic teams and where to find them: Understanding team processes in space and analog environments through the IMOI framework. Team Performance Management, 28(3/4), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-02-2021-0012
40.
KäosaarA.SzaboK.BurkeC. S. (2024, July). Deciphering affective states in unique teams: Comparative analysis of measurement techniques in NASA analog missions. In LandonB. L.BellS. (Chairs), Measuring teams in unusual circumstances: How to get it done. Oral presentation at 19th annual INGRoup conference 2024, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
41.
KassR.KassJ.BinderH.KraftN. (2010). Conflict-handling mode scores of three crews before and after a 264-day spaceflight simulation. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 81(5), 502–505. https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.1623.2010
42.
KjaergaardA.LeonG. R.VenablesN. C.FinkB. A. (2013). Personality, personal values and growth in military special unit patrol teams operating in a polar environment. Military Psychology, 25(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094753
43.
LandonL. B.SlackK. J.BarrettJ. D. (2018). Teamwork and collaboration in long-duration space missions: Going to extremes. American Psychologist, 73(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000260
44.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
45.
LeonG. R.KellerB.MillerJ.BellS. (2024). Personality, affect and coping among SIRIUS 21 crew. Oral presentation at NASA HRP IWS.
46.
LiuQ.ZhouR.-L. L.ZhaoX.ChenX.-P. P.ChenS.-G. G. (2016). Acclimation during space flight: Effects on human emotion. Military Medical Research, 3(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40779-016-0084-3
47.
MathieuJ. E.GallagherP. T.DomingoM. A.KlockE. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
48.
MaynardM. T.KennedyD. M.SommerS. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 652–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1001376
49.
MocellinJ. S. P.SuedfeldP. (1991). Voices from the ice: Diaries of polar explorers. Environment and Behavior, 23(6), 704–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591236004
MorgesonF. P.MitchellT. R.LiuD. (2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099
52.
NashM. (2022). Who should work in Antarctica? An exploration of the individual, social and cultural aspects of expeditioner recruitment. Antarctic Science, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102022000372
53.
NicolasM.SandalG. M.WeissK.YusupovaA. (2013). Mars-105 study: Time-courses and relationships between coping, defense mechanisms, emotions and depression. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.001
54.
NicolasM.SuedfeldP.WeissK.GaudinoM. (2016). Affective, social, and cognitive outcomes during a 1-year wintering in concordia. Environment and Behavior, 48(8), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515583551
55.
NivenK.GarciaD.van der LöweI.HolmanD.MansellW. (2015). Becoming popular: Interpersonal emotion regulation predicts relationship formation in real life social networks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01452
56.
OatesA.KäosaarA.LevesqueM. (2024). Navigating Extremes: A Dual Case Study of Antarctic Winterers’ Challenges and Adaptation. Antarctic Affairs, 10, 30–54.
57.
PagniniF.ManzeyD.RosnetE.FerravanteD.WhiteO.SmithN. (2023). Human behavior and performance in deep space exploration: Next challenges and research gaps. NPJ Microgravity, 9(1), Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-023-00270-7
PalinkasL. A.JohnsonJ. C.BosterJ. S.Rakusa-SuszczewskiS.KlopovV. P.FuX. Q.SachdevaU. (2004). Cross-cultural differences in psychosocial adaptation to isolated and confined environments. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 75(11), 973–980.
60.
PalinkasL. A.KeetonK. E.SheaC.LevetonL. B. (2010). Psychosocial characteristics of optimum performance in isolated and confined environments (ICE). Poster.
61.
PalinkasL. A.MäkinenT. M.PääkkönenT.RintamäkiH.LeppäluotoJ.HassiJ. (2005). Influence of seasonally adjusted exposure to cold and darkness on cognitive performance in circumpolar residents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00453.x
62.
PalinkasL. A.SuedfeldP. (2021). Psychosocial issues in isolated and confined extreme environments. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 126, 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2021.03.032
63.
PaolettiJ.BisbeyT. M.ZajacS.WallerM. J.SalasE. (2021). Looking to the middle of the qualitative-quantitative spectrum for integrated mixed methods. Small Group Research, 52(6), 641–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496421992433
64.
RubinA. T. (2021). Rocking qualitative social science: An irreverent guide to rigorous research. Stanford University Press.
65.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
66.
SandalG.LeonG. R.PalinkasL. A. (2006). Human challenges in polar and space environments. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 5(2-3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11157-006-9000-8
67.
SandalG. M.MussonD.HelmreichR. L.GravdalL. (2005). Social desirability bias in personality testing: Implications for astronaut selection. Acta Astronautica, 57(2–8), 634–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.03.011
68.
SandalG. M.van de VijverF. J. R.SmithN.van deVijverF. J. R.SmithN. (2018). Psychological hibernation in Antarctica. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02235
69.
SantiagoP. (2018). Psychological adaptation to extreme environments: Antarctica as a space analogue. Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.19080/pbsij.2018.09.555768
70.
ShoreyA.MoranL. H.WieseC. W.BurkeC. S. (2024). From performance to well-being: Broadening the team resilience discourse. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, 22, 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-355520240000022007
71.
SolcovaI. P.LačevA.ŠalcováI.ŠolcováI.LačevA.ŠalcováI. (2014). Study of individual and group affective processes in the crew of a simulated mission to Mars: Positive affectivity as a valuable indicator of changes in the crew affectivity. Acta Astronautica, 100(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.03.016
72.
SomarajuA. V.GriffinD. J.OlenickJ.ChangC.-H. D.KozlowskiS. W. J. (2021). The dynamic nature of interpersonal conflict and psychological strain in extreme work settings. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000290
73.
StusterJ. (2016). Behavioral issues associated with long duration space expeditions: Review and analysis of astronaut journals experiment 01-E104 (journals) phase 2 final report. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center. https://www.sti.nasa.gov.
74.
SuedfeldP. (2010). Historical space psychology: Early terrestrial explorations as Mars analogues. Planetary and Space Science, 58(4), 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSS.2009.05.010
SzaboK.KäosaarA.BurkeS.ChrisW. (In preparation). From Mess to Meaning: An Integrative Investigation of Team Resilience Triggers and Their Connection to Team Dynamics. Manuscript in preparation.
77.
TempA. G. M. (2018). Exploring the explorers: Studying the mood, mental health, cognition and the lived experience of extreme environments in a small isolated team confined to an arctic research station. The University of Edinburgh.
78.
TempA. G. M.LeeB.BakT. (2020). “I really don’t wanna think about what’s going to happen to me!”: A case study of psychological health and safety at an isolated high arctic research station. Safety in Extreme Environments, 2, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42797-019-00013-6
WagstaffC. R. D.WestonN. J. V. (2014). Examining emotion regulation in an isolated performance team in Antarctica. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000022
81.
WangL.ShiZ.LiH. (2009). Neuroticism, Extraversion, emotion regulation, negative affect and positive affect: The mediating roles of reappraisal and suppression. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(2), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.2.193
82.
WeissH. M.CropanzanoR. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.
83.
YikM.RussellJ. A.SteigerJ. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023980
84.
ZaccaroS. J.GilbertJ. A.ZazanisM. M.DianaM. (1995). Investigating a background data measure of social intelligence. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
