7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

1/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 1

FMARS 2007: STRESS AND COPING IN AN ARCTIC MARS SIMULATION

Sheryl L. Bishop

University of Texas Medical Branch USAsbishop@utmb.edu

Ryan KobrickUniversity of Colorado USA

Ryan.Kobrick@Colorado.EDU

Melissa BattlerUniversity of Western Ontario CANADA

mbattle@uwo.ca

Kim Binsted

University of Hawaii USAbinsted@hawaii.edu

Abstract

Introduction: In the summer of 2007, the Mars Society conducted a four-month simulated Mars explorationmission at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS), in the Canadian High Arctic on DevonIsland, Nunavut. In addition to an intense mission profile of research, the team also operated on the Martiansol, (39 minutes longer than the 24 hour Earth day), for over a month, to evaluate the effects on crewpsychophysiology or mission operations. Methods: Team members completed the AstroPCI personalityinventory as well as an online questionnaire battery dealing with stress, coping and group functioning on fiveoccasions throughout the mission (pre and monthly). Results: Descriptive analyses indicated differences

between individual coping styles across time as well as differences in how the genders coped. Overall,stress increased for males while decreasing for females. Males used consistently more Avoidant copingwhile females utilized Task coping and Social Emotional coping. Conclusions: Simulations situated inenvironments that are characterized by prolonged true isolation and real environmental challenges appearto provoke true demands for adaptation rather than temporary situational accommodation as has beenevidenced by shorter simulations situated in laboratories or more benign environments. Both complimentaryand compensatory coping patterns were in evidence.

1. Introduction

There have been a limited number of sites situatedin real environments in which the impact of

confinement and isolation on small groups has beensystematically studied. Most often, investigations onthe impact of extreme environments on smallgroups are conducted on teams convening forexpeditions in which the research is of secondarypriority. The Mars Society has operated two habitatsfor such studies for a number of years: the MarsDesert Research Station (MDRS) situated in adesert location in Utah, USA, and the second, theFlashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS)located in the High Canadian Arctic on DevonIsland, Nunavut, Canada. Historically simulations at

MDRS run for two weeks while simulations atFMARS usually run for four weeks. In the summerof 2007, the Mars Society conducted a four-monthsimulated Mars exploration mission at the FMARS

with seven crew members, quadrupling the previousrecord for in-situ Mars mission simulations as wellas maintaining exceptional levels of isolation. TheCanadian-American crew were volunteers willing todedicate four months of their life for anextraordinary experiment in which the minute detailsof their lives would be scrutinized and evaluated.The mission profile called for conducting acomprehensive program of geological andmicrobiological field exploration operating undersimilar constraints that human explorers would faceon Mars as well as completing a number of

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

2/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 2

repeated psychological and group functioningassessments designed to investigate sources ofinterpersonal stress and strategies to cope. Theywere not given any special training in this regardand the crew was not screened or selected on anydimension of compatibility. The crew used a 20

minute time delay in all communications as part oftheir mission protocol to simulate the Earth-Marstime delay. In addition to an intense mission profileof research data collection, analyses and reporting,station maintenance and educational outreach, theteam also operated on the Martian sol, (39 minuteslonger than the 24 hour Earth day), for over amonth, to evaluate the effects on crewpsychophysiology or mission operations.

Of particular interest was the role of personality,stress and coping in environments characterized by

extreme confinement and isolation. Stress is aninherent characteristic of environmentscharacterized by danger, remoteness of assistance,isolation from others and confinement with itsattendant reduction in social networks anddiminished environmental stimuli. Projections forlong duration space missions must also add the asyet unquantified impact of prolongedweightlessness, extraordinary loss of contact withhumankind, a high radiation environment andunknown dangers. Therefore, accurate assessmentof predictable stressors and identification of those

that can be obviated by informed selection andappropriate training is paramount.

There is no right or wrong coping strategy.However, within small groups, differences in copingand resilience to stress can operate to mitigate orexacerbate dysfunction. Coping strategies are keyto individual management of stressful life events [1].Windle and Windle noted that different copingapproaches can exert either positive or negativeinfluences on adaptation [2]. In past studies, taskcoping (problem oriented) styles have been found to

positively impact adaptation and health whileemotional oriented coping negatively impactsadaptation and health [1]. The FMARS crewmembers were committed to the need for fulldisclosure and honesty regarding their sources ofstress and interpersonal tension as part of thescience of the mission. Their willingness to sharetheir experiences during this challenging mission isa testament to their individual and collectivecontribution to humanitys preparation forexploration of the solar system.

2. Methods

2.1 FMARS

The habitat is a circular 24 foot diameter, two-deckstructure mounted on landing struts with private

sleeping accommodations for six crewmembers.The seventh crewmember was bunked in loft spacealso used for storage of food supplies. Along withthe environmental challenges, crew members hadto also contend with the possibility of polar bearswhich inhabit the region requiring armed escort byassigned crewmembers for each EVA conducted bythe team. Simulation space suits were utilized byEVA teams upon all egresses necessitatingconsiderable effort and preparation time. Due tosafety requirements and to preserve confinementprotocols for the majority of the crew, two team

members were initially designated as the out ofsimulation team and allowed to exit the habitatwithout suits to maintain the generators andequipment. For the armed escort, a third memberwas added to the rotation for EVA excursions toreduce the workload of the other two members. Thein-simulation team routinely used an airlockdepress/repress procedure upon each exit andentry to the habitat. There was no TV, no radio, ormobile phone. The habitat was equipped with asatellite phone for the use in emergencies and shortwave radio for communication with team members

while outside the habitat.

All routine communication with the outside worldwas conducted via computer text, audio and videomessages including any initial medicalemergencies. Medical assistance for the majority ofthe mission was only available via lifeflight servicesseveral hours away.

2.2 Objectives

The core psychological scientific objectives for the

parent study included: Assessment of the contribution of

personality factors to stress, coping andgroup dynamics

Group functioning, group fission and fusionfactors

Triangulation of self report subjective stressassessments, mood reports, and copingstyles

Exploration of differences and similarities incoping and group interaction by gender

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

3/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 3

This presentation will deal primarily with our findingsregarding comparisons between the genders onstress, mood and coping.

2.3 Instruments

Prior to deployment, all participants were asked tocomplete the Mars Habitat I, a web-base battery ofpsychological questionnaires that assess variousdimensions of personality, baseline stress andcoping strategies. During the mission, at the end ofeach month, participants were asked to complete asecond questionnaire battery, Mars Habitat II, (web-based or hard copy) which included assessments ofgroup dynamics, stress and coping. SheldonsPerceived Stress inventory was a 10 item self-report measure of stress [3]. Self-report measuresof this kind have been found to be valid measures

of state anxiety [4]. Coping was assessed using a28 item Brief Coping Questionnaire which measures14 subscales related to coping strategies.Personality was assessed utilizing the Astro-PCI, abattery of pen and paper psychologicalquestionnaires that assess various dimensions ofpersonality [5]. The AstroPCI is a 73-item batterycomposed of three tests measuring interpersonalorientation, achievement motivation and Type Abehavior. The 10 individual scales are as follows:Positive Instrumentality (task orientation), PositiveExpressivity (interpersonal orientation), Negative

Instrumentality (hostility), Negative Communion(self-subordination and submissiveness), VerbalAggressiveness (verbal passive aggressiveness),Mastery (the desire to be challenged), Work(willingness to apply oneself diligently),Competitiveness (the desire to best others),Achievement Striving (motivation to succeed), andImpatience/Irritability. Internal consistencies of thevarious scales ranged from .56 to .76 [6].

In addition to the AstroPCI, the gold standard forglobal personality assessment for the last 20 years

has been the NEO-Personality Inventory by Costaand McCrae [7]. This instrument assesses fiveglobal dimensions of personality: Neuroticism,Extraversion, Openness to Experience,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Thesedimensions have been found to be associated withthe previous personality right stuff/wrong stuff/andno stuff profiles identified by Helmreich et al inlongitudinal studies of American Astronautcandidate performance [8-11].

Crews were given baseline measures on allassessments either prior to arrival (i.e., thepersonality battery) or on Day 1 for the stress,coping and group assessment evaluations.Repeated measures were then taken each monththroughout the mission.

2.4 Data Analyses

Given that our sample size for this mission wassmall, our analyses are primarily descriptive. Itshould be kept firmly in mind that such smallsample sizes do not generalize to other samples orrepresent evidence for the population in general. Itis our hope that continued data collection overmultiple missions will result in sufficient numbers toaddress issues that can be appropriately treatedwith parametric statistical approaches.

3. Results

Figure 1 displays the NEOPI-FFA profiles for allgroup members. For the FMARS team, the seventeam members were very similar on Openness. Sixof the seven were similar on Neuroticism andExtraversion. However, Member 6 persistentlydisplayed a distinctly different personality profile(high on Neuroticism, low on Extraversion,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) indicativeof an easily upset, more introverted, self-oriented

individual. Similarly, Members 1 and 3, also showeither low Agreeableness or low Conscientiousnessprofiles which are not generally conducive topositive group interaction.

Figure 1 NEOPI-FFA Profiles

On interpersonal orientation characteristics, (Figure2) levels of low hostility were characteristic of allmembers. However, general profiles were variedacross members. Member 2 exemplified theprototypical right stuff profile with positive levels of

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

4/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 4

task and interpersonal orientations combined withlow levels of hostility and verbal aggressiveness.

Figure 2 Interpersonal Orientation Profiles

An examination of achievement motivation scores(Figure 3) indicates a noteworthy low degree ofimpatience and irritability across team membersconfirming the low hostility profile in the previousgraph. The group as a whole demonstrated asurprising lack of significant levels of achievementstriving given the expressed levels of mastery, thedesire to engage in challenging tasks. Elevatedlevels of competitiveness, the desire to best others,were exemplified by several team members. Highlevels of this competitive urge to best others havebeen shown to be disruptive and interfere withperformance in a number of previous studies.

Figure 3 Achievement Motivation Profiles

3.1 Gender Comparisons

3.1.1 Personality

A comparison across genders on personality(Figure 4) indicates that the two groups are verysimilar on all dimensions except neuroticism with

the females being notably lower, contrary tostereotype. This may reflect a selection winnowingsince highly neurotic females are unlikely tovolunteer for such simulations.

Figure 4 NEOPI-FFA Gender Comparisons

On interpersonal orientation (Figure 5), the two

profiles are again very similar with the exception ofa much lower hostility profile for the men comparedto norms.

Figure 5 Interpersonal Orientation Gender Comparisons

Achievement motivation profiles (Figure 6) doreflect some differences in competitiveness (menare higher) and work (women are below norms).

Both men and women were near or exceeded onestandard deviation below norms on impatience andirritability as well as achievement striving. The lowachievement profiles were surprising in this samplewhere one would expect individuals drawn to testingthemselves in an extreme environment to besignificantly higher than norms on thesedimensions.

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

5/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 5

Figure 6 Achievement Motivation Gender Comparisons

3.1.2 Stress and Coping

The pattern of stress (Figure 7) was dramaticallydifferent between males and females at missionbeginning. However, males displayed a significant

increase between baseline and the end of the firstmonth and stayed elevated above females untilmission end. Females displayed a reduction ofsimilar magnitude by the end of Month 1 with smallsteady reductions until mission end.

Figure 7 Stress Comparisons Between Genders

Comparisons of global coping styles across missionduration (Figure 8 and 9) indicated that malespersistently relied upon avoidance approaches withsocial emotional coping generally second in usage.Female used avoidance coping the least across alltime points with a predominant preference for taskcoping with social emotional coping a close second.Reported stress levels were very low for males atmission beginning compared to later reports and tofemales. Males stress levels were consistentlyelevated from the second month through missionend as was avoidance coping. Females stresslevels were consistently lower.

The combination of avoidance coping with socialemotional coping for males would indicate copingresponses that would be oriented towardsemotional arousal but reluctance to confront oraddress issues. Female predominance in task and

social emotional coping reflects a style focused onfixing problems by doing something rather thanavoiding the issues and emotional arousal whenefforts to resolve problems were thwarted. Althoughsmall sample size prevents any conclusions basedon this data, the efficacy of task coping andinefficacy of avoidance coping has been supportedconsistently in previous studies.

Figure 8 Male Global Coping Styles Across Time

Figure 9 Female Global Coping Styles Across Time

Coupled with emotional coping (generally notconducive to effective adaptation), the predominantusage of avoidance coping may actually delayeffective adaptation and contribute to individual and

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

6/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 6

group stress. These two styles would be equallystressful for each of the other to deal with over longperiods of time.

The contrast between genders in global copingstyles when averaging coping across time is

graphically illustrated in the opposite preferencesdisplayed in Figure 10. The predominance of maleavoidance coping contrasted to females reliance ontask and social emotional coping is dramaticallydemonstrated.

Figure 10 Comparison of Global Coping Styles Across Genders

Averaged Over Time

Mood profiles were distinctly different between thegenders as well. Males reported generally higherlevels of positive affect at baseline which increasedslightly and remained stable (Figure 11).

Figure 11 Male Positive Affect Across Time

Females were surprisingly low on reported positiveaffect initially especially excitement which remainednoticeably less than the males across the mission(Figure 12). Interestingly, assessments of feeling

strong and determined increased dramatically forwomen as the mission progressed.

Figure 12 Female Positive Affect Across Time

Negative mood profiles were also distinctly differentbetween the genders (Figure 13 and 14). Malesconsistently reported greater feelings of tirednessacross the mission and greater loneliness andfrustration.

Figure 13 Male Negative Affect Across Time

Both groups reported moderate to moderately high

levels of stress and tiredness. The highest levels ofirritation for both groups was reported at the end ofMonth 3 which may be indicative of the thirdquarter effect reported by some studies of Antarcticteams during which the greatest levels of emotionaldistress are experienced. It also coincided with theperiod of maintaining the Martian sol schedule. Towhat extent the additional negative affect wasreflective of the local strain of the slightly longerMartian schedule or its asynchronous drift with theexternal world (e.g., mission control, family andfriends) cannot be ascertained.

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

7/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 7

Figure 14 Female Negative Affect Across Time

3.1.3 Mood and Affect

Mood scores averaged across the four monthsshow the major differences between males andfemales seem to lie in the degree of tiredness,excitement felt, and loneliness with males beingclearly higher than females on these dimensions(Figure 15). Of the negative moods, low tomoderate levels of irritation, frustration andsubsequent stress were expressed. Both groupsdisplayed high levels of determination, enthusiasmand strength.

Thus the pattern of positive and negative affectsuggests that males were feeling more isolated andfrustrated which may have contributed to feelings offatigue or, conversely, been exacerbated byextreme physical tiredness. Combined with anavoidance coping style, resolution of interpersonalconflict would have been slow to be resolved.

Figure 15 Comparison of Averaged Affect Across Genders

4. Summary

Male feelings of isolation, frustration and loneliness,

their use of avoidance coping, elevated feelings ofarousal and excitement were mirrored in incidencesof individual conflict and tension between groupmembers. Post mission debrief interviews indicateda number of occurrences involving interpersonalconflicts over disagreements in group choices ofentertainment, communication problems embeddedin language differences, unreciprocated attraction,personality differences, challenges to authority andschedule compliance that were centered on malecrewmembers. Most of these issues wereaddressed by the team in such a way as to keep

tensions at manageable levels; however, multiplecrewmembers acknowledged the high likelihoodthat these same issues on a longer duration missionwould have produced significant problems for thecrew.

The difference in the patterns of positive andnegative affect reported by team members stronglysuggests that there was a difference in expectationsand framing of the expedition that generally but notuniformly aligned along gender lines. The higherlevels of reported excitement and enthusiasm by

male participants coincides with repeatedincidences where individuals deferred duties infavor of pursuing prolonged exploration while onEVAs indicating a greater willingness to supplantmission schedules with personal preferences. Thelower levels of excitement and enthusiasmevidenced by the women reflected a morepragmatic framing of the mission as a challenge tosuccessfully complete. These differences may havecontributed to perceptions of the women by the menas less flexible, compliant and more rule-bound withreciprocal perceptions on the part of the women of

the men as less mission focused. Thesegeneralizations have been noted in other studies ofmen and womens teams. However, it should beemphasized that there were individuals of bothgenders who were more similar to their crossgender counterparts than to their same gendercohorts.

5. Discussion

One goal of small group studies is to identify groupfission and group fusion factors. Group fission

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

8/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 8

factors are those that contributed to discord whilegroup fusion factors contribute to group cohesion. Inthe FMARS team, stress was clearly evident acrossthe mission for both groups and all individuals. It isimpossible to parse the impact of the environmentfrom the contribution of interpersonal frustration,

loneliness, and intergroup conflict which were allevident during the four months. A certain amount ofintergroup conflict is inevitable for all groups and,overall, the FMARS team members remainedfocused on the overall mission goals. Some sourcesof conflict can be avoided by better selection andtraining. Some can be mitigated by avoidingstructures that lend themselves to high likelihood ofconflict or role stress. Both of these sources wereevident for this team, e.g., the inclusion of a singlemember whose mother tongue was not English orthe relegation of some team members to purely

support roles. The lack of meaningful contribution tothe discovery part of expeditions has persistentlybeen found to contribute to lack of ownership ofmission goals by team members. It is not enough to

just support the team. One must feel a part of theexcitement and contribution to generation of newknowledge.

There were notable problems as well when amember tasked with an authoritarian role becamecompromised as a key player in persistentreoccurrences of unreciprocated sexual interest.

The conflict undermined trust in the motivationbehind unpopular maintenance of protocols andsafety procedures.

There were also numerous incidences where the in-simulation and out of simulation groups foundthemselves at odds. Out of simulation memberstook advantage of various activities to relieve thestress of confinement being experienced by the in-simulation group which served to heighten feelingsof disparate contribution to the verisimilitude of themission. Maintaining a joint crew with non-

equivalent mission roles will always be challenge.For the most part, the team effectively dealt withthis issue by bridging the groups with a floatingmember who could advocate for both subgroups.

One persistent problem that was not effectivelyresolved during the mission was the issue ofmajority versus minority decisions taken by thegroup. When resources for leisure and pleasure areminimal, equitable use becomes of paramountimportance to group functioning. In the case of the2007 FMARS team, the desire to follow a popular

TV show, Lost, by a majority of the teamovershadowed prior commitments by the group toequitably choose leisure activities desired by theminority. The fact that some of these alternativeactivities involved viewing media that requiredEnglish subtitles further heightened the cultural

differences and difficulties of mixed nationalitycrews. The situation was further exacerbated by thelack of familiarity of the out-group members with thestoryline of Lost which made participation that muchmore difficult. The prevailing group rationalized theirdecision to satisfy their desire to watch the nextinstallment of the program by taking theunwillingness of those dissenting to confront thegroup and demand equitable access asacquiescence even though most admitted duringdebrief that they were acutely aware of the distressthis caused.

Poor matches between personality and missionparameters of isolation, confinement and roles wereevident for several individuals. Research fromAntarctica clearly indicates that not all personalitiesare good fits for confined and isolatedenvironments. My own research has persistentlyfound a very different personality profile for trekkingexpeditions compared to that needed for habitatmissions [12]. However, several individuals wereuniformly lauded by group members as being keysources of leadership and support. The emergence

of these boundary role persons has beenrepeatedly shown to be critical to effective teamfunctioning. They serve to bridge the variousinterests of subgroups and individuals and providethe social ties that hold groups together.

Finally, the team reported stress from pressures tobe inclusive of all members in all activities. Takingprivate time away from the group was difficult toaccomplish and often frustrated by the lack ofauditory privacy. While visual privacy could beaccomplished by retreating to ones room, all

conversations were discernable from almost anypart of the habitat with few exceptions. The out ofsimulation members often resorted to shirt-sleeveprivate conversations in the generator hut but thiswas not available for in-simulation members whohad to don suits to leave the habitat.

The use of email contact with family providedsubstantial resources for venting and emotionalrelief for all team members. The attempt to useemail conversation as a private mode of in-groupcommunication was differentially perceived by some

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

9/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 9

as insulting, impersonal and reflecting a lack ofdealing with issues face to face while others found ita useful and effective mechanism for within groupprivate conversation. This differential perception ofthe appropriateness of using email for within groupconversation was not recognized until late in the

mission.

While there were numerous challenges and sourcesof fission factors for the team to overcome, therewere also numerous sources of fusion factors tostrengthen their skills in dealing with the negatives.During the mission, emergent co-leadership rolesevolved that incorporated a number of strengths ofthe group. With members of both genders andsubgroups represented, this structure was able tobridge many of the instances of communicationbreakdowns that are inherent in any group. All

members adamantly felt that prior experience hadbeen highly beneficial in preparing them for many ofthe challenges of the prolonged confinement andisolation. It was uniformly agreed that those that didnot participate extensively in prior training were at adisadvantage and were less integrated into thegroup.

It was also apparent that a meaningful role in thegeneration of knowledge and accomplishment ofscientific goals was critical to the development of ashared mission identity. The lack of such personal

scientific projects left some members withoutmeaningful roles in group identity activities whichcontributed to subgroup formation and socialisolation for those members. For those withprojects, feelings of camaraderie and collegiatecooperation were in evidence and promoted highmotivation, dedication and determination toaccomplish mission goals.

Contact with family and friends were deemed ofcritical importance by all team members. Suchcontact was credited with successful personal

management of intergroup conflicts and stress aswell as mitigating individual feelings of isolation andloneliness. Although the crew observed a 20 minutecommunication delay protocol with externalcontacts, this was periodically violated for mediainterviews, educational outreach exchanges,personal contacts with bankers/travel agents, groupcounseling sessions with one of the principleinvestigators and, occasionally, even personalphone calls to family. The sheer ability to makethese real-time contacts as well as the knowledgethat civilization and home was a supply flight away

in Resolute, Nunavat, and beyond certainly playeda part in mitigating the sense of isolation. This is ofkey importance since such immediate reliefgenerated by real-time contact with family andfriends will not be possible for long durationmissions to Mars. Within group modalities will need

to be far more effective than a reliance on externalemail and store and forward communications withfamily for such missions to manage stress andconflict.

6. Conclusion

There are numerous substantial questions aboutstress and coping that still need to be addressed.The experiences of the FMARS team wasconsistent with previous studies wherein maleswere more likely to utilize an avoidance pattern of

dealing with interpersonal conflict and personalstress and females are more prone to an actionoriented approach. This may be highly culturallyinfluenced. The use of avoidance coping delaysproblem resolution and intervention. Avoidancepatterns tend to frustrate task focused individualswhich contributes to greater stress. In turn,demands by task focused individuals to activelyaddress problems is perceived as pressure byavoidance copers. And so it goes

Despite the persistent issue of unreciprocated

attraction by one crew member for another, thecrew strongly endorsed the inclusion of both malesand females on the team. Research in mixedgendered teams strongly suggests that thepresence of females normalizes social functioningin groups, allowing males to disclose more easily.This would be a beneficial counter to avoidancecoping styles which appear frequently in males. Itremains to be seen whether more effective copingapproaches can be inculcated in team membersthrough training.

Post mission debriefs at one year clearly indicatedthat all crewmembers had accurately identifiedcritical events and issues as well as constructivereflection on better ways these could have beenhandled. Thus, each of these individuals are betterprepared and likely to be more effective in futuregroups as well as better able to evaluate the fitbetween their own personality strengths andweaknesses and mission characteristics. This postmission learning supports an iterative approachwhereby potential teams should be givenopportunities to complete mini-missions as part of

7/30/2019 BishopIAC-08-A.1.1.3B

10/10

IAC-08-A.1.1.3 Page 10

their training. There is no substitution forexperience. The best fit individuals will be thosethat become most proficient at rapidly translatinglessons learned into actual practice. The benefits toincorporating such empirical training in the selectionand preparation of long duration crews could not be

made more eloquently than by the experiences ofthe FMARS crew.

In closing, this was an extraordinary group ofindividuals who were willing to put themselvesunder substantial duress and challenge. They weresuccessful in meeting all the scientific goals outlinedby the mission objectives. The kinds of intergroupconflicts and challenges they grappled with areindicative of those that future crews will face. It isnot the presence of conflict that is critical but themanner in which the group manages conflict that

determines successful group functioning or not. TheFMARS team members met some of thosechallenges successfully while others eludedeffective resolution. As a group of volunteers whowere not screened or matched on their personalityor skills before the mission, one must count theiroverall success in maintaining a functioning groupas laudable. Their contribution to future studiescannot be understated.

7. Acknowledgements

The continued contribution by the Mars Society tothe field of small group research is without par. Thecontinuous operation of FMARS and its sisterstation MDRS over the last 8 years has contributeduntold man-hours of data to our understanding ofgroup functioning in extreme environments.Similarly, this mission could not have been what itwas without the FMARS 2007 crew. Each of theseindividuals has made a significant contribution toour ability to select, train and support the best fitteam for a future Mars mission.

8. References

1. Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A. (1994).Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task,emotion and avoidance strategies.Psychological Assessment, 6, 50-60.

2. Windle, Michael, Windle, Rebecca C. (1996).Coping STrategies, Drinking Motives, andStressful Life Events Among MiddleAdolescents: Associations With Emotional andBehavioral Problems and With Academic

Functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,105, 551-560.

3. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., Mermelstein, R. (1983).A global measure of perceived stress. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

4. Stone, A.A. (1995). Measures of affective

response. In S. Cohen, R. Kessler, & L. Gordon,(eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health andsocial scientists. New York: Cambridge, 148-171.

5. Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, E.,& Geis, C.E. (1991). Pilot personality and crewcoordination: Implications for training andselection. International Journal of AviationPsychology, 1, 25-44.

6. Rose R.M., Helmreich, R.L., Fogg L.F. &McFadden T. (1994). Psychological predictorsof astronaut effectiveness,Aviation, Space, and

Environmental Medicine. 64:910-5.7. Costa, PT, Jr. & McCrae, RR. (1978, 1985,

1989, 1991). NEO Five-factor Inventory,Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

8. Helmreich, R. L. (2001). Culture and error inspace: Implications from analogueenvironments, Aviation, Space andEnvironmental Medicine, Spring, Special Issue.

9. Helmreich R.L. & Foushee, H. C. (1993). Whycrew resource management? Empirical andtheoretical bases of human factors training inaviation. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki & R. Helmreich

(Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management, SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, 3-45.

10. Helmreich R.L. & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Cultureat work in aviation and medicine: National,organizational and professional influences,Brookfield VT: Ashgate.

11. Manzey, D. & Lorenz, B. (1997). Humanperformance during prolonged space flight,Journal of Human Performance in ExtremeEnvironments,1 (2), 68.

12. Bishop, S. (2004). Evaluating Teams in ExtremeEnvironments: From Issues to Answers,

International Space Life Sciences WorkingGroup (ISLSWG) Group Interactions Workshop,Journal of Aviation, Space and EnvironmentalMedicine, July, Vol. 75, no. supplement 1, pp.C14-C21(1).