MODELOS DE REGRESIÓN LOGÍSTICA

If we recognise that people will make sense of their experiences in relation to others and that oneself and others can be categorised as individuals, members of the same group or members of opposing groups, then it becomes imperative that during space missions, we develop structures, conventions, understandings and practices that are going to maximise the emergence of certain types of groups rather then others.

Perhaps the first thing to consider when figuring out what the “right group” might look like, is to understand when an aggregate of individuals actually become a group. So far we mostly have discussed groups in terms of members’ levels of identification with a group, or the categorisation of others into groups. It should be noted however that there are other ways of conceptualising this which do not contradict the social identity approach. One way of doing this, as discussed by Lickel, Hamilton, Wieczorkowska, Lewis, Sherman, and Uhles (2000), is to consider the concept of “entitativity”. They describe this

as the degree to which a group can be perceived as a coherent entity. They found that people perceive groups as entitative when they are important to and are valued by group members (identification), the members have common goals, there is common fate between members, and there is a degree of similarity between members (this can be thought of in similar terms to normative and comparative fit). Within the space environment common fate is likely to be shared amongst crewmembers; however common goals and similarity cannot be assured (as discussed with reference to crew diversity). This leaves identification as an important component of how strongly a group holds together.

As discussed earlier if people identify with a group, there are a number of outcomes that directly relate to group functionality. If a person identifies strongly with a group this is seen as an indication that they have internalised the group’s goals, values, behaviours and beliefs. The benefits of ‘ingroup identification’ are numerous and have been detailed by many studies over the last 20 years. Benefits include: increased group productivity (Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998); higher levels of co-operation (Kramer, 1993); improved communication (Postmes, Tanis & de Wit, 2001); increased trust (Kramer, Brewer & Hanna, 1996); more prosocial and voluntary behaviour (Ouwerkerk, Ellemers , & de Gilder, 1999); increased liking and respect for others in the group (Terry & Callan, 1998); and an increase in the willingness to contribute to collective goals (Ellemers, de Gilder & van den Heuvel, 1998). From these benefits it is clear that strong group identification is essential to the success of human space missions.

Ingroup identification is not enough however to guarantee social harmony and mission success, what characterises a group can also play an important role. These group characteristics can be conceptualised in terms of “group culture” which encompasses the group’s behavioural norms as well as its underlying values, beliefs and attitudes. Terry, Hogg and White (1999) describe how a person’s behaviour is heavily influenced by how they think other group members would behave in a similar situation. These behaviours can be described as ‘norms’ and once they are established within a group, become a powerful guiding force behind individual behaviour. It is not difficult to imagine that within the context of a space flight, certain behavioural norms would be more constructive than others. For example the adherence to safety protocols versus the over-consumption of alcohol.

A group’s culture can be considered to be deeper than specific behaviours however, reflecting also the underlying attitudes, values and beliefs. For example if a space crew

believe that some drinking is acceptable while on duty, a pilot may be more inclined to actually drink, before performing a potentially dangerous space manoeuvre. On a more abstract level, we can consider a value such as forgiveness; where group members may be more forgiving of minor transgressions. This would probably be a constructive characteristic of a group’s culture, as it may serve to prevent certain interpersonal conflicts. In this way a group’s culture, or what makes that group who it is, will have a large influence on the successfulness of that group. For this reason it is essential to take group culture into consideration when considering group dynamics in extreme environments. This issue will be discussed in more depth in later chapters of this thesis.

As discussed earlier, the relationships between groups and subgroups can have a strong impact on mission success. Groups with competing goals would most likely impede a mission and as discussed by Palinkas, Gunderson, Johnson and Holland (2000) and Johnson, Boster and Palinkas, (2003), cliques that do not cooperate with one another would most certainly be undesirable. In this way it is not just a matter of having the “right group” but also to have the “right groups”. In other words it is important that the subgroups are compatible with one another.

Haslam, Eggins and Reynolds (2003) describe a form of social organisation in which subgroups can exist in such a way as to allow for harmonious relations. In their work on the ASPIRe model (Actualising Social and Personal Identity Resources), they outline how in order for subgroups to work effectively with one another they have to go through a process of building a collective superordinate identity which includes and values all subgroups. This process involves people developing or reaffirming their own subgroup identity, followed by the coming together of members of all relevant subgroups in order to build a collective and organic superordinate identity of which all subgroups play a vital role. By doing this, members of other subgroups can be considered as group members and in turn will be treated as such. Without going into detail here, this allows for the subgroups to work effectively with one another while preserving their identities as distinct entities. In this way it may be possible to engineer the relationships between subgroups in order to ensure their compatibility. Having the “right groups” may be in part something that can be developed using techniques such as this.

From these points we can see that having the “Right Groups” in space missions is likely to be a product of having groups which are psychologically real (entitative), have members who identify strongly with them, have group cultures which are conducive to

mission success and have relationships between subgroups which are constructive with this process involving the development and maintenance of a higher order “mission” superordinate identity.

It appears then that much of the current work in the ICE environment has observed and recognised that group processes and intergroup relations can have an impact on mission outcomes. Certain terminology has been developed to describe important aspects of this process such as “closing off” and the host-guest problem. The social identity perspective and other related work in social psychology complements such material but also provides a more systematic analysis of the underlying psychological processes. It is through understanding these processes that it becomes possible to prescribe the type of structures, processes and conventions that may need to be in place to work with human psychological functioning and maximise mission outcomes. Although there have been previous points of cross-over between social psychology work on social identity and group dynamics in ICE environments it is necessary to investigate social identity processes in ICE environments more explicitly and directly. It is also necessary to determine whether the same processes can be assessed as straightforwardly in such environments.