Methodological Sisnificance of the Program 



The TEKTITE research was conducted at a time when a serious division has 

 arisen in American social psychology. The controversy is between those who 

 advocate experimental, laboratory, social psychology and those who favor obser- 

 vational, materialistic research in real-life situations. The points of con- 

 tention have been extensively argued elsewhere (cf. Willems and Rausch 

 1969; Aronson and Carlsmith, 1968; Radloff and Helmreich, 1968). Briefly, 

 however, the laboratory exponents hold that only in a controlled, experimental 

 situation can valid conclusions about causality be reached and that field 

 research, by its correlational nature, can only describe relationships without 

 defining causes. Field researchers contend that their findings can be more 

 easily generalized to real situations. They also argue that modern statistical 

 techniques can provide much information about causal relations from correla- 

 tional data and that field techniques may be the only ethical way to study some 

 phenomena such as prolonged stress. 



The TEKTITE behavior program, one of the largest systematic field studies under- 

 taken in social psychology, may be a significant source of data on the useful- 

 ness of field techniques. Accordingly, it may be of value to review briefly 

 the development of the research design and to note some of the advantages and 

 disadvantages associated with it. 



Origins of the Behavior Program 



The present study is a direct outgrowth of research conducted on aquanauts 

 during the Navy's SEALAB program (Radloff and Helmreich, 1968). The SEALAB 

 research was undertaken because the investigators felt that the systematic 

 observation of men under high stress in a situation where good criteria of 

 performance were available could provide unexcelled data on individual and 

 group reactions. A number of significant findings emerged from the SEALAB 

 study which led to renewed interest in developing techniques for collecting 

 and handling the large amounts of data obtainable. These techniques were 

 tested during TEKTITE I and modified and refined for TEKTITE II, 



There are numerous advantages of an underwater habitat as a naturalistic 

 research setting: 



1. The research situation is completely real. Stress, isolation, and 

 confinement are not simulated. Accordingly, reactions to the pressures of the 

 situation are valid measures of behavior. Related to this is the fact that 

 research subjects are participating to fulfill professional goals and not 

 merely to serve as psychological guinea pigs. Thus, the goal of the subject 

 is primarily to get his work done and not to serve as a cooperative and obedi- 

 ent psychological subject. 



2. The habitat provides a relatively stable and constant environment. 

 Unlike many field situations, all subjects could be observed under the same 

 living conditions. This enables statistical comparison across individuals and 

 across teams. 



3. The design of the habitat provides excellent audio and video coverage. 

 Observers could monitor almost all in-habitat activity. 



VIII-16 



