leader, his personal goals and mission goals coincided. The engineer, on the 

 other hand, was charged primarily with the maintenance of the habitat and was 

 not directly involved in scientific research. Habitat maintenance took an 

 average of 5. 27% of mission time overall and did not differ significantly 

 across missions; it is likely that an engineer who was primarily concerned 

 with the effective performance of his engineering duties would not aid in set- 

 ting high norms for scientific work. As a general rule, it would appear advis- 

 able to have mission leaders directly involved in primary mission objectives. 

 An exception which seems to illustrate this point is found in the case of the 

 mission which ranked fifth in performance and was initially led by an engineer. 

 The engineer/team leader became actively involved in participating in the sci- 

 entific research of the scientist-aquanauts . This involvement seems to have 

 facilitated group performance. 



Correlations Among Habitat Activities 



Table 6 shows the intercorrelations of observed categories of behavior inside 

 the habitat for all aquanauts. The relationships shown in the table give a 

 clear picture of how various habitat activities related to one another. Since 

 the components of composite variables had a highly consistent relationship with 

 each other and with other variables, discussion will be of the correlations 

 between independent and composite variables. The reader is referred to the 

 table for exposition of specific relationships. 



Considering first the correlations for the entire sample of aquanauts (Table 6), 

 there are strong negative correlations between work and sleep (-.69) and 

 between work and leisure (-.76). Sleep and leisure were uncorrelated (.09). 

 Self -maintenance was not significantly correlated with work (-.07), sleep (.10) 

 or leisure (-.18); it did, however, have a significant negative correlation 

 with co-recreation (-.34) 



As can be seen on Table 7, the correlations for scientist-aquanauts are highly 

 similar to those for the total population. As a result, the following discus- 

 sion applies to all aquanauts. 



The patterns of correlations shown in both tables indicate that those who worked 

 most spent less time both in leisure pursuits and in sleeping. This does not 

 imply that those who worked most skimped on sleep and leisure to gain working 

 time. The top 10 scientists on the work criterion averaged 8.5 hours a day 

 working, 8 hours sleeping, and almost 4 hours a day in leisure. It indicates, 

 rather, that those low on the work measure spent a very high percentage of their 

 day either sleeping or in leisure activities. (For example, the aquanaut who 

 worked least spent an average of 4.3 hours per day working, 9 hours per day on 

 leisure, and 8.2 hours per day sleeping.) 



Those who slept most were neither more nor less likely to spend much time in 

 leisure activities. Thus, while both sleep and leisure predict work, they do 

 not have a systematic relationship with one another. 



Spending time diving did not result in devoting more time to self-maintenance. 

 In other words, spending more time in the water or in general work did not 

 result in the use of more time for prophylactic and other hygienic activities. 

 The significant negative correlation of self-maintenance with co-recreation 

 indicates participation in group recreational activities. 



VIII-36 



