indicate that an extremely effective predictive test has been developed which 

 needs only refinement and validation to become generally applicable to both 

 research into antecedents of behavior and selection of candidates for special- 

 ized roles. The applications of the LHQ seem almost unlimited; a wealth of 

 data are available; the limitations are in the sampling technique employed and 

 the ingenuity of the researcher. 



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



Robert Helmreich 

 The University of Texas at Austin 



The first conclusion which can be drawn from the research conducted on human 

 behavior in TEKTITE is that both male and female aquanauts can adapt success- 

 fully to life in a confined environment such as the habitat. Not only can 

 individuals cope adequately with confinement and isolation, they can also per- 

 form work roles effectively in such a setting. The amount of work accomplished 

 by the aquanauts was great--probably surpassing the average daily time expendi- 

 ture of most scientists and engineers in normal, terrestrial environments. 

 Within this overall, excellent work output, there were, however, large team and 

 individual differences, and the prediction of this variability forms a major 

 aspect of the research. 



The significant difference in performance found between teams probably results 

 in large part from the setting by crews of group norms for behavior in the 

 absence of externally imposed standards. In operational programs (where 

 research on human behavior is not a primary concern) it would seem highly advan- 

 tageous to communicate realistic performance expectancies to crew members. 

 Such external control should serve significantly to reduce between-crew vari- 

 ability in work output. 



Teams in which a scientist-aquanaut was leader achieved more marine science than 

 those with engineers as leaders. This was attributed to the fact that the mis- 

 sion role of the scientist was congruent with program goals while the engineer's 

 mission role was largely one of support. Thus, the engineer as leader should 

 not be expected to facilitate performance of the primary mission task--scien- 

 tific research. A general recommendation is that, where operationally feasible, 

 mission leaders should be individuals whose professional training is in the area 

 most relevant to project goals. In the case of programs such as TEKTITE, a 

 marine scientist should be the most effective leader. 



Examination of engineer-scientist relations indicates that group relations were 

 better and performance was higher when the engineer became actively involved in 

 scientific programs and, concurrently, when scientist-aquanauts played a more 

 active role in habitat maintenance. Although more investigation of the phen- 

 omenon is required, it seems that those selecting crews with mixed professional 

 interests for isolated environments should be concerned with choosing individuals 

 who have broad interests and who are eager both to acquire new knowledge and to 

 impart their own expertise. 



Changing engineers in mid-mission did not have an adverse effect on performance 

 although group cohesiveness and gregariousness did decrease on addition of a new 



VIII-59 



