HUMAN BEHAVIOR PROGRAM 263 



The numbers in Table 31 contain a wealth of interesting data for both speculation and spe- 

 cific inference. First and most important is the fact that in-group choices increased for all 

 three teams, indicating a favorable within-group atmosphere. There was no particular reason 

 to anticipate this result, as the change could easily have gone in the opposite direction. A sec- 

 ond interesting fact is that team composition appears to have been virtually random according 

 to sociometric choice before the experiment. What is meant by this statement is that only 147 

 of a possible 450, almost exactly 1/3, of the choices for teammates were made from within the 

 teams as assigned. Thus, it appears that there was as much identification with the entire group 

 of 28 aquanauts as there was for a ten-man team before the dive. A third point of interest is 

 the difference in cohesiveness scores among teams. Team 1 apparently had a much greater 

 increase in cohesiveness than did the other two teams. The greater increase in cohesiveness 

 in Team 1 could have been due to their being the first team, that is, due to the greater stresses 

 associated with initiating the system, and to the fact that there seemed to be greater similarity 

 in the types of tasks performed by members of Team 1 than there was on Teams 2 and 3. 



In addition to the quantitative data regarding time in the water and team cohesiveness, 

 there were other less precise indications of successful performance and adaptation. Chief 

 among these indicators were comments by a number of men to the effect that work got easier 

 as time went along; that there was better planning and scheduling; that they adapted to the cold 

 water; the nearly universal eagerness to take part in future Sealab type studies; and the com- 

 plete absence of any serious interpersonal disagreements on any of the three teams. 



Despite the overall favorable reactions indicated above, there were some ripples in this 

 sea of tranquility which should be mentioned. 



Most of the aquanauts expressed dissatisfaction or disappointment with the amount of work 

 they were able to accomplish. Their dissatisfaction is no doubt in part an indication that this 

 was a highly motivated, task-oriented group of men. A major factor limiting work output was 

 the design of the capsule, particularly the entrance area. 



Another factor was fatigue. For a variety of reasons many men had a great deal of diffi- 

 culty in getting adequate sleep in Sealab. A number of men commented that while they would 

 like to have stayed longer, they were ready to leave at the end of 15 days because of fatigue. 



Another work-inhibiting factor was the amount of time which had to be spent on housekeep- 

 ing and maintenance chores. One change which might be considered would be either supplying 

 meals from topside or including a crew member whose sole duty would be to prepare meals. 

 To adopt one of these alternatives would, however, make future Sealabs more dependent on sur- 

 face support than was the case with Sealab II. Finally, there was the factor of crew heteroge- 

 neity. A number of men felt that others on their team either did not cooperate fully in helping 

 them to perform their functions or that others had insufficient work to do while they were 

 overloaded. Comments to this effect were made by the majority of divers on Teams 2 and 3. 



Association Among Predive, Dive, and Postdive Measures — Data presented in this section 

 represent more a preview of things to come than they do a systematic presentation of results. 



Each diver was assigned a score representing the number of times he was chosen as a 

 desirable leader or teammate. *These scores were correlated with a variety of diver charac- 

 teristics and behavioral variables. There are missing data which may alter slightly some of 

 the correlations presented here. 



Each man was asked to name, before and after, the five men he would most like to have as 

 a leader and the five men he would most like to have as teammates in Sealab 11 or in future 



*NOTE: A comment about the significance of correlations is appropriate for understanding the 

 results presented. Human behavior is so complex that nearly all interrelations involving 

 measures of men and their performance are inexact and probabilistic. Therefore, rules in- 

 volving the laws of probability are used to determine when a relationship exists. To say that 

 a correlation is significant means that the relationship involved is of such a magnitude that it 

 does exist and is not due to chance factors. All correlations reported here are significant by 

 this definition, except where stated otherwise. 



