Human Performance In Extreme Environments Research Paper

This sample Human Performance In Extreme Environments Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of psychology research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

For many of us, modern conveniences provide a comfortable and relatively stable environment in our homes and places of work. Heating and air conditioning, electrical lighting, and enclosed structures help to maintain temperature, illumination, and air quality within ranges that are near perfect and maximize our health and productivity. However, a small number of people choose to live and work under less than ideal conditions, pursuing occupations and recreational activities in complex, challenging, and often dangerous environments that push the human body to its limits. This chapter explores these environments and the unique physiological and behavioral adaptations necessary to preserve the well-being of those living and working on the edge. I define extreme environments (EEs) as settings that possess extraordinary physical, interpersonal, and psychological factors that require significant human adaptation for performance, physical and psychological health, and survival.

Men and women work underwater for months at a time aboard nuclear submarines, researchers thrive in subzero temperatures in Antarctica, adventurers join expeditions to reach the highest peaks, and space station crews live and work in a cramped, isolated, and weightless environment for half a year or more. Whether they represent a dynamic and exciting career choice or the achievement of a life-long dream, these endeavors are positive and rewarding experiences for many people. Humans, however, are not naturally suited to endure such extreme conditions. In fact, without adequate protection, experience, training, and the ability to cope with demands of the environment, people would fail to live and work productively or, in some cases, even survive.

In places ranging from deep below the ocean surface to nearly 240,000 miles away on the surface of the moon, humans have learned to adapt to a variety of environments that harbor a wide spectrum of threatening conditions. Moreover, these are highly functioning individuals, some of whom are, in several notable examples, responsible for some of humankind’s greatest achievements. The following sections introduce these unique environments and the incredible human ability to adapt and persevere. I begin with a brief overview of human activities in EEs and present several example environments and occupations. I then provide a more detailed discussion of EEs by highlighting four different categories of environments, presenting a general model to organize the factors inherent in many EEs, and describing ways people adapt to and overcome demands in the environment. The chapter concludes with a short overview of research methods in EEs and the importance of environmental analogs, several applications of findings from EE research, and ways this knowledge can enhance human performance in other extreme settings on Earth and in space.

Humans In Extreme Environments

The notion of people living and working at the edge of human abilities and functioning is certainly not new. For centuries, the journeys of explorers thrilled and nurtured the human spirit. Recent examples include Roald Amundsen and his team’s first successful expedition to the South Pole in 1911. Their journey lasted almost 100 days and covered roughly 1,900 miles in bitter cold conditions. In another famous first, Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary reached the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point in the world, in 1953. Other examples include the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first person on the moon, Neil Armstrong in 1969; and Piccard and Walsh’s 1960 journey to the deepest point on Earth, the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean, nearly 36,000 feet below the surface.

Exploration and recreation, however, are not the only reasons why people enter EEs. Scientific research, for instance, drives many of the activities at Earth’s poles. Certain businesses depend on operations in extreme settings to earn profits—for example, oil and gas companies rely on skilled underwater welders to build and maintain offshore drilling platforms. Similarly, military actions often place men and women in a variety of dangerous locations that possess extreme physical and psychological threats. There are also many occupations focused on protecting the public from natural and manmade threats that take people into EEs; among this group I include firefighters, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), law enforcement, and search and rescue (SAR) teams.

What makes these environments and occupations unique compared to more normal living and working conditions are the intense levels and combinations of factors to which people are exposed. Whereas you and I might experience some discomfort on a morning jog when the mercury hits 90o Fahrenheit, the firefighter battling a forest fire in the summer heat with all of her protective gear and equipment is experiencing extreme discomfort. Let us take a closer look at the features of environments that make them extreme.

Theory

Defining Extreme Environments

Although individuals have succeeded in a variety of EEs for centuries, a focused scientific discussion of these endeavors and the ways in which people adapt is relatively new. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers began investigating human behavior and performance in settings like the South Pole and onboard nuclear submarines, using terms like “stressful,” “exotic,” and “extreme” to describe the environment. For example, Doll and Gunderson (1970 studied U.S. Naval personnel at an Antarctic research station to assess the effect of the environment on psychological variables like personality, leadership, task performance, social compatibility, and emotional stability.

These early studies were important first steps in understanding how features of an EE, such as prolonged isolation and confinement, influence human performance and behavior. However, they failed to offer a more general picture of EEs or ways to differentiate one extreme setting from another. One of the first researchers to place more concrete theoretical boundaries around EEs was Peter Suedfeld when he described what he called “extreme and unusual environments.” Part of his definition outlined four categories of environments based on one’s purpose and preparation for entering the setting.

Categories of Extreme Environments

Suedfeld’s (1987) first category, normal environments, describes relatively common settings entered by large numbers of the population that could be considered extreme due to some significant limitation on physical space or resources, such as crowded situations in a large city. In most cases, people entering normal environments do so voluntarily and with no formal preparation or training. Their motives and goals are likely diverse and rarely involve a group or team of individuals working together toward a collective objective. In general, although these normal environments may affect people in significant ways, Suedfeld argues a majority of these settings may not fully qualify as extreme, particularly in comparison to those described in his other three categories.

In contrast to normal environments, instrumental environments are settings entered voluntarily by individuals or teams for a specific task or larger purpose. In most cases, the individual is selected, trained, and properly equipped with protection and technology to achieve a certain goal. Furthermore, teams entering instrumental environments often possess a shared value system whereby members agree the risk and discomfort of the environment are worth overcoming in pursuit of the collective goal. This mutual understanding is vital to the team’s success and generally brings members closer together, both in their commitment to the task or goal and to one another.

Like instrumental environments, individuals voluntarily enter the third category of environments, recreational environments, for a specific purpose, but the goal is usually personal in nature and attempted for entertainment or leisure by seeking out novel stimuli and experiences. Furthermore, as with instrumental environments, individuals entering recreational environments are typically highly trained and equipped to withstand the physical demands of the setting. Sporting activities, such as mountaineering, cave diving, or dogsledding, fall in this category. Other examples include events that push the limits of human capabilities, such as “ultramarathons” of 50 to 100 miles or the sport of free diving, in which divers descend to great depths with no external air supply. Because recreational environment activities place people in potentially harmful situations, it is possible for these environments to quickly shift to what Suedfeld would call an instrumental environment in the face of mistakes or unforeseen events. A recreational hike in Rocky Mountain National Park, for example, can quickly become an instrumental EE if a mild spring day turns into a blizzard, forcing the individuals to shift their goals from recreation to survival.

The last category, traumatic environments, encompasses extreme conditions imposed on individuals unwillingly. Suedfeld makes a distinction between “natural” traumatic environments, like natural disasters, and “man-made” events such as explosions, industrial accidents, some medical emergency events, and combat situations. In all cases, individuals are generally not prepared nor trained to handle the physical or psychological factors associated with the event. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of traumatic environments. The immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, in the United States or the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that claimed the lives of nearly 230,000 people both thrust their victims into a traumatic environment with little warning.

These categories are useful for understanding why people enter EEs and their degree of training and preparation; however, what is it about an environment that makes it extreme?

Components of Extreme Environments

In addition to outlining different categories of EEs, Suedfeld (1987) was also one of the first researchers to offer a more theoretical distinction between common or normal environments and EEs. He argued that all environments can be scaled along two dimensions: their degree of extremeness, referring to the presence of physical dangers and discomfort, and unusualness, which relates to the novelty of the environment. True extreme and unusual environments would therefore fall near the high ends of one or both dimensions. Furthermore, he organized features of EEs into (a) physical parameters to describe environmental variables such as temperature, atmospheric pressure, lighting, noise, or the presence of hazardous materials; (b) interactive parameters relating to the human interaction with the environment; and (c) psychological parameters detailing how an individual perceives and copes with the environment.

Additional attempts to define EEs focused on the human reactions and interactions the environments elicited. Manzey and Lorenz (1997) categorized EEs as settings for which humans are not naturally suited and which demand complex processes of psychological and physiological adaptation. Morphew (1999) argued that EEs all share human-technology, human-human, and human-environmental interfaces, combined with high demands on operator performance and team functioning. Furthermore, in an effort to develop an initial taxonomy of factors shared by multiple EEs, Barnett and Kring (2003) reviewed findings from a variety of settings, such as spaceflight, aviation, and polar settings, and identified 28 variables they organized into physical, physiological, and psychological factors.

Taken together, these findings suggest that an ideal way to define and understand EEs is to focus on two primary components. First, most environments considered extreme possess extraordinary and unique features in three key areas: (a) physical characteristics of the environment, (b) interpersonal and social dynamics of individuals and groups living and working in the environment, and (c) psychological variables that influence how an individual responds to the environment. The second component refers to the human response to being in the EE. As noted before, EEs require significant human adaptation in order for people to live and work in a manner that supports physical and psychological health, promotes successful task performance, and protects individuals from injury. Let us begin with a closer look at the first component of our definition: the features of EEs.

Physical, Interpersonal, And Psychological Factors Of Extreme Environments

Extreme and unusual environments possess extraordinary physical, interpersonal, and psychological factors that require significant adaptation for performance and survival. The notion that one’s health is determined by the combined influence of these three types of factors is well supported in the literature. Termed the “biopsychosocial” model of health and illness, the model was first proposed to better explain and treat mental illness in clinical settings and then further developed and popularized by George Engel (1977) for applications in psychiatry, health care, and education. Today, the model remains popular and is a driving force behind the relatively new field of health psychology, which applies psychological principles to prevent disease and support healthy living. The model also helps organize and guide research in health psychology. In our pursuit of understanding human performance and health in EEs, the model serves a similar purpose.

If we consider findings from research conducted in Antarctica, aboard nuclear submarines, or depth and altitude extremes ranging from deep underwater activities to the peaks of the world’s tallest mountains and into space, the most obvious difference is the physical characteristics of the environment. Whether it is extreme cold, low atmospheric pressure, or microgravity, extraordinary physical factors in EEs affect biological processes and push the human body to its limits. In addition, teams or groups of individuals often work together in EEs to achieve a common goal—for example, performing research projects, conducting search-and-rescue operations, or spending months aboard an orbiting spacecraft, such as a space station. Finally, the combination of physical and interpersonal factors can significantly affect an individual’s behavior and psychological health, in both negative and positive ways.

With the biopsychosocial model as a framework, we can organize the many factors inherent in EEs into three general areas related to the physical features of the environment (which directly affect biological systems and processes), the social or interpersonal interactions, and an individual’s psychological makeup, as shown in Table 74.1. The following sections briefly describe each category and several examples for each.

Table 74.1 Physical, interpersonal, and psychological factors in extreme environments

Physical Factors

In the EE context, physical factors are those stemming from the environment surrounding an individual, be it in an enclosed setting, like a space capsule or submarine, or an outdoor setting, such as the top of Mount Everest. It is important to note that most of these factors fall along a continuum from high to low. In normal settings, like your home, the levels for these factors are within average or comfortable ranges; in EEs, however, people experience the high or low ends of the continuum. In addition, the levels and combination of factors are different across EEs, which makes each setting relatively unique. Let us take a closer look at some of these physical factors.

A majority of the physical factors presented here should be familiar. For instance, lighting simply refers to the amount and pattern of illumination in the environment. In some settings, prolonged or abnormal dark or light periods can disrupt human circadian rhythms, our daily cycles of biological processes like sleep, body temperature, and heart rate. Space crews and pilots of high-performance aircraft experience abnormal levels of gravitational forces, either significantly less than the standard 1 g level on Earth (i.e., microgravity) or significantly more than 1 g during rocket launches or maneuvers. Environments may also exhibit significantly high levels of noise or unwanted sounds, as well as unpleasant or toxic odors. And for some occupations, particularly in the military, the motion or vibration stemming from transportation in vehicles like tanks or helicopters can make it difficult to perform tasks like monitoring displays or manipulating objects.

One of the more harmful physical factors in EEs is variations in temperature and related changes in humidity. In extremely cold settings such as the South Pole, humans are at risk for a number of cold injuries ranging from mild hypothermia to frostbite, where skin and tissue begin to freeze. At the other end of the continuum, people working in extremely hot environments, like firefighters and military personnel in desert settings, may have difficulty regulating internal temperatures and experience one or more serious heat-related illnesses, ranging from heat cramps to heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Matters are worse if high temperatures are combined with high levels of relative humidity, as the perceived temperature is actually much higher than what the thermometer indicates.

In addition to temperature, performing at high altitudes above Earth’s surface or at great depths below the surface of the ocean is complicated by changes in atmospheric pressure. As altitude increases, the atmospheric pressure (i.e., the amount of air pressing down on the location) decreases, a condition called hypobaria, making it more difficult for people to breathe because the density of air molecules also decreases. For instance, if you were to stand at the top of Mount Everest, you would experience atmospheric pressure roughly one third of that at sea level, leaving you with about a third less available oxygen. In contrast, as people descend below the water’s surface, the atmospheric pressure increases, a condition known as hyperbaria, due to the increased pressure of water against the body, which also makes it difficult to breathe. The relation between altitude, depth, and atmospheric pressure is a critical concern in many EEs, forcing humans to rely on protection like pressurized modules (e.g., submarines, spacecraft) and artificial air sources to survive. Climbers on Mount Everest and other high-altitude environments, for example, often need supplemental oxygen in order to avoid severe oxygen deprivation, called hypoxia, which can affect one’s mental process and physiological health.

Due to dangerous environmental extremes of temperature or atmospheric pressure, many in EEs live and work in enclosed structures that offer protection and, in some cases, vital resources like oxygen and water. Because manufacturing these facilities is costly and difficult, particularly in hard-to-reach places, they are rarely spacious or comfortable. Consider that onboard submarines, it is not uncommon for two, even three, crewmembers to share the same bed by sleeping in different shifts, a practice called “hot bunking.” As you might imagine, the practice is despised by many crewmembers and makes privacy or a sense of personal space difficult to attain. This also raises the issue of factors related to working with others in EEs.

Interpersonal Factors

Whereas physical factors in EEs are a function of the environment itself, interpersonal factors are related to interactions between individuals. In a majority of EEs, several people work together toward a common goal. As explained above, activities in instrumental and recreational environments often involve a team of highly trained individuals who share a common vision and commitment to a collective task, such as rescuing a lost climber or conducting scientific research aboard a space station. Although a team approach is highly effective in that each member brings his or her own expertise to the team’s goal and work and responsibility is shared by multiple people, working with others can lead to difficulties, particularly in dangerous environments where conditions push people to their limits and there is great pressure to perform in a productive and timely manner.

The interpersonal factors listed in Table 74.1 are just a sampling of the many issues facing teams in EEs. Most important to a highly functioning team is communication. The active exchange of information between two or more team members is the glue that holds the team together, the mechanism by which it establishes priorities, instigates actions, makes decisions, and develops a common vision for how to best achieve its goals. Not surprisingly, when communication breaks down, team performance often suffers. For example, poor team communication contributed to the slow response of law enforcement in the hours following the Columbine High School shooting. Police, SWAT teams, and emergency medical personnel poorly coordinated their communication, and, as a result, injured victims lay for hours without medical assistance, even after both shooters had killed themselves (Columbine Review Commission, 2001).

Communication between team members in different physical locations is also a concern because the lack of face-to-face contact and communication lags can disrupt the smooth and timely exchange of information. The loss of 17 American soldiers during a 1993 conflict in Mogadishu, Somalia, is a prime example. Commanders at a base outside of the city were directing troop movements to keep soldiers out of dangerous locations; however, radio transmissions had to first be routed through a satellite and then to helicopters flying over the city before they reached the ground. Unfortunately, this delay, albeit brief, led to confusion, wrong turns, and ultimately a deadly ambush by Mogadishu locals (Bowden, 1999).

Although communication is the most critical interpersonal factor in EEs, additional variables are vital to safe and effective team performance. Cohesion, defined as the degree to which individuals on a team are committed to one another (termed interpersonal cohesion) and to the goals of the team’s task (termed task cohesion), plays an important role in how well the team interacts. In general, teams possessing higher levels of cohesion function more effectively and exhibit better performance than do low-cohesion teams (Zaccaro, Gualtieri, & Minionis, 1995). In the context of EEs, another key interpersonal factor is leadership. Because activities like spaceflight, search-and-rescue operations, and military exercises often involve multiple teams comprising dozens or perhaps hundreds of individuals, a single leader is necessary to coordinate resources and activities, ensure that objectives are met, and make key decisions. A good leader can also inspire his or her team to overcome obstacles, work harder to achieve the team’s goals, and serve as mediator between team members in the event of disagreements. In his review of leaders at isolated and confined environments, such as Antarctic research bases, Stuster (1996) found that successful leaders possessed a unique combination of traits including problem-solving ability, emotional control, confidence, and a concern for the crew’s well-being.

Other interpersonal factors in EEs relate to the size and arrangement of living quarters and work spaces. Cramped conditions in underwater research facilities, submarines, and spacecraft, for example, mean personnel have very little room to call their own and few places to retreat from the company of others. The practice of “hot bunking” on submarines presented earlier is a good example. Unfortunately, forced interpersonal contact is a noted source of stress in crowded settings like spacecraft and Antarctic research stations due to a lack of privacy and reduced personal space (Raybeck, 1991). Crowded and confined living conditions, particularly when the environment is isolated from the external world and the same team of people are together for long periods of time, also affect how well the team gets along. A common finding in isolated and confined environments is that relatively minor interpersonal differences or disagreements are amplified, such that seemingly petty incidents like borrowing someone’s eating utensils or not cleaning up the kitchen evolve into heated conflicts between team members.

When conflicts do arise in EEs, they often lead to a splintering of the team into smaller groups, or “cliques,” based on one’s status on the team (e.g., scientists vs. maintenance personnel), sex, or ethnic background and culture. Called subgroup formation, this division of the team can significantly degrade performance by affecting team communication and cohesion. That teams may divide along cultural lines in EEs raises the issue of how one’s cultural heritage influences one’s interactions with others. Culture, referring to an individual’s language, values, beliefs, and behavior patterns tied to their ethnic or national background, governs how people communicate, think, and react to conflict. For a number of extreme endeavors, teams are composed of an eclectic mix of people representing numerous nationalities, such as the International Space Station, a project combining the efforts of 16 different countries. Studies from international space missions indicate cultural differences between American and Russian crewmembers have led to problems of miscommunication and confusion (Kanas & Manzey, 2003).

In summary, interpersonal factors play an important role in the performance of teams and how well they get along in EEs. Research also suggests that interpersonal features of the environment, combined with physical characteristics, can have a significant effect on one’s psychological well-being.

Psychological Factors

The final category of factors relate to the psychological experience of living and working under extreme and challenging conditions. Whereas physical factors are relatively objective and interpersonal factors stem from the social interactions of team members, psychological factors are more individual and subjective. In other words, each person has a unique perception of the stress and excitement of being in the environment and experiences a different combination of reactions based on his or her personal psychological makeup. In addition, whereas many of the aforementioned physical and interpersonal factors impose negative demands on people, a number of the psychological factors listed in Table 74.1 positively affect performance and actually help protect individuals against deleterious elements in EEs.

To better understand some of these psychological factors, consider the story of Apollo 13. In April 1970, the three-man crew was more than halfway to the moon when an explosion crippled half of their spacecraft, draining it of oxygen, water, and power. Forced into the smaller half of the ship, the Lunar Module, which was designed to support only two people for 50 hours, the crew worked with teams at mission control in Houston to stretch its resources for nearly 6 days until they could return to Earth. During this time, the crew struggled with near-freezing temperatures, poor air quality, cramped quarters, and were limited to only 6 ounces of water a day (about the size of a small water bottle). In what is considered the most successful “failure” in spaceflight history, the crew survived and returned in relatively good health.

Beyond the obvious physical challenges for the Apollo 13 crew, there were a number of psychological aspects to their ordeal, many of which are common in other extreme settings. First, teams generally have a lot to do in a short amount of time. Researchers in the field of human factors psychology—which blends principles from psychology and engineering to improve the interaction between humans and systems—call this pressure workload, commonly defined as the ratio of time required to do a task to the time available (Wickens, Lee, Liu, & Becker, 2004). The subjective experience of high workload—for example, when an individual or team has only 6 hours available to complete 10 hours of work—can impart significant mental stress and disrupt task performance. At the same time, work underload, or having too little to do, can also be stressful and lead to poor performance.

In addition to the amount of work, the type of work performed in EEs places major demands on individuals and teams. Be it the repair of a critical system onboard a spacecraft, searching for survivors in an avalanche, or exploring a deep underwater cave, most activities carry a high cost of failure, both in economic terms and the safety and well-being of the team. In the case of emergency responders or SAR teams, the stakes are even higher, as lives depend on the team’s success.

The crew of Apollo 13 also experienced another major psychological factor in increased levels of physical and mental fatigue. Due in part to the cold interior of the spacecraft, the crew slept very little during those 6 days and battled severe exhaustion. In addition, the absence of normal light cues in space result in a disruption of normal circadian rhythms and sleep patterns. On Earth, light/dark cycles are one of several external cues called zeitgebers, or “time givers,” that reset our internal clocks to a 24-hour schedule. However, in the absence of these cues, our circadian rhythms tend to drift, running slightly longer than 24 hours and disturbing sleep patterns. In his review of polar and spaceflight research, Stuster (1996) noted this shift in our internal clocks can result in bouts of insomnia, increased irritability, and a greater potential for making errors.

As noted previously, one of the physical factors in EEs is limited physical space. Being isolated and confined to a small area, as was the case for the Apollo 13 crew, can be a major source of psychological stress. With regard to confinement, small, enclosed structures are restrictive physically and relatively consistent and stable over time, greatly reducing the amount and variety of sensory stimulation in comparison to being outdoors or in other, more dynamic settings. It is no surprise that a favorite pastime aboard spacecraft and in undersea habitats is looking out the window to increase stimulation, fend off boredom, and break up the monotony of the confined environment (Kanas & Manzey, 2003). In addition to physical confinement, endeavors in EEs often isolate people from the outside world and their family and friends back home. Extended separation from natural environments and traditional support networks is a major source of stress for submariners, Antarctic researchers, and those on long-duration space missions. A powerful antidote to this stress is communication with loved ones via letters or e-mail as well as sending people “care packages” with fresh fruit, books, movies, and other surprises to break up the monotony of the environment.

Thus far, our discussion of psychological factors has focused on their negative effects on people, but what factors exert a positive influence in EEs? Certainly, there must be a reason why people choose to enter these demanding and dangerous settings voluntarily. Although research in EEs tends to focus on problems and disorders, evidence from space, polar, and similar settings suggest life in EEs is filled with excitement and adventure, and it affords a sense of accomplishment impossible to achieve in more routine endeavors. A survey of astronauts and cosmonauts, for instance, indicated that despite the occasional problem, the importance and significance of their work had a profoundly positive effect on their lives (White, 1987). Similarly, in space, polar, and undersea environments, people are eager to continue the experience, as evidenced by a significantly high return rate (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). Furthermore, men and women in EEs, on average, appear well equipped to handle the stress and strain of the environment through a combination of individual abilities developed through training, emotional stability, a personality makeup ideally suited to overcoming adversity, and an effective set of coping skills. For example, exercise is an effective way to reduce stress levels for some individuals; for others, recreational activities like listening to music or reading help alleviate stress. In addition, under particularly challenging conditions, people utilize a number of psychological defense mechanisms such as denial or rationalization to prevent being overcome with emotion (Harrison, 2001).

Accordingly, perhaps a more fruitful approach to understanding human performance in EEs is to focus less on negative issues and more on the positive aspects that motivate people and make life in extreme settings rewarding. The field of positive psychology promotes such a shift. Proponents of the field, Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2000), argue that humans seek out valued subjective experiences in their lives that bring contentment and satisfaction for past achievements, happiness and what they call “flow” for the present, and hope and optimism for the future.

Returning to the definition of EEs, the three sections above summarize just some of the physical, interpersonal, and psychological features in EEs. The second part of our definition concerns the human physiological and psychological response to these factors.

Adaptation to Extreme Environments

As discussed earlier, the characteristics of extreme settings require significant human adaptation to support physical and psychological health and allow people to work in an effective and safe manner. But how does this adaptive process work? For our purposes, the combination of physical, interpersonal, and psychological factors in EEs are best interpreted as sources of stress. Although a thorough review of stress research is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is worth briefly recognizing two prominent models of stress. First, Hans Selye (1956), the founder of modern stress research, defined stress as the nonspecific response of the body to demands made upon it. He further differentiated between unpleasant or bad stress and positive or good stress, labeling these distress and eustress, respectively. Furthermore, any external or internal demand, good or bad, according to Selye, was a source of stress if it pushed the body out of homeostasis (a term developed by Walter Cannon to refer to the body’s natural tendency to maintain a steady and stable internal environment).

What Selye’s model did not adequately address was the great diversity in people’s ability to cope with stress. Whether it be physical stress, such as temperature, or an internal stressor like worry over losing one’s job, each of us deals with stress differently because we have different coping strategies. For this reason, many researchers have now adopted a model that posits stress only exists when demands exceed an individual’s ability to cope. Calling this the cognitive-transactional model of stress, George Lazarus and colleagues argue that people undergo a two-step cognitive appraisal process in which they first judge the demands of a situation and then determine if they have the skills or adaptive abilities to meet the demands. If demands exceed one’s perceived abilities, stress will result. However, if abilities exceed the demands, no stress results and the situation is considered a positive and challenging experience (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This model helps to explain why the same set of conditions can produce high levels of stress in one individual and not in another.

If a situation is perceived as stressful, the next step in adaptation is coping with the stress. Based on the work of Lazarus and others, coping is defined as all of the cognitive or behavioral efforts to reduce or tolerate external demands. In some cases, people use unhealthy coping strategies to reduce stress, such as procrastination, avoidance, or the use of alcohol and drugs. Others find more healthy ways to cope with exercise, leisure activities, or seeking the support of family and friends. For example, the most valued events in extreme settings like polar bases are meal times, during which the crew talks about the day, shares stories, and builds a sense of camaraderie with one another.

What happens, however, if the demands of life in EEs are perceived as stressful and individual coping strategies are not effective? Unfortunately, research paints a dark picture of the effects of stress on human performance. Beyond common physiological changes like increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, and suppressed functioning of the immune system, stress negatively affects human emotional states, producing increased anxiety, frustration, and aggression. Furthermore, cognitive functions such as attention, reaction time, decision making, and problem solving are all affected by stress.

Nevertheless, despite the many physical, interpersonal, and psychological demands in EEs, most people learn to adapt successfully to the demands and ultimately find great joy and excitement in the experience and a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Before looking at some of the applications of EE research, it is worth noting how researchers generated these findings.

Methods

Unlike some environments and occupations, EEs are difficult to recreate in the laboratory. For example, researchers in the field of Industrial and Organizational psychology use simulated exercises in a lab to study how groups of people work together and make decisions in the actual world of business. However, to accurately replicate the complexity and conditions of EEs, researchers would need to expose participants to a number of potentially harmful variables like extreme heat or cold, which can be costly to produce in a lab. In addition, the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles for using human participants limit what researchers can expose participants to, further complicating attempts to study how extreme conditions affect performance. For these reasons, much of what is known about humans in extreme situations comes from research in applied settings—in other words, findings from real environments out in the field.

One effective way to study EEs is to use one, relatively more accessible environment as an example or analog for another setting that is less amenable to scientific research. This can be accomplished two ways. First, researchers can study past events and data to predict how people might react in future, similar situations. Jack Stuster (1996) used this approach in his book Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration by reviewing the journals and logs of early explorers, debriefing reports from polar and space missions, and personal interviews. One limitation with this approach is researchers cannot directly manipulate variables in controlled experiments, making it difficult to show cause-and-effect relations between variables.

A second approach that does allow some control over variables is conducting new studies in one setting to understand human behavior and performance in another, analogous setting. In 2002, NASA conducted three 9-day space simulation studies at an underwater research laboratory off the Florida Keys called Aquarius. Because the facility shared many features with the International Space Station, including habitable volume limitations and the reliance on life support technology, it served as an exemplary test bed for research.

The analog approach, albeit effective, does have limitations. For one, analog settings do not have the exact same conditions as the setting of interest to researchers, so comparisons should always be made with caution. Second, researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines for research and ensure that any exposure to extreme conditions or stressful situations does not cause harm to research participants.

Applications

Peter Suedfeld’s initial conceptualizations of extreme and unusual environments and the three-pronged categorization of EE factors based on the biopsychosocial model provide us with a valuable tool for better understanding human activities in extreme settings and occupations for several reasons. First, researchers can begin categorizing EEs based on a more objective set of criteria, not simply a researcher’s proclamation. For instance, the physical features of an Antarctic research station would rate higher on a scale of physical danger and discomfort than would the features of an environment that some might call stressful or extreme, like the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Second, if researchers agree on the characteristics of EEs, we can identify overlooked settings that are also extreme. For example, few dispute that spaceflight is extreme, yet underwater diving, particularly the sport of cave diving, exhibits many of the same physical, interpersonal, and psychological demands seen in other EEs.

However, the most useful application of the theoretical model of EEs is demonstrating how researchers can use findings from one environment to understand human performance in other extreme settings. This approach has already yielded numerous benefits with regard to Antarctic research bases and long-duration spaceflight. Stuster (1996) chronicled many similarities between the two settings on issues such as leadership, personal hygiene, group interaction, psychological and social problems, and the importance of food and recreation that NASA can use to plan future missions. The challenge now is identifying other similar pairings. For example, astronauts conducting extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the International Space Station use tools to build or repair the station, inspect components for damage, and take pictures of the station to send down to Mission Control on Earth. Likewise, underwater welders working on offshore oil-drilling platforms use tools to cut or connect pipes, inspect structures and pipelines for damage, and take underwater pictures to send to their supervisors. Both jobs involve significant risk and a high cost of failure.

In addition to recognizing shared features between EEs, research in this area can also highlight important differences between settings and occupations that, on the surface, appear similar. For instance, efforts to apply research from an aviation-based perspective on stress and crew performance to understanding space crews are problematic. Although aviation crews experience some of the same levels of psychological stress (e.g., fear, time and performance stress), social stress attributed to crowding and prolonged isolation and confinement are much lower in aviation than in spaceflight.

Lastly, EE research encourages communication and cooperation between people in different fields and domains. Academics and scientists talk with men and women actually performing under extreme conditions to better understand the human response to stress. Likewise, professionals and practitioners can improve their own performance by reading the findings of researchers.

Future Directions

The human thirst for adventure continues to draw explorers into increasingly dangerous places. Human curiosity pushes scientists deep into underwater landscapes miles below the surface and into the farthest reaches of space. The future success of human performance in EEs depends on a more thorough understanding of how people adapt to physical, interpersonal, and psychological demands. Critical to the development of this knowledge is a concerted effort to bring together researchers and practitioners from seemingly disparate fields to share results and pursue joint projects. Operators, engineers, managers, and scientists from many distinct disciplines must work collectively to further define principal theoretical and empirical issues and formulate viable solutions to performance decrements in extreme settings. Like the emergence of human factors psychology, which bridged the gap between engineering and the behavioral sciences, there is a need to facilitate communication between once-solitary scientific fields and disciplines, to promote the sharing of ideas and information, and to bring together academics with practitioners in applied settings. This unified effort is essential for sustaining and enhancing performance in all extreme environments.

A tenable first step is bringing together the fields of health psychology, with its emphasis on promoting healthy living, and positive psychology’s focus on contentment, happiness, and optimism to better understand why people are drawn to EEs and how they learn to live and work productively despite incredible obstacles. Another viable source of information is the field of sport psychology, which concerns the mental factors that influence competition, exercise, and physical activity. Sport psychologists study many factors relevant in EEs including motivation to persist and achieve, psychological issues of injury, and promoting physical and psychological well-being. It will be the responsibility of future researchers to identify even more avenues for collaboration to strengthen our knowledge of human performance in EEs.

Summary

This chapter introduced how people living and working at the extremes manage to survive and excel under tremendous physical and psychological demands. Key to this success is the resiliency, optimism, and adaptability exhibited by the men and women pursuing careers or novel experiences in EEs. We saw how characteristics of the environment like temperature and atmospheric pressure can, without adequate training and protection, result in injury. We recognized how teamwork has many advantages but can also impart significant stress. Furthermore, we reviewed a number of psychological factors that place considerable demands on individuals. More important, we demonstrated how people cope with these demands in order to lead healthy and productive lives.

Despite a growing body of knowledge, our understanding of human performance in EEs is still in its infancy. Future research will depend on the cooperation of a diverse assortment of scientific disciplines within and outside the field of psychology. These endeavors are worthwhile and necessary as the human race continues to evolve into new and exciting places here on Earth and out into the cosmos.

References:

Barnett, J., & Kring, J. P. (2003, October). Human performance in extreme environments: A preliminary taxonomy of shared factors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 961-964). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Bowden, M. (1999). Black Hawk down: A story of modern war. New York: Penguin.
Columbine Review Commission. (2001, May). The report of Governor Bill Owens’ Columbine Review Commission. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.state.co.us/columbine/
Doll, R. E., & Gunderson, E. K. (1970). The relative importance of selected behavioral characteristics of group members in an extreme environment. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 75(2), 231-237.
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136.
Harrison, A. A. (2001). Spacefaring: The human dimension. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2003). Space psychology and psychiatry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Krakauer, J. (1997). Into thin air: A personal account of the Mount Everest disaster. New York: Villard Books, a Division of Random House.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Manzey, D., & Lorenz, B. (1999). Human performance during spaceflight. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 4, 8-13. [Article reprinted from Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, 1997.]
Morphew, M. E. (1999). The challenges of long-duration spaceflight to astronaut safety, performance, and mission success. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 56-60). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Raybeck, D. (1991). Proxemics and privacy: Managing the problems of life in confined environments. In A. A. Harrison, Y. A Clearwater, & C. P. McKay (Eds.), From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement (pp. 317-330). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stuster, J. (1996). Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Suedfeld, P. (1987). Extreme and unusual environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 863-885). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,227-253.
White, F. (1987). The overview effect. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Becker, S. E. G. (2004). An introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J., & Minionis, D. (1995). Task cohesion as a facilitator of team decision making under temporal urgency. Military Psychology, 7(2), 77-93.