Gender Composition and Crew Cohesion During Long-Duration Space Missions

  • Jason P. KringEmail author
  • Megan A. Kaminski
Part of the Space Technology Library book series (SPTL, volume 29)


A major factor in the success of future long-duration space missions is the psychosocial functioning of the crew. An individual’s psychological health and well-being has a major impact on how well he or she adapts to the demands of isolation, confinement, and workload associated with complex missions. Although each crewmember possesses a unique combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities that influence their capacity to adapt, in this chapter we argue that mission success also relies on how well an individual functions in the larger social context of the mission. More specifically, interactions between crewmembers, as well as between the crew and ground personnel, play a significant role in the crew’s overall performance. Although many variables affect crew interactions, such as opportunities for personal space and privacy afforded by the spacecraft’s architecture, we contend that the most prominent factor is the crew’s composition. Beyond the size of the crew, the mixture of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and the blend of professional expertise, the most salient crew composition variable is gender.

Since even before Valentina Tereshkova’s flight in 1963, women have played an integral role in the history of human spaceflight. As of April 2010, for instance, 53 different women have flown in space, many as part of mixed-gendered crews aboard Russian space stations or the International Space Station (ISS). The April 2010 flight of Space Shuttle Discovery to the ISS set a record for the most women in space at one time as three female crewmembers aboard Discovery—Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, Stephanie Wilson, and Naoko Yamazaki—joined Station resident Tracy Caldwell Dyson in orbit. As the number of mixed-gender crews will likely increase in the future, including those taking voyages back to the Moon and then to Mars, it is prudent to ask if there are any potential limitations to men and women working together for extended periods of time.

This chapter reviews findings from mixed-gender crews in spaceflight as well as relevant analogues like aviation, Antarctic research bases, and other complex environments to highlight how gender composition moderates crew interactions and performance. To explore this relationship, we focus specifically on the variable of cohesion, or the degree to which crewmembers are committed to each other and to the crew’s shared task, and offer recommendations for the optimal gender composition for future space missions in terms of this important crew variable.


International Space Station Team Performance Interpersonal Attraction Team Factor Task Cohesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baugh, G.S., Graen, G.B.: Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group Organ. Manag. 22(3), 366–383 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop, S.L.: Evaluating teams in extreme environments: from issues to answers. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7, sect. II), C14–C21 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Burris, J.W.: The impact of gender diversity on technical team effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 62, Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI), USA no. 10-B: 4715 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. Carless, S.A., De Paola, C.: The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Res 31(1), 71–88 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright, D.: The nature of group cohesiveness. In: Cartwright, D., Zander, A. (eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 3rd edn. Harper and Row, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  6. Davis, S.F., Palladino, J.J.: Psychology. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2007)Google Scholar
  7. Dion, K.L.: Interpersonal and group processes in long-term spaceflight crews: perspectives from social and organizational psychology. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7, sect. II), C36–C43 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., van Engen, M.L.: Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychol. Bull. 129(4), 569–591 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endler, N.S.: The joint effects of person and situation factors on stress in spaceflight. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7, sect. II), C22–C27 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Evans, C., Dion, K.: Group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Small Group Res. 22(2), 175–186 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger, L.: Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 57(5), 271–282 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., Whitney, D.J.: A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Res 26(4), 497–520 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, A.A.: Spacefaring: The Human Dimension, p. 138. University of California Press, Berkeley (2001)Google Scholar
  14. Kanas, N.: Group interactions in space, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7), C3–C5 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. Kanas, N., Manzey, D.: Space Psychology and Psychiatry. Microcosm Press/Kluwer Academic, El Segundo (2003)Google Scholar
  16. Kirkcaldy, B.D.: Personality profiles at various levels of athletic participation. Pers. Individ. Differ. 3(3), 321–326 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landers, D.M., Wilkinson, M.O., Hatfield, B.D., Barber, H.: Causality and the cohesion-performance relationship. J. Sport Psychol. 4(2), 170–183 (1982)Google Scholar
  18. Langfred, C.W.: Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Res 29, 124–143 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lebedev, V.: Diary of a Cosmonaut: 211 Days in Space. Bantam Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  20. LePine, J.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Colquitt, J.A., Ellis, A.: Gender composition, situational strength and team decision-making accuracy: a criterion decomposition approach. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88(1), 445–475 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miesing, P., Preble, J.: Group processes and performance in a complex business simulation. Small Group Behav. 16, 325–338 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NASA History Division. Lovelace’s Woman in Space Program. NASA. Accessed 25 Mar 2012
  23. NASA History Division. Women in Space, NASA. Accessed 25 Mar 2012
  24. Neubert, M.J.: Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Res. 30(5), 635–646 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panzer, F.-J.: The influence of gender and ethnic diversity on team effectiveness. ProQuest ETD Collection for Florida International University, Paper AAI3085015. Doctoral Dissertation, available: pp. 1–151 (2003)
  26. Porter, T.W., Lilly, B.S.: The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 7(4), 361–376 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosnet, E., Jurion, S., Cazes, G., Bachelard, C.: Mixed-gender groups: coping strategies and factors of psychological adaptation in a polar environment. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7, sect. II), C10–C13 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. Saimons, V.J.: Women in combat: are the risks to combat effectiveness too great? Monograph Report No. AD A258 247,(U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth (1992)Google Scholar
  29. Sandal, G.M.: Culture and tension during an international space station simulation: results from SFINCSS’99. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 75(7, sect. II), C44–C51 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. Santy, P., Holland, A., Looper, L., Marcondes-North, R.: Multicultural factors in the space environment: results of an international shuttle crew debrief. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 64, 196–200 (1993)Google Scholar
  31. Siebold, G.L., Kelly, D.R.: Development of the Combat Platoon Cohesion Questionnaire. ARI Technical Report 817, ADA 204917. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria (1988)Google Scholar
  32. Steiner, I.D.: Group Processes and Productivity. Academic, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  33. Stogdill, R.M.: Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 8, 26–43 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stuster, J.: Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis (1996)Google Scholar
  35. Tziner, A., Vardi, Y.: Ability as a moderator between cohesiveness and tank crew’s performance. J. Occup. Behav. 4, 137–143 (1983)Google Scholar
  36. Vecchio, R.P., Brazil, D.M.: Leadership and sex-similarity: a comparison in a military setting. Pers. Psychol. 60(2), 303–335 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaccaro, S.J., Lowe, C.A.: Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: evidence for multidimensionality. J. Soc. Psychol. 128(4), 547–558 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zaccaro, S.J., McCoy, M.C.: The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18(10), 837–851 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaccaro, S.J., Gualtieri, J., Minionis, D.: Task cohesion as a facilitator of team decision making under temporal emergency. Mil. Psychol. 7(2), 77–93 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityDaytona BeachUSA
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations