flying low with nasa

Flying Low with NASA

The bizarre story of NASA astronaut Captain Lisa Nowak has everyone

talking. It's raised some predictable and reasonable questions about

psychological assessment of astronauts. In a storm of comments at a

New York Times blog, The Lede, several commenters correctly observed

that this incident is the first incident, and that's a pretty good

record. (Of course, that's assuming that it is the first incident.

Others may have been covered up.) After an incident like this,

however, we should still ask if the assessments are good enough.

I did a search for astronaut selection, and I couldn't find a current

list of psychological tests NASA uses. Santy (1994) has an intriguing

history (available on Questia), but the book is 12 years old, and

given publication lag, the information is even older. In a Google

search, I found a recent reference to the Astronaut Personal

Characteristics Inventory (ASTROPCI), but little other information.

The primary tests they use are predictable, including IQ tests, tests

of perceptual-motor functioning, personality inventories, and

projectives. It appears that NASA is maintaining an active program of

research on personality assessment in astronauts. Nevertheless,

several news stories indicate that NASA only assesses astronaut

candidates once and never repeats the assessment.

However, here is an intriguing quote from Santy:

The Working Group's position was that personality assessment is

underutilized as a resource in astronaut selection, but the

empirical record in aviation psychological research of using

personality traits as predictors of performance is appalling. This

dismal record extends back to World War I and the selection of

opponents for the Red Baron. (p. 108-109)

In other parts of the book, Santy correctly points out that

psychological assessment is often directed toward identifying

psychopathology, but psychopathology isn't a good predictor of success

on a job. (Yes, I know there are a host of Dilbert-type jokes here.)

This is especially true where the occupation is one in which there are

only a small number of people who are employed in the field.

Assessment of personality traits is another way to predict success on

various jobs. For example, according to Santy, the 16PF, a personality

inventory measuring 16 different personality traits, has been used by

NASA in astronaut selection. Logically, different jobs require

different traits, so assessing for the right combination of traits

would make for a good astronaut right?

No. Personality traits do correlate with behavior, but the

correlations tend to be somewhat low. The 16pf is a useful

instrument--I've used it myself--but by itself, it's inadequate. No

personality inventory is adequate by itself. Generally, we compensate

for this weakness by using multiple tests and multiple types of

assessment.

That's what NASA does. Each test has a certain likelihood of

miscategorization. By using multiple tests, the likelihood of

miscategorization declines. NASA takes it farther by also using

different types of instruments: Psychiatric interviews are included,

as are samples of behavior. Behavioral sampling is done by putting

candidates into trainers and assessing their performance under

roleplay conditions.

Although NASA doesn't do formal, repeat assessments, there is

certainly ongoing monitoring of astronauts. It's the same monitoring

that goes on at every job. Both peers and superiors are looking at

each astronaut's functioning in training and in everyday performance.

I can't prove it, but I suspect that such performance evaluations have

washed out people who psychological testing has missed. This brings us

back to Captain Nowak.

Why didn't she wash out? From all the reports I've seen, Captain Nowak

was a competent astronaut. How could she melt down over a marital

separation and a perceived love triangle outside her marriage?

The answer lies in an old argument in psychology: Is behavior

controlled by person or situation variables? On the one hand,

personality theorists argue that internal variables, such as

personality traits, conflicts, and dynamics, control behavior.

Behaviorists, on the other hand, argued that the external variables,

such as the environment and behavioral consequences, control behavior.

For example, what controls the tendency to cheat on tests? Is it a

person's honesty (a trait), or is it the opportunity to cheat (the

environment)? The resolution to the argument was predictable. Both

person and situation variables are needed together to predict

behavior. In many cases, the situation exerts more control than the

person. To return to the above example, as the risk of getting caught

for cheating drops, the number of students who cheat rises. But

cheating never reaches 100%, because honesty is important, too.

The Milgram obedience experiment is another example of the power of

the situation, as is the Zimbardo prison experiment. The situation has

powerful control over the individual. Change the situation and you

change individual behavior.

So, Captain Nowak was able to function in the setting of the astronaut

corps. She could work in an environment where death was always

looming. She just couldn't deal with the environment where rejection

had occurred. You're not going to get rejection on the space shuttle.

For reasons that I am not privy to, abandonment and rejection were

more threatening than death to her. I don't think any amount of

psychological testing would have prevented this awful situation.

References

Santy, P. A. (1994). Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological

Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Praeger.