Thematic content analysis of work–family interactions: Retired cosmonauts’ reflections

Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Thematic content analysis of work–family interactions: Retired cosmonauts’ reflections$ Phyllis J. Johnson a,n, Deyar Asmaro b, Peter Suedfeld c, Vadim Gushin d a

Department of Sociology, The University of British Columbia 6303 N. W. Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1 Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 d Institute for Biomedical Problems, 76a, Khoroshevskoe Shosse, Moscow 123007, Russia b c

a r t i c l e in f o

abstract

Article history: Received 6 February 2012 Received in revised form 15 June 2012 Accepted 26 July 2012 Available online 25 August 2012

Anecdotal evidence and qualitative research attest to the importance of work–family interactions pre-, during and post-missions. This study uses thematic content analysis to quantify characteristics of work–family interactions and how these changed by stage of cosmonauts’ career, identifying the effect of space career variables (e.g., time in space and station) on such interactions during and post-career. Using a thematic scoring scheme developed for this study, we coded work–family interactions identified from interviews with 20 retired male cosmonauts. The majority of work–family interactions were ones in which work overlapped into family life and work hindered or interfered with the family situation. The most common resolution was that family adjusted to work, and the mood or tone about this outcome was almost equally divided among negative, positive and neutral. Changes in work–family interactions and their resolution over the cosmonaut’s life showed that the significant interactions were most evident during the cosmonaut career. Although the cosmonaut career has high work demands, it did adjust for family when the need arose. The Russian Space Agency (RKS) eased the impact of the periodic absences, especially through regular communication sessions. Positive work–family interactions, i.e., work or family helping the opposite role, were more likely for those who had been on ISS, not Mir, and for those whose last flight was after 2000. Our data reflect retired cosmonauts’ recollections of work–family interactions during their career. Examples of work overlapping into family life and work viewed as interfering with family life were possibly more salient or better remembered than work or family helping the other role. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cosmonauts Work–family interactions Thematic content analysis

1. Introduction From qualitative analysis of oral history interviews and autobiographies, Johnson [1,2] identified themes about work and family life in the lives of astronauts, and ways in

$

This paper was presented during the 62nd IAC in Cape Town. Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 1 604 822 4300; fax: þ 1 604 822 6161. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.J. Johnson), [email protected] (D. Asmaro), [email protected] (P. Suedfeld), [email protected] (V. Gushin). n

0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.07.032

which family members helped astronauts deal with time away on long-duration missions. Spacefarers have noted the difficulty of not being there to celebrate family events or to help with situations that occur (e.g., car accident, illness of family member). Family members have wondered whether they should share information, and if they do not, will the partner who knows them so well think there is something wrong? All of these examples reflect family life overlapping into the work setting. The space career in turn overlaps into family life, with extended absences, long hours of work and training, and worry about

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

potential risks. Understanding which types of work–family interactions occur, how they are resolved, and how positively or negatively the resolution is perceived may provide insight on the reciprocal effect of work and family in space careers, and this information may be useful in future training. The purposes of our study were (1) to use Thematic Content Analysis to assess work–family interactions of retired male cosmonauts before, during and after their space careers, identifying how stage of career affects such interactions, and (2) to note the effect of selected demographic and space career characteristics (number of flights, total time in space, when last flight occurred, and station for long-duration missions) on work–family interactions during and post-career. 2. Related research literature Several areas of research are reviewed to provide background for understanding work–family interactions of cosmonauts. The general literature on work–family interactions provides a baseline of societal views about work–family interactions in the West and in the Soviet Union (Russia). In the absence of prior research with cosmonauts’ work–family interactions, the literature on work–family interactions in occupations where fathers are absent for periods of time due to their work (e.g., Antarctica, military, off-shore oil drilling, truckers) is presented to provide context for interpreting our data on cosmonauts’ work–family interactions. Information about how the cosmonaut career has changed over time and how this might affect work–family interactions is presented, drawing upon personal communication with a staff member at the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP). The Institute through the Psychological Support Group for Roscosmos (Russian Space Agency, RKS) does crew selection, in-flight monitoring, and psychosocial support for cosmonauts [33,34]. 2.1. Work–family interactions The basic perspectives on how family and work interact are that they are in conflict, balanced, or role-enhancing. Conflict occurs when the roles are incompatible: demands are too great to perform the roles comfortably, or the expectations, scheduling, or demands of one role interfere with the performance of the other [3]. Role balance implies that the person is engaged in and enjoys both roles equally well [4]. In role enhancement, rather than multiple roles creating strain, Marks [5] suggests that the rewards and privileges associated with each role help the person to manage the roles. Thus, those holding multiple roles have higher well-being than those with fewer roles [6]. A variety of terms has been used to describe work– family interactions, with a common focus on negative aspects of that interaction, e.g., conflict, strain, overload, and incompatibility. More recently, positive aspects of having both roles have been identified, e.g., facilitation, enrichment, enhancement, and positive spillover from one role to the other [7]. For example, skills used in the

307

workplace, such as decision making or time management can have a positive effect when carried over into the family setting. On the other hand, work may also have negative effects, such as long hours or inflexible schedules that interfere with family activities. In a like manner, negative and positive spillover can originate in the family setting and affect work activities [7]. While originally women in dual career families expressed the most stress from combining work and family roles, men, and in particular those in professional-managerial occupations, have had the greatest increase in work–family conflict and stress [8–10]. One suggested reason for this is that men not only are expected to, but in many cases want to, take on additional family responsibilities so that the couple can balance work and family life more equitably. This view is in contrast to the traditionally accepted pattern of asymmetrical boundaries between work and family; i.e., men were previously expected to allow their work life to overlap into family life rather than the reverse. For women, it was acceptable for family life to overlap into work life rather than the reverse [11]. Strategies for managing work and family conflict have included the family and individual adjusting to the work demands of one or both partners, changing the family demands, and the workplace changing to accommodate family needs [12,13]. In general, those in highly demanding careers, which has been historically the situation of men, would expect family to adjust to the work demands or to continue the situation as it is, rather than adjusting work for family [11]. 2.2. Work–family life in the former USSR This section provides context for understanding work– family roles for retired cosmonauts whose life spanned the USSR years before and after perestroika. As summarized by Olson and Matskovsky [14], representative samples of former USSR families in the late 1980s revealed that their three top values were family, work, and respect from others. Although employment and completing household tasks took considerable time, the majority did not view family life as affecting their careers. However, those with university or equivalent high-level technical training thought that family responsibilities did interfere with their career development. As in the U.S., changes in gender roles, increases in divorce, conflicts between the generations, and provision of care for dependents have been and continue to be issues faced by families. During the Soviet era, women were expected to be employed and child care was provided by the government. As a result, employment became valued while unpaid family work became devalued. After perestroika (‘‘restructuring’’, Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of liberalizing Soviet society), women continued to work for financial reasons, but there was also greater interest in women having a focus on family. With this changing focus has come interest in more egalitarian performance of household tasks. However, men have continued to view home as a ‘‘refuge’’ where they return after the work day is completed, and have not viewed the family role as

308

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

theirs to perform [15]. Young husbands and wives viewed jobs and free time differently. Men wanted job satisfaction; women wanted husbands to spend their free time at home, helping with family tasks. In terms of satisfaction with marriage, both men and women wanted their spouse to show positive feelings toward them, to provide psychological support, and to understand them [16]. 2.3. Men in occupations with extended work absences: Impact on family Several related research areas provide some information to help us understand how cosmonauts and their families might react to separation due to the time demands of the job and the long, periodic absences during training and missions. Research on military and other families experiencing prolonged work-related absences of the parent or spouse has tended to concentrate on those members of the family who remain at home. Studies have addressed issues facing the spouses, such as the redistribution of roles, authority, and domestic labor, changes in decision making patterns, assumption of financial responsibility, dealing with emergencies, and impact on the children [17–24]. These issues are affected by length of the absence. For example, with increased length of deployment, military wives experienced a greater number of hassles related to relationships and managing the household. Their emotional well-being was also affected negatively [22]. Scholars have also been interested in the readjustments that occur when the absent partner returns, either permanently or between journeys [17–24]. For example, Antarctic workers showed some short-term adjustment difficulties when reuniting with their families, with the difficulties lasting less than a year. Regular communication during the polar experience eased the reunion of the Antarctic worker with his family [25]. Returning spouses frequently feel out of step with the rest of the family, and stress that occurs during reunion is due to the changes brought about by the spouse’s return, not due only to the absence itself [21]. The effect of the deployment or separation on the marriage itself has also been of interest. Stable marriages survived a 6-month peace-keeping deployment period without major changes in marital satisfaction [26]. Couples whose marriage was strong prior to separation also adjusted more easily to being reunited [27]. Research has identified strategies that families use to incorporate the absent spouse/parent. Wives of fishermen and truckers spoke of working hard on the family tasks while the husband was away so that when he was home there was a chance for family time together. Some couples worked out rituals and other ways of maintaining connections to strengthen the relationship and to include the absent parent in family celebrations [24]. Two points of disagreement on preparation for the work-related absence were reported by polar sojourners and their spouses: the sufficiency of discussing the dangers and risks ahead of time, and perception of how the family would be able to cope with the long separation [25]. Less attention has been paid to the adjustment of the person who is absent. Not only is the person away from

normal sources of social support, he or she is also likely to worry about the welfare of the family during the separation. The study about military families that is perhaps most relevant [28] found that wives’ attitudes toward various aspects of Army life at a given time influenced their husbands’ morale, both directly and indirectly (through the husbands’ satisfaction with the interface between their work and their family life). Support and admiration for their spouse’s work and making an effort to understand the demands of their husbands’ jobs was a supportive strategy used by wives of truckers, fishermen, and fire fighters. Such support and understanding helped both partners to better understand and accept the absence [24,29]. Military wives, concerned about the impact of disclosing stressful information to their deployed husbands, may use the strategy of ‘‘protective buffering’’ in which they shield their husband from knowing about the stressors at home. Military wives reported that they were more likely to disclose the information if their husbands had been supportive when they had done so previously, even though such disclosures might affect their husband negatively. If they thought their husband’s safety was at high risk, they did not disclose the information. The authors suggested that military wives may disclose family stressors to keep their spouse informed about changes in the family that affect him, rather than as a means to elicit his social support [30]. Support from family was the thirdranked among the top three positive themes reported by those in a two-year Australian Antarctic expedition, suggesting that such support is a positive experience [31]. Work-related travel has been found to contribute to both types of work–family conflict (work-to-family and familyto-work), which in turn predict increased stress and job burnout for the traveler. For men, the reported level of work–family conflict and burnout was not significantly different by stage of the trip [32]. 2.4. Work–family interactions of cosmonauts The cosmonaut career involves periodic absences during training and missions, potential danger and risk for loss of life, and considerable time demands, all of which potentially affected how their work and family lives interacted. Our sample of retired cosmonauts spanned the manned space history periods of Mir (1986–2000), Shuttle–Mir (1995–1998) and the ISS (2000- ), going from shorter to longer duration missions, and from crews comprised of those within their own space program to incorporating those from other programs. Their families also underwent changes, from residing in Star City to accompanying the cosmonaut to the U.S. for training for Shuttle–Mir and ISS missions. The cosmonaut and his family experienced language and cultural differences on top of the other demands of the cosmonaut career. The Mir space station and its predecessors had crewmembers from mostly socialist nations in the interkosmos program (1978–1988). Also, Soviet republics (i.e., Ukraine, Armenia) were used as training camps for cosmonauts. This meant that not all of the training was done near Moscow at Star City. After the Soviet Union ended,

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

cosmonauts were trained mostly in Star City, with some visits to other countries (i.e., East Germany, Poland, Cuba, France, India, etc), from which the non-Russian crewmembers on Mir originated. During the Shuttle–Mir program, long trips abroad for training became standard with the crew trained both in the U.S. and Star City. During the initial stage of this joint program, family members seldom accompanied the cosmonaut. Then it became common for the cosmonaut’s wife and children to live in the U.S. for the months during the cosmonaut’s training. During the Shuttle–Mir era, astronauts and cosmonauts mentioned that good relations were established between their families when living in Star City and in the U.S. There were many organized joint family events (birthdays, holidays, guests) that helped bring the crews together. Knowing not just the crewmember but his family was crucial for crew cohesion and friendship. This was also the case for European crewmembers and their families. Cosmonauts said that their family situation was even better than it had been during perestroika and the end of the Soviet Union. They felt they could work without any additional time spent handling family issues. As well, their family finances had improved. The initial years of the ISS were similar to Shuttle–Mir in terms of support for family from RKS and NASA. As different components were added to the ISS, training was necessary for the crew which involved going to JAXA, ESA, and CSA in addition to time at Houston and Star City. Such training involved periods of time when the cosmonaut was away from family as the family tended to stay where the main crew training occurred. In the past three or four years, each agency has been taking care of its own segment of the station, and crews are no longer going to the U.S. or Russia for an extensive period to train together. As well, interactions among crewmembers’ families are not as prevalent and are not fostered by the agencies to the extent that they were in the past. Beginning with Salyut 6, the first of the secondgeneration space stations, the Psychological Support Group for RKS incorporated the role of families in helping cosmonauts deal with long-duration missions. The specific types of family support involve frequent televised communications with family, opportunities to have private communication with family, and receipt of special items (letters, photos, favorite foods) from family when the Progress cargo rocket arrived [33,34]. Such communication with family has been rated as having a positive effect on the crew’s performance, with this being especially relevant in longer duration missions [35]. The cosmonauts’ reaction to how information is presented also changes during the mission as their circumstances change in the environment, e.g., overstimulation initially to later dealing with monotony and boredom. The Psychological Support Group provides information to family and friends on how best to interact, given these changing circumstances [34]. Notably, the psychological support for cosmonauts and their families continues post-mission to assist them in their adjusting to being reunited [34].

309

Societal expectations about work and family roles have changed since the beginning of spaceflight. Early spacefarers were likely to have a spouse who was not employed; today, they are likely to have an employed spouse, and in some instances their partners may have equally fulfilling careers. The extensive time involved in training and missions inherent in space careers may necessitate family adjusting to those demands. Alternatively, the potential work–family conflict situation may continue as it was rather than expecting work or family to change. How cosmonauts view the outcome of work– family interactions may provide information about areas where change might be desired. 3. Method 3.1. Sample and data collection The data reported here are from a larger project with 20 retired cosmonauts who participated in a study about their pre-, during, and post-career experiences. Data collection included personal interviews, questionnaires, and a computer simulation. The Institute of Biomedical Problems (IBMP) carried out the recruitment and data collection. Interviews were translated by bilingual research assistants. At the time of the interview, the cosmonauts were 45 to 74 years old, distributed as follows: eight between the ages of 45 to 54; nine between 55 to 64 and three between 65 and 74 years. They were all married and had children (eight had one child; ten, two children; two had 3 or more children). In terms of space career variables, they were equally divided on total time in space ( o1 year,41 year) and when their last flight had occurred (before 2000 and after 2000). Six had had one flight, nine had two or three flights, and five had four or more flights. Ten had served on Mir only, four on ISS only, and the remaining six were on both Mir and ISS. 3.2. Development of thematic categories for work–family interactions The method of Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) is an unobtrusive way to score socio-psychological variables in archival and interview data. In TCA, qualitative materials are converted to quantitative data through a rigorous systematic scoring process [36]. This method has been applied in archival research with astronauts and cosmonauts for a variety of psychological constructs, e.g., values, social relations, and coping [37]. Following a procedure similar to other scoring schemes constructed for psychological constructs, we developed a scoring scheme for work–family interactions. The categories for scoring are based on the work–family interaction literature, specifically noting how work–family interactions are conceptualized and measured within existing quantitative research. Work and family conflict scales incorporate items that represent work overlapping into family life and items related to family overlapping into work life [38]. Work– family interactions may be positive, negative, or neutral. If positive, work or family facilitates the other role; if

310

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

negative, work or family hinders or interferes with the other role; if neutral, neither work nor family has an impact on the other role [7]. Work–family interaction scales incorporate where the interaction occurs, e.g., conflict between parental and work roles, between spousal and work roles, and between family and work roles [38–40]. We have included this information by identifying which individuals are involved in the interaction. This classification scheme allows for the inclusion of extended family members, which has not been specifically identified in current work–family interaction scales. As with existing quantitative scales, ‘‘family’’ in general without specifying relationship is incorporated. In resolving work and family conflicts, work activities may be adjusted to accommodate family situations, family may adjust to the work demands, or the situation may continue without work or family making any accommodation. In general, those in highly demanding careers would expect family to adjust to the work demands or to continue the situation as it is, rather than adjusting work for family [11]. While such a choice may be necessary, cosmonauts may view the resolution as positive, negative, neutral, or as both positive and negative. Identifying views about the outcome is the first step to noting where it might be desirable to develop countermeasures.

3.3. Thematic scoring process The first step was to identify work–family interactions mentioned during personal interviews with the retired cosmonauts. Next, each work–family interaction was scored for its origin (work overlaps into family or family overlaps into work), the tone of the interaction (positive: work or family facilitates the other role; negative: work or family interferes with the other role, and neutral: no positive or negative effect), who was involved in the interaction (cosmonaut with nuclear family, with extended family, with family and space agency personnel, with family but relationship not specified), the resolution or outcome of the interaction (work role adjusted for family; family role adjusted for work; situation continued, neither work nor family adjusted), and tone of the outcome (positive, negative, both positive and negative, or neutral). Examples of the coding categories are shown in Table 1. Both coders had prior experience in thematic content analysis scoring, and received training in coding work– family interactions. The second author identified and coded work–family interactions in the interviews. A second person coded a random selection of the interactions. In the beginning, 80% of the interactions were coded twice. As reliability was consistently high, with total percent agreement of 91%, this was reduced to 10%

Table 1 Examples of work and family coding categories. Code categories

Sample quotes

Origin of interactions From work From family

We had a collision; this was a situation which destroyed a lot of nerve cells of my wife. Grandchild is born while cosmonaut is in space. Receives lots of congratulations.

Tone of interactions Work facilitates family situation Family facilitates work situation Neutral, work (family) neither hinders nor facilitates family (work) situation Work hinders family situation Family hinders work situation Resolution (outcome) Work adjusted

Family adjusted Situation continues, neither work nor family adjusts Not applicable Tone of resolution Positive Negative Ambivalent (both positive and negative) Neutral (neither positive nor negative) Not applicable

When a need appeared to make a call (e.g., family birthday), it was possible from Mir. Always when family and friends came [for communication sessions] it was a psychological relief. So basically the cosmonaut flies, family lives its own life Usually, supervisors of the space programs did not prepare our families to understand their role in space flights. Child was sick and cosmonaut missed training sessions They (RKS) helped more during the flight. They would bring my family to the communication sessions, showed them the Mission Control Center. Everyone was really nice to them, smiled, helped and supported. You came to understand that if you have a meeting with your family, they would only tell the good things. I, to speak frankly, never informed my family about my work. Father was glad he was in space program. Cosmonaut sad he did not live to see him go into space. Wife supported cosmonaut’s work Half of training time you were on business trips; family are alone, Daddy is not home and this, of course, upsets everybody. The family’s attitude was good. Only my daughter had some doubts. But nobody else had them. We were in training or business trips, but not so we got totally disconnected (from family). She did not believe until the last moment that I would go into space.

Note. Each quote shown is an interaction that was coded for each category. For example, coding for the quote, ‘‘So basically the cosmonaut flies, family lives its own life’’: Origin¼ work; Tone¼ neither work nor family interferes with opposite role; Resolution ¼situation continues, neither work nor family adjusts; Tone of resolution ¼neutral; Who is involved ¼ cosmonaut and nuclear family.

4.1. Overview of work–family interactions The overall patterns that incorporate pre-, during, and post-career stages are presented first to provide an overview of work–family interactions. Overall, the majority of the work–family interactions identified from the interviews were ones in which work overlapped into family life (88.7%). The tone of the interaction was more often negative (46.6%), i.e., work or family hindered or interfered with the opposite role, than positive (29.6%), i.e., work or family facilitated or improved the opposite role, or neutral (23.7%). Work–family interactions involved the cosmonaut and his nuclear family or family members who were not identified but spoken of as ‘‘family’’ (58.1% and 32.2%, respectively). The most common resolution of work–family interactions was that family adjusted to the work situation (65.3%), rather than work adjusting to accommodate the family situation (15.1%) or neither making any adjustment (13.3%), with 6.9% of the situations being interactions where a resolution was not applicable. The mood or tone of the outcome was negative (31.7%), followed by positive (26%) or neutral (25.6%), both positive and negative (14.5%), or not applicable for the remaining 2.2%. 4.2. Repeated measures analyses: Pre-, during, and post-career To note the dynamics of work–family interactions across the cosmonauts’ life span, we conducted repeated measures analyses for each thematic category by cosmonaut’s career stage (pre-career, during career, and postcareer). Fig. 1 displays the significant trend analyses for origin and tone of work–family interactions and who is involved. All of the significant trends exhibited a quadratic pattern, i.e., the means for the second stage, which was during their career, were significantly higher than means for pre- or post-career. For the origin of work– family interactions, there was a significant trend for Work overlaps into Family Life by career stage (F (1, 19) ¼6.20, p ¼.022). There was no significant trend for Family overlaps into Work Life. In terms of the tone of the work– family interaction, only negative tone (work or family

Estimated Marginal Means

4. Results

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

311

Origin of Interaction: Work Overlaps Family (Mean %) 76

60

89 71

Pre-Career

Estimated Marginal Means

coded twice. On the few items where there was disagreement, the two coders met, discussed, and agreed on the appropriate score. The raw scores were converted to percentages, with the percentages totalling 100 for each major code category within each career stage. For example, to calculate a participant’s score for tone of the outcome or resolution of work–family interactions, raw scores for positive (negative, neutral) tone were divided by the total raw scores for tone (raw scores for positive, negative, and neutral combined) for that specific stage, e.g., pre-career, and multiplied by 100. Each participant’s scores for positive, negative and neutral tone would add up to 100 for each stage. Then, these percentage figures were averaged across participants’ scores for each stage.

Estimated Marginal Means

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

During Career

Post-Career

Negative Tone of Interaction: Work or Family Interferes with Other Role (Mean%) 51

50 40 30 20

24

23

10 0 Pre-Career

70

During Career

Post-Career

Nuclear Family Involved in Interaction by Stage of Career (Mean %) 59

60 50

46

40 30

35

20 10 0 Pre-Career

During Career

Post-Career

Fig. 1. Significant trends from repeated measures analysis of work– family interactions by stage of career.

interferes with the other role) exhibited a significant trend (F (1, 19)¼20.26, p¼.0002). There was also a significant trend for nuclear family involved in the interactions (F (1, 19) ¼6.20, p ¼.022). In all of these trends, means were highest during the cosmonaut’s career, suggesting that at that time, work overlapped into family, that work or family hindered or interfered with the opposite role, and that the cosmonaut and his nuclear family, mainly his wife and children, were involved in these interactions. Fig. 2 shows significant trends for the resolution of work–family conflicts. All three resolutions were significant: (1) Work adjusted for Family showed a quadratic trend, with this outcome being highest during their career [F (1,1 9) ¼10.30, p ¼.005]; (2) Family adjusted for Work showed a significant linear trend [F (1,1 9)¼ 6.29, p ¼.021], as well as a significant quadratic trend

312

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

[F (1,1 9) ¼18.16, p¼.0004], indicating that a negative view about resolution of work–family interactions was highest during their space careers.

Estimated Marginal Mean

Resolution of Conflict: Work Adjusted for Family (Mean %) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

18

4.3. Analyses for space career stages by selected variables

7 4 Pre-Career During Career Post-Career

Estimated Marginal Mean

Resolution of Conflict: Family Adjusted for Work (Mean %) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

67 63

31

Pre-Career

During Career

Post-Career

Estimated Marginal Mean

Resolution of Conflict: Situation Continues, neither Work nor Family Adjust (Mean %) 40 30

30

20 10

9

6

4.3.1. During space career analyses The demographic variables of age and number of children were not significant for any of the work–family interaction scores during their careers. Characteristics of the space career (number of flights, total time in space, last flight before or after the year 2000, and stationed on Mir, ISS, or both) were significant for some of the dimensions of work–family interactions, as shown in Table 2. None of the characteristics of the space career was significant for origin of work–family interactions, i.e., whether the interactions originated from work or from family responsibilities; and resolution of conflicts, i.e., either work or family adjusted, or neither did.

0 Pre-Career

During Career

Post-Career

Negative View about Resolution of Conflict (Mean %) Estimated Marginal Mean

For during and post-career, we also assessed each dimension of work–family interaction by the demographic variables of cosmonaut’s age and number of children, and by characteristics of cosmonaut careers (number of flights, time in space, last flight before or after 2000, and whether on Mir, ISS, or both). Similar analyses were not done for their pre-space careers because the space career variables were not applicable for that stage of their space careers. ANOVAs were computed for each dimension by each demographic and space career characteristic. To better understand where mean differences occurred, independent sample t-tests were computed after the significant ANOVA analyses. To control for Type 1 error rates, a Bonferroni correction where a ¼.05/number of comparisons was used.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

36

11

Pre-Career

10

During Career

Post-Career

Fig. 2. Significant trends from repeated measures analysis of resolution of work–family conflict by stage of career.

[F (1, 19) ¼8.71, p¼.008], indicating that family adjusted for work pre- and during their space careers; and (3) the Situation Continuing as it had been, with neither work nor family adjusting showed a significant linear trend, with this outcome increasing throughout the cosmonauts’ careers [F (1, 19)¼11.63, p¼ .003]. There was a significant quadratic effect for negative tone of the resolution

4.3.1.1. Space career characteristics and tone of work–family interactions. Significant results were found for when the cosmonaut’s last flight occurred and the positive tone of work–family interactions, i.e., work or family facilitated or improved the other role. The tone of work–family interactions was less positive for cosmonauts whose last flight was before the year 2000 (M¼ 23.01) compared to those who flew after 2000 (M¼38.72). 4.3.1.2. Space career characteristics and who was involved in work–family interactions. As shown in Table 2, significant effects were found for number of flights and who was involved in work–family interactions: nuclear family, extended family, or family in general. A significant mean difference was observed in nuclear family involvement when one flight (M¼74.03) was contrasted with four or more flights (M¼37.60). Significant differences were also observed for extended family involvement in work–family interactions by cosmonauts with one flight (M ¼0.00) contrasted with two to three flights (M ¼10.19). Cosmonauts with two to three flights (M¼10.19) also differed from those with four or more flights (M¼0.00). Significant mean differences were evident for those who identified family in general when those with one flight (M ¼17.63) and those with two or three flights

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

313

Table 2 Work–family interactions during career: overall differences (ANOVA) and t-tests for significant scores (%) by space career variables. Space career variables

Work-Family Category Mean (SD)

df

F

p

Last flight Before 2000 2000 and after

Positive work–family interactions 23.01 (5.95) a 38.72 (17.95) a

1, 18

6.91

p ¼ .017

Number of flights One flight 2 to 3 flights 4 or more flights

Nuclear family involved 74.03 (17.83) b 60.54 (15.31) c 37.60 (14.70) b,c

2, 17

7.20

p ¼ .05

Number of flights One flight 2 to 3 flights 4 or more flights

Extended family involved 0.00 (0.00) d 10.19 (8.66) d,e 0.00 (0.00) e

2, 17

7.28

p ¼ .005

Number of flights One flight 2 to 3 flights 4 or more flights

Family involved, unidentified 17.63 (15.94) f 26.45 (16.41) g 62.40 (14.70) f,g

2, 17

12.14

p ¼ .001

Total time in space o 1 year 41 year

Nuclear family involved 68.45 (19.23) h 49.26 (17.72) h

1, 18

5.38

p ¼ .032

Total time in space o 1 year 41 year

Family involved, unidentified 21.62 (16.85) i 43.96 (24.41) i

1, 18

5.67

p ¼ .028

T-test results: Means sharing same subscripts are significantly different at p o.01 for all subscripts except a, h, and i, significant at p o .05.

(M¼26.45) were compared to those with four or more flights (M ¼62.40). Significant results were also found for Total Time in Space and who was involved in work–family interactions: nuclear family or family not specified. Nuclear family were more involved in work–family interactions for those cosmonauts who had spent less than a year in space (M¼68.45) compared to more than a year (M¼49.26). Family not specified showed the opposite pattern to nuclear family: they were less involved in work–family interactions for those cosmonauts who had spent less than a year (M ¼21.62) compared to over a year in space (M¼43.96).

4.3.1.3. Space career characteristics and tone of resolution of work–family conflicts. As shown in Table 3, the Number of Flights and Total Time in Space were significant for ambivalent views about the outcome of work–family interactions. Ambivalence or having both positive and negative views about the outcome was greater for those having one flight (M¼28.47) compared to two or three flights (M¼8.29), or to four or more flights (M¼ 5.63). Ambivalence was greater when Total Time in Space was less than a year (M¼ 19.73) compared to more than a year (M¼7.62). When the last flight occurred was significant for a positive view of work–family outcomes. Cosmonauts whose last flight was before the year 2000, compared to after 2000, viewed work–family outcomes as less positive (M¼18.49 and 35.11, respectively).

We also observed a significant effect with Station (Mir, ISS, or both) and a positive resolution to work– family conflicts. The only comparison that reached significance was when cosmonauts stationed on Mir were compared to those stationed on the ISS. Resolution of work–family conflicts was viewed less positively by those on Mir (M¼18.49) than those on ISS (M¼32.08). 4.3.2. Post-career analyses Significant results for the post-career phase of the cosmonauts’ lives are shown in Table 4. Age was significant for one work–family interaction category: Ambivalent Tone of Resolution for work–family interactions. However, t-test comparisons of means were not significant. Number of children was not significant for any of the work–family categories. Space career characteristics were not significant for tone of work–family interactions, who was involved in the interactions and tone of the outcome or resolution of work–family conflicts. For the remaining work–family categories, some of the space career characteristics were significant as indicated in Table 4. 4.3.2.1. Space career characteristics and origin of work– family interactions. Only one space career characteristic, which Station the cosmonauts were on, was significant for origin of the interaction, that is, Family overlaps into Work Life. However, subsequent analyses revealed that the means did not differ. No space characteristics were significant for the work–family interaction origin of Work overlaps Family Life.

314

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

Table 3 Resolution of work–family conflicts during career: overall differences (ANOVA) and t-tests for significant scores (%) by space career variables. Space career variables

Work–family category, Mean (SD)

df

F

p

Number of flights One flight 2 to 3 flights 4 or more flights

Ambivalent view about resolution 28.47 (6.75) a,b 8.29 (7.48) a 5.63 (9.30) b

2, 17

15.79

p ¼ .0001

Total time in space o 1 year 41 year

Ambivalent view about resolution 19.73 (13.32) c 7.62 (8.09) c

1, 18

6.04

p ¼ .024

Last flight Before 2000 2000 and after

Positive view about resolution 18.49 (4.75) d 35.11 (16.07) d

1, 18

9.84

p ¼ .006

Station Mir only ISS only Mir and ISS

Positive view about resolution 18.49 (4.75) e 32.08 (11.81) e 37.13 (19.21)

2, 17

4.97

p ¼ .02

T-test results: Means sharing same subscripts are significantly different at p o .01 for all subscripts except c, significant at p o.05.

Table 4 Post-career work–family interactions: overall differences (ANOVA) and t-tests for significant scores (%) by demographic and space career variables. Demographic and space career variables

Work–Family category, Mean (SD)

df

F

p

Age 45–54 55–64 65–74

Ambivalent view about resolution 1.79 (0.05) 4.29 (0.11) 44.47 (38.51)

2, 17

9.06

p ¼.002

Station Mir only ISS only Mir and ISS

Origin of work–family interaction: Family overlaps into work 2.32 (5.05) 37.50 (47.87) 0.80 (2.16)

2, 17

4.88

p ¼.021

Number of flights One flight 2 to 3 flights 4 or more flights

Resolution: the situation continued; neither work nor family adjusted 67.07 (38.23) a, b 20.18 (25.96) a 5.00 (11.18) b

2, 17

13.13

p ¼.003

Total time in space o 1 year 41 year

Resolution: family adjusted 13.09 (18.88) c 48.91 (42.03) c

1, 18

6.04

p ¼.024

Total time in space o 1 year 41 year

Resolution: the situation continued; neither work nor family adjusted 46.91 (43.12) d 13.99 (19.08) d

1, 18

4.97

p ¼.04

T-test results: Means sharing same subscripts are significantly different at p o .01 for a, b and p o.05 for c, d.

4.3.2.2. Space career characteristics and resolution of work–family conflicts. Significant effects were observed for Number of Flights and Total Time in Space for the work–family outcome of the Situation Continues without work or family adjusting. As well, Total Time was significant for the work–family outcome of Family Adjusted to accommodate the conflict. For Number of Flights and the work–family outcome of Situation Continues, significant mean differences were observed between cosmonauts who had been on one flight (M¼ 67.01) compared to two or three (M¼20.18), and to four or more flights (M¼5.00). For Total Time in Space, those with less than one year (M¼46.91) compared to more than one year (M¼13.99) were more likely to have the situation continue with neither work nor family making adjustments.

For Total Time in Space, those with less than one year compared to more (M¼13.09 and 48.91) were less likely to resolve the work–family conflict by family adjusting to work demands. Thus, those with fewer flights and less total time in space were more likely to have work–family conflict continue without making any adjustment. When the cosmonaut was in space over a year compared to less than a year, family was more likely to adjust to accommodate the work–family situation. 5. Discussion This study has built upon qualitative and anecdotal information about work–family interactions of spacefarers by providing a quantitative measure of such interactions from interviews with retired cosmonauts. Work–family

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

interactions were identified in the translated transcripts of interviews about work and family life over the cosmonaut career. The analysis revealed that work–family interactions originated primarily from the work setting overlapping into the family setting, and that the main tone of that interaction was negative, i.e., work or family hindered the other role. Members of the nuclear family were part of the interaction. The outcome or resolution of the conflict was primarily that family adjusted to work, and this was viewed almost equally as negative, positive or neutral. The discussion focuses on (a) changes in work– family interactions over the cosmonaut’s career, (b) changes in resolution of work–family conflicts over the cosmonaut’s career, and (c) the impact of space characteristics on work–family conflicts and their resolution. 5.1. Changes in work–family interactions over the cosmonaut’s life Although work overlapping into the family setting was the usual situation pre-, during and post-career, this pattern was most evident during the cosmonaut career. At this stage, work overlapped into family life, and the interaction was negative because work interfered with carrying out family roles. Typical ways in which work interfered were lack of time for family, impact of the cosmonaut’s career on development of his wife’s career, and the risks of space missions. Lack of time is evident in these quotes: ‘‘I tried to spend time with my son as well as I couldy while being in the cosmonaut unit, there was practically no time’’. ‘‘When I was in training, it was impossible to find any spare time. During that time family interests came second to my work’’. The emphasis on his career may have limited his wife’s career: ‘‘She is very smart and maybe if not for my ambitions and priorities she could achieve more if she stayed at the same place, as opposed to changing her locations all the time’’. The risk of the space career showed in this quote: ‘‘She watched take-off and understood the danger, saw ship become a small star in the sky. She was really worried during those moments’’. Most of the work– family interactions during the cosmonaut’s career involved his wife and children, as the career spanned the time of marrying, having children and raising them. The instance of work overlapping into family life is the traditionally accepted pattern of asymmetrical boundaries between work and family: i.e., men are expected to allow their work life to overlap into the family setting. It is a common situation in high level professions requiring extensive training and work-related absences [11]. Over the career of our group of cosmonauts, the time away for missions increased, the family relocated with the cosmonaut to the U.S. for mission preparation, and training time away from family increased due to necessary training at other space agencies. All of these changes added to the likelihood that work would overlap into family life. 5.2. Changes in resolution of work–family conflicts over the cosmonaut’s life All three ways of resolving work–family conflicts were highest during the career stage. It was not just a situation

315

of the ‘‘family adjusted to work’’ but also ‘‘work adjusted to family’’ and the ‘‘situation continued with neither work nor family adjusting’’. Family adjusting, while the most common, is only one among multiple strategies considered acceptable to deal with work–family conflicts. Work adjusting to family demands during the career stage occurred when RKS arranged for communication sessions during the mission, adjusting the work schedule to accommodate such sessions; and when the cosmonauts asked RKS to make such accommodations. For example, one cosmonaut said, ‘‘During the flight, I asked to have some time (communication session) with my family during holidays like New Year or family events’’. The communication sessions were used creatively, e.g., one cosmonaut noted that the availability of phoning allowed him to help his son with his arithmetic and another was able to provide his wife with his opinion or advice as requested. Additional situations where work adjusted to the family situation included when a family member was ill, a child was born, or there was an important family situation to deal with. Several mentioned strategies they used to complete work quickly or move it to another day in order to deal with a family event, and when at home, to allocate that time to family rather than work. These examples of work adjusting to family indicate that the cosmonaut career, although it has high time demands, does adjust to family when emergencies arise and eases the absence through regular communication sessions. These findings reinforce the important role of RKS in providing communication with families as this serves to boost the morale and performance of cosmonauts [35] and to help cosmonauts remain part of their family not only for celebrations but also in providing advice and other assistance. Family adjusting for work, the major pattern for resolving work–family conflicts, was highest during their career, although it was also high pre-career. The primary examples of family adjusting to the work situation were wives giving considerable support and approval for the cosmonaut’s career, and wives accepting the fact that they needed to manage daily family activities, rear the children, and accommodate their husband’s work activities. The cosmonauts highlighted the supportiveness of family members for their careers, indicating a score of 96% for their wives and 94% for their children. Support from family was also a positive theme identified by Antarctic expeditioners [31]. The wife’s support, admiration and understanding of the demands of his career have been shown to affect the morale of husbands in high-risk jobs with periodic absences from their family [28]. In turn, understanding the demands of his job has helped wives deal with the absence [24–29]. The wife taking on responsibility for home and family to accommodate the demands of her husband’s work fits with research on men in highly demanding careers [11] and in careers that have periodic work-related absences from their families [17–24]. Although not a frequent strategy, the work–family conflict situation continuing with neither work nor family adjusting increased dramatically from pre- to post-career. This may reflect that the cosmonaut and his family developed a pattern of how to deal with work–family interactions, e.g., work was first and there was no expectation

316

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

that work should accommodate family, or that family should expect it to do so. In a similar fashion, the family was expected to be supportive of his career, did not expect the workplace to change, and did not plan to change their support. The established work-family pattern continued and was reinforced over the career. Presumably, continuing without work or family adjusting may be preferable to expecting the family to accommodate every time, especially when it is less possible for the work to be changed. Alternatively, this finding may indicate that patterns are established, become routine, and are not reassessed in light of changing circumstances. Also of interest is that during their careers, cosmonauts were more likely to view resolutions or outcomes of work–family conflict as more negative than at the other two stages of their career. Whether it is dissatisfaction arising due to family accommodations being insufficient, or a concern that family continues to be the main one adjusting, is not clear from the quantitative data. A qualitative assessment of relevant work–family conflicts is necessary to understand what leads to negative views about the resolution of work–family conflicts. 5.3. Impact of space career characteristics on work–family interactions An interesting finding is that those who had their last flight after 2000 were more likely to be in positive work– family interactions where work or family helped or improved the opposite role during their career. Flights after 2000 were to the ISS, and involved extensive training in Russia, the U.S, and shorter periods of training at ESA, CSA and JAXA. Although the cosmonauts were dealing with adjusting to U.S. culture and training in English, they had their families with them. In Russia, their families were also with them. RKS and NASA support to cosmonauts and their families, family support of the cosmonaut career, and improved communication possibilities all seem to account for positive work–family interactions for those whose last flight was after 2000. Those with less space experience, i.e., one flight and in space less than a year, exhibited ambivalent (both positive and negative) views about how work–family conflicts were resolved during their career. These data suggest that more experience in space will help cosmonauts to clarify their views about whether the resolution to work–family conflicts is positive or negative. Those whose last flight was after 2000 and who had been on ISS but not Mir had positive views about how work–family conflicts were resolved. Space agency support for cosmonauts and their families were similar for Shuttle–Mir and the early years of ISS and more extensive than for Mir. Thus, the space agency support may have been the reason for positive views about how work–family conflicts were resolved. As number of flights as well as total time in space increased, extended family and ‘‘family’’ in general were more likely to be identified as involved in the work– family interactions during their career, with nuclear family predominant for those with one flight, and less than a year in space. This may reflect that nuclear family is the essential group, and as cosmonauts experience

subsequent flights, they are more willing to share their communication time with additional family members. Drawing upon extended family may also be a means of coping with the cosmonaut’s absence due to training or missions. Research on work-related father absence has shown that other relatives substitute for the father in helping the mother manage roles he had performed [19,21]. Finally, cosmonauts mentioning ‘‘family’’ in an unspecified manner may simply reflect a general way of talking where the cosmonaut did not see a need to specify which particular family members he was speaking about. In post-career, those who had had less total time and fewer flights in space were more likely to resolve work– family conflicts by letting the situation continue without either work or family making any adjustment. In contrast, those who had had more time in space resolved work–family conflicts by family making the adjustment. These findings suggest that with more time in space, families are expected to adjust and that this pattern of dealing with work–family conflicts carries over after the career has ended. As reviewed in Section 2.3, the literature on related occupations with extended work absences has dealt with a number of important family issues. However, with the exception of Westman et al., the focus has not been on work–family conflicts and their resolution [32]. Westman et al. found a difference by gender in work-to-family and family-to-work conflict in absences due to work-related travel. For men, these sources of conflict tended to be relatively stable before, during and after the separation. Women experienced higher levels of both types of work– family conflict during the absence itself. Our study assessed changes in work–family conflict over the cosmonaut’s career, rather than identifying patterns before, during, and after absences for training or each mission. The gender differences for work-related travel [32] suggest that the patterns we found may also differ for female astronauts. Assessing work–family conflict before, during and after missions will clarify whether patterns of work– family conflict by gender are unique to the space career, or are similar to other occupations with extensive workrelated travel. Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) provided a quantitative assessment of work–family interactions, their origin, who is involved, how facilitative work or the family is, the prevalence of which domain accommodates, and views about that accommodation. By using TCA, it is possible to identify and accurately capture processes that occur in complex social situations that would otherwise be difficult to describe objectively. Triangulation of data is the next step, to note patterns among data sources: TCA in this study, questionnaire data on work-to-family and family-to-work conflict measures, and qualitative analysis of interviews with retired cosmonauts. Completion of such analyses will help identify factors that decrease work-family conflict, providing information to enhance and/or confirm existing psychological support to cosmonauts and their families. TCA of archival data of retired non-Russian astronauts is needed to note cultural patterns and the effect of source of data on scoring work– family interactions.

P.J. Johnson et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 306–317

Acknowledgements The data reported here are from the research project ‘‘The Antecedents, Experiences, and Impact of Space Flight: Lessons from Experienced Cosmonauts’’, Contract No. 027SR.9F007-052251 with the Canadian Space Agency (P. Suedfeld, Principal Investigator, V. Gushin and P. J. Johnson, Co- Investigators. This is Study 2 in the research program ‘‘Long-term Effects After Prolonged Space Flight’’ (LEAPS). We thank the personnel of the Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP), Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, and the Reactions to Environmental Stress and Trauma (REST) Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, for their assistance in data collection, translation, scoring, entry, and analysis. References [1] P.J. Johnson, (2004, October), Work–Family Linkages in the Lives of Astronauts. Presented at the International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver, BC. [2] P.J. Johnson, The roles of NASA, U.S. astronauts and their families in long-duration missions, Acta Astronaut. 67 (2010) 561–571. [3] J.H. Greenhaus, N.J. Beutell, Sources of conflict between work and family roles Acad, Mgt. J. 10 (1985) 76–88. [4] S.R. Marks, S.M. MacDermid, Multiple roles and the self: a theory of role balance, J. Marr. Fam. 58 (1996) 417–432. [5] S.R. Marks, Multiple roles and role strain, Am. Soc. Rev. 42 (1977) 921–936. [6] E.G. Menaghan, Role changes and psychological well-being, Soc. Forces 67 (1989) 693–714. [7] S. Poelmans, O. Stepanove, A. Masuda, Positive spillover between personal and professional life: definitions, antecedents, consequences, and strategies, in: K. Korabik, D. Lero, D.L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of Work–Family Integration: Research, Theory, and Best Practices, Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 2008, pp. 141–156. [8] K.L. Johnson, D.S. Lero, J.A. Rooney, Work-Life Compendium 2001: 150 Canadian Statistics on Work, Family & Well-Being, University of Guelph. Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being, Guelph, ON, 2001. [9] J.L. MacBride-King, K. Bachmann, Is Work-Life Balance Still an Issue for Canadians and their Employers? You Bet It is! Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, 1999. [10] S. Winslow, Work–family conflict, gender, and parenthood, 1977–1997, J. Fam. Issues (26) (2005) 727–755. [11] J.H. Pleck, The work–family role system, Soc. Prob. 24 (1977) 417–427. [12] P. Voydanoff, Linkages between the work–family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: an integrative model, J. Fam. Issues (23) (2002) 138–164. [13] J. Warren, P.J. Johnson, The impact of workplace support on work–family role strain, Fam. Rel. 44 (1995) 163–169. [14] D.H. Olson, M.S. Matskovsky, Soviet and American families: a comparative overview, in: J.W. Maddock, M.J. Hogan, A.I. Antonov, M.S. Matskovsky (Eds.), Families before and after Perestroika: Russian and U.S. Perspectives, Guilford, New York, 1994, pp. 9–35. [15] S.M. Danes, O.N. Doudchenko, L.V. Yasnaya, Work and family life, in: J.W. Maddock, M.J. Hogan, A.I. Antonov, M.S. Matskovsky (Eds.), Families before and after Perestroika: Russian and U.S. Perspectives, Guilford, New York, 1994, pp. 156–185. [16] P. Boss, T.A. Gurko, The relationships of men and women in marriage, in: J.W. Maddock, M.J. Hogan, A.I. Antonov, M.S. Matskovsky (Eds.),

[17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22]

[23] [24]

[25] [26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33] [34] [35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

317

Families before and after Perestroika: Russian and U.S. Perspective, Guilford, New York, 1994, pp. 36–75. A.R. Drummet, M. Coleman, S. Cable, Military families under stress: implications for family life education, Fam. Rel. 52 (2003) 279–287. C.J. Forsyth, R. Gramling, Feast or famine: alternative management techniques among periodic father-absence single career families, Int. J. Sociol. Fam. 17 (1987) 183–196. C.J. Forsyth, R. Gramling, Adaptive family strategies among merchant seamen, Lifestyles: Fam. Econ. Issues (11) (1990) 183–198. H.I. McCubbin, B.D. Dahl, E.J. Hunter (Eds.), Families in the military system. Sage, Beverly Hills, 1976. B.A. Riggs, Routine-work-related-absence: the effects on families, Marriage Fam. Rev. 15 (1990) 149–160. L.-C. Sandraluz, A mixed-method approach to understanding the experiences of non-deployed military caregivers, Matern. Child Health J. 16 (2012) 374–384. S.M. Wadsworth, D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families. Springer, New York, 2011. A.M. Zvonkovic, C.R. Solomon, A.M. Humble, M. Manoogian, Family work and relationships: lessons from families of men whose jobs require travel, Fam. Relat. 54 (2005) (2005) 411–422. A.J.W. Taylor, I.A. McCormick, Reactions of family partners of Antarctic expeditioners, Polar Rec. 23 (1987) 691–700. W.R. Schumm, D.B. Bell, P.A. Gade, Effects of a military overseas peacekeeping deployment on marital quality, satisfaction, and stability, Psychol. Rep. 87 (3) (2000) 815–821., Pt 1. L.N. Rosen, D. Duran, D.J. Westhuis, J.M. Teitelbaum, Marital adjustment of army spouses one year after Operation Desert Storm, J. Appl. Psychol. 25 (1995) 677–692. L.N. Rosen, L.Z. Moghadam, M.A. Vaitkus, The military family’s influence on soldiers’ personal morale: a path analytic model, Mil. Psychol. 1 (4) (1989) 201–213. C. Regehr, G. Dimitropoulos, E. Bright, S. George, J. Henderson, Behind the brotherhood: rewards and challenges for wives of firefighters, Fam. Relat. 54 (2005) 423–435. A.L. Joseph, T.D. Afifi, Military wives’ stressful disclosures to their deployed husbands: the role of protective buffering, J. Appl. Commun. Res. 38 (2010) 412–434. J.A. Wood, S.J. Hysong, D.J. Lugg, D.L. Harm, Is it really so bad? A comparison of positive and negative experiences in Antarctic winter stations, Environ. Behav. 32 (2000) 85–111. M. Westman, D. Etzion, E. Gattenio, International business travels and the work–family interface: a longitudinal study, J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 81 (2008) 459–480. V. Garshnek, Soviet space flight: the human element, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 60 (1989) 695–705. N. Kanas, Psychosocial support for cosmonauts, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 62 (1991) 353–355. A.D. Kelly, N. Kanas, Communication between space crews and ground personnel: a survey of astronauts and cosmonauts, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 64 (1993) 795–800. C.P. Smith, J.W. Atkinson, D.C. McClelland (Eds.), Motivation and personality: handbook of thematic content analyses. Cambridge University Press, 1992. P. Suedfeld, K.E. Wilk, L. Cassel, Flying with strangers: postmission reflections of multinational space crews, in: D.A. Vakoch (Ed.), Psychology of Space Exploration, NASA Office of Communications, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 143–175. R.G. Netemeyer, J.S. Boles, R. McMurrian, Development and validation of work–family conflict scales and family–work conflict scales, J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (1996) 400–410. H.H. Bohen, A. Viveros- Long, Balancing Jobs and Family Life: Do Flexible Schedules Really Help?, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1981. G.K. Stephens, S.M. Sommer, The measurement of work to family conflict, Ed. Psychol. Meas. 56 (1996) 475–486.