Prediction of Adjustment to the Antarctic

Abstract

The predictive validities of several psychometric tests as well as trait ratings by teams of psychologists and psychiatrists •re examined with respect to criteria of adjustment to the Antarctic during the wintering-over period of 1957. Thirtythree subjective symptoms reported monthly together with three other attitudinal criteria were intercorrelated and factor analyzed. The total N was 109. Using factor scorý.; computed for each of the five factors extracted from this matrix as adjustment eriteri,' it was found that men with the following characteristics had the greatest adjustment potential for the Antarctic conditions: Iligh intelligence test score. , low interest in organized sports, rated high with respect to "'ability to communicate", low with respect to "overt hostility", high with rspect to "'ability to cope with aggression"", to have less than a college education, to be single and over 25 years of age, and to have come from the southern section of the U. S. The methodological importance of the applicttion of factor analytic techniques to repetitively collected subjective data is emphasized.

Perceptions of Danger, Risk Taking, and Outcomes in a Remote Community

“…Age was combined with other variables in the first generation of Antarctic psychological research that was concerned with performance. Only two studies found a relationship between age and performance (Owens, 1975, andWeybrew, Molish, &Youniss, 1961, with the former noting that age was only relevant to traverse performance requiring physical stamina). Both studies found that personal attributes such as intelligence, marital status (unmarried), and previous Antarctic experience contributed to good performance.…”

Prediction of performance on the International Biomedical Expedition to the Antarctic (IBEA)

“…They obtained the information from personnel prior to their departure to Antarctica, and correlated it with their subsequent performance. For example, Weybrew and others (1961) studied 109 subjects of an American base, finding that those under 25 years old who were intelligent and had self control were judged by their supervisors as being the most effective workers and group members. They were also better adjusted and had a lower frequency of psychosomatic symptoms than their older counterparts.…”

“…Some of the same researchers previously mentioned developed clinical ratings to predict the levels of adjustment of Antarctic volunteers. For example, Weybrew and others (1961) used a combination of Rorschach indicators and interview assessments from which to make nine composite clinical predictor ratings for each subject. When correlated with criterion scores of Potential Effectiveness for Operation Deepfreeze, Ability to Communicate, Absence of Expression of Overt Hostility, and Ability to Cope with Aggression, the predictions were statistically significant.…”

“…Some of the researchers previously reported also used a variety of standard psychometric tests in an attempt to establish factors of intelligence and personality as predictor variables. For example, Weybrew and others (1961) found significant correlations between the Shipley Hartford Veral and Abstraction subscales and an overall adjustment criterion, as well as correlations between the Sports Inventory and a sociability criterion, and between a Neurotic Checklist and an emotional adjustment criterion. Smith (1966) did not find the Pensacola Z scale to be of predictive value, although he did find some positive links between reports completed by referees nominated by the Antarcticans and their supervisors in the field.…”

“…Formal studies on the prediction of Antarctic performance began with the revival of interest in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since that time researchers in different coutries have used biographic data, clinical ratings and psychometric data as predictor variables, and they have used peer ratings, leader ratings and medical records as criterion measures of performance (Weybrew and others 1961;Gunderson, 1974;Rivolier 1976). Their results were not entirely consistent, because they used different tests and different criteria in different occupational and national groups of different size under different circumstances.…”