Le Scanff C, Bachelard C, Cazes G, Rosnet E, Rivolier J
Laboratoire de Psychologie Appliquee, Universite de Reims, France.
Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997;7(4):293-309. doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap0704_3.
This research derives from a 60-day isolation study realized for the European Space Agency (ESA) as a simulation of space flights. Three goals were pursued in this study: (a) to study individual and group responses to the stress factors specific to the simulation; (b) to make a critical comparison of a variety of tools and methods used for this purpose; and (c) to express recommendations for future research. Direct methods (questionnaires, tests) and indirect methods (observation) were used in an individual and a whole group assessment. The group did not show important stress manifestations during the isolation period. It maintained its cohesion by opposing the external authority. Some tools were more efficient than others: The qualitative and indirect methods have revealed much more information than the quantitative or direct methods that reinforced one's defense to avoid criticism.
这项研究源自为欧洲航天局（ESA）开展的一项为期60天的隔离研究，该研究模拟太空飞行。本研究追求三个目标：（a）研究个体和群体对模拟中特定应激因素的反应；（b）对为此目的使用的各种工具和方法进行批判性比较；（c）为未来研究提出建议。在个体和整个群体评估中使用了直接方法（问卷调查、测试）和间接方法（观察）。在隔离期间，该群体未表现出重要的应激表现。它通过反对外部权威来维持凝聚力。一些工具比其他工具更有效：定性和间接方法比定量或直接方法揭示了更多信息，后者强化了人们避免批评的防御心理。
