Status and cockpit dynamics: A review and empirical study

Group Dynamics

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 155-167

  Milanovich, Dana M ^a   Driskell, James E ^b   Stout, Renee J ^a   Salas, Eduardo ^a  

^a NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER   (United States)

^b FLORIDA MAXIMA CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AEROSPACE MEDICINE; AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT; ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; AVIATION; BIOENGINEERING; EDUCATION; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACCIDENTS, AVIATION; AEROSPACE MEDICINE; AUTHORITARIANISM; AVIATION; COMMUNICATION; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL CLASS; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 0032149794     PISSN: 10892699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.2.3.155     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.
2. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. (1997). Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents. Seattle, Washington: Author.
3. Chidester.T. R., Helmreich, R. L., Gregorich, S. E., & Geis, C. E. (1991). Pilot personality and crew coordination: Implications for training and selection. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 25-44.
4. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Morrow.
5. Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. In R. H. Turner & J. F. Short (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 8, pp. 209-235). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
6. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R., & Catanzarite, L. (1988). Can expectations for competence be altered in the classroom? In M. Webster & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 27-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7. Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541-553.
9. Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-60.
10. Driskell, J. E., & Webster, M. (1985). Status generalization. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 108-141). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. Driskell, J. E., & Webster, M. (1997). Status and sentiment in task groups. In J. Szmatka, J. Skvoretz, & J. Berger (Eds.), Status, network, and structure: Problems in theory construction and theory development (pp. 179-200). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
12. Foushee, H. C. (1982). The role of communications, social-psychological, and personality factors in the maintenance of crew coordination. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1062-1066.
13. Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39, 885-893.
14. Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1988). Group interaction and flight crew performance. In E. L. Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 189-228). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15. Gerber, G. L. (1996). Status in same-gender and mixed-gender police dyads: Effects on personality attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 350-363.
16. Ginnett, R. C. (1993). Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 71-98). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. Hackman, J. R. (1993). Teams, leaders, and organizations: New directions for crew-oriented flight training. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 47-69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Harper, C. R., Kidera, G. J., & Cullen, J. F. (1971). Study of simulated airline pilot incapacitation: Phase II, subtle or partial loss of function. Aerospace Medicine, 42, 946-948.
19. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 108-122.
21. Jentsch, F., Bowers, C., Martin, L., Bamett, J., & Prince, C. (1997, April). Identifying the knowledges, skills, and abilities needed by the junior first officer. Paper presented at the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
22. Katz, I. S. (1970). Experimental studies in Negro-White relationships. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 71-117). New York: Academic Press.
23. Mecham, M. (1994, August 22). Korean cvr shows pilot, copilot rift. Aviation Week and Space Technology.
24. National Transportation Safety Board. (1980). Air-craft accident report: Air New England, Inc. DeHavillande DHC-6-30, N383EX, Hyannis, Massachusetts, June 17, 1979 (Report No. NTSB-AAR80-1). Washington, DC: Author.
25. National Transportation Safety Board. (1982). Aircraft accident report: Air Florida, Inc., Boeing B-737-222. N62AF, collision with 14th Street bridge, near Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C., January 13, 1982 (Report No. NTSB-AAR-82-8). Washington, DC: Author.
26. National Transportation Safety Board. (1994). A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. air carriers, 1978 through 1990 (Safety Study NTSB/SS-94/01). Washington, DC: Author.
27. Palmer, M. T., Lack, A. M., & Lynch, J. C. (1995). Communications conflicts of status and authority in dyadic, task-based interactions: Status generalization in airplane cockpits. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 85-101.
28. Park, R. E. (1928). Bases of race prejudice. The Annals, 140, 11-20.
29. Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 337-367). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30. Pugh, M. D., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746-762.
31. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published 1908)
32. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909-936.
33. Stouffer, S. A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H., Williams, R. M., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., Star, S. A., & Cottrell, L. S. (1949). The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Torrance, E. P. (1955). Some consequences of power differences on decision making in permanent and temporary three-man groups. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small groups (pp. 482-492). New York: Knopf.
35. Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory (pp. 23-63). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140-165.
37. Webster, M., Jr., & Foschi, M. (1988). Overview of status generalization. In M. Webster & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 1-20). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
38. Webster, M., & Hysom, S. J. (in press). Creating status characteristics. American Sociological Review.
39. Wood, W, & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341-347.