Sleep loss can have a significant effect on team performance in many occupations. Sleep loss has been studied in isolation, long-haul trucking, military watch. Teams in other occupations must work together at all hours of the day or night.
Original Description:
Original Title
Effects of Sleep Loss on Team Decision Making= Motivational
Sleep loss can have a significant effect on team performance in many occupations. Sleep loss has been studied in isolation, long-haul trucking, military watch. Teams in other occupations must work together at all hours of the day or night.
Sleep loss can have a significant effect on team performance in many occupations. Sleep loss has been studied in isolation, long-haul trucking, military watch. Teams in other occupations must work together at all hours of the day or night.
more compelling than in those occupations that combine long night shifts, isolation, a strong vig- ilance or monitoring component, and risk or con- sequence should vigilance lapse (e.g., long-haul trucking, military watch, and power plant and sys- tems monitoring). Pragmatically, therefore, the ex- tant laboratory-based scientic literature on the effects of sleep loss has focused extensively on the performance of the individual (e.g., Angus & Heselgrave, 1985; Lisper & Kjellberg, 1972; H. L. Williams, Lubin, & Goodnow, 1959), often when conducting repetitive, monotonous tasks and with limited environmental stimulation. (For reviews of various portions of this vast literature see Dinges & Kribbs, 1991; Harrison & Horne, 2000; Horne, 1988; Johnson, 1982; Kjellberg, 1977; Krueger, 1989; Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996.) In contrast, many other important occupations require people to work effectively together for long periods of time and at all hours of the day or night (e.g., police, reghters, emergency med- ical services, and military command teams). More generally, the increasing prevalence of work teams in contemporary society (Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988; Hackman, 1986; Swezey & Salas, 1992), coupled with ever-increasing productivity demands, has provided a need to better understand Effects of Sleep Loss on Team Decision Making: Motivational Loss or Motivational Gain? Joseph V. Baranski and Megan M. Thompson, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada, Frederick M. J. Lichacz, Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre, Ottawa, Canada, Carol McCann, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada, Valerie Gil, Transport Canada, Montreal, Canada, Luigi Past, John Abbott College, Montreal, Canada, and Ross A. Pigeau, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada Objective: To examine the effects of 30 hr of sleep loss and continuous cognitive work on performance in a distributed team decision-making environment. Background: To date, only a few studies have examined the effect of sleep loss on distributed team performance, and only one other to our knowledge has examined the relationship between sleep loss and social-motivational aspects of teams (Hoeksema-van Orden, Gaillard, & Buunk, 1998). Method: Sixteen teams participated; each comprised 4 members. Three team members made threat assessments on a military surveillance task and then forwarded their judgments electronically to a team leader, who made a nal assessment on behalf of the team. Results: Sleep loss had an antagonistic effect on team decision-making accuracy and decision time. However, the performance loss associated with fatigue attributable to sleep loss was mediated by being part of a team, as compared with performing the same task individually that is, we found evidence of a motivational gain effect in these sleepy teams. We compare these results with those of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), who found clear evidence of a social loaf- ing effect in sleepy teams. Conclusion: The divergent results are discussed in the context of the collective effort model (Karau & Williams, 1993) and are attributable in part to a difference between independent and interdependent team tasks. Application: The issues and ndings have implications for a wide range of distributed, collaborative work environments, such as military network-enabled operations. Address correspondence to Joseph V. Baranski, Defence Research and Development Canada, 1133 Sheppard Ave. West, P.O. Box 2000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3M 3B9; joe.baranski@drdc-rddc.gc.ca. HUMANFACTORS, Vol. 49, No. 4, August 2007, pp. 646660. DOI 10.1518/001872007X215728. Copyright Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2007. SLEEPY TEAMS 647 how fatigue attributable to sleep loss may affect the performance of teams as opposed to individuals. Surprisingly, there has been but a handful of studies of the effects of fatigue attributable to sleep loss on team performance (Allnutt, Has- lam, Rejman, & Green, 1990; Banderet, Stokes, Francesconi, Kowal, & Naitoh, 1981; Elliott et al., 2002; Foushee, Lauber, Baetge, & Acomb, 1986; Hoeksema-van Orden, Gaillard, & Buunk, 1998). Some of these studies have demonstrated performance loss with increasing fatigue (Band- eret et al., 1981; Foushee et al., 1986; Hoeksema- van Orden et al., 1998), whereas others have not (Allnutt et al., 1990; Elliott et al., 2002). However, several of these ndings are difcult to interpret because of methodological constraints that ultimately confounded fatigue with team familiarity (Foushee et al., 1986), task duration (Banderet et al., 1981), and learning effects (Elliott et al., 2002). Moreover, one study (Allnutt et al., 1990) that did show differential sensitivity to sleep loss in individual and team tasks unfortunately employed tasks in the individual and team condi- tions that were very different in terms of interest level and complexity. Social Loang and Motivational Gains in Teams When considering the issue of how fatigue at- tributable to sleep loss might affect the perfor- mance of teams, specically relative to individual performance under identical conditions, two sem- inal social psychological phenomena immediate- ly become relevant: group motivational losses and group motivational gains. The most well- documented class of group motivational losses is the social loang effect (Latan, Williams, & Hark- ins, 1979; for reviews see Geen, 1991; Karau & Williams, 1993; Shepperd, 1993), referring to the tendency of individuals to reduce their effort when working in a group compared with when they are working alone. Because sleep deprivation leads to lower arousal, which can impact effort (Angus & Heselgrave, 1985; Krueger, 1989), and because it is easier to loaf when one is part of a team, fa- tigue attributable to sleep loss might be expected to exacerbate any performance loss associated with being part of a team. Group motivational gains, on the other hand, occur when individuals exert more effort when part of a group than when they act alone and are associated with better group than individual per- formance, at least in those tasks in which higher motivation will translate into better performance (Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996). Although demonstrations of motivational gains have proven to be much more empirically elusive than social loafing effects (Hertel, Kerr, & Mess, 2000; Karau, Markus, & Williams, 2000), studies docu- menting the positive effects of group membership on performance outcomes continue to occasional- ly appear in the group literature. According to the motivational gain perspective, it is possible that individuals may expend increased effort to over- come the burden of fatigue attributable to sleep loss in order to continue to contribute to effective group or team performance. Theoretical Explanations of Social Loang and Motivational Gains Several explanations have been proffered to ex- plain social loang, including social impact theo- ry (Latan, 1981; see also Jackson & Williams, 1985); the potential for individuals to be identied and evaluated (Harkins & Szymanski, 1988, 1989), the dispensability of individual contributions (Kerr & Bruun, 1983); the reduction of self-awareness in groups (Mullen, 1983), and whether individuals seek to match their efforts to those of other group members (Jackson & Harkins, 1985). Similarly, various explanations have been offered to explain group motivational gains, including social com- pensation (K. D. Williams & Karau, 1991), in- creased effort on the part of weaker team members (Khler, 1926), and social competition (see Stroebe et al., 1996). The eld signicantly beneted from Karau and Williamss (1993) collective effort model (CEM), which integrates these various explanations into a unied theory of group processes and perfor- mance that accounts for both motivational losses and gains. CEM builds on expectancy value mod- els in which an individuals effort is a function of his or her expectations concerning the instru- mentality of his or her actions and the subjective meaning or value of the task outcome. CEM ap- plies these notions to the more complex surround of group tasks that pose unique difculties for motivating individuals because collective tasks introduce additional contingencies, each of which can potentially serve as a barrier to peoples per- ceptions that their efforts will be instrumental in obtaining desirable outcomes (Karau et al., 2000, p. 180). 648 August 2007 Human Factors According to the CEM, individuals will modi- fy their efforts on group tasks depending on (a) the identiability or the evaluation potential of their outputs (by self, others in the group, or by an ex- perimenter), (b) the perceived uniqueness of their contribution to group outcomes, (c) the existence of relevant performance comparison standards, and (d) the task being perceived as protable be- cause of extrinsic rewards or by virtue of some intrinsic value to the individual. Hence, CEM spec- ies that in a group task individuals will expend effort equal to that in individual conditions (i.e., social loang effects will be minimized) under four conditions. Individuals must expect that: (a) their individual efforts relate to individual perfor- mance; (b) their individual performance directly impacts upon the groups performance; (c) group performance will lead to a favorable and valued group outcome; and (d) the group outcome is re- lated to a favorable, valued individual outcome. CEM also helps researchers to infer conditions under which individual performance in a group will exceed individual performance on individual tasks. For instance, motivational gains might be expected when valued outcomes are more likely to result from the group activity, relative to that of an individually or coactively performed activity. Moreover, individual effort expended in a group task must be a more likely predictor of valued in- dividual outcomes than would be the case if the individual continued to work alone or coactively (Karau et al., 2000). Karau et al. (2000) provided the example of a task in which the individual believes that he or she must work hard for the group to perform optimally and that the individ- ual will obtain the rewards that are associated with that good group performance. In general, then, CEM species the link among individual performance, group performance, group outcomes, and individual outcomes. It also acknowledges a range of valued collective out- comes (i.e., social outcomes such as cohesion and feelings of belonging, self-evaluation, validation, and self-esteem based on performance relevant to a valued standard), in addition to traditional in- dividual level outcomes. Finally, the comprehen- siveness of the CEM also allows for interactions among key variables not previously considered together. For instance, individuals will increase their efforts when they expect that their cowork- ers are not performing well, but only on tasks that are valued. CEM and Group Productivity Under Sleep Deprivation Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) applied the CEM to the intriguing question of how fatigue affects team performance and whether identia- bility (various levels of performance feedback) and a valued outcome (performance bonuses) might reduce the effects of social loang. In their rst experiment, 32 participants underwent a 20-hr sleep deprivation experiment either as individuals or as 4-person teams. Testing runs consisted of ve 4-hr sessions (i.e., 20 hr), each involving 3.5 hr of continuous cognitive tasks and a 1 2-hr break. Each 3.5-hr block involved two 25-min sessions of two simple tasks (i.e., serial reaction time and memory search), and two 25-min sessions of a more complex and dynamic process-monitoring task. All participants worked independently of each other and at their own pace. However, half of the participants were assigned to 4-person teams at the outset of the study. Participants in the team condition were told that the performance of the 4 members would be summed (i.e., the team task was additive and noninterdependent) and that they could earn a bonus for good team performance. Participants in the individual condition were told that they could earn a bonus for good performance. The actual probability of winning the bonus was identical in the individual and team conditions. The ndings revealed that performance on all cog- nitive tasks deteriorated with sleep loss but, im- portantly, this deterioration was more pronounced in the latter sessions of the team condition that is, the results showed that social loang occurred and that it was accentuated by fatigue attributable to sleep loss. Their second experiment involved only teams, but half of the members received performance feedback at the level of the team whereas the other half received performance feedback at the level of the individual. Once again the results revealed evidence of social loang and, as hypothesized, individual-level feedback moderated (but did not eliminate) the amount of social loang. In sum- mary, Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) have provided clear evidence that fatigue attributable to sleep loss accentuates the performance loss associated with social loang when individuals participate in a team context. However, the pres- ence of a potentially valued personal outcome (a SLEEPY TEAMS 649 performance bonus) and identiability (via per- formance feedback) served to reduce the degree of social loang in this setting. The Present Study Apotentially important aspect of the Hoeksema- van Orden et al. (1998) experiments is that each team member completed an identical task as his or her contribution to the team output. In other words, team members did not make a unique contribution to the team product. The present study sought to extend the ndings of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) to an interdependent team context in which each team member provides a unique contribution to the team output, an important variable identi- ed in the CEM. Although clearly some team tasks are not inter- dependent in nature, one of the main reasons that teams are formed is precisely because the task at hand is too complex or too demanding to be per- formed by an individual, and specic tasks are divided between individuals (see Brehmer, 1991). Thus, in contrast to the team conguration used in Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), in which each team member completed identical tasks that contributed to a team outcome, we had team mem- bers make unique contributions to a team prod- uct. That is, a unique contribution from each team member was always required for the team task to be completed. Following from CEM, we predict- ed that unique individual contributions to a team task would at least reduce the likelihood of social loang in the team condition and perhaps even produce a motivational gain. Extending the results of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998, Experiment 2), a second objective of this research was to manipulate the type of feed- back provided to the participants. Specically, each team participated in three conditions, in which the performance of each team member was disclosed to all other team members (Condition A, full feed- back), disclosed only to themselves (Condition B, own feedback), or not disclosed to anyone (Condi- tion C, no feedback). We predicted that the highest degree of social loang under fatigue would occur in the no-feedback condition (Condition C) and the least would occur in the full-feedback condi- tion (Condition A). Moreover, we also explored whether the status of the participant (team member or team leader) and the feedback condition (i.e., whether or not the team members performance was reported to the team leader) would affect the tendency to- ward social loang. Thus we varied, as a between- subjects factor, whether or not the team leader was privy to the performance of his or her team mem- bers. We hypothesized that teams in which lead- ers were provided with feedback at the individual member level would show less social loang than in conditions in which the leader did not receive team member performance feedback. METHOD Participants Sixty-four adults (mean age = 21.7 years) each served for 60 hr of experimental participation in return for approximately $400.00 (Canadian). Our intention was to study 4-person military teams. However, because of high training demands, an in- sufcient number of military personnel were avail- able at the time of the study. Accordingly, eight teams consisted of military personnel recruited by advertisement from Toronto-area reserve units and eight teams consisted of civilians recruited by advertisement from Toronto-area universities. Preliminary analyses revealed some differences between these teams; accordingly, we henceforth report team type (military vs. civilian) as a between- subjects factor in subsequent analyses. All par- ticipants were classied as t to participate if they were healthy, medication-free for at least 1 week prior to the experiment, and had no allergies or cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, or sleep- related disorders. All participants were fully in- formed about the procedures to be employed, signed consent forms for participation, and were given a full debrieng upon completion of the study. Finally, all participants were naive con- cerning the nature and aims of the study, which was approved by the Defence Research and De- velopment Canada Human Research Ethics Com- mittee. Apparatus As in the Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) study, teams comprised 4 members, who were physically separated from each other in their own rooms. Each room was equipped with two com- puter workstations, a bed, and an intercom system that permitted communication with the experi- menters. Each room and workstation was moni- tored from a separate control room, equipped with a PC console for task delivery, an intercom system, 650 August 2007 Human Factors four monitors to observe participant performance online, and four monitors to observe participants through closed-circuit cameras. Eight channels of electrophysiological recording were collected continuously using Embla (Flaga hf, Iceland) am- bulatory data recorders. Circadian rhythms were tracked by taking oral temperature every 2 hr using digital thermometers. Design and Procedure Participants arrived at 08:00 on Day 1 of the study and departed at approximately 17:00 on Day 3. Upon arrival, participants were familiar- ized with the lab, were briefed on the experiment, and signed informed consent forms. All time cues were then removed (e.g., watches, cell phones, pagers), and a team leader was selected accord- ing to rank for military teams and age for civilian teams. Participants then lled out computer-based questionnaires (e.g., demographics). All foods and beverages containing caffeine were terminated at 12:00 of Day 1, but food and drinks were available to participants throughout the study. From 10:00 to 17:00, participants prac- ticed the various individual and team tasks. At ap- proximately 17:00, participants were outtted with electroencephalographic recording equipment. Following a dinner break, participants performed a formal practice run (19:0021:00). Participants slept in the laboratory from 22:00 of Day 1 to 06:00 of Day 2. The formal experiment ran con- tinuously from 08:00 on Day 2 to 12:00 on Day 3. At the end of the study, participants were de- briefed, their electrodes were removed, and they ate and showered, leaving the lab at approximate- ly 17:00. Because of their sleep-deprived state, participants departed via a prearranged pickup, or a taxi was provided. The individual and team decision-making experiment consisted of 14 consecutive blocks, each 2 hr in duration, run between 08:00 on Day 2 and 12:00 of Day 3 (i.e., 28 hr). Each 2-hr block comprised (approximately) 1 hr 40 min of sus- tained cognitive work and a break period of ap- proximately 20 min. During breaks, participants ate, watched movies, used the washroom, had their electrodes checked, and interacted with each other and with the experimenters. Each 1 hr 40 min block was composed of a team (or solo) decision- making session (24 min), a high-level cognitive task (24 min), another team (or solo) decision- making session (24 min), and a psychomotor task battery (approximately 24 min). The entire exper- iment was scripted into an automated task de- livery system that permitted precise control of task timing. Team and Individual Threat Assessment Task (TITAN). TITAN is a computer-based simulation of a naval shipboard surveillance and threat assess- ment task designed for studying individual and team judgment and decision-making performance (for related tasks, see Hollenbeck et al., 1995; McCann, Baranski, Thompson, & Pigeau, 2000). Participants saw a radar-like screen on which contacts (symbolized by asterisks) surrounded a symbol representing own ship. The contacts represent surface, subsurface, and air trafc that has been identied by the ships radar system. Each contact was assessed based on information available from drop-down menus. Seven pieces of information were available for each contact (e.g., speed, direction, bearing), and participants were informed that each piece of information should be weighted equally toward the overall threat as- sessment. The processing of an individual contact in- volves a specic sequence of events. First, a con- tact is selected (i.e., hooked) by the team leader by pointing and clicking on the target with a mouse. The contact is then automatically high- lighted for each subordinate member. (Recall that the task is computer mediated and distributed; i.e., all team members are in separate rooms and there is no voice communication.) Next, each sub- ordinate member hooks the contact on their own consoles, and a menu appears with seven infor- mation elements. Subordinates then click on each item (e.g., speed) and receive a value on that dimension (e.g., 300 miles per hr). These values are then cross-referenced with a decision matrix, which allows the subordinate to categorize the value as peaceful, hostile, or unknown. The subor- dinate then combines the data into a single threat assessment. They then submit their threat assess- ment to the system using a sliding visual analog probability scale (from 0, no threat, to 1, highest threat). Importantly, as soon as a subordinate en- ters an assessment, the system forwards that assess- ment to the leader and remaining subordinates. Once the leader receives all three subordinate assessments, he or she submits a nal threat as- sessment to the system on behalf of the team. Fi- nally, depending upon the experimental condition, SLEEPY TEAMS 651 feedback is or is not provided by the system on the accuracy of the assessment. Once processed, the contact disappears from the screen, and the leader then selects the next contact to be processed by the team. In each session participants were in- structed to process as many contacts as possible while maintaining as high an accuracy level as pos- sible. Aclock in the corner of the screen displayed the elapsed time since the start of the session. Team task interdependency. As mentioned pre- viously, it was important to ensure a high degree of task interdependency among team members and to highlight the unique contributions of each member. Accordingly, these aspects were explic- itly built into the cue interrogation process for each contact. Specically, each of the three subordi- nates received the following instructions: You will each be responsible for seven information items three unique items and four items that you share in common with other subordinates. For ex- ample, Alpha will have two items in common with Bravo and two items in common with Charlie, re- sulting in four overlapping items. Similarly, Bravo will have two items in common with Alpha and two in common with Charlie, and so on. Thus, across all three subordinates, there were 15 information items in total: Alpha received Infor- mation Items 1, 2, and 3; Bravo received Informa- tion Items 4, 5, and 6; Charlie Received Information Items 7, 8, and 9; Alpha and Bravo both received Information Items 10 and 11; Bravo and Charlie both received Information Items 12 and 13; and Charlie and Alpha both received Information Items 14 and 15. The team leader was likewise aware of this ma- nipulation, having been given these instructions: After you select a contact, your subordinates will review their contact information, then submit their threat estimates to you. Each subordinate is re- sponsible for seven information items three unique items and four items that they share in com- mon with other subordinates. For example, Alpha will have two items in common with Bravo and two items in common with Charlie, resulting in four overlapping items. Similarly, Bravo will have two items in common with Alpha and two in common with Charlie, and so on. Once all 3 sub- ordinates have entered a threat estimate it is your job to use their responses to establish the best overall threat assessment for the contact. Importantly, subordinates and leaders did not know which cue items were shared and which were unique. Hence all participants were aware of the fact that a response was required from each team member and that the accuracy of that re- sponse was clearly linked to the overall team out- come for each contact. Design and feedback manipulations. The feed- back from the system was based upon a computer algorithm that reected a perfect equal weighting rule, based on the information elements provided to the 3 subordinates. Feedback was provided in two ways: (a) A solid black bar was displayed on the visual analog scale to denote the true threat level of the contact, and (b) the mean absolute er- ror (percentage) between the assessment and the true score provided by the system was also dis- played. Thus, if each subordinate made perfectly accurate assessments of his or her own information and the leader took the average of the three assess- ments, then there would be no error in the nal assessment. However, this was rarely the case. The design of the study involved one between- groups factor that was based upon whether or not the leader received trial-by-trial feedback on the accuracy of the subordinates assessments. The other between-groups factor nested within the rst factor was denoted by civilian or military teams; four teams in each leader feedback condition were civilian and four were military. One within-groups factor was denoted by the nature of trial-by-trial feedback that the subordinates received on the accuracy of their and the other subordinates assessments that is, Conditions A(full feedback), B (only own feedback), and C (no feedback), as described in the Introduction. The other within-subjects factor was session. Each TITAN session began with a 20-s presenta- tion of a message that informed all team members about the feedback that would be available during that session. For example, in a partial feedback condition, all participants would see the following In this session: LEADER gets: FEEDBACK on his/her own judgment FEEDBACK on each team members judgment EACH TEAM MEMBER gets: FEEDBACK on his/her own judgment NO FEEDBACK on each team mem- bers judgment The nal TITAN condition that completed the design involved all members performing in a 652 August 2007 Human Factors 24-min solo TITAN condition once every 2 hr. From the perspective of the 48 subordinates, the solo version of the task was identical to that expe- rienced in Team Condition B (see the Introduc- tion), except that they were not performing in the context of a team that is, there was no leader, subordinates selected their contacts and processed the same cue information as in the team condition, and they also received feedback on their own per- formance. For the 16 team leaders, the task was novel as leaders are not required to evaluate threat levels when performing in the team context. Ac- cordingly, these specic analyses will focus only on the performance of the 48 subordinates when they performed the solo TITAN version as com- pared with their own performance in the team context. In sum, each participant performed four unique TITAN sessions every 2 hr. Three versions were in a team context and differed only in the amount of feedback that was provided to the leader and subordinates; the fourth condition was a solo ver- sion of the TITAN task and was used as a baseline against which to gauge the degree and time course of social loang or motivational gain. The presen- tation order of the four TITAN sessions was coun- terbalanced across teams. RESULTS The results are presented in three sections. As a manipulation check, the rst section provides data concerning sleep parameters for the various con- ditions, oral temperature, and self-assessments of subjective fatigue. The second section examines the effects of the various feedback manipulations on team performance during sleep deprivation. The nal section examines the effects of fatigue on social loang or motivational gain. Sleep and Fatigue Analyses Sleep measures. Analyses of sleep physiology measures (Rechtschaffen & Kales, 1968) for the rst night were conducted for 52 of the 64 partic- ipants for whom full data sets were available. The data were analyzed by a 2 2 between-groups ANOVA, with team type (civilian vs. military) as one between-groups factor and whether or not the leader received feedback on the performance of each subordinate as the other between-groups fac- tor. Results showed that civilians spent more time in bed, F(1, 48) = 92.19, p < .0001 (civilian = 476.9 min, SD= 13.0, military = 447.3 min, SD= 8.7), but they also spent more time awake in bed, F(1, 48) = 11.9, p < .001 (civilian = 22.5 min, SD= 16.6, military = 10.3 min, SD= 8.2). No other effects for any of the other sleep measures were reliable, suggesting that sleep efciency was com- parable across all conditions. Fatigue measures. Oral temperatures and Stan- ford sleepiness scores (Hoddes, Zarcone, Smythe, Phillips, & Dement, 1973) were obtained from each participant every 2 hr throughout the formal experiment, for a total of 14 observations per par- ticipant. Oral temperature is a traditional circadi- an measure related to fatigue (e.g., Froberg, 1977; Monk, 1991), and the Stanford Sleepiness score is a standardized sleepiness index, employed rou- tinely in sleep loss and performance studies (see Babkoff, Caspy, & Mikulincer, 1991; Babkoff, Caspy, Mikulincer, & Sing, 1991). The scale ranges from 1 (feeling active and vital; alert; wide awake) to 7 (almost in reverie; sleep onset soon; losing struggle to remain awake). The results, presented in Figure 1, reveal that overall, these data display the expected trends of increasing fatigue and de- clining body temperature with increasing sleep loss, conrming that by the early morning of Day 2 our participants were indeed sleepy teams. Effects of Feedback Manipulations on Team Performance The effects of feedback were examined by a repeated measures ANOVA with two between- subject factors (team type: civilian vs. military; leader feedback: yes vs. no) and two within- subject factors. One within-subjects factor with three levels was denoted by the type of feedback (FB) that the subordinates received: (a) full FB (feedback on their own performance and each of the other subordinates), (b) own FB (feedback on their own performance), and (c) no FB (no feed- back at all). The other within-subject factor that reected the effect of fatigue attributable to sleep loss was sessions. After counterbalancing the teams over the order of presentation of the various TITAN congurations, seven levels of the session factor were dened: Day 2 08:00 to 1100, Day 2 12:00 to 15:00, Day 2 16:00 to 19:00, Day 2 20:00 to 23:00, Day 3 00:00 to 03:00, Day 3 04:00 to 07:00, and Day 3 08:00 to 11:00. Two dependent measures were used to evalu- ate team decision-making performance: mean ab- solute error of the threat assessments (denoted by SLEEPY TEAMS 653 percentage error from the true score) and mean target processing time (in seconds). Target process- ing times greater than three standard deviations from the mean were trimmed as outliers. The ANOVAon the assessment accuracy mea- sure revealed a signicant main effect of sessions, F(6, 72) = 4.58, MSE = 0.0009, p < .0001. As the top panel of Figure 2 shows, accuracy rst im- proved with practice, peaking by the late afternoon of Day 2. Note that each point in Figure 2 repre- sents a 3-hr time block during which teams per- formed the TITAN task twice per hour. Hence, by this time, teams had completed more than 18 TITAN sessions, not including practice on Day 1. Beginning on the evening of Day 2, percentage error in threat assessments begins to increase so that by the end of the study, error had increased al- most 30% above the optimum achieved on Day 2. No other main effects or interactions approached signicance, including the critical interaction be- tween session and subordinate feedback (F< 1.0). Specically, as is evident in Figure 3, performance in the condition in which there was no feedback did not differ from any of the other feedback con- ditions. The ANOVA conducted on mean processing time likewise revealed a signicant effect of ses- sions, F(6, 72) = 17.67, MSE = 958.2, p < .0001. As is evident in the bottom panel of Figure 2, pro- cessing times rst declined with practice, again reaching an optimum in the late afternoon of Day 2. Thereafter, processing times showed a steady increase with increasing sleep deprivation. Indeed, by the end of the study, processing times in- creased by 27% over the optimal times obtained on Day 2. The only other effect to achieve statistical sig- nicance was an interaction between sessions and team type, F(6, 72) = 4.79, MSE= 259.7, p < .001. Whereas civilian and military teams displayed the same pattern of processing times evident in the lower panel of Figure 2, military teams displayed a larger increase in processing times with increas- ing sleep deprivation. For example, civilian and military teams displayed similar processing times from 16:00 to 19:00 of Day 2 (40.52 s, SEM = 4.00 s, vs. 44.13 s, SEM= 3.78 s, respectively) but displayed a larger difference for the last session (47.83 s, SEM= 5.18 s, vs. 59.41 s, SEM= 4.78 s, respectively). Finally, as is evident in the bottom panel of Figure 3, no other main effects or inter- actions approached significance, including the critical interaction between session and subordi- nate feedback conditions (F < 1.0). Experiment Time S t a n f o r d
S l e e p i n e s s
S c o r e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Day 2 Day 3 0940 1140 1340 1540 1740 1940 2140 2340 0140 0340 0540 0740 0940 1140 T e m p e r a t u r e
( C o ) 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 36.8 Stanford Sleepiness Scores Temperature Figure 1. Stanford Sleepiness scores and oral temperatures as a function of experiment time. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across participants. 654 August 2007 Human Factors Session A s s e s s m e n t
E r r o r
( % ) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 T a r g e t
P r o c e s s i n g
T i m e
( s ) 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 Session Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100 Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100
Figure 2. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time periods in the team TITAN task. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across teams. SLEEPY TEAMS 655 Session A s s e s s m e n t
E r r o r
( % ) 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Full Feedback No FB Own FB Only T a r g e t
P r o c e s s i n g
T i m e
( s ) 40 44 48 52 56 60 Session Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100 Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100 Figure 3. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time periods in the team TITAN task. Data are presented separately for the three within-team feedback manipulations (i.e., full feedback, partial feedback, and no feedback). Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across teams. FB = feedback. 656 August 2007 Human Factors Social Loang: Motivational Gain Analyses The question of social loang versus motiva- tional gain was examined by a repeated measures ANOVA with two between-subject factors and two within-subjects factors. The rst between- subjects factor was team type (civilian vs. mili- tary), and the second, leader feedback, as before denoted whether or not the leader received feed- back on the subordinates performance in the team task. Because the 16 leaders performed a dif- ferent task in the team context, data for only the 48 subordinates are included in these analyses, which focus on a comparison of the solo TITAN condition with that of the team condition. Critically, the task requirements for the subor- dinates in the solo TITAN task were identical to the team task version that provided no feedback on the accuracy of the other subordinates. That is, the only difference was that in the latter case the participant was performing in the context of a team and thus had the associated consequences of his or her own performance on the performance of the team. Hence, one within-subjects factor, which we call team/solo, denoted whether the subordinate participated in the solo TITAN task or in the con- text of the team. The other within-subject factor that reected the effect of fatigue attributable to sleep loss was sessions (seven levels). Again, there were two dependent measures: mean absolute accuracy of the threat assessments (denoted by percentage error from the true score) and mean tar- get processing time (in seconds). Target process- ing times greater than three standard deviations from the mean were trimmed as outliers. The results of the two ANOVAs were perfect- ly consistent. First, there were no main effects or interactions involving the between-group factors (team type and leader feedback). Second, as ex- pected, the main effect of sessions was reliable for both dependent measures, conrming an effect of fatigue attributable to sleep loss: For accuracy, F(6, 264) = 5.16, MSE = 37.40, p < .0001; for processing time, F(6, 264) = 11.66, MSE= 297.3, p< .0001. Third, each ANOVAalso revealed faster and more accurate performance in the team than the solo context: For accuracy, F(1, 44) = 16.76, MSE = 359.43, p < .0002; for processing time, F(1, 44) = 5.83, MSE = 353.6, p < .02. Finally, the latter main effect of team/solo was moderated by a signicant interaction between session and team/solo: For accuracy, F(6, 264) = 2.23, MSE = 11.88, p < .05; for processing time, F(6, 264) = 5.13, MSE = 97.1, p < .0001. The ef- fects, shown in Figure 4, show that accuracy and processing time did not differ initially between the team and solo contexts. However, fatigue in- duced a much larger performance decrement when individuals performed alone than when they per- formed exactly the same task in the context of a team. Thus, in contrast to the ndings reported by Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), the present ndings provide clear evidence of a motivational gain effect with people performing a highly inter- dependent team task during sleep deprivation. DISCUSSION Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Allnutt et al., 1990; Banderet et al., 1981; Hoeksema-van Orden et al., 1998), the present research conrms the antagonistic effects of fatigue attributable to sleep loss on team performance, this time in the con- text of a distributed and interdependent decision- making task. Although the interdependent nature of the team task was insufcient to eliminate com- pletely the effects of fatigue, it was powerful enough to produce a motivational gain effect, which was apparent as sleep deprivation condi- tions continued. That is, participants performing in the team context displayed signicantly better performance than they did performing the same task alone. This result contrasts with those of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998), who found a social loang effect in a noninterdependent (i.e., additive) team task. Importantly, providing a unique contribution in an interdependent team task provides only a par- tial explanation for obtaining a motivational gain effect under conditions of fatigue. Specically, as is evident in Figure 4, if making a unique contri- bution in an interdependent task was sufcient to produce a motivational gain, then it would have been evident at the outset, rather than emerging only with increasing fatigue caused by sleep depri- vation. In a recent review, Karau et al. (2000) expounded upon CEM in the context of several documented motivating properties of groups that can give rise to motivational gains, including so- cial compensation, the Khler effect, group com- position, and social competition. Of these, social compensation appears to be particularly relevant in the present context. SLEEPY TEAMS 657 Session A s s e s s m e n t
E r r o r
( % ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Subordinate - Solo Subordinate - Team T a r g e t
P r o c e s s i n g
T i m e
( s ) 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Session Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100 Day 2 0800- 1100 Day 2 1200- 1500 Day 2 1600- 1900 Day 2 2000- 2300 Day 3 0000- 0300 Day 3 0400- 0700 Day 3 0800- 1100
Figure 4. Mean assessment error (top panel) and mean target processing time (lower panel) during the seven time periods for individuals in the team and solo versions of the TITAN task. Note that in comparison with Figure 3, the lower panel of this gure denotes the processing time of individuals as compared with that of the entire team. Error bars denote the standard error of the mean across participants. 658 August 2007 Human Factors According to the social compensation model (Karau et al., 2000), when individuals rely on other group members for a valued group outcome and there is some expectation that other group mem- bers may perform poorly, individuals may exert additional effort on the task in order to ensure group success. Of course, this would be the case only if individuals believed they could actually compensate for the poorer performance of the other members and they valued the performance of the group so much that they were inclined to take on the added burden of responsibility. Recall that the conguration of our team task highlighted the unique contribution that each member was providing. This task feature enabled all participants to contribute directly to the overall accuracy and timeliness of the team and thus pro- vided them with the opportunity for social com- pensation. In addition, the presence of feedback in some of the sessions would have provided some indication that the performance of their team was declining. This meets a further criterion of social compensation: the provision of information that informs the expectation that others might be per- forming poorly. Several observations were at least consistent with this interpretation, although a denitive con- clusion will require additional research. First, it was clear in conducting this study that both civil- ian and military teams developed a high degree of camaraderie and cohesion over the course of the study and that teams were highly motivated to do well, even when extremely tired. Second, par- ticipants were uniformly fatigued during the lat- ter parts of the study and thus were quite aware of the debilitated state that their fellow team mem- bers were in, despite being distributed and not be- ing able to communicate explicitly during the team tasks. We believe that these factors, taken to- gether, may well have provided conditions where- by team members felt some responsibility to exert additional effort to maintain the team performance during the difcult sleep-deprivation stage of the experiment. The previous discussion may also have some bearing on our second objective in this research, which was to examine the impact of various feed- back manipulations on the tendency toward soci- al loang under conditions of fatigue. Whereas the ndings of Hoeksema-van Orden et al. (1998) showed a reduction in social loang when feed- back was provided, our findings revealed that teams performed equally well (in terms of judg- ment accuracy and processing time) regardless of the feedback conditions. Moreover, there was no effect of the status of the feedback recipient (i.e., team member or team leader). Indeed, perhaps the most striking result was evident in the no-feedback condition. In this case, participants could have entered random as- sessments and no one, not even the experimenters, would have known (until, of course, we analyzed the data after the study was completed). Recall that we included this condition precisely in order to provide a condition in which social loang could occur. One interpretation of this result is that the inter- dependent nature of the task produced an envi- ronment whereby team members felt accountable (see Lerner & Tetlock, 1999) for their own perfor- mance and to their teams, so much so that per- formance in the no-feedback condition did not differ from that observed in the full feedback con- dition. Hence, from the perspective of CEM, par- ticipants viewed their input as equally valuable toward the common goal in all feedback condi- tions. Another interpretation of the results is that the conditions involving some degree of feedback established a social or performance norm within these teams and that these norms produced a carry- over effect into sessions in which there was no feedback. Of course, these notions are not mutu- ally exclusive, and further studies are needed in order to directly address these explanations. In summary, when teams are colocated and members can interact face to face, the effects of sleep loss may be delayed or even mitigated by the arousal inherent in social interaction. When teams are distributed and thus not face to face, such as in the present study and the studies by Hoeksema- van Orden et al. (1998), the effects of fatigue caused by sleep loss on team performance may de- pend on the degree of uniqueness of the contribu- tions of the team members. In noninterdependent tasks, social loang is more likely to occur and the degree of social loang will be accentuated by fatigue. In interdependent tasks, on the other hand, team members make a unique contribution to an overall objective. When this objective is valued, team members may be willing to exert additional effort under the burden of fatigue, resulting in en- hanced team performance over individual level performance. In real-world distributed team contexts (e.g., SLEEPY TEAMS 659 military network-enabled operations), these re- sults suggest that designing team and task struc- tures so as to encourage interdependency (or the perception of interdependency) may provide a use- ful countermeasure when fatigue and the concom- itant opportunity for social loang are inevitable. Future research will be required to determine the boundary conditions of the current results. For in- stance, one relevant question is the extent to which the impact of uniqueness of contribution to team tasks and the effect of at least intermittent team per- formance feedback can be preserved over longer periods of time, especially in the face of additional stressors such as time pressure, ambiguity, and tax- ing physical conditions. The ultimate key to pro- moting the conditions in which motivational gains may be realized is configuring team tasks and establishing strong team cohesion to ensure that team-level outcomes are as equally valued as indi- vidual outcomes. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our sincere thanks to Andrea Hawton and Heather Devine for their invaluable assistance throughout every phase of this research. We also thank Tonya Hendricks, Trish Unruh, Andrea Pfrimmer, Susan Baker, and Jennifer Barrett for their assistance with the data collection and Marc Grushcow and NTTSystems Inc. for software de- velopment. Finally, we would like to thank Eduardo Salas and three anonymous reviewers for many insightful comments and suggestions. Portions of this work were presented at the 43rd Annual Meet- ing of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City, Mis- souri, November 2002. REFERENCES Allnutt, M. F., Haslam, D. R., Rejman, M. H., & Green, S. (1990). Sustained performance and some effects on the design and operation of complex systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B327, 529541. Angus, R. G., & Heselgrave, R. J. (1985). Effects of sleep loss on sus- tained cognitive performance during a command and control simu- lation. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 17, 5567. Babkoff, H., Caspy, T., & Mikulincer, M. (1991). Subjective sleepiness ratings: The effects of sleep deprivation, circadian rhythmicity and cognitive performance. Sleep, 14, 534539. Babkoff, H., Caspy, T., Mikulincer, M., & Sing, H. (1991). Monotonic and rhythmic inuences: Achallenge for sleep deprivation research. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 411428. Banderet, L. E., Stokes, J. W., Francesconi, R., Kowal, D. M., & Naitoh, P. (1981). Artillery teams in simulated sustained combat: Performance and other measures. In L. C. Johnson, D. J. Tepas, W. P. Colquhoun, & M. J. Colligan (Eds.), Biological rhythms, sleep and shiftwork (pp. 459477). New York: Spectrum. Brehmer, B. (1991). Distributed decision making: Some notes on the literature. In J. Rasmussen, B. Brehmer, & J. Leplat (Eds.), Distri- buted decision making: Cognitive models for cooperative work (pp. 314). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Dinges, D. F., & Kribbs, N. B. (1991). Performing while sleepy: Effects of experimentally induced sleepiness. In T. H. Monk (Ed.), Sleep, sleepiness, and performance (pp. 97128). New York: Wiley. Elliott, L., Miller, J., Barnes, C., Dalrymple, M., Brown, L., Whitmore, J., et al. (2002, September). Investigation of complex command, control, and communications decision making under sustained operations. In Proceedings of the 7th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Quebec City, Quebec. Paper retrieved from http://www.dodccrp.org Foushee, H. C., Lauber, J. K., Baetge, M. M., & Acomb, D. B. (1986). Crew factors in ight operations: III. The operational signicance of exposure to short-haul air transport operations. Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center. Froberg, J. E. (1977). Twenty-four-hour patterns in human performance, subjective and physiological variables and differences between morning and evening active subjects. Biological Psychology, 5, 119134. Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 377399. Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organi- zations (pp. 295325). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organi- zations. In M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment (pp. 87136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self- evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 354365. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loang and group eval- uation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934941. Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: Areview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 236249. Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Mess, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in per- formance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Khler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580601. Hoddes, E., Zarcone, V., Smythe, H., Phillips, R., & Dement, W. (1973). Quantication of sleepiness: Anew approach. Psychophysiology, 10, 431436. Hoeksema-van Orden, C. Y. D., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Social loang under fatigue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 11791190. Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision-making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292316. Horne, J. A. (1988). Why we sleep: The functions of sleep in humans and other mammals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explana- tion of the social loang effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 11991206. Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loang on difcult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937942. Johnson, L. C. (1982). Sleep deprivation and performance. In W. Webb (Ed.), Biological rhythms, sleep, and performance (pp. 111141). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Karau, S. J., Markus, M. J., & Williams, K. D. (2000). On the elusive search for motivation gains in groups: Insights from the collective effort model. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie, 31, 179190. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loang: Ameta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681706. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 7894. Kjellberg, A. (1977). Sleep deprivation and some aspects of performance: IIII. Waking and Sleeping, 1, 139155. Khler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit 660 August 2007 Human Factors [Physical performance in individual and group situations]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274282. Krueger, G. P. (1989). Sustained work, fatigue, sleep loss and perfor- mance: Areview of the issues. Work and Stress, 3, 129141. Latan, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343356. Latan, B., Williams, K. D., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822832. Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. (1999). Accounting for the effects of account- ability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255275. Lisper, H. O., & Kjellberg, A. (1972). Effects of 24-hour sleep depriva- tion on rate of decrement in a 10-minute auditory reaction time task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 287290. McCann, C., Baranski, J. V., Thompson, M. M., & Pigeau, R. (2000). On the utility of experiential cross-training for team decision making under time stress. Ergonomics, 43, 10951110. Monk, T. H. (1991). Circadian aspects of subjective sleepiness: A behavioral messenger? In T. H. Monk (Ed.) Sleep, sleepiness, and performance (pp. 3963). New York: Wiley. Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the indi- vidual: Aself-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 295322. Pilcher, J. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1996). Effects of sleep deprivation on performance: Ameta analysis. Sleep, 19, 318326. Rechtschaffen, A., & Kales, A. (1968). A manual of standardized ter- minology, techniques and scoring system for sleep stages of human subjects. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Brain Information Service/Brain Research Institute. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 6781. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensa- tion and the Khler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of the motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol. 2. Small group process- es and interpersonal relations (pp. 3765). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: Their training and perfor- mance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Williams, H. L., Lubin, A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1959). Impaired per- formance with acute sleep loss. Psychological Monographs, 73, 126. Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loang and social com- pensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570581. Joseph V. Baranski is a defense scientist and head of the Collaborative Performance and Learning Section at De- fence R&D Canada in Toronto. He obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology in 1992 from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Megan M. Thompson is a defense scientist in the Colla- borative Performance and Learning Section at Defence R&D Canada in Toronto. She obtained her Ph.D. in social psychology in 1992 from the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Canada. Frederick M. J. Lichacz is a defense scientist at the Ca- nadian Forces Experimentation Centre in Ottawa. He obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology in 1998 from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Carol McCann is a defense scientist and head of the Adversary Intent Section at Defence R&D Canada in Toronto. She obtained her masters degree in mathemat- ics in 1979 from the University of Toronto. Valerie Gil is a senior ergonomist with Transport Canada in Montreal. She obtained her Ph.D. in health and behav- ioral science in 1997 from the University of Toronto. Luigi Past is a psychology lecturer at John Abbott College in Montreal, Canada. He obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology in 1995 from the University of Ottawa, Canada. Ross A. Pigeau is chief scientist at Defence R&D Cana- da in Toronto. He obtained his Ph.D. in experimental psychology in 1985 from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Date received: August 9, 2005 Date accepted: August 22, 2006