DOT/FAA/AM-00/32

Edna R. Fiedler

Pam Della Rocco

David J. Schroeder

Kiet T. Nguyen

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

October 2000

Final Report

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

The Relationship Between

Aviators’ Home-Based Stress

To Work Stress and SelfPerceived Performance

Office of Aviation Medicine

Washington, D.C. 20591

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/FAA/AM-00/32

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

October 2000 The Relationship Between Aviators’ Home-Based Stress to

Work Stress and Self-Perceived Performance 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Fiedler, E.R., Della Rocco, P.S., Schroeder, D.J., and Nguyen, K.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

FAA Civil Aeromedcial Institute

P. O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., S. W.

Washington, D.C. 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

Work was accomplished under approved subtask AM-B-99-HRR-518.

16. Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between domestic-based stress and pilots’ perceptions of their

effectiveness in the cockpit and in the office. Despite the importance placed on the family as a source of social

support, there have been few systematic studies of the relationships between pilot family life, workplace stress,

and performance. As part of a larger study, 19 United States Coast Guard (USCG) helicopter pilots at two air

stations completed a stress questionnaire (adapted from Cooper and Sloan, 1986), rated the importance of

various coping strategies, and evaluated their own flying performance The results of this study indicate that

the effects of domestic stress carry over to the pilots’ work world, directly influencing work stress and

indirectly affecting pilots’ perceptions of their flying performance. The positive influence of home life in

mediating stress was noted when pilots were asked to rate the importance of various coping strategies. Pilots

rated three aspects of home life as the most “important” factors in helping them cope with problems or stress.

Thus, domestic-related issues were very important to this group of USCG pilots, suggesting the need for

management to maintain awareness of how the quality of home life may affect the work environment and

overall performance.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Aviators, Pilots, Stress, Job Performance Document is available to the public through

the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 10

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVIATORS’ HOME-BASED STRESS TO

WORK STRESS AND SELF-PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE

The importance of stress to pilot job performance

has been an aviation safety issue for many years, often

discussed under the category of pilot error or human

factors. Despite the importance placed on the family

as a social support, there has been little systematic

study of the relationships between the pilot’s family

life, workplace stress, and performance.

Lehrer, Erickson, and Gilson (1990) asked pilots

to rank order the sources of stress in their lives, based

on a modified Social Readjustment Rating Questionnaire (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Of the 53 items in the

questionnaire, 14 items related to domestic stress.

The top three ratings of the most stressful situations

were domestic stress items. They were 1) death of a

child, 2) death of a mate, and 3) death of a parent.

Seven domestic stress items were among the top ten

stressors. Home-based stressors are important chronic

stresses for a pilot, and should be given consideration

when studying the relationship between the pilot,

work effectiveness, and safe performance.

Sloan and Cooper (1986) completed an in-depth

study of various sources of stress and coping mechanisms in British commercial pilots. They found that

home-based factors were important in both their

impact on work itself and on the ability to cope with

stress. Stability in relationships and home life were

the most important factors in helping pilots cope

with stress. Sloan and Cooper concluded that, in

general, the primary effect of home stress on work is

in the mental or cognitive consequences: recurring

thoughts during periods of low workload, decreased

concentration, and a tendency not to listen. Actual

flying performance was less directly affected by homebased problems.

The study of the degree and effect of home stress

on job performance is a necessary part of preventive

aviation safety and efforts to create a more effective

workplace (Lehrer et al., 1990). Stokes and Kite

(1994) discussed how stress can produce psychological distress, distraction, and worry in the pilot’s

workplace, even when not directly implicated in

aviation safety. Alkov, Gaynor, and Borowsky (1985;

also see Alkov, R.A., Borowsky, M.S., 1980) concluded that military pilot error could be a symptom

of inadequate stress coping. Raymond and Royce

(1995) made the same point in their discussion that

an over-stressed pilot becomes at risk for impaired

performance.

The purpose of this paper was to examine the

relationship between self-reported home stress, work

stress, and perceived performance in U.S. coast guard

(USCG) pilots. Because they frequently change duty

stations, home support systems may be particularly

important within the coast guard pilot population. It

was hypothesized that home-based stress would be

significantly related to pilots’ overall ratings of both

job stress and their flying performance. Also, the

more home stress carries over into the workplace, the

more likely pilots’ ratings of flying performance decrease. The importance of various coping mechanisms and types of home stress were explored and

compared with Sloan and Cooper’s findings.

METHOD

Participants

As part of a larger study, 19 USCG helicopter

pilots at two air stations volunteered to respond to

the questionnaires. One pilot did not complete the

demographic information. Of the 18 pilots who

provided demographic information, the average age

of the sample was 32.9 years (sd = 5.4) with a range

between 26 and 47. The average number of years in

the USCG for the sample was 9.7 (sd = 4.7); on

average, they had been in their assignment for 1.8

years (sd = 1.2). Of the 18 pilots with demographic

data, 14 were married, three were single, and one was

divorced. Nine reported having dependents in the

family, and nine reported no dependents.

Measures

A modification of Sloan and Cooper’s questionnaire

(1986) was selected to measure the psychosocial aspects

of stress. The questionnaire assessed sources of stress,

coping strategies, and self-reported outcomes of stress

on performance. Five sections from the larger battery of

questionnaires are reported in this study. The sections

measuring home stresses and job stresses each consisted
2

of 29 items on a 5-point scale, with 5 indicating “Causes

me very much stress” and 1 being “Causes me no stress.”

The section on “Effect of home stress on work” consisted of 12 items, again scored on a 5-point scale. Types

of coping strategies were measured by 33 items on a 7-

point scale, ranging from 1 for “Of no importance

whatsoever to me in coping” to 7 for “Of paramount

importance to me in coping.” Self-perceived flying

performance was assessed by a 15-item scale with a 5-

point range. Modification on these scales consisted of

changing “wife” to “spouse/partner” and the use of

“one’s” to “my” (ex: “success or failure of one’s effort to

achieve” was changed to “success or failure of my effort

to achieve”). This rephrasing was to align the usage of

the pronoun to American English, eliminating ambiguity of the British English for American readers, while the

change to spouse/partner was done to reflect the American English emphasis on gender-neutral terms.

Procedures

Data were collected as part of a larger study on

crew rest. The study was reviewed and approved by

the Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aeromedical Institute Institutional Review Board. Participants

were individually briefed on the purpose and study

protocol, and they were assured that all data and

information provided would be kept strictly confidential. An informed consent form to participate in

the study was obtained from each participant. Identification numbers were assigned and were used on all

measures (i.e., logbooks, questionnaires, performance

data files, etc.) to assure anonymity. Participants

completed the questionnaire as part of a group of

several other questionnaires.

Data Analysis

To examine the relationship among home stress,

job stress, and self-reported flying performance, total

scale scores were computed. These scale scores included responses on home stressors (Home Stress),

stress experienced in the work environment (Job

Stress), how home stress is experienced or carried over

to the job (Home Stress at Work), types of coping

strategies used (Coping), and self-perceived flying

performance (Flying Performance). Descriptive data

and Pearson correlations were computed among the

scales. The original two databases, consisting of data

from the two different air stations were analyzed to

determine if there were significant differences between pilots at one air station compared with the

other. As there were no significant differences, data

from the two air stations were combined into one

database. Some items referred to interactions with a

“significant other in the home.” Pilots who were

living alone were instructed to leave these items blank

but may have stressors not identified in this study.

Therefore, the numbers of responses do not always

total 18.

RESULTS

Home stress, job stress, and self-perceived

flying performance

As Home Stress scores increased, so did pilots’

rating of Job Stress (r = .81, p. < 01). Also, the more

home stress that was felt in the workplace (Home

Stress at Work), the higher pilots’ ratings of Job Stress

(r = .80, p. < 01). However, neither Home Stress nor

Job Stress, by itself, was significantly related to selfreported Flying Performance (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Relationships of Home Stress, Job Stress, and Flying Performance

Home Stress at Work (n) Job Stress (n) Flying Performance (n)

Home Stress .493(14) .813**(12) -.054 (14)

Home Stress at Work .802**(17) -.470*(18)

Job Stress -.190 (16)

 *p.< .05. **p.< .001
3

Home stress experienced at work and selfperceived flying performance

Pilots perceived their own Flying Performance to be

detrimentally affected when stress in the home carried over to the work setting. There was a significant

relationship between Home Stress at Work scores and

pilots’ self ratings of Flying Performance (r = -.47,

p.<.05). Items of Home Stress at Work that were

significantly correlated with poorer flying performance were tendencies to worry at work (r= -.53, p.

< .05), not listen as intently (r= -.49, p. < .05), and

feeling slowed down at work (r= -.51, p. < .05). Home

Stress at Work was significantly and negatively related

to specific Flying Performance items of being ahead of

the game (r= -.47, p. < .05), smoothness and accuracy

of landings (r= -.45, p. < .05), degree of airmanship

exhibited (r= -.42, p. < .05), and the ability to divide

attention (r= -.39, p. < .05).

Coping strategies and self-perceived flying

performance

The importance of home life in mediating stress

was also seen when pilots rated the importance of

various coping strategies. Coping strategies significantly correlated with higher ratings of Flying Performance were spouse/partner who had prior knowledge

of flying or who flies (r= .47, p. < .05) and hobbies (r=

.49, p. < .05). The coping strategy of living in a nonflying social environment was significantly related to

a lower Flying Performance score (r= -.57, p. < .05).

From a list of 33 coping strategies, over 80% of

pilots rated 11 coping mechanisms as having importance to paramount importance. The three most

important strategies all involved family support. The

first two, stability of relationship with spouse and a

smooth and stable home life, were rated as important

to paramount importance by 100% of the pilots. The

third item, talking to an understanding spouse or

partner, was rated as important to paramount importance by 89% of the pilots. See Table 2.

Specific home stresses

Of the 29 items measuring home stress, more than

half of the pilots rated two items as causing moderate

to very much stress: “Build up of tasks, duties, and

things to do (63%),” and “Disagreements, arguments, different opinions (58%).” Another 12 items

were rated as causing moderate to very much stress by

over one-third of the pilots. On the other hand, more

than 80% of the pilots listed seven home factors as

causing them little or no stress. Table 3 lists ratings of

stress by item.

How home stress is experienced at work.

The most frequently reported ways in which home

stress was felt at work were fatigue and rumination

about the home-based stress About one-fifth of pilots

reported that they could usually or always tell when

they were experiencing home stress at work by feeling

tired due to disrupted sleep, having a tendency to

worry, and intruding thoughts during low workload.

Most pilots believed that home-based stress seldom

or never was experienced at work by: decreased quality of preflight preparation (84%), increased alcohol

consumption (95%), making errors without knowing why (74%), or making errors of omission (79%).

Table 4 shows the ratings of the 12 items that measure how home stress was experienced at work.

Flying performance

Pilots generally rated themselves highly with regard to their flying performance measures. Of a

possible range of 15 to 75, actual scores on Flying

Performance ranged from 47 to 74 (mean of 63;

median of 64). Almost all of the pilots (95%) rated

their ability to cope with things that go wrong and

their overall quality of performance as good to very

good. Items receiving the lowest performance scores

included 16% of pilots rating themselves as having a

relatively moderate to high number of errors and 5%

of them rated their errors as being of relatively moderate to high importance (See Table 5).

Age and years in the military

Age and years in the USCG were not significantly

related to the stress measures or flying performance.

Aircrew vs. pilots

Data collected on aircrew were analyzed separately

since the criterion measure of flying performance was

focused on the pilot, not the aircrew member. There

were no significant differences between aircrew and

pilots on domestic stress, effects of home stress on the

job, or level of job stress. There were also no differences between the aircrews by base location.
4

Table 2.

Factors Important in Coping

% Endorsing Importance

Items 1-3 4 5-6 Mean SD

Stable relationship with partner 0 0 100 6.33 .77

Smooth and stable home life 0 0 100 6.00 .67

Talking to understanding partner 5 6 89 5.72 1.13

Sleep 0 5 95 5.68 .89

Planning ahead 0 11 89 5.63 .90

Working things out by logic 0 11 89 5.47 .90

Physical pastimes/exercise 5 5 90 5.47 1.02

Partner efficient at looking after things 0 6 94 5.44 .70

Home is a ‘refuge’ 5 5 90 5.37 1.07

Talking to understanding colleagues 5 11 84 5.26 1.10

Stable relationships with colleagues 11 0 89 5.21 1.18

Home as psychological platform 0 32 68 5.16 .96

Partner is interested 11 6 83 5.00 .97

‘Staying busy’ 5 16 79 5.00 .82

Talking to understanding friends 11 21 68 5.00 1.29

Hobbies 11 16 74 4.95 1.22

Flying itself helps 0 32 68 4.84 .69

Not ‘bottling things up’ 26 5 68 4.63 1.38

Separating home and work 16 21 63 4.58 1.12

Partner known me for flying career 22 22 57 4.56 1.46

Home life is ‘geared to flying’ 33 17 50 4.39 1.54

Selective attention 26 21 53 4.32 1.25

Partner modifies behavior to suit me 28 22 50 4.28 1.13

Using distractions 21 32 47 4.26 .81

Interests outside aviation 21 42 37 4.26 1.10

Avoid confrontation 37 21 42 4.05 1.27

Staying emotionally aloof 42 16 42 3.79 1.55

Live in non-flying social environment 42 47 11 3.63 1.16

Deliberately suppressing emotion 47 42 11 3.53 1.07

Role reversal at home 52 42 5 3.37 .90

Partner has flying knowledge 50 28 22 3.00 1.75

Drinking alcohol 74 16 10 2.37 1.42

Smoking 100 0 0 1.05 .23

Note. 1 = Of no importance whatsoever 2 = Very unimportant 3 = Unimportant 4 = Neither important nor unimportant

 5 = Important 6= Very Important 7 = Of paramount importance to me in coping.
5

Table 3.

Pilots Ratings of Home Stress

% Rated

Stress Items 1-2 3 4-5 Mean SD

Build up of tasks, duties, and things to do 37 37 26 3.00 1.00

Disagreements, arguments, different opinion 42 42 16 2.79 1.03

Lack of money 58 21 21 2.58 1.07

Disappointed others don’t meet expectations 53 26 21 2.58 0.96

Issues associated with children 60 20 20 2.53 1.13

Others not obeying / things that go wrong 63 21 16 2.53 0.96

Success or failure of my effort to achieve 53 32 16 2.47 1.12

Degree to which home life is way I want it 68 11 22 2.37 1.42

Constant, ongoing irritations 63 16 21 2.37 1.34

‘Good’ use of time at home and how spent 63 16 21 2.32 1.11

Conflicts of interests, resulting compromises 58 21 21 2.32 1.29

Achievement of personal goals and aims 68 21 11 2.26 1.05

Quality of relationship with partner 72 6 22 2.22 1.26

New and unfamiliar experiences 58 32 11 2.21 1.03

Domestic situations that aren’t clear cut 77 12 12 2.18 1.07

Worries on behalf of others 63 32 5 2.16 0.90

Inability to identify problems 74 16 10 2.05 1.13

Absence of calm, stability and dependability 74 11 16 2.00 1.49

Interpersonal relationships 79 5 16 1.95 1.35

Nature of home social environment 72 22 6 1.94 0.94

Inability of partner to fulfill own abilities 77 12 12 1.94 1.20

Partner’s lack of understanding about job 65 24 12 1.88 1.17

Dependability in, and competence of, partner 81 13 6 1.81 1.33

Responsibilities of home activities 83 11 6 1.78 0.88

Family health 83 11 6 1.72 1.07

Degree to which household geared to flying 88 6 6 1.59 0.87

Not having someone to talk to about work 84 10 5 1.58 1.07

Enforced or adopted roles at home 94 6 0 1.56 0.78

Potential for extra-marital relationships 88 6 6 1.47 1.07

Note. 1 = Causes me no stress 2 = Causes me little stress 3 = Causes me moderate stress

 4 = Causes me much stress 5 = Causes me very much stress
6

Table 4.

Effect of Home Stress at Work

% Experienced Symptom

Items 1-2 3 4-5 Mean SD

Tired due to disrupted sleep 42 37 21 2.84 1.07

Tendency to worry 31 47 21 2.84 1.01

Intruding thoughts during low workload 53 21 26 2.74 1.05

Slows me down 58 26 16 2.37 1.01

Mind detached from tasks at hand 63 32 5 2.32 0.75

Decreased Concentration 58 37 5 2.26 0.87

Tendency not to listen as intently 63 32 5 2.21 0.86

Make error without knowing why 74 26 0 2.05 0.71

Make errors of omission 79 21 0 2.00 0.67

Tendency to talk about issue at work 68 32 0 1.95 0.85

Decreased quality of preflight preparation 84 16 0 1.84 0.69

Increased alcohol consumption 95 5 0 1.42 0.61

Note. 1= Never, 2 = Seldom, 3= Sometimes, 4 = Usually, 5 = Always

Table 5.

Self Ratings of Performance

% Rated

Performance Items 1-2 3 4-5 Mean SD

Being ahead of the game 11 5 85 4.00 .88

Excess mental Capacity 11 5 85 4.05 .78

Coping with things that go wrong 5 0 95 4.32 .75

Attained self-set levels of performance 5 16 79 4.26 .93

Smoothness & accuracy of approaches 5 11 84 4.05 .78

Smoothness & accuracy of landings 11 11 88 4.05 .97

Degree of basic airmanship exhibited 0 11 89 4.32 .67

Overall smoothness of flights 0 16 84 4.26 .73

Quality of aircrew interpersonal relations 0 11 89 4.39 .70

Degree of mental & physical coordination 5 16 84 4.00 .75

Number of errors (higher score/ lower errors) 16 16 68 3.79 1.32

Error importance (high score/less important) 5 26 69 4.11 .99

Satisfaction with flights generally 5 5 90 4.26 .81

Ability to divide attention 5 11 84 4.21 .86

Quality of performance 0 5 95 4.37 .60

Note: 1-2 low to very low performance 3 average performance 4-5 good to very good performance
7

DISCUSSION

As stress in the home increased, so did the experience of job stress. Pilots under stress at home felt tired

and worried with recurring thoughts at work. The

lack of a direct relationship between home stress and

flying performance is similar to Sloan and Cooper’s

(1986) results for British aviators, as is the importance of the indirect home-work interface on job

stress and performance. Both British civilian and

American military aviators noted the high importance of a stable marital relationship and home life

(Lehrer et. al.,1990; Sloan & Cooper,1986) . In the

current study, pilots reported fighting at least mild

fatigue and distractibility as they experienced the

stress of home factors overlapped into the job. Pilots

indicated that as the home stress experienced at work

increased, self-perceptions of flying performance decreased - especially the sense of “not feeling ahead of

the game.” This result is interpreted as supporting

Sloan and Cooper ‘s (1986) conclusion that the

primary effect of home stress at work is on the mental

or cognitive processes.

Not only did home-based stress influence work in

similar ways for USCG and British civilian aviators,

the self-ratings of important coping strategies were

similar. The first three coping strategies most often

endorsed in the American study were also endorsed in

the first factor for coping strategies by the British

civilian aviator sample (Sloan & Cooper, 1986).

Those items were a stable relationship with partner,

smooth and stable home life, and talking to an

understanding partner. In their analysis, Sloan and

Cooper suggested that their first factor reflected a

need for stability and predictability in which the pilot

had control (1986, p. 85). Coast Guard pilots’ selfratings of home stress showed a similar concern. As a

pilot’s partner/spouse support system became less

effective, the pilot began to lose the most important

ways of coping with stressors. One speculates that, if

home-based stress increases significantly and partner

support lessens, the pilot may be moving closer to a

negative significant life event such as divorce, separation, or alienation, with possible ramifications on

cockpit error. However, even without a life event

marker, the pilot’s cognitive functioning may be at

risk for compromise and reduced efficiency.

It is suggested that the first warning signs of homebased psychological distress may be more evident in

the daily work activities rather than in cockpit error.

If support services and management recognized the

early warning signs at work that were symptomatic of

home-based stress, they could provide timely intervention before the occurrence of more serious flying

performance decrements. Certainly, continued support of family and home services within the USCG

will have beneficial effects. Further research into the

impact of the family as both a source of stress and

support could help the aviation community make

wise policy decisions regarding family-work issues

and appropriate intervention, giving insight into the

interplay of the pilot’s coping strategies and personal

support system.

REFERENCES

Alkov, R. A., Borowsky, M. S. (1980) A questionnaire

study of psychological background factors in U.S.

Naval accidents. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 51, 860-3.

Alkov, R. A., Gaynor, J. A. & Borowsky, M. S. (1985).

Pilot error as a symptom of inadequate stress

coping. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 56, 244-7.

Holmes, T.H. & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, 11, 213-8.

Lehrer, H. R., Erickson, L. K., & Gilson, R. D. (1990).

Pilots identify stress. Air Line Pilot, Jun-Jul 1990,

22-6.

Raymond, M. W. & Royce, M. (1995). Aviation at

risk. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine,

66, 35-9.

Sloan S.J. & Cooper, C.L. (1986) Pilots under stress.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Stokes, A. & Kite, K. (1994). Flight stress: Stress, fatigue,

and performance in aviation. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University.