NASA/TM-2011-217353

Investigating the Relationship Between Personality Traits 

and Astronaut Career Performance: Retrospective Analysis 

of Personality Data Collected 1989-1995

Prepared by:

David Musson, MD, PhD

McMaster University 

Contractor

Kathryn E. Keeton, PhD

EASI/Wyle

BHP Senior Scientist

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston TX

For:

Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Research Element

NASA Human Research Program

December 2011
THE NASA STI PROGRAM OFFICE . . . IN PROFILE

Since its founding, NASA has been 

dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics 

and space science. The NASA Scientific and 

Technical Information (STI) Program Office 

plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated 

by Langley Research Center, the lead center 

for NASA’s scientific and technical 

information. The NASA STI Program Office 

provides access to the NASA STI Database, 

the largest collection of aeronautical and 

space science STI in the world. The Program 

Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of 

its research and development activities. 

These results are published by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes 

the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports 

of completed research or a major 

significant phase of research that present 

the results of NASA programs and 

include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data 

and information deemed to be of 

continuing reference value. NASA’s 

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and 

extent of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific 

and technical findings by NASAsponsored contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, 

seminars, or other meetings sponsored 

or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and mission, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material 

pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the 

STI Program Office’s diverse offerings 

include creating custom thesauri, building 

customized databases, organizing and 

publishing research results . . . even 

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI 

Program Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home 

Page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA Access 

Help Desk at (301) 621-0134

• Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk 

at (301) 621-0390

• Write to:

NASA Access Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace 

Information

7115 Standard

Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/TM-2011-217353

Investigating the Relationship Between Personality Traits 

and Astronaut Career Performance: Retrospective Analysis 

of Personality Data Collected 1989-1995

Prepared by:

David Musson, MD, PhD

McMaster University 

Contractor

Kathryn E. Keeton, PhD

EASI/Wyle

BHP Senior Scientist

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston TX

For:

Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Research Element

NASA Human Research Program

December 2011
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service

7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161

301-621-0390 703-605-6000

This report is also available in electronic form at http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/
i

Contents

1. Overview.................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Understanding the Personal Characteristics Data Set.............................................................. 1

3. Personal Characteristics as Predictors of Performance............................................................ 2

4. Outcome Variables – Quantifying Career Performance .......................................................... 6

5. Analyses of the Data ................................................................................................................ 8

5.1 The personality data set.................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Analytic strategy ............................................................................................................. 10

5.3 Demographic factors and astronaut career performance .............................................. 10

6. Trait Predictors and Performance .......................................................................................... 12

7. Summary of Analysis............................................................................................................. 16

8. Suggestions for Next Steps.................................................................................................... 17

9. References.............................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX A – Personal Characteristic Scales.......................................................................... 21

APPENDIX B – Number of Respondents................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX C – Right Stuff Cluster Definitions......................................................................... 24

APPENDIX D – Chiefs of the Astronaut Office ......................................................................... 25
ii

Acronyms

BHP Behavioral Health and Performance

EPAQ Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire

EVA extravehicular activity

JAS Jenkins Activity Survey

NEO-FFI NEO-Five Factor Inventory

PAQ Personal Attributes Questionnaire

PRF Personality Research Form

WOFO Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire
1

1. Overview

This report presents an analysis of an existing astronaut psychological trait dataset and the 

relationship between those data and publicly available metrics of astronaut career performance. 

This project is funded by a contractual agreement between the author and the Behavioral Health 

and Performance (BHP) Research Element at EASI/Wyle and NASA. This work was undertaken 

for the purpose of informing future selection strategies for astronaut applicants, and to create a 

better understanding of the relationship between individual psychological characteristics and the 

job of being an astronaut. As per long-standing agreements between participants and the

investigators who collected these data, no direct sharing of any data that may be individually 

identifiable shall be made between the author of this report and NASA or any of its agencies. 

2. Understanding the Personal Characteristics Data Set

This investigation of the relationship between astronaut personal characteristics and astronaut 

career performance involves the reassembly and analysis of two archived datasets. Two distinct 

sets of data were collected between 1989 and 1995. The first of these was derived from the 

original study of astronaut personality and performance conducted by Helmreich, Rose, et al. –

begun in 1988 with results published in 1993 and 1994 (Rose, Fogg, Helmreich, & McFadden, 

1994). A part of this original study involved the psychological testing of the population of 65 

active-duty NASA astronauts in 1989. Of the 89 astronauts who were actively serving during this 

period, a total of 65 consented to and participated in this original data collection. The papers 

resulting from this study were the first and, to date, the only published formal investigation into 

personality and performance in this population. These original studies investigated the 

relationship between personality, as assessed by trait-assessment batteries, and performance as 

assessed by a series of peer and supervisory ratings of multiple parameters (perceptions of 

compatibility, perceptions of performance, and competence, etc.). Findings in these studies were 

modest, but suggested a possible link between interpersonal orientation and peer/supervisory 

rated performance (McFadden, Helmreich, Rose, & Fogg, 1994; Rose, Fogg, Helmreich, & 

McFadden, 1994; Rose, Helmreich, Fogg, & McFadden, 1993).

The second dataset analyzed in this present report was collected during the NASA astronaut 

recruitment campaigns that were held in the 6 years following the above study (i.e., from 1989 to

1995). Data were collected from the 259 astronaut applicants who participated in the NASA 
2

final-stage astronaut selection process carried out during this period. Of the 259 astronaut 

applicants from whom data were collected at final selection, a total of 63 (12 female, 51 male) 

were eventually successful in their application to become astronauts. Formal analyses of these 

data have been presented previously (Musson, Sandal, & Helmreich, 2004).

It should be noted that subtle score differences in personality measures between those already 

selected and those undergoing selection have been described (Sandal, Musson, Helmreich, & 

Gravdal, 2004). The theorized difference between these two datasets is due to the tendency of 

job applicants to present themselves in an especially positive light due to their participation in 

the astronaut selection process at the time of testing. Even though the tests were presented to 

astronaut applicants as research measures, it is likely that there was either a halo of positive self

presentation or a mistrust that the testing results would actually be used in selection, despite 

reassurances to the contrary.

Combining the two data sources described above puts the total number of astronaut subjects in 

this current analysis at N=65+63=128. It is recognized that the different conditions under which 

these two populations were assessed did in fact lead to small-but-systematic biases in the scores 

in personality traits. Records indicate that consent was obtained from subjects in both data 

collections for the use of these data for ongoing selection and performance studies. Guarantees of 

both anonymity of participation and arms-length separation of these data from NASA 

management were assured as a condition of participation, and these promises have been kept to 

date by the principal investigator of those studies (Helmreich) and his associates (i.e., the author 

of this report).

3. Personal Characteristics as Predictors of Performance

The overall aim of the analysis presented in this report is to examine the relationship between 

individual factors (i.e., predictors), identifiable at the time of selection, and career activity (i.e.,

performance) as an astronaut. Funding for the analyses presented in this report did not include 

the collection of new data on astronaut performance beyond those data that were already 

available in the public domain. Unlike the original studies, described above, that looked at 

peer/supervisory assessments or perceived competence, interpersonal skill, and social 

compatibility for a proposed long-duration flight, the present analysis relies on metrics derived 
3

from flight assignment and career progression. As will be discussed later in this report, lack of a 

clear theoretical alignment between predictors and outcome is less likely to demonstrate 

significant results in the analysis, compared to studies where those two factors more theoretically 

align. For a detailed discussion of this concept, the reader is referred to Hogan and Holland, 

2003. 

The predictors available for analysis in this report fall under two broad categories: Demographic

predictors and psychological Trait predictors.

Demographic predictors. Demographic variables are easily identifiable from public record and 

include: age, gender, military service versus non-military service, pilot versus mission specialist, 

academic background (engineer, medical doctor, scientist), and educational level. In general, 

these are not of particular interest in the present analysis except as potential explanations of 

variance that are not attributable to personality traits.

Trait predictors. Specific trait variables, assessed in the two astronaut population groups, are 

appended in some detail in Appendix A. The instruments used to collect these data represented 

those tools that had been used in aviation performance studies by the principal investigator of the 

original astronaut performance study conducted in 1989 (Helmreich), along with adaptations of 

additional scales that were emerging in the literature at the time of the original study. Details of 

these tests and scales are presented below.

Personality trait variables existent in the current datasets include the Instrumentality and 

Expressivity scales of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire and the Extended Personal 

Attributes Questionnaire (EPAQ) (Helmreich, Spence, & Wilhelm, 1981). Also included were 

scales from the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1971), the Personality 

Research Form (Jackson, 1997), the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (Helmreich, 

1978), and modified versions of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) questionnaire (Costa 

& McCrae, 1992), which was a relatively new measure at the time of assessment, and has since 

emerged to become the dominant trait battery currently in use in the field of organizational 

psychology. The five, 12-item scales of the NEO-FFI were reduced to five, 8-item scales to 

accommodate mandated restrictions in testing astronaut participants. Answer keys also were 

modified somewhat to accommodate the larger testing battery that was administered to the 
4

astronauts. Formal comparisons were made between the full NEO-FFI and the modified versions 

used in these assessments (Musson & Helmreich, 2003) and, while some diminution in scale 

quality was evident, the scales still meet adequate levels of reliability for research purposes. 

Numbers of astronauts who have completed each of the scales of the abovementioned 

instruments are provided in Appendix B of this report. 

There has been discussion over the years of High Instrumental + High Expressivity, High 

Instrumental + Low Expressivity, and Low Instrumental clusters in the astronaut (and other) 

populations, and of the predictive utility of these trait groupings in studies of personality and 

performance. These clusters also were categorized as the Right Stuff, Wrong Stuff, and No Stuff

categorizations of aircrew (Chidester, Foushee, & Jensen, 1991), and represent an intuitively 

satisfying approach to describing personality types in this population. Reference to this 

clustering approach is included for completeness, and is not part of the current plan for data 

analysis since a clustering approach is unlikely to provide additional information over more 

commonly used linear predictive models of personality and performance. Cluster-based 

approaches have not gained mainstream acceptance in industrial-organizational and personalityperformance research communities since the cluster-analysis model was first introduced in the 

1980s.

A number of additional scalar personality variables are listed in Appendix A, such as those of 

the Personality Research Form and some scales from the Work and Family Orientation 

questionnaire. These variables also are not planned to be included in the analysis in this study, as 

a significant body of literature does not presently support the use of those scales in vocational 

performance research. 

Personality trait variables that will be selected for analysis from the Helmreich inventory 

include:

 Instrumentality

 Expressivity

 Negative instrumentality

 Verbal aggressiveness

 Negative communion
5

 Mastery

 Work orientation

 Competitiveness

 Impatience/irritability

 Achievement strivings

Personality trait variables that will be selected for analysis from the NEO-FFI are the following:

 Neuroticism

 Extraversion

 Openness to new experience

 Agreeableness

 Conscientiousness
6

4. Outcome Variables – Quantifying Career Performance

Rating astronaut performance is extremely challenging. This is an unusually high-performance 

population, and the identification of criteria that may serve to distinguish levels of career 

performance is difficult. This challenge has been noted previously in publications and workshops 

(McFadden, Helmreich, Rose, & Fogg, 1994; Musson & Helmreich, 2005). NASA does not 

publicly discuss performance differences between individual astronauts, and there are no 

universally agreed-upon metrics of performance for this population. Furthermore, performance 

evaluations are sensitive topics under ideal circumstances and, in this highly competent, publicly 

scrutinized population, care must be taken to protect individuals from embarrassment, criticism, 

or negative career influences.

Peer and supervisory evaluations. Often, job performance measures in both research and 

organizational contexts include supervisory and peer ratings. This approach is justified by the 

assumption that peers and supervisors are in positions to make both specific and global 

assessments of individuals’ performance and to make comparisons between individuals and other 

workers. In the context of this current report, this would include peer assessments of astronauts 

by other astronauts, supervisory assessments of astronauts by individuals in positions of 

authority within the NASA community, or ratings of astronauts by non-astronaut co-workers. 

Neither funding nor opportunity exists at the time of writing this report to pursue these additional 

performance measures, though this could be most valuable to pursue down the road. It should be 

noted that the original astronaut performance studies conducted by Rose and Helmreich failed to 

find statistically solid predictors of peer and supervisory ratings within this population (Rose, 

Fogg, Helmreich, & McFadden, 1994), though inferences were made to the relationship between 

traits related to interpersonal competence and perceived desirability for cohabitation, which 

makes intuitive sense. One of the main limitations of those analyses was the overall N being only 

65, despite high levels of participation from the astronaut corps. The additional data that have

since been collected effectively doubles that number.

In the absence of a funded effort to conduct peer or supervisory assessments, publicly available 

parameters of astronaut performance have been identified for this report as the most appropriate 

measure of job performance in this population. The public records include multiple parameters 
7

that may be interpreted as measuring success/failure at both the mission and career level. 

Presumably, since superior performers are identified through peer networks, supervisory 

assessment and training performance evaluation (both formal and informal), early assignment to 

flights, assignment to high responsibility roles (e.g., mission commander or extravehicular 

activities [EVA]), more frequent flight assignments, and career longevity can all be theorized to 

serve as proxies for high internal assessments of competence and effectiveness within the 

astronaut corps. Possible outcome variables, based on observable career performance include:

Binary (Yes/No) outcome variables:

Assignment of command positions on space flights

Assignment to CapCom position

Leadership positions within the Astronaut Office (i.e., chief or deputy chief of the Astronaut 

Office)

Scalar outcome variables:

Time delay to first flight assignment 

Number of flight assignments

Number of EVA assignments over an astronaut’s career

Command positions and CapCom positions presumably relate to some measure of perceived 

competence. Election to leadership assignment would appear to be a meaningful measure of 

peer-assessed competence, trust, and/or likeability. Ten individuals in the dataset under review 

have occupied one or both of these leadership positions.

Time delay between recruitment and first flight is a relatively simple calculation and can be 

calculated for each astronaut in the NASA astronaut corps. Astronauts more rapidly assigned to a 

flight following training may indicate perceived higher levels of competence. This viewpoint is 

admittedly one of conjecture, and certainly many factors may affect such assignment. Still, it is a 

relatively easy variable to calculate and its face validity warrants exploration. Similarly, number 

of flights and number of EVAs for each astronaut can be calculated, and can be used for analysis. 

After some consideration, it was decided not to consider total flight time or number of hours of 
8

EVA as performance metrics, as these data would appear to provide little additional information 

over and above numbers of flight assignments and number of EVAs. 

5. Analyses of the Data

5.1 The personality data set

The above discussion of predictors and outcomes is presented to give context to the analysis that 

follows. As discussed, the N for these analysis is N=65+63=128. Of the existing data, exclusion 

of a modest number of individuals from the personality performance analysis is warranted. 

A small number of those represented in this dataset began their careers well before most of the 

other respondents. Comparison of the career performance of these individuals with the rest of the 

corps is not a relevant comparison due to significant differences in career opportunities and 

highly differing opportunities for operational experience. These individuals will be excluded 

from the analysis. 

Also, and most unfortunately, a number of individuals in this dataset are deceased. These 

astronauts never had the opportunity to live out their career to the extent that their colleagues 

were able to – as such, inclusion of these individuals in the analyses does not fit with predictors 

of long-term performance in the corps.

Specific numbers in each of these two exclusion categories are not provided to protect the 

anonymity of the respondents, consistent with the agreements made at the time of data collection. 

The dataset remaining after the exclusion of these individuals, which will be used for subsequent 

analysis, is as follows:

Demographics by Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

Valid FEMALE 22 18.5 18.5 18.5

MALE 97 81.5 81.5 100.0

Total 119 100.0 100.0
9

With respect to the binary performance measures (assigned command position for flights, 

assigned to work as CapCom, appointed to chief or deputy chief of the Astronaut Office), the 

following tables provide breakdown of these variables within the astronaut career performance 

dataset:

Command Position

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

Valid No Command 59 49.6 49.6 49.6

Command 60 50.4 50.4 100.0

Total 119 100.0 100.0

CapCom 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

Valid CapCom 17 14.3 14.3 14.3

No CapCom 102 85.7 85.7 100.0

Total 119 100.0 100.0

Leadership Position?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative 

Percent

Valid Chief or Deputy 10 8.4 8.4 8.4

Neither 109 91.6 91.6 100.0

Total 119 100.0 100.0

Regarding the scalar outcome performance variables (number of missions, time to first flight, 

number of EVAs), the following values (mean, standard deviation) represent the performance 

characteristics in the constructed performance dataset used for these analyses. Specific ranges are 

not provided, as these could allow some identification of specific participants.

Number of Missions: Mean = 3.40 Std dev = 1.284

Time to first flight: Mean = 4.81 yrs, Std dev = 2.168

Number of EVAs: Mean = 1.35 Std dev = 2.200
10

5.2 Analytic strategy

The analytic strategy for this report is based on the fundamental predictive model that higher or 

lower scores on one or more trait scales result in higher or lower scores on a performance metric, 

or a greater likelihood of attaining a binary measure of career success. Pearson product or 

Spearman rho correlations, as appropriate, between predictor and outcome variables will be 

tested. For binary (yes/no) outcomes, an independent samples t-test comparing one group to 

another will be the preferred method. For all analyses, an alpha of 0.05 will be used as the 

statistical cut-off for determination of significance. It is recognized that failure to correct for the

rather large number of comparisons conducted will result in an increased likelihood of finding 

correlations that are actually spurious, but the exploratory nature of these analyses and the 

unique and limited nature of these data suggest that such an approach is warranted. These 

deficiencies are acknowledged.

5.3 Demographic factors and astronaut career performance

Selection year and number of flight assignments. The relationship between selection year and 

number of flight assignments is shown graphically below. This is not a personality-performance 

predictor model, but is performed to test the naive hypothesis that the longer an astronaut serves, 

the more likely he or she is to have a greater number of flight assignments.
11

The above graph demonstrates the relationship between selection group (or class) and the mean 

number of flight assignments per class. The correlation between selection class and flight 

assignment, as suggested by the above graph, is significant, and the Spearman’s rho correlation 

coefficient between group number and mean flights is 0.320, p<0.001. In other words, this means 

that astronauts selected in successive years were likely assigned to a fewer number of flights.

Gender and career performance: It is clear that the number of female astronauts is significantly 

less than the number of male astronauts in the current astronaut population compared to the 

general non-astronaut population. In our predictor/performance dataset of 129 individual 

astronauts, 23 are female and 106 are male (17.8% and 82.2%). While a full analysis of gender 

and its role in selection and astronaut careers is well beyond the scope of this project, the 

following was observed.

In the post-Apollo era of U.S. space flight (i.e., when females were eligible to be selected as 

astronauts), a total of 17 individuals were assigned chief or deputy chief positions in the 
12

Astronaut Office. Of that number, 4 individuals were female and 13 were male (23.5% vs 

76.5%), which closely approximates the distribution of gender within the population. Only one

female has been chief during this period, whereas six males have held the post (14% vs 86%). 

The current dataset does not have adequate representation in leadership roles to justify 

controlling for gender as a potentially influencing variable of this parameter.

In the dataset being used for this analysis, the relationship between gender and flight assignment 

suggests no impact of gender on frequency of flight assignment. Female astronauts average 3.09 

flights per career whereas males average 3.33 flights per career. This difference is not 

statistically significant.

The same is not true for EVAs, however. Only seven of 23 females in the dataset have performed 

EVAs (30%), whereas 53 of 106 males performed EVAs (50%). This result is statistically 

significant (t = -3.320, p=0.001, equal variances not assumed). Males who performed EVAs 

were also likely to perform additional EVAs, whereas this was not the case for females. 

6. Trait Predictors and Performance

The decision was made to focus on two broad subsets, among the large number of personality 

variables in the existing database, as discussed earlier and based on support from the literature. 

The first variable set is the family of trait measures that is described in the astronaut performance 

literature as the Helmreich Personal Characteristics Inventory (or PCI). As a reminder, these trait 

measures include the following:

Instrumentality

Expressivity

Negative instrumentality

Verbal aggressiveness

Negative communion

Mastery

Work orientation

Competitiveness
13

Impatience/irritability

Achievement strivings

As mentioned elsewhere, the first five of these scales are drawn from the Personal Attributes 

Questionnaire (Helmreich, Spence, & Wilhelm, 1981), the next three from the Work and Family 

Orientation Questionnaire (Helmreich, 1978), and the last two from the Jenkins Activity Survey 

(Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1971). These 11 scales were chosen because, among the nonBig Five (see below) scales that were included in this battery, they have the strongest 

justification for assuming a personality-performance relationship based on previous research 

(Helmreich, Spence, Beane, Lcker, & Matthews, 1980; Helmreich, Spence, & Pred, 1988).

Five additional personality scales are included in the analytic strategy for this project:

Neuroticism

Extraversion/introversion

Openness to new experience

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

The scales used are variants of the scales designed to assess the well-known family of traits that 

are often referred to as the Big Five (McCrae, Costa, Pervin, & John, 1999). These specific 

scales are derived from the principal instrument used to assess the Big Five, the NEO-FFI 

developed by Costa and McCrae (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Big Five have been the most 

popular personality trait scales in investigations of personality and performance over the last 15 

years (Fruyt & Mervielde, 1999; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Mount & Barrick, 

1991). It must be noted that these scales were modified at the time of testing in both scale length 

and answer key, so as to better integrate with the testing battery that was used for the original 

data collection. An analysis of these scales was conducted previously, and acceptable 

relationships to the original scales were demonstrated (Musson & Helmreich, 2003).
14

Significant differences were not found between male and female astronauts on any of the 10 

scales, which is unlikely the case for the normal population. Scores are presented below with 

normative scores drawn from test populations for comparison.

Astronauts

Female 

normative Male normative

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Instrumentality 26.65 2.89 20.61 4.52 21.35 4.83

Expressivity 22.69 3.57 24.74 3.74 23.27 3.97

Negative 

instrumentality 10.01 4.39 11.14 4.67 13.35 4.49

Verbal aggressiveness 4.24 2.43 6.54 2.88 5.29 2.87

Negative communion 5.24 2.05 7.15 2.07 6.35 2.32

Mastery 22.99 3.59 18.89 4.77 19.12 4.38

Work orientation 22.53 1.60 20.62 3.06 19.07 3.73

Competitiveness 12.17 3.68 13.48 3.86 14.13 4.16

Impatience/irritability 9.84 2.84 10.40 3.88 10.70 3.51

Achievement strivings 18.28 3.14 14.38 3.79 13.71 4.49

Data from the existing astronaut personality database are presented above, along with normative 

data broken down by gender. Significant gender differences are not present in the astronaut data, 

suggesting a gender-independent astronaut profile. It can be seen in the table above that 

astronauts have higher-than-usual scores on Instrumentality and related scales, slightly lower 

scores than a normal population on Expressivity, as well as lower scores on Verbal 

Aggressiveness and Negative Communion.

Astronauts Female normative Male normative

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Neuroticism 6.05 3.40 15.13 5.89 14.24 5.78

Extraversion 23.12 3.46 22.83 4.69 20.97 4.57

Openness 19.73 4.63 18.02 4.90 19.59 4.80

Agreeableness 24.71 3.21 22.35 4.07 20.22 4.16

Conscientiousness 26.66 3.20 21.69 5.04 19.28 5.65

Normative values are taken from Musson & Helmreich, 2003.

Big Five data from the astronauts are presented above, along with normative data from the 

general population. Again, systematic gender differences are not present in the astronaut data. It 

can be seen in the table above that the astronauts, as a population, have unusually low scores on 

Neuroticism, are mildly high on Extraversion, and are particularly high on Agreeableness and 

Conscientiousness. Particularly with Conscientiousness, a well-established predictor of 
15

performance (Mount & Barrick, 1991), ceiling effects from uniformly high scores and the overall 

lack of individual variation within this population may diminish observable relationships 

between these measures and the various outcome parameters presented earlier.

Personality traits and command positions

The relationship between personality trait scores and assignment to in-flight command 

positions was explored. Of the 15 personality variables considered, only Openness to 

New Experience was significantly related, with command-assigned individuals scoring 

slightly lower than their non-command counterparts (18.60 vs 20.96), t = 2.52, p=0.013.

Personality traits and CapCom Assignment

The relationship between personality and assignment to CapCom positions was explored. 

Of the 15 personality variables considered, none showed a significant difference between 

those selected and those who were not.

Personality traits and administrative leadership (Chief/Deputy AO)

Independent samples t-tests were conducted comparing mean scale scores of those 

astronauts who have held leadership positions; i.e., those who have held the position of

chief or deputy chief, Astronaut Office (N = 10), and those who have not (N = 114). Only 

one trait predictor variable showed a difference in mean scores with a significance of less 

than p < 0.05 – that being Work Orientation, (t = -2.108, df = 122.000, p = 0.037). 

Work Orientation has been defined as “reflecting a general desire to work hard.”

Interestingly, those astronauts who have held such leadership positions scored slightly 

lower than those who have not (mean score 21.7143 vs 22.5128) on this measure.

Personality trait scores and time to first flight

Time to first flight ranged from 2 to more than 9 years, with a mean of 5.04 years (SD = 

2.636). Of the 15 personality scales, Neuroticism was positively correlated with time to 

first flight (r = 0.2.15, p = 0.042).
16

Personality trait scores and number of flight assignments

Number of flight assignments ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean of 3.29 flights per 

astronaut (SD = 1.324). No significant relationship was found between number of flight 

assignments and any of the trait predictors.

Personality measures and number of EVAs

Number of EVAs range from 0 to more than 7, with a mean of 1.29 per astronaut (SD= 

2.141). As expected, number of EVAs correlated to some extent with number of flight 

assignments (r = 0.221, p = 0.012). However, EVAs also were correlated negatively with 

Openness to new experience, with r = -0.239, p = 0.020. No other correlations were 

identified.

7. Summary of Analysis

Data analyses showed weak to little correlation between demographic predictors and flight 

assignment, EVA assignment, and CapCom assignment with the exception of the relationship 

between gender and EVA assignment. Female astronauts were less likely than their male 

counterparts to be assigned EVAs, at least among our participants. No conclusions can be drawn 

in this report regarding the larger astronaut population where this difference may or may not 

persist, as those data were not analyzed. Selection year did indeed predict likelihood of flight 

assignment, though it has not been determined whether this is due solely to career longevity, or 

whether this difference is likely to remain at the end of the careers of those who were more 

recently recruited.

The tendency for those in leadership positions to score slightly less on Work Orientation

compared to non-leadership colleagues is difficult to explain, though it may fit with lay theories 

held by workers regarding management in general. 

Since opportunities for flight assignment vary significantly from year to year, it is difficult to 

compare astronauts recruited in one year to those recruited in another year (see the following 

section). Regardless, some modest correlations were identified. With respect to time to first 

flight, higher scores on Neuroticism were related to delayed first flight. This is consistent with a 
17

theory that low levels of Neuroticism may be associated with perceptions of appropriateness for 

flight assignment. This also fits with traditional perceptions of test pilots and astronauts being 

calm-mannered individuals adept at handling the emotionally provocative environment of highrisk flight. Higher levels of Neuroticism may manifest as increased irritability, increased 

emotional liability, or ease of excitability. These manifestations could, in turn, lead to 

perceptions that some individuals are more prepared or more desirable for flight assignment.

The correlation between low scores on Openness to New Experience and career EVAs is more 

difficult to explain, and though possibly spurious, may warrant further study. Openness to New 

Experience is probably the least well-understood trait within the Big 5 family. Costa and McRae 

describe Openness to New Experience as relating to imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, 

attentiveness to inner feelings. Research also has suggested that this trait correlates with antiauthoritarianism (Butler, 2000). Individuals scoring higher on this trait may be perceived as less 

ideal for the specific nature of EVAs.

8. Suggestions for Next Steps

A valuable next step in this ongoing analysis would involve funding a more appropriate model of 

outcome measures. Personality, in this population is unlikely to have significant impact on the 

measures considered in this study (and the analyses herein confirm this statement). All selected 

astronauts had impressive records of achievement before selection, which is a fact consistent 

with their uniformly high scores on achievement and motivational traits presented in this report. 

In such a population, many factors over and above personality are likely to account for variation 

in the blunt, insensitive metrics that were used in these analyses – factors such as previous 

experience and technologically specific knowledge certainly contribute to flight selection, EVA 

selection, and CapCom assignment. Where personality is more likely to have an impact is in less 

technical metrics. Measures assessing appropriateness for long-duration cohabitation, crew 

selection for multicultural missions, and other socially oriented factors are likely to be based 

largely on personal characteristics. Peer assessments of desirability on such scales should more 

closely align with personality traits, and such an analysis should focus on whether standardized 

personality measures are able to identify those individuals destined to be peer-identified as more 

desirable for such duty roles. Traits likely to predict such assessments would include 
18

Agreeableness, Expressivity, and other traits related to social interaction. Among those 

predictors, the astronaut population shows more similarity to the general population, and 

variability is greater than on achievement-related traits in this population. Such a study would 

require revisiting methodology, and would most certainly require new ethics reviews, informed 

consent, and high degrees of collaboration from the active and retired astronaut population.
19

9. References

Butler, J. C. (2000). "Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism". Social 

Behavior and Personality 28: 1–14.

Chidester, T. R., Foushee, H. C., & Jensen, R. (1991). Leader personality and crew effectiveness: 

a few mission simulation experiment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Aviation 

Psychology Symposium Vol. II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa FL: 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Fruyt, F. D., & Mervielde, I. (1999). Raisec Types and Big Five Traits as Predictors of 

Employment Status and Nature of Employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701-727.

Helmreich, R. L. (1978). The Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire: An objective 

instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes towards family 

and career. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8(35), MS 1677.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lcker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making 

it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896-908.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, 

achievement motivation, and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social 

Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 495-504.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the 

Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097-1108.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job Performance 

Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1), 100-112.

Jackson, D. N. (1997). Jackson Personality Research Form. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment 

Systems.

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1971). Progress toward validation of a 

computer-scored test for the Type A coronary prone behaviour pattern. Psychological

Medicine, 33, 193-202.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality 

traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel 

Psychology, 52, 621-652.
20

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1999). A Five Factor Theory of 

Personality. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Vol. 1 pp. 139-153). 

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

McFadden, T. J., Helmreich, R. L., Rose, R. M., & Fogg, L. F. (1994). Predicting astronaut 

effectiveness: a multivariate approach. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 65(10 

Pt 1), 904-909.

Mount, M. R., & Barrick, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job 

performance: a meta analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Musson, D. M., & Helmreich, R. L. (2003). Psychometric Properties of 8-Item Measures of the 

Big Five Derived from the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Technical Report TR2003-01. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Human Factors Research Project.

Musson, D. M., & Helmreich, R. L. (2005). Long-term data sets in space behavioral research. 

Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 76 suppl, B116-125.

Musson, D. M., Sandal, G. M., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Personality characteristics and trait 

clusters in final stage astronaut selection. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 75, 

342-349.

Rose, R. M., Fogg, L. F., Helmreich, R. L., & McFadden, T. J. (1994). Psychological predictors 

of astronaut effectiveness. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 65(10 Pt 1), 910-

915.

Rose, R. M., Helmreich, R. L., Fogg, L., & McFadden, T. J. (1993). Assessments of astronaut 

effectiveness. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 64(9 Pt 1), 789-794.

Sandal, G. M., Musson, D. M., Helmreich, R. L., & Gravdal, L. (2004). Social desirability bias 

in personality testing; implications for Astronaut selection. In Proceedings of the 55th 

International Astronautical Congress 2004. Vancouver, Canada: International 

Astronautical Federation.
21

APPENDIX A – Personal Characteristic Scales

Astronaut version of the Personal Characteristics Inventory Subscales and their test origins.

Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)/ Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire 

(EPAQ) – Helmreich and Spence

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the 

Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097-1108.

1. Positive expressivity

2. Instrumentality

3. Bipolar instrumentality

4. Negative instrumentality

5. Negative expressivity – verbal aggression

6. Negative expressivity – negative communion

Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO) – Helmreich and 

Spence

Helmreich, R. L. (1978). The Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire: An objective 

instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes towards family and 

career. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8(35), MS 1677.

1. Mastery

2. Work orientation

3. Competitiveness

4. Work involvement

5. Joy in work

6. Job involvement

7. Perfectionism

8. Driven

Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) – Jenkins

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1971). Progress toward validation of a 

computer-scored test for the Type A coronary prone behaviour pattern. Psychological Medicine, 

33, 193-202.

1. Impatience/irritability

2. Achievement striving

Personality Research Form (PRF) – Jackson 

Jackson, D. N. (1997). Jackson Personality Research Form. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment 

Systems.

1. Affiliation

2. Dominance

3. Endurance

4. Impulsivity
22

5. Succorance

6. Alienation

7. Vigor

Neo Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) – Costa and McCrae – Modified

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa FL: 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

1. Neuroticism

2. Extraversion

3. Openness

4. Agreeableness

5. Conscientiousness

Additional scales from the Spence Workaholic research measures

1. Joy In Work (JOYINWORK)

2. Job Involvement (JOBINVOL)

3. Perfectionism (PERFISM)

4. Time Commitment (TIMECOMM)

5. Work Driven (DRIVE)
23

APPENDIX B – Number of Respondents

Number of astronauts who completed each of the astro-PCI personality trait scales

PAQ/EPAQ N

Instrumentality 128

Expressivity 128

Bipolar Instrumentality 127

Negative Instrumentality 129

Verbal Aggressiveness 129

Negative Communion 128

WOFO N

Mastery 129

Work Orientation 128

Competitiveness 129

JAS N

Impatience/Irritability 128

Achievement Strivings 128

NEO-FFI (Modified) N

Pci-Neuro 104

Pci-Extra 104

Pci-Open 104

Pci-Agree 104

Pci-Consc 104

PRF N

Affiliation 41

Dominance 63

Endurance 63

Impulsiveness 63

Succorance 63

Social Alienation 63

Physical Vigor 41

Spence Work Scales N

Work Driven 60

Joy In Work 60

Job Involvement 60

Perfectionism 38

Time Commitment 60
24

APPENDIX C – Right Stuff Cluster Definitions

Personal Characteristics Inventory clusters defined Right Stuff, Wrong Stuff, No Stuff.

Cluster 1 (positive instrumental/expressive)

(Right Stuff)

Above average in:

Instrumentality (EPAQ)

Expressivity (EPAQ)

Mastery (WOFO)

Work (WOFO)

Below average in:

Negative Instrumentality (EPAQ)

Verbal aggressiveness (EPAQ)

Cluster 2 (negative instrumental)

(Wrong Stuff)

Above average in:

Instrumentality (EPAQ)

Negative Instrumentality (EPAQ)

Verbal Aggressiveness (EPAQ)

Work (WOFO)

Mastery (WOFO)

Competitiveness (WOFO)

Below average in:

Expressivity (EPAQ)

Cluster 3 Low motivation (No Stuff)

Low scores in the following scales:

Instrumentality (EPAQ)

Expressivity (EPAQ)

Mastery (WOFO)

Work (WOFO)

Competitiveness (WOFO)
25

APPENDIX D – Chiefs of the Astronaut Office

Chief and Deputy Chief of the NASA Astronaut Office (1962-2010)

1. Deke Slayton (September 1, 1962 - November 1963)

2. Alan Shepard (November 1963 - July 1969)

3. Tom Stafford (July 1969 - June 1971) (Stafford held the position while Shepard prepared for 

and flew Apollo 14)

4. Alan Shepard (June 1971 - August 1, 1974)

5. John Young (January 14, 1974 - April 15, 1987), Deputy was Paul J. Weitz. Acting Chief 

during STS-1 training was Alan Bean.[1]

6. Dan Brandenstein (April 27, 1987 - October 1992), Deputy was Steven Hawley.

7. Robert Gibson (December 8, 1992 - September 6, 1994), Deputy was Linda Godwin.

8. Robert Cabana (September 6, 1994 - October 1997), Deputy was Linda Godwin.

9. Kenneth Cockrell (October 1997 - October 1998)

10. Charles Precourt (October 1998 - November 2002), Deputy was Kent Rominger.

11. Kent Rominger (November 2002 - September 2006), Deputies were Andy Thomas and 

Peggy Whitson.

12. Steven W. Lindsey (September 2006 - October 2009), Deputies were Janet Kavandi and 

Sunita Williams (February 2008 to October 2009).

13. Peggy Whitson (October 2009–present) Deputy is Chris Ferguson. [3]
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, 

and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

December 2011 NASA Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Investigating the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Astronaut Career 

Performance: Retrospective Analysis of Personality Data Collected 1989-1995

6. AUTHOR(S)

David Musson, MD, PhD, McMaster University 

Kathryn E. Keeton, PhD, EASI/Wyle, Johnson Space Center

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBERS

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

S-1115

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

TM-2011-217353

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

7121 Standard

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Category:53

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report presents an analysis of an existing astronaut psychological trait dataset and the relationship between those data and 

publicly available metrics of astronaut career performance. The overall aim of this analysis is to examine the relationship between 

individual factors (i.e., predictors), identifiable at the time of selection, and career activity (i.e., performance) as an astronaut. Sections 

include: outcome variables (quantifying career performance); analysis of the data (the personality data set, analytic strategy, and 

demographic factors and astronaut career performance); trait predictors and performance; a summary of the analysis; and suggestions 

for next steps.This project is funded by a contractual agreement between the author and the Behavioral Health and Performance 

Research Element at EASI/Wyle and NASA. This work was undertaken for the purpose of informing future selection strategies for

astronaut applicants, and to create a better understanding of the relationship between individual psychological characteristics and the 

job of being an astronaut. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF 

PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

astronaut performance; astronaut training; human performance, personality tests; 

psychological factors 34

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

Standard Form 298 (Rev Feb 89) (MS Word Mar 97)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

NSN 7540-01-280-5500