Abstract:

One of the increased challenges specific to the airline industry in the aftermath of the post September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks has been maintaining effective crew communications between pilots and flight attendants. Prior to September 11th , flight attendants were able to communicate with the cockpit crewmembers via face-to-face interaction. In the post- September 11th aviation climate access to the cockpit has been dramatically restricted, thus reducing effective in-flight crew communications.

Studies prior to September 11th 2001, indicated that the cockpit door provided a physical barrier which exacerbated psychosocial differences and isolation between pilots and flight attendant (Vandermark, 1991). Thus the modifications and delineation of face-to-face interaction have made effective communication between flight crews more challenging. The present study sought to explore the relationship between Tager's and Willard's (2001) Power Source Profile (PSP) and Cattell's (1970) Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) in mitigating how pilots and flight attendants personalities result in varying communication styles.

This study used a total of 100 participants including 50 pilots and 50 flight attendants to measure crewmember communication styles utilizing the PSP and the 16PF instruments. Given that this study was the first to utilize the PSP instrument, an exploratory factor analyses utilizing tetrachoric correlations was conducted on the PSP. Additionally, one-tailed independent sample t-tests were used to compare the directional hypotheses between the four scales of the PSP in the flight attendant and pilot groups. One-tailed independent sample t-tests were used to compare the directional hypotheses between the PSP and 16PF scales in the flight attendant and pilot group.

Results from the present study indicated that analyses with tetrachoric correlation using a Varimax rotation revealed that a moderate percentage of the variability was accounted for by the factors in the PSP. These preliminary findings may indicate that the data obtained in the present study may be supportive of the theoretical constructs underlying the theoretical framework of the PSP. As hypothesized, the results from the present study indicated that pilots and flight attendants communicated differently. Statistical findings indicated that underlying communication differences were consistent with constructs of caring, warmth, innovation, and team orientation within the flight attendant group. In the present study the pilot group highly endorsed constructs of logic, facts and principals in their preferred communication styles.

The findings in the present study involving the 16PF and the PSP were consistent with Cattell's (1970) pilot and flight attendant profiles. The pilots profile was indicative of a stoic mental orientation and formulation of problems in concrete and specific terms. Results from this study also indicated that flight attendants profiles were indicative of a warm and friendly orientation with empathetic understanding in decision-making.

In considering the PSP and 16PF scales and as evidenced by the significant relationships uncovered through data analyses, the above findings support the utilization of the PSP in assessment of crewmember communications. It would be prudent to maintain that since the present study was a correlational study, no specific causal links in the relationships could be established. Nevertheless, a contribution has been made to the body of research on the PSP as a measurement instrument, as well as adding empirical research on crewmember communication styles post September 11th 2001.