The well-being of civilian aircrews - Part 3
Let's take a look at those people in the Aircrew Stress Study sample who had the highest well-being scores. Let's look at those whose scores ranked above the 75th percentile -- that is, those who scored higher on the well-being measure than 75% of all the people in the sample. In what ways were they different from those with lower scores?
The main finding was that, as a group, high scorers on the well-being measure were older. In fact, if we chop up the sample into age groups -- those in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s -- the "over 50" age group had markedly higher scores. As a group, those in their 30s scored lowest.
I said earlier that I was not going to burden my readers with a lot of statistical gibberish, but there are a few things worth mentioning. One of those things is the concept of statistical significance.
In plain English, when we say something is 'significant' we mean that it is important. In statistical analysis, significance has a meaning that is a little more precise. It refers to the probability that a result could occur by chance, and it is expressed by a number. For example, if we read that a result has a significance level of .05, that means that the probability of it occurring by chance is 5%; a significance level of .01 means that the probability of the finding occurring by chance is 1%.
I'm telling you this so that you will understand how strong the relationship between age and well-being was for this sample of pilots and flight attendants. The significance level for the relation between age and well-being, as measured in this survey, was .001 -- that's a 0.1% probability that it happened by chance. Put another way, there's only one chance in a thousand that the relation between age and well-being that we found is not valid.
How can this be? Why would the older people in the sample score significantly higher on a measure of well-being than the younger people?
I can't say for certain, but I think that there may be several things at work here. One thing is a kind of self-selection process. Most of the older people who are flying for a living have been doing so for quite awhile -- perhaps 20 years or more by the time they reach the age of 50. Those who continue to fly after 20 or 30 years will have weathered a lot of storms, literally and figuratively. In a very real sense, they are 'survivors.' Their less hardy colleagues will have quit or been 'weeded out' over time for any of a variety of reasons.
Another factor may have to do with the way the seniority system that is entrenched in aviation occupations favors those who have been around for a long time. They have larger paychecks and are the least likely to be furloughed if a wave of downsizing comes along. That means more security and fewer financial worries than the younger crews. After all, job insecurities and financial worries are very stressful (as we shall soon see).
Senior crew also have more control over their work schedules than more junior people. By extension, this means that they also have more control over their lives in general. For example, senior crew are more likely to be able to bid for -- and get -- lines that will allow them to be at home for important occasions. The psychology research literature is full of examples of how 'control' favorably influences well-being -- and conversely, how one's sense of control mitigates perceived stress.
If we look at the relation between job title and well-being score, captains, as a group, had the highest scores. Captains who were over 50 had the highest scores of all. All that I said above for senior crew, in general, holds true even more for senior captains.
Coming up: One more post about general well-being -- and then I'll talk about what things the crews who participated in the Aircrew Stress Study found to be stressful in their jobs and in their lives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment