Читать книгу Values and Virtues in the Military - Nadine Eggimann Zanetti - Страница 16
Оглавление1 Why study values and virtues in the Swiss Armed Forces?
“Instead of educating our soldiers, we train them. Instead of developing the male characteristics, as typically given to a good soldier, we let theory fill their heads.”
— General Ulrich Wille1 —
General Ulrich Wille, Commander-in-Chief of the Swiss Armed Forces in the First World War and head of the Swiss Military Academy at ETH Zurich from 1909 to 1913, considered values and virtues to be part of the “male characteristics,” and as such subject to military education. He was the first military leader to introduce the subject of values and virtues into the practical operation and theoretical understanding of the Swiss Armed Forces (Annen, Steiger, & Zwygart, 2004). The wording of his statement may need to be adjusted to today’s military operational reality, but its fundamental message remains valid. It is a historic point that values and virtues are understood as a binding part of military leadership, training, and education in the Swiss Armed Forces. Since the time of General Wille’s command, all subsequent service regulations of the Swiss Armed Forces have included an explicit reference and commitment to military values and virtues.
This thesis devoted its research to the wide subject of values and virtues within the context of military psychology and the Swiss Armed Forces. The general concepts of values and virtues, and more explicitly, their content and implementation, are of great importance in military daily life. They are decisive in enabling a leader to execute his task thoughtfully, rather than harshly. The success of a training lesson in fostering the independent thinking of soldiers, rather than merely executing tasks, also depends on the values of the respective instructors. In both cases, values and virtues are implicitly noticeable.
According to Baumann (2007), values and virtues set standards and guidelines as to how to behave in a military environment. Annen et al. (2004) stated that values and virtues provide orientation and consistency to the individual and the entire military community. Furthermore, they are an important prerequisite to aim at the ultimate target regarding both education and conduct, as well ←27 | 28→as to safeguard the ethical behavioral mandates under more severe conditions. Values and virtues as psychological concepts refer to stable characteristics of individuals, which are understood as positive, morally good, and desirable (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008). Accordingly, a value identifies what people find important and guides them in regards to choices and decisions. A virtue is generally understood to be a morally good trait, enabling a person to live in accordance with his or her personal values (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2011). For instance, human dignity is interpreted as a value. Courage or bravery are virtues, which make it possible to live in accordance with human dignity, for instance, via a public engagement to the benefit of social minorities. This thesis strictly treated values and virtues as separate concepts, in line with this theoretical understanding.
Furthermore, the fundamental assumption within this thesis was that military organizations differ from civilian institutions in reference to their specific culture, its values, virtues, and traditions. Meyer (2015) described the specific difference as follows: “The military is, assuredly, a culture. It has its own history, laws, values, traditions, language, and customs” (p. 416). In line with Soeters, Winslow, and Weibull (2006), culture can be defined as common views on values and priorities in life. Consequently, culture is strongly linked to the concept of values. It represents a common vision of collectivities of people such as nations, regions, organizations, schools, churches, and families. Schein (1985) defined organizational culture as a set of assumptions, values, and beliefs that find shared acceptance by members of an organization. Accordingly, the military as an organization is assumed to have a specific organizational culture (Soeters et al., 2006).
The following characteristics contribute to calling the military a particular culture: Soldiers2 wear uniforms, which makes them different from most other personnel in a highly visible way (Soeters et al., 2006). They receive their training in military schools and academies, where a sense of uniqueness is emphasized, assuming primacy of the group over the individual. Military persons normally work and sleep in separated barracks and bases and during this time military culture permeates nearly every aspect of their lives. As highlighted by Johansen, Laberg, and Martinussen (2013), veterans who served for only a few ←28 | 29→years reported strong identification with the military decades later. Even if the Swiss Armed Forces is not primarily involved in deployment and peace-keeping missions, active military duty can be dangerous and potentially life-threatening. As Druckman et al. (1997) pointed out, military organizations require a lot from their personnel. They are permanently on a 24-hour call and can be directed to remote locations at short notice.
Of course, different types of military organizations, such as the army, the air force, the navy, and the military police, have different cultures (Ross, Ravindranath, Clay, & Lypson, 2015). Each military branch has a number of values and virtues that military persons have to adhere to. Despite all this variation, there seems to be a general military-specific culture, as Soeters (1997) showed in his study. He compared military academies from 18 countries relating their view on various military values such as discipline and hierarchy. He found that military organizations from different nations were more similar to each other in reference to their value preferences than business organizations within the same nation of the respective military organization. Together with the evidence from other similar studies (e.g., Matthews, Eid, Kelly, Bailey, & Peterson, 2006b), it can be assumed that there is a distinct military culture that is different from civilian organizations.
Lang (1965) mentioned in his review three specific aspects which characterize the culture in military organizations: First, there is the communal character of military life, which describes the peculiarity that military and personal life often overlap, turning the job into a part of community life. As shown by Soeters (1997) in his study, military cultures proved to be far more institutional than corporate business cultures. In civilian business cultures leisure, personal life, and performance-based material gains are more preferred, while military cultures are more institutional, requiring a high commitment from their personnel, offering a fixed pay structure only. The second aspect observed by Lang (1965) referred to the importance of hierarchy, rules, and regulations in the organization. It may come as no surprise that military cultures are more hierarchical in comparison to the cultures of civilian enterprises (Soeters, 1997). Third, Lang (1965) mentioned the importance of discipline, which is described as the compliance with rules and as the acceptance of commands and authority. It can be further underlined through formal discipline (e.g., salutes, ceremonies, uniform) and functional discipline (e.g., acting in accordance with the rules and intent of the commander).
Above all, military culture can be characterized by a professional commitment that emphasizes discipline, hierarchy, courage, and self-sacrifice, setting the primacy of the group over the individual (cf. Collins, 1998; Hillen, 1999). ←29 | 30→In other words, military institutions are legitimized in terms of specific values and virtues: a purpose, which transcends individual self-interest in favor of a presumed higher good. “Duty,” “honor,” “country,” “courage,” and “loyalty” are words that illustrate such military values and military virtues3. The guiding assumption within thesis was that military values and virtues can be used to describe and define the specific military culture (Kernic & Annen, 2016; Pathak, Rani, & Goswami, 2016).
It is not surprising that the military organization is a “value community,” which identifies itself as a commitment to share common values (Moskos, 1973). This makes the military leaders accountable to explain, convey, and live the fundamental values of the organization. Such a commitment and leadership task is closely connected with the inherent concern of building an identity and a social cohesion (Kernic & Annen, 2016). In view of potential conflicts, a widely held postulate declares that the social competencies and psychological strength of the military members are a decisive factor in a mission’s success or failure (Scales, 2009). In this respect, Matthews (2014) talked about “cognitive dominance,” stating that considering psychological concepts such as character, values, and virtues will be of substantial importance for armed forces to be successful. For these reasons, it was recommended for a military organization to avoid the temptation to position leadership on principles, which are purely economic-purpose-rationally driven. Military organizations, specifically those rich in operational experience, care about character education, moral decision-making, and personal reflection on one’s own values and virtues (Kernic & Annen, 2016).
Accordingly, values and virtues have always been a top priority within the military domain of leadership, training, ethical commitment, and psychological research. Military organizations have long recognized that morally good, positive characteristics of personality are highly influential on work satisfaction, individual performance, adaptation, and effective leadership (Matthews et al., 2006b). Specifically, the overall importance of character strengths, virtues, ←30 | 31→and values within the military is widely documented (Matthews, 2009). Equally important, there is growing evidence that positive characteristics such as values, virtues, and character strengths predict success in challenging military situations. In spite of the emphasis in priority, there is still a dearth of empirical evidence, to demonstrate the importance of values and virtues within the military context (Matthews, 2012).
The Swiss Armed Forces is equally committed to foster military values and virtues such as discipline, comradeship, personal responsibility, as well as honesty (Swiss Armed Forces, 2004). Overall, the very specific environment of the Swiss Army represents a military institution with a long-lasting tradition, initiated by General Wille, to foster values and virtues, and expecting their members to respect them and live accordingly. The Swiss Armed Forces qualifies for representing a value-oriented organization (Proyer, Annen, Eggimann, Schneider, & Ruch, 2012). Like in other military organizations, the doctrine of the Swiss Armed Forces (Dienstreglement der Schweizer Armee, DR 04 [Swiss military Service Regulations 2004]) has emphasized the importance of personal values and virtues in successful leadership and military training (Annen et al., 2004).
1.1 Characteristics of the Swiss military system
The Swiss Armed Forces is an ideal environment to examine values and virtues given the distinct nature of the Swiss military system and the legal settings that govern the conscription of male citizens. The characteristics of the Swiss military system should be outlined for a general understanding of the samples of soldiers that are to be studied.
The main tasks of the Swiss Army are of defensive and protective nature. It also serves in case of natural catastrophes and other national hazards. The Swiss Armed Forces is a conscript army, in which all Swiss men aged between 19 and 31 years must fulfill their military service requirement. Active reserve officers serve even longer, until the age of 42 to 50 depending on their rank. The basic training lasts between 18 and 21 weeks followed by three weeks of training per year until the age of 26. Females may join the Forces voluntarily and are assigned to all groups including combat troops. Besides militia members, the Swiss Armed Forces employs a great variety of fulltime staff. However, a typical feature of the Swiss Armed Forces is that the greater portion of officers constitutes of members of the militia. Correspondingly, career officers, career NCOs as well as contracted military personnel account for only about 3% of the total Swiss Armed Forces (Annen, 2004).
←31 | 32→
Unlike the majority of the Swiss Armed Forces officers, who only serve as active reserve officers, career officers and career NCOs are fulltime professional officers. Prior to becoming a career officer or career NCO, the candidates completed at least one and a half years of training for militia officers or NCOs and were obliged to work temporarily as officers or NCO in the Swiss Armed Forces for one year, on average, to get practical experiences and a realistic insight into the actual job. The career personnel serve important functions such as educators and instructors, or preferably as coaches of the militia cadre. They are responsible for the molding of a leadership culture as well as the implementation of military guidelines.
The Swiss Army is a “training army,” in which the professional officers and NCOs do not primarily have to be part of military operations and foreign assignments. However, the Swiss Armed Forces spends the majority of its time training for operational readiness and for educating soldiers, as part of their mandatory military service. Correspondingly, values and virtues are the basis of military education. Military education aims at influencing the values and the behavior of soldiers purposefully and sustainably (Annen et al., 2004). The Swiss Armed Forces with their militia system of a compulsory military service are regarded as a mirror of the society as a whole (Haltiner, 1996). Around 95% of Swiss military armed troops are conscripts, who serve as citizens in uniform (Szvircsev Tresch, 2011). They incorporate likewise the values and virtues of the Swiss society. The Swiss Armed Forces are thus obliged to present the objectives and the content of military education to both their military personnel as well as to the civilian society as a whole, in a transparent manner. That is why the values and virtues that characterize military education must be understood (Annen et al., 2004). Clarity about the conveyed values and virtues is needed, as they define the content of military education. For the military leader this means that it is required to understand the values, to live them as a role model, and to eventually embody them. In particular, the Swiss Report on Military Ethics published on September 1, 2010 (Swiss Armed Forces, 2010) stated that the training and educational culture of the Swiss Armed Forces must be explicitly defined according to values and virtues. Therefore, it was considered as indispensable to consciously deal with the soldiers’ view and perception of values and virtues. The military education shall not convey a “counter world” to civil society (Eggimann & Annen, 2014). The Swiss Military Ethics Report is thus an up-to-date document, which refers to the importance of values and virtues in the Swiss Armed Forces and emphasizes the need for relevant scientific studies. However, currently there are no known military psychological studies, which have researched the values and virtues in the Swiss Armed Forces in a systematic and comprehensive manner.
←32 | 33→
1.2 In search of military core values and virtues in the Swiss Armed Forces
Matthews (2012, p. 214) stressed the need for a military organization to understand cultural significance as it applies to values and virtues, stating: “Cultural considerations are of paramount importance in twenty-first-century warfare.” Furthermore, Britt, Adler, and Castro (2006) referred to the general requirement to address the question whether there are consistent values and virtues conveyed by the military organization. This perspective makes it a mandate to understand the core values and core virtues of an organization. Core values are principles that an organization views as being of central importance and reflect what the company values, setting the vision and goal of an organization (Duh, Belak, & Milfelner, 2010). Likewise, core virtues are the most important positive characteristics considered by an organization. Peterson and Seligman (2004) defined core virtues as “an abstract ideal, encompassing a number of other, more specific virtues that reliably converge to the recognizable higher-order category” (p. 35). Accordingly, core values and core virtues refer to categories of values and virtues which include expressions of thematically similar values and virtues grouped together4. Smolicz (1981) supposed that core values and virtues are forming fundamental components of a group’s culture and have an identifying function with the group and its membership. Overall, core values and core virtues are the stated values and virtues, prioritized by a cultural group of persons, by a nation or by an organization5. They help define the culture of the organization, thus giving meaning to all its members (Pathak et al., 2016).
Britt et al. (2006) stated that it is essential to define a classification of values and virtues within the military organization. Such a classification is defined as a descriptive selection of one or many core values and virtues, indicating the most preferred ones as they apply to an organization (Albert, 1956). As Albert (1956) outlined, a corporate classification of core values and virtues within a military ←33 | 34→organization is conceived as a representation of the cultural organizational consensus, envisaged as a point of reference for the description and reflection of individual differences in values and virtues.
So far, there has not been a valid classification of core values and virtues reflecting the culture of the Swiss Armed Forces. Each military leader gets the freedom to prioritize his or her own personal values and virtues, independent of a binding corporate classification of core values and virtues. However, the Swiss Report on Military Ethics (Swiss Armed Forces, 2010) makes it an important priority to devote scientific effort to further assess the values and virtues of the Swiss Armed Forces. Such a commitment is in support in defining which values and virtues are to be fostered across the Swiss Armed Forces and conveyed to the Swiss soldiers as part of the military education. The benefit results from providing a common corporate understanding of values and virtues within the Swiss Armed Forces (Annen, 2017). Furthermore, a valid classification allows for a transparent communication within the framework of military education and provides the opportunity to prove the impact of military education and value-based leadership. Specifically, it needs detailed assessment to understand which core values and virtues, e.g., Mutual Respect or Fortitude, are being propagated in order to evaluate the efforts of military education. Clarity on value and virtues provides the condition for military leaders to apply a discipline of self-reflection and interactive dialogue (Eggimann & Annen, 2014).
In spite of a high regard for the meaning of values and virtues by the military organization, the empirical approach in research has been falling short (Schumm, Gade, & Bell, 2003). However, outside of the military domain, there has been an increasing interest in studies identifying and structuring taxonomies of universal6 values and virtues. Specifically, Aavik and Allik (2002) gave preference to the psycholexical approach to develop a comprehensive and culture-sensitive list of universal values. De Raad and Van Oudenhoven (2011) initiated the same approach in classifying and structuring virtues followed by a series of corresponding research. The question of how many universal core values and core virtues7 can be distinguished has been investigated through a psycholexical and factor analytic analysis in a variety of different cultures (e.g., Aavik & Allik, 2002; De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008, 2011; Morales-Vives, De Raad, & Vigil-Colet, 2012, 2014; Renner, 2003b).
←34 | 35→
With this theoretical perspective in mind, the thesis represented an initial comprehensive effort to apply the psycholexical approach in assessing the structure of values and virtues in a military organization. As mentioned previously, this research implied the assumption that the military culture differs from the civilian environment. Accordingly, it was of significant interest to capture the uniqueness of the military value and virtue culture of the Swiss Armed Forces. The psycholexical method was described as sensitive to culture-related differences (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008). Worth mentioning, that in the Swiss Armed Forces there is still no comprehensive description and classification which reflect the cultural-specific aspects of the military organization and the views of the different military subgroups (e.g., including military militia and military professionals). Moreover, there are numerous value- and virtue-descriptive expressions such as responsibility, loyalty, security, and freedom used in the official and inofficial Swiss military documentation (Baumann, 2007), which need further structuring for effective military leadership. It was essential to verify the relations between the expressions at scientific level, to group them according to their meaning and relevance, and to reduce to a manageable number. Finally, the identification and structuring of the essential military value- and virtue-describing terms led to the definition of the core values and virtues reflecting the military culture.
In summary, there is increasing recognition that values and virtues are positive characteristics of soldiers and important regarding military leadership, training, and education. At the same time, there is limited empirical conclusion as to which values and virtues characterize a military organization (Soeters, Poponete, & Page, 2006). The research within this thesis referred to the Swiss Armed Forces and extended the current general understanding of military values and virtues. The overall scope focused on identifying the relevant expressions of military values and virtues by means of a psycholexical approach and on assessing the structure concerning the military core values and virtues of the Swiss Armed Forces.
The thesis is divided into a Pre-study and three empirical parts, aiming at (a) the psycholexical-based identification of the Swiss military values and virtues and at establishing a corresponding catalog; (b) assessing the factorial structure of military values and virtues; (c) analyzing the relationship to measures ←35 | 36→of universal values, Big Five personality traits and factors of character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); and (d) exploring the criterion validity of the identified military value and virtue factors with regards to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; defined by Organ, 1997, as the willingness to do more than what is normally demanded) and motivation to lead (MTL; defined by Chan & Drasgow, 2001, as the person’s efforts to assume leadership training, roles, and responsibilities).
Figure 1 provides an overview of the Pre-study and the three empirical studies.
Fig. 1: Summary of the Pre-study and the three studies within the Swiss Armed Forces
As overviewed in Fig. 1, the selection of the value and virtue descriptors in the Pre-study was conducted in three stages, i.e., (a) psycholexical search of existing military documentation, (b) consultation of military psychologists, and (c) interviews with high ranking military commanders of the Swiss Armed Forces. This approach delivered a valid and comprehensive list of 25 military value- and 42 virtue-descriptive terms, called the MVVC. The catalog was used to assess military values and virtues in the subsequent three empirical studies.
In Study I, a sample of Swiss career officers and career NCOs was tested to capture the factor structure of military values. The objective was to make the MVVC and its corresponding items subject to a factor analytic analysis, and to conclude on the core values in the Swiss Armed Forces. Given the fact that a military organization reflects a specific culture, it was of interest to evaluate how the military value factors correlate with universal values and Big Five personality traits. This added verification as to how the outcome of the military value factors compare with the universal factorial structure (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008, 2011).
Study II applied a similar approach as Study I, focusing on the structure of military virtues to be assessed in a large group of Swiss officer candidates. Additionally, the aim of Study II was to assess how the military virtues relate to the five factors of character strengths as measured by the VIA-IS (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005).
As a result of the factor analytic analysis in Study I and II, the number of 25 military values and 42 virtues was reduced to five military value factors and four virtue factors8. To sum up, the prime aim of assessing the structure of military values (Study I) and of military virtues (Study II) was to facilitate a deeper understanding of the nature of the military culture.
←36 | 37→
Study III concerned the question whether the military value and military virtue factors exhibit criterion validity with regards to OCB and MTL. OCB and MTL were confirmed to be crucial concepts for a successful selection of Swiss military officers (Annen, Goldammer, & Szvircsev Tresch, 2015). Furthermore, previous research has shown that values and virtues relate to a person’s motivation to accept a leadership role (Clemmons & Fields, 2011) and to display OCB (Halbesleben, Bolino, Bowler, & Turnley, 2010).
Overall, the thesis contributed to research regarding the impact of military values and virtues on training, leadership, and organizational structure within the Swiss Armed Forces. The special focus lay on the identification of the factorial structure of Swiss military values and virtues by means of a psycholexical and factor analytic approach.
This dissertation is composed of a theoretical background, three chapters of results which concerns the factorial structure of military values and virtues, ←37 | 38→and a general discussion. The first section includes an introduction to positive psychology, referring to Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) concept of character strengths and the corresponding application of this theoretical framework to the traditional framework of military psychology. The subsequent section addresses the philosophical notion as well as the psychological approaches to universal values and virtues, the corresponding measurement instruments, and the research assessing the related factorial structure. Further studies describing values and virtues in the military context are highlighted in the following chapter including the emphasis in relevance within the Swiss Armed Forces. Next, the research questions as well as the specific aspects of the methodology and procedure are discussed. The subsequent three chapters describe the three studies that were conducted within the scope of this doctoral dissertation. The thesis ends with a general discussion highlighting key findings, outlining added value and limitations, and addressing implications for practice and extended research.
2 Positive psychology and how it applies to military psychology
First, an introduction is given to the science of positive psychology with specific reference to the notion of good character, to which positive characteristics such as values and virtues are linked. Second, the emerging field of positive military psychology is addressed and empirical evidence on the benefits of good character in the military setting is summarized.
2.1 The scientific framework of positive psychology
As mentioned above, values and virtues are assumed to be morally good and desirable characteristics of personality (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008), and therefore are an integral part of the overall positive psychological concept. Positive psychology is an umbrella term for theories and research about what makes life most worth living (Peterson & Park, 2003; Seligman, 2002). A preference for the scientific approach has emerged to systematically study positive characteristics, positive emotions, and positive institutions. During the first half of the 20th century, psychology pursued the following three distinct aims: “curing mental illness, making the lives of all people more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing high talent” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 6). After the Second World War, the field of psychological research had reduced its scope to only one of these missions, specifically curing mental illness. For the subsequent years, psychology was dominated by a disease model of human behavior (Seligman, 2000). The focus was now largely on pathology, on the negative effects ←38 | 39→of environmental stressors, and on the assessment and treatment of psychological disorders. Topics like the normal functioning of human beings, the application of personal strengths, and experience of positive emotions were not subjects of key interest (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman, 2000). In other words, psychology as a discipline has done very little to support the majority of the population, who are healthy and psychopathology-free, to live the psychological “good life” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5), meaning to become more productive and successful, and to develop a sense of positive engagement and meaning in life. This is what the science of positive psychology is destined to pursue.
Positive psychology was launched in 1998 by Martin Seligman during his term as president of the American Psychological Association (APA). One of his presidential initiatives was to bring forward the term “positive psychology,” to promote systematic research on flourishing individuals and thriving communities in order to learn how to foster happiness, and life and work satisfaction (Seligman, 1998). One of the main theoretical precursors is humanistic psychology. This psychological movement in the 1960s and 1970s assumed human beings to have an innate need to strive for personal growth, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life as a basic human motive. Whereas the practitioners of humanistic psychology were skeptical about scientific method, the positive psychology movement stated that “both strength and weakness” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; p. 4) could be empirically studied. However, positive psychology is not intended to replace traditional models and methods that psychologists employ in their practice or research. It is meant to balance the positive and negative aspects of life and to empirically study human flourishing, covering the full range of what makes human life (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Specifically, the research of positive psychology centers on three topics (Peterson, 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000):
(a) Positive subjective experiences (e.g., happiness, flow, pleasure)
(b) Positive individual characteristics (e.g., security or honesty as a value, courage or wisdom as a virtue, self-regulation or humor as a character strength)
(c) Positive institutions (e.g., families, workplaces, schools), which should enable the display of positive characteristics, like values, virtues, and character strengths, and which in turn foster positive experiences.
Positive psychology has grown rapidly in the last 18 years and now involves hundreds of researchers in the USA and all over the world. Much research has been conducted ever since to understand the factors and processes, which enable individuals and communities to lead the psychological good life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
←39 | 40→
2.2 Good character: The revival of research on positive traits
A further domain of research within positive psychology concerns the identification, measurement, and cultivation of good character as an expression of positive traits (Park & Peterson, 2009, 2010; Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Accordingly, a classification of virtues and character strengths was developed, intended to serve as a counterpart to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced the VIA classification of strengths as a framework for the investigation of character, virtues, and character strengths (details on the VIA classification will be outlined in section 2.2.1).
The notion of character traces back to ancient philosophy, referring to a mark impressed upon a coin. Specifically, it originates from the Greek word charassein, which means to scratch or engrave. Accordingly, the understanding of character has a long history. Following Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, trans. 2000) the concept of character implies traditionally a variety of personal attributes to live a morally good life. Similarly, Aristotle and other early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas see character as the way to make someone a good person (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
As compared to personality, character can be modified and developed with changing life circumstances and training activities (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). According to James (1899), character is the internal habit of thoughts, feelings, and action that everyone develops and that results in ultimate, authentic success. He saw the main task of a teacher as character building and understood character to be defined in the form of habits: “Your task is to build up a character in your pupils; and character, as I have so often said, consists in an organized set of habits of reaction” (James, 1899, p.108). Furthermore, he stated that “the (…) ‘character’ of an individual means really nothing but the habitual form of his associations. To break up bad associations or wrong ones, to build others in, to guide the associative tendencies into the most fruitful channels, is the educator’s principal task” (p. 57–58). Consequently, character is assumed to be capable of adaptation as a result of repetitive habits.
There is a broad variety of definitions on character as part of a complex positive psychological concept. Lickona (1991) sees character as doing the right thing despite outside pressure to the contrary. Furthermore, Berkowitz (2002) defines character as an individual set of psychological characteristics that affect the person’s ability to function morally. Pawelski (2003) summarizes a form of global definition of character stating that it is comprised of those characteristics that lead a person to do the right thing or not to do the right thing. Indeed, a ←40 | 41→common aspect of the various theoretical understanding of character is that it emphasizes volition and morality (Saucier & Srivastava, 2015).
The initial study of morality and character within personality psychology can be seen with Gordon Allport (e.g., Allport & Allport, 1921). Allport (1937, p. 51) assumed that when “personal effort is judged from the standpoint of some code” that is based on social standards it is called character. Accordingly, Allport also (1937, p. 52) stated that “character is personality evaluated.” He sought to exclude ethical judgments from personality research. For Allport, the more evaluative the term is, the less reference to personality exists and the less value for the psychologist is gained. He considered such an ethical perspective on personality not necessary for psychology. Indeed, during the period of Allport’s greatest influence, the use of the term “character” became uncommon in personality psychology. Overall there was a trend to have the terminology of character substituted by personality representing the inclusion of biophysical and psychological characteristics.
With the emergence of positive psychology at the beginning of the 21st century, the notion of character was taken up again as the inward determinant of a good life (Peterson, 2006). Specifically, Peterson and Seligman (2004) assumed that character is plural, not singular, and construed as a set of positive traits such as virtues and character strengths. Park and Peterson (2009, p. 1) refer to the importance of character with these significant words: “Good character is what we look for in leaders, what we look for in teachers and students, what we look for in colleagues at work, what parents look for in their children, and what friends look for in each other.” They continue by saying that good character “is not the absence of deficits and problems but rather a well-developed family of positive traits.” Peterson (2006) defines character as a family of individual differences, in principle distinct strengths that people possess to varying degrees, shown in thoughts, feelings, and actions. According to Boe (2017), a person can express his or her values through one’s character as a correlate of positive traits such as virtues. This understanding points to the fact that character and values are linked to each other. The VIA classification by Peterson and Seligman (2004) describes good character on three conceptual levels, where virtues as moral character traits constitute the highest level. Accordingly, good character is used primarily in relation to virtues (see section 3.6 on the conceptual difference between values and virtues).
It is worth mentioning that this new understanding of character within the framework of positive psychology relies on the notion of personality psychology, which considers individual differences to be stable, but also shaped by the individuals’ setting, and therefore subject to change. According to Pawelski (2003), the new approach will lead to important answers regarding the issues of how character might be assessed.
←41 | 42→
2.2.1 The VIA classification of strengths
In the context of establishing positive psychology, Peterson and Seligman (2004) argued that it was necessary to develop a classification of positive traits (virtues). With this primary objective in mind, they conceptualized a “hierarchical classification of positive characteristics” (p. 13) to categorize, define, and measure important character strengths. The project resulted in the VIA classification of strengths, which describes good character9 via the following three conceptual levels:
(a) virtues,
(b) character strengths, and
(c) situational themes (from the highest to the lowest level).
Table 1 provides a list of the virtues and character strengths including their definitions.
| Virtue I. | Wisdom and knowledge: intellectual strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge |
| (1) | creativity [synonyms are originality, ingenuity]: thinking of novel and productive ways to do things |
| (2) | curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: taking an interest in all of ongoing experience |
| (3) | open-mindedness [judgment, critical thinking]: thinking things through and examining them from all sides |
| (4) | love of learning: mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge |
| (5) | perspective [wisdom]: being able to provide wise counsel to others |
| Virtue II. | Courage: emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal |
| (6) | bravery [valor]: not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain |
| (7) | persistence [perseverance, industriousness]: finishing what one starts |
| (8) | integrity [authenticity, honesty] : speaking the truth and presenting oneself in a genuine way |
| (9) | vitality [zest, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: approaching life with excitement and energy |
| Virtue III. | Humanity: interpersonal strengths that involve “tending and befriending” others |
| (10) | love: valuing close relations with others |
| (11) | kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, “niceness”]: doing favors and good deeds for others |
| (12) | social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: being aware of the motives and feelings of self and others |
| Virtue IV. | Justice: civic strengths that underlie healthy community life |
| (13) | citizenship [social responsibility, loyalty, teamwork]: working well as member of a group or team |
| (14) | fairness: treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice |
| (15) | leadership: organizing group activities and seeing that they happen |
| Virtue V. | Temperance: strengths that protect against excess |
| (16) | forgiveness and mercy: forgiving those who have done wrong |
| (17) | modesty and humility: letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves |
| (18) | prudence: being careful about one’s choices; not saying or doing things that might later be regretted |
| (19) | self-regulation [self-control]: regulating what one feels and does |
| Virtue VI. | Transcendence: strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning |
| (20) | appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]: noticing and appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in all domains of life |
| (21) | gratitude: being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen |
| (22) | hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: expecting the best and working to achieve it |
| (23) | humor [playfulness]: liking to laugh and joke; bringing smiles to other people |
| (24) | spirituality [religiousness, faith, purpose]: having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose |
As illustrated in Tab. 1, virtues I–VI represent the level of (a) six virtues. Within this context, Peterson and Seligman (2004) relied on the six core virtues described by Dahlsgaard, Peterson, and Seligman (2005) which have demonstrated a continuing relevance in literature and across different cultures. Peterson and Seligman (2004) argued that these core characteristics are cross-cultural, widely recognized, and ubiquitous, suggesting the possibility of being universal. It has even been suggested that they are rooted in biology through evolutionary processes. However, since the virtues are understood at a level that is rather abstract and general, the authors did not intend to measure the concept of virtues. They focused on assessing the level of the (b) 24 character strengths [(1) to (24)], which represent the components of good character as measurable individual differences10. To establish a list of character strengths, Peterson and Seligman (2004) collected entries for “psychological ingredients – processes ←42 | 43→←43 | 44→and mechanisms – that define the virtues” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13) and then evaluated them using various methodological methods (e.g., review of literature on good character, brainstorming in core groups of scholars, and analysis of American Boy Scouts and of popular song lyrics). Moreover, a list of several defining criteria of character strengths was used to reduce the initial list of human strengths. For instance, a criteria for a character strength is “fulfilling” (i.e., contributing to individual fulfillment, satisfaction, and happiness broadly) and “measureable” (i.e., having been successfully measured by researchers as an individual) (cf. Park & Peterson, 2007). Additionally, it was hypothesized that strengths are “distinguishable routes to displaying one or another of the virtues” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13).
The lowest level of the VIA classification is defined by the (c) situational themes. These are “specific habits that lead people to manifest given character strengths in given situations” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 14). For instance, zest might be shown in a different way at work, within the family, or in a group of peers. Zest at work may manifest in broad engagement and interest in the topics relevant at work, but zest within a peer group can be displayed differently, such as organizing special events and meetings to be together. However, there are fewer research studies on situational themes than on character strengths.
Ruch and Proyer (2015) empirically verified the structural model of the VIA classification by including expert judgments. Participants were instructed to rate each strength to the extent of how prototypically it corresponds with a virtue. Results within this study supported the structure suggested by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Furthermore, they also showed that the assignment of the strengths to virtues was confirmed, as theoretically proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004), with humor as the only strength that better fits to the virtues of humanity or wisdom than to the virtue of transcendence.
From the viewpoint of this research, the importance of the VIA classification is twofold: First, it provides a well-established framework to classify and systematically assess universally valued positive characteristics. Virtues are seen as ←44 | 45→moral character traits (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2011) and good character is a function of the six virtues and 24 character strengths. Accordingly, virtues are measured on the level of character strengths. Second, the hierarchical organization in different categories suggests which character strengths are similar and which are not. This provides the framework from which an individual profile of character strengths can be generated, and the components of good character can be assessed.
To measure the 24 character strengths, several instruments have been created. The established instrument for measuring character strengths is the VIA-IS (Peterson et al., 2005)11. It is a self-report questionnaire (10 items per strength) with 240 items using a 5-point Likert-scale (from 1 = very much unlike me through 5 = very much like me). The mean of the 10 items of each scale calculates the scale score. Validation was based on the data of over 150,000 adults: Peterson and Seligman (2004) reported substantial Cronbach alphas of all scales (α > .70) and satisfactory test-retest correlations for all scales over a 4-month period (> .70). Some small relations to demographics were found. For example, women had higher scores in the strengths of humanity than men, younger adults scored higher in humor than older ones, and married participants rated themselves higher on forgiveness than divorced ones.
The original version of the VIA-IS is in the English language and was developed in several steps (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Ruch et al. (2010) adapted the VIA-IS into German. As reported in this study, internal consistencies of the German version ranged from .71 (integrity) to .90 (spirituality), with a median of .77. Retest reliabilities were equivalent to the internal consistencies. Relationships of the German VIA-IS with demographics were modest but meaningful, and comparable to the ones found for the original VIA-IS. It is this German version of the VIA-IS by Ruch et al. (2010), which was applied in the Study II of this thesis.
2.3 Towards a positive military psychology
Matthews (2008) is acknowledged as the initiator for anchoring the connection of the military with positive psychology in a first publication. He summarized ←45 | 46→the military studies on positive psychology so far, and thus introduced the concepts of positive psychology into the military organization. This had come at a time when military psychologists were faced with the increasing consequences and human challenges of the US military’s lengthy combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with a large number of soldiers12 and veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It also had become difficult to select and prepare new soldiers for combat exposure and its psychological risks. Thus, the time had come for a paradigm shift in military psychology, adopting new ways of practice and research. According to Matthews (2008), positive military psychology is not considered to replace traditional models and methods that military psychologists apply in practice and research. Rather, positive psychological concepts and methods are proposed as a supplement to the military psychologist’s toolbox. More precisely, it is argued that the military is a perfect “home” for concepts of positive psychology such as character strengths, values, and virtues (Matthews, 2008). A military environment is composed of relatively young, healthy, and pathology-free individuals (cf. Booth et al., 2007). Moreover, Matthews (2009) argued that the military is seen as a positive institution, qualifying for an organization that offers main services to society (i.e., as education and training of young men becoming soldiers, contributing to national security) becoming a key resource for collectivity. Overall, the military is an institution that works for the greater good of a society, with a strong emphasis on character development, values, morale, and welfare (Matthews, 2009).
Values, virtues, and character strengths are recognized as being critical for military leadership (Matthews et al., 2006b). There are a number of studies showing evidence that positive personality traits and good character predict success, effecting leadership, coping, and adaptation in challenging military contexts. In the following a set of studies is presented to illustrate the extending research devoted to positive psychology within military psychology in order to analyze the role of positive characteristics of soldiers.
The first study on applying positive psychology to the military was on “grit,” a positive character trait defined as a measure of passionate pursuit of long-term goals. Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly (2007) looked at how grit might have a contribution in predicting retention in Cadet Basic Training (CBT) and for academic performance in the first year at the United States Military Academy ←46 | 47→(“West Point”). They compared the results with alternative predictors such as aptitude, leadership, and physical fitness. As they reported in their study, grit was the only statistically significant variable in predicting the successful retention in CBT. Also, no evidence was given that grit correlates with aptitude, leadership, or physical fitness measures. Additionally, grit was a significant predictor of academic grades during the cadet’s first year at West Point. Matthews, Peterson, and Kelly (2006a) had all incoming members of West Point rate themselves on the 24 character strengths. At the end of CBT they compared the mean self-ratings in the VIA-IS and concluded that cadets who successfully completed CBT rated themselves significantly higher than those who left on nine strengths: bravery; vitality (zest); fairness; integrity; persistence (according to Matthews [2012], a trait highly correlated with grit); hope/optimism; leadership; self-regulation; and citizenship/teamwork. It is interesting to mention that these nine strengths are represented in the military doctrine and are therefore understood as relevant to soldier performance. It became evident that there is an overlap between the seven “Army Values” (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage; US Department of the Army, 2006) and the nine character strengths related to successful completion of West Point CBT. In conclusion, the results of this study pointed out that positive characteristics such as values, virtues, and character strengths are relevant to describe good character, successful leadership, and soldier performance in the military context.
Another important study, which exemplified how concepts of positive psychology are well suited to assess the nature of good character of soldiers and the overall military, was the study by Matthews et al. (2006b). They compared the VIA-IS-assessed character strengths of a sample of West Point cadets with two comparison groups of Royal Norwegian Naval Academy cadets and US civilians. The results showed that the two military samples consisting of young men and women attracted to military service manifested a different profile of the 24 strengths compared to the civilian counterparts. More precisely, the West Point cadets were more similar in their rank ordering of character strengths to Norwegian cadets than they were to their own fellow American citizens. Furthermore, equivalent character strengths seemed to be important for military success in both samples of West Points and Norwegian cadets. These results allowed for two interpretations. First, military culture is more influential in shaping character strengths of soldiers than the difference in national origins might suggest, and second, that the military environment attracts persons with similar profiles in character strengths.
Additionally, another set of field studies allowed relating positive characteristics to a variety of aspects of soldier adaptation and performance in training ←47 | 48→exercises. Particularly interesting with direct relation to virtues was the study by Eid, Matthews, and Johnsen (2004). The VIA-IS was administered to Norwegian cadets prior to departing on a ten-week mission involving physically and mentally challenging tasks and a lengthy separation from family and friends, assessing their individual character strengths. Matching the individual strengths to their corresponding moral virtues (i.e., wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence)13, it was found that the virtues had a marginal influence (p < .15) on self and peer ratings of productivity, self-confidence, and leadership behavior. The two studies of Matthews, Brazil, and Erwin (2009) and Matthews (2009) looked at character strengths and performance of soldiers deployed in actual combat conditions. They surveyed Army officers deployed in combat settings or those who recently returned from deployment, to investigate which strengths are most important to these combat leaders. The strengths consistently most frequently mentioned as relevant to military leaders in combat were bravery, citizenship, persistence, social intelligence, integrity, capacity to love, and judgment. Furthermore, the role of values, virtues, and character strengths in coping and resilience is of particular relevance to the military (Casey, 2011). The establishment of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program (Cornum, Matthews, & Seligman, 2011) as positive-psychology-based interventions to increase psychological strength and positive performance in the US Army reinforced the notion that character plays a key role in adapting and performing in combat and shows that within the military context it has been recognized that values and virtues are critical for a successful military profession.
In brief, these studies indicate that positive characteristics of soldiers must be inevitably taken into account to reliably describe and predict what makes a good, adaptive, and successful soldier. These and other results clearly suggest that positive psychology-derived constructs may contribute significantly to our understanding of how to train and educate soldiers. It is important to learn how values, virtues, and character strengths may play a role for the success of soldiers experiencing extremely challenging training and combat situations. In other words, the three pillars of positive psychology – positive states, positive traits, and positive institutions – provide a framework for pursuing research and application of positive psychology principles to military psychology.
←48 | 49→
In accordance with Matthews (2008), character strengths that are important in combat can differ from those vital to success in training or in administrative job within the military. Whereas military institutions like the US Army hold their main focus on operational military targets and missions, the Swiss Armed Forces is focusing on training for operational readiness. In spite of this difference in missions, the Swiss Armed Forces is likewise an ideal setting for applying the principles of positive psychology. The first study in confirming the value of applying positive psychology to research within the Swiss Armed Forces was conducted by Eggimann and Schneider (2008). They studied character strengths and virtues of Swiss career officers and found hope, curiosity, vitality, bravery, integrity, and self-regulation to be significantly related to higher work satisfaction (cf. Proyer et al., 2012).
3 Research on values and virtues
Within numerous social science domains (e.g., sociology, political sciences, ethics), values and virtues play an important role, frequently the prime one (e.g., for explaining the circumstances of a value shift, voting behavior, moral judgment). It is recognized that values and virtues attract increasing interest and exhibit a large diversity of influence, and deserve significant research focus (Trommsdorff, 1996). The concepts of values and virtues, however, have been variously interpreted and broadly explored, both within theoretical and practical contexts. It was predominantly the philosophical viewpoint that initially stimulated the core discussions on the subject of values and virtues as psychological concepts (Urban, 1907; Münsterberg, 1908).
The following sections therefore reference the precursors in philosophy, describing the subject of values and virtues and its conceptual difference. Additionally, the corresponding theoretical approaches within the psychological literature are addressed. A special focus will be given to the relevance of values and virtues within personality psychology as well as positive psychology. Furthermore, areas of research requiring further attention will be highlighted within the following part.
3.1 Values and virtues in philosophy
Traditionally, it was the domain of philosophy to explore the nature and meaning of morally good characteristics such as values and virtues (Morales-Vives et al., 2014). Numerous moral philosophers and religious thinkers throughout history have been recognized for their interpretations of values and virtues. From ←49 | 50→a historical viewpoint, it has been an ongoing attempt to clarify, conceptualize, and formulate what is or should have value in individual and social life. The very first Greek philosophers asked “What is the good of a person?” This further inspired thinkers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle to examine and enumerate values and virtues as positive characteristics of individuals. Accordingly, it is crucial to include the historical perspective as part of ongoing research. The following provides an overview on how historical predecessors addressed and defined value and virtue.
It is worth mentioning that the concepts of values and virtues have been subject to separate theories in early areas of philosophers (Russi, 2009). Virtues were considered as the behavior that enable a person to align with a very important personal value and to have it preserved. A value reflects the anticipated goal, while virtues transform into action and behavior that allows a person to achieve the goal. Accordingly, the great philosophers derived their virtues from the presumptions that they made of the most important values. Correspondingly, the philosophers have either relied on the subject of virtue and emphasized more the behavior component or focused on values as the goal of behavior. For this reason, the following historical summary addresses both values and virtues in each individual, and in most of the situations the philosopher is dealing with either one of the concepts (Russi, 2009).
The sophists in ancient Greek were very competent professional teachers and intellectuals. They turned against an unconditional acceptance of moral values and inherently derived laws and norms. Protagoras of Abdera (490–420 BCE) was the most prominent member of the sophistic movement and believed “man is the measure of all things.” He subscribed to the subjective view that values, virtues, and norms were the result of human agreement and could be rationally discussed and challenged (cf. Lee, 2005).
Plato (427–347 BCE), in reaction to this, was of a strongly different opinion: He was in search of the good in himself and anchored it as the highest idea within the absolute framework of ideas of the ideal human being. He was underlining the viewpoint that the good is the foundation of all values, but even more so of all being at all. Given this perspective, Plato also derived the four cardinal virtues. In the Republic as his magnum opus on the ideal human society, he defined the first major virtue catalog of the West: wisdom (sophia), courage (andreia), self-restraint (sophrosyne), and justice (dikaiosyne) (Plato, trans. 1968, as cited in Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was Plato’s most accomplished student. In his Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, trans. 2000) he tried to determine the highest good. In raising this question “What is the good?” Aristotle was not looking ←50 | 51→for a list of items that are good. Instead, his search was for the highest good. Consequently, he shifted the concept of good into the practical way of perspective: All people strive for happiness (eudaimonia), but everyone understands something different. In order to determine the greatest possible happiness for man, he has to acknowledge himself as a human species, which distinguishes him from animal in having reason. Consequently, the highest good, which is possible for human beings, must lie in practicing reason. Accordingly, human happiness is best achieved through a life of contemplation, which is the ultimate goal of human action and desire. The key question lies in how human beings can reach this objective. To this end, Aristotle developed a theory on virtues, which is called “virtue ethics” (Aristotle, trans. 1984). As part of his reasoning, Aristotle stated that virtuous behavior is a social practice exercised by a citizen of an ideal city. He had the understanding that virtue is an acquired skill learned through trial and error. Therefore, virtue is not inherent, but must be acquired in a theoretical and practical learning process. Whatever way virtue is learned, most important is the knowledge on the right amount and mean of a virtue. Related to this understanding Aristotle characterized virtues developing a doctrine of means: If a person encounters a situation and, basing the decision on reason, experience, and content, he or she chooses a course of action from between two extremes of dispositions, those of deficiency and excess. The mean between these two is virtue. Consequently, Aristotle conceived virtues as the desirable mean states between vices of deficiency and vices of excess. For instance, courage is the mean between cowardliness (vice of deficiency) and recklessness (vice of excess). Similarly, humility would be a virtue between the deficiency of shyness and the excess of shamelessness (Aristotle, trans. 2000, book II, chapter VIII). Central to this conceptual understanding is that individuals make a deliberate, rational choice to act in a manner that lies between these two extremes and is thus considered virtuous (Mintz, 1996). In fact, Aristotle assumed that good judgment held the greatest importance in ethics. Accordingly, the ability to carefully consider how a virtuous person would act when facing an ethical dilemma is key to developing a virtuous character (Cameron, 2011; Nybert, 2007; Solomon, 1992). As mentioned above, Aristotle’s list of virtues includes the original four cardinal virtues. However, he added a number of other virtues, such as generosity, wit, friendliness, truthfulness, magnificence, and greatness of soul (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The philosopher Epicur (341–270 BCE) has declared joy to be the highest value for men and is considered the inventor of hedonism. Blessed is a life when it is free from physical pain (aponia) and free from confusion of the soul (that state he called ataraxia). Epicur did not enumerate a list of virtues, but he ←51 | 52→recommended staying out of many areas that required virtue (e.g., politics or marriage). Specifically, friendship between individuals was of great value to him (Krobath, 2009).
The Stoics further reinforced the value of ataraxia to apathy (apatheia): The path to happiness for the human being is found by not allowing ourselves to be controlled by our desire for pleasure or our fear of pain (Krobath, 2009). From Aristotle, the Stoics accepted that happiness was the highest value for human beings. This happiness, they taught, could be achieved through virtue, self-education, and self-control.
As a Christian theologian of the middle age, Aquinas (1224–1274) rejected Aristotle’s additions to Plato and added three theological virtues proposed by Saint Paul: faith, hope, and love (Aquinas, trans. 1989, as cited in Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Aquinas argued for a hierarchical organization of virtues and defined the seven heavenly virtues: wisdom, courage, self-restraint, justice, faith, hope, and love. Within these seven heavenly virtues, Aquinas specified what Peterson and Seligman (2004) later defined as the six core virtues, describing transcendence with the virtues faith and hope, and humanity with the virtue of love.
In response to the stifled values and norms of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, with its retrospectual revival of the classical thinking of ancient times and its ideal of the human personality, brought about a cultural crisis and the shattering of moral orders. Reformation and counterreformation stabilized values. With Luther (1483–1546) and Calvin (1509–1564), a canon of virtues and values was developed, that, until recently, was predominately accepted as a standard: orderliness, cleanliness, thriftiness, punctuality, industriousness, and diligence (cf. Bollnow, 1958).
A radical change towards modern value thinking then brought the Enlightenment with its appeal to reason. For Kant (1724–1804), the center of virtue is morality and the human end purpose of creation, and thus its supreme value. As a being endowed with reason, a person has the duty to strive after the good, according to what is accepted as morally correct. When all human beings fulfill their ethical duties, they generate values that benefit everyone. The main values that emerged in the course of the Enlightenment period are still valid in the broader sense, specifically humanity and human dignity, tolerance, individual freedom, and equality (Kant, 1785, as cited in Krobath, 2009).
Around the turn of the 19th century, the concept of value by Lotze (1817–1881) became a fundamental category of philosophy. Value theory is concerned with two fundamental questions: 1) What is value in itself? and 2) What are the different forms of values? Accordingly, two main groups can be distinguished: objectivists and subjectivists. The objectivists claim that things and ←52 | 53→actions can be evaluated because they have an absolute value (as cited in Krobath, 2009). Value judgments are therefore to be designated as true or false in the same way as descriptive judgments. The subjectivists claim that values are nothing other than projections of subjective feelings and attitudes. When you evaluate a thing or action, you do not say anything about it in itself, but instead express a subjective feeling or personal attitude. Moral values can therefore be neither true nor false (Hügli & Lübcke, 2003).
In the area of the debate about the objectivist view, axiology is described as a strict theory of values. Here certain axioms had been set up. Brentano (1838–1917) was the first to develop a classical theory of intrinsic value, which he attempted to base upon the philosophical psychology. In his essay “The origin of the knowledge of right and wrong” (1889), he presented fundamental considerations on ethical values. He thus founded the idea of “descriptive psychology” and shaped psychology as an exact science (Baumgartner & Reimherr, 2006). Specifically, he researched the criteria that relate to the question of law, custom, and order. Brentano was inspired by Aristotle’s method to decipher and decode the essence of things by analyzing their simplest components and their structural contexts. His reasoning is based on the assumption that even for ethical problems, rational criteria of assessment and a justifiable ranking of values can be found (Brentano, 1889, as cited in Chisholm, 1986). By carrying out the possibility of such gradation, he presents a concept of value ethics. In doing so, he distinguished three fundamental categories of consciousness: imagining, judging (whether right or wrong), and emotional states (emotions that are good or bad, in the form of loving or hating). He thus presented a theory of values of the inner world and sought a way to place judgments of subjective feeling on a rational basis. Brentano recognized the origin of the concepts of truth or falsity, or of the good and the bad. “True” is something when the recognition referenced to it is appropriate, and “good” is something when the related love is correct. He also presupposed that universal and immutable moral laws exist for all humans. In addition, the following axioms were defined: the existence of a positive value is itself a positive value; the existence of a negative value is itself a negative value; the nonexistence of a negative value is a positive value, the nonexistence of a positive value is a negative value; the same value cannot be positive and negative at the same time; and it is impossible to maintain the same value for positive and negative (Brentano, 1889, as cited in Chisholm, 1986). According to the theory of Brentano, judgments based on reasoned criteria can be verified or falsified. Brentano was thus the first to create a foundation for the assessment of intrinsic values to relate to the subjective individual view, and at the same time to maintain an objective mindset.
←53 | 54→
The primary lessons learned from this historical excursion into the field of philosophy are the following:
– Values and virtues had been understood early in history as separate concepts;
– The concern of the greatest philosophers since antiquity has been with the question of “What are the most important values and virtues for humans?”
– There is variability across history, cultures, and intellectual tradition in terms of what values and virtues are worth striving for, but convergence can be found in the usually hierarchical listing and organizing of values and virtues;
– Plato stated that the good is the foundation of all values and derived the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, self-restraint, and justice;
– Aristotle significantly shaped the notion of a virtue and assumed that virtues are moral qualities attributable to individual reasoning behavior, formulating a list of virtues including the original four cardinal virtues and a number of other virtues;
– Aquinas added three theological virtues (faith, hope, and love) to the original four cardinal virtues, resulting in a categorization very similar to Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) understanding of six core virtues; and
– Bretano developed a classical theory of intrinsic value and founded the rational basis for judgments of subjective feeling on values.
Interestingly, many of the central ideas of these philosophical thinkers later reappeared and contributed to psychological approaches towards values and virtues. Therefore, it is essential to consider the historic perspective on value and virtues, when interpreting current and future research findings. Subsequently, in the description of the theories on universal values and virtues below, the two concepts are discussed in separate chapters.
3.2 Universal values: Definitions and theories
Scholl-Schaaf (1975) defined three types of values: (a) value defined as a guiding principle, (b) value as a norm, and (c) value as a goal. The first definition, value as a guiding principle, is the basis of this research; however, all three definitions are given consideration. A value refers to the individual importance and relevance of a particular subject: “It is of great value to me,” meaning “It is of importance to me and I will stand up for it.”
According to Bilsky (2005), the attempt to agree on a unified definition of values has been unsuccessful. This implies that comparing and interpreting research results has its limitation in terms of precision and reproducibility, ←54 | 55→unless a particular value has a common lexical definition. Nevertheless, there are predominant factors of commonality when reference is made to values. Hitlin and Piliavin (2004, p. 362) described the domain of values as an “internal moral compass.” A more general definition of value is given by the lexicon of Dorsch (2016, 18th edition, p. 1790):
With reference to individual values by Kluckhohn (1951), values are defined as explicit or implicit conceptions of the desirable, both in the context of an individual and a group, impacting the choice between available types, means and goals of actions. This often criticized conceptual formulation (Graumann & Willig, 1983) has not been substituted in literature through a more agreeable definition (Rohan, 2000).
In alignment with the definition above, there is consensus within research, that in the context of values “there is a relatively limited number of concepts or descriptions, which correspond to desirable behaviors or goals (or mental states)” (Bilsky, 2005, p. 300). Moreover, it is assumed that values are valid across situations, imposing guidance towards choice and appraisal of behaviors and circumstances. In line with this understanding, Rokeach (1973b, p. 5) defined values as “enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” He was interested in a full set of values as “guiding principles” (p. 358) to describe an individual view, and implemented two distinct lists of 18 instrumental values (describing modes of conduct as forms of behavior) and 18 terminal values (describing end-states of existence as lifetime goals). Similarly, Schwartz (1992, 1994, 1999) focused on the motivational power of values and defined them as desirable goals that vary in importance across situations and that guide the way social actors (e.g., individual persons such as military leaders) choose actions and evaluate people and events. He derived his definition of values from the understanding of Rokeach and conceived values likewise as “cognitive representations of desirable, abstract, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (cited according to Corr and Matthews, 2009, p. 593). Unlike Hofstede (1980) or Schwartz (1994, 1999) who were interested in values as they manifested themselves at a sociocultural level, Rokeach studied values as interindividual differences. As an overview, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) concluded on five formal features of values, which are usually addressed in definitions: “According to the literature, values are (i) concepts or beliefs, (ii) about desirable end states or behaviors, (iii) that transcend specific situations, (iv) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (v) are ordered by relative importance” (p. 551).
←55 | 56→
The above definitions of values illustrate that the application of the concept of values implies individual, social, and organizational aspects. In situations where individual values take preference, the corresponding research is assigned to personality psychology, while research on social values align with social psychology. In concrete, personality psychology concentrates on:
– measuring personal values as interindividual differences;
– distinguishing a set of core values, to categorize them and to investigate their structure; and
– reaching a conclusion as to how values relate to basic traits of personality (Bilsky, 2005).
Considering the publications on values of the last decades, one recognizes that the expanding interest in psychological value research correlates with the increase in social psychological research. Within the context of personality-psychology, the actual efforts in research were diminishing. An analysis of the research activities on ISI Web of Science (December 5, 2017) showed 8,433 records on values within the psychological field. More than half of these manuscripts have reference to social psychology and among the ten most cited (ISI Web of Science, “citation report values,” 2017) are six articles which address the scope of social psychology. In accordance with Bilsky (2005), the constraint is with research, which aim at a theoretical-based integration of available research data. As proposed by Bilsky and Schwartz (1994), as well as by Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, and Knafo (2002), the future demands a substantial degree of coordinated research. This is confirmed by De Raad and Van Oudenhoven (2008), who declared: “The study of values had an almost equally long history as that of traits, but catalogues of values that claim full and integrated coverage of the field are hard to find” (p. 82).
The present thesis had a personality psychological focus and studies values as they pertain to individual military persons. Its aim is to make an integrative contribution to the existing approaches to values, establishing a catalog of values with specific reference to military psychology. In alignment with previous studies on interpersonal differences in values, in the present thesis a value was understood to be “a relatively enduring characteristic of individuals that reflect what is important to them and that guides them in their behaviors and decisions” (De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008, p. 85–86).
3.2.1 Two main strains of value research
The following section reviews the progress in psychological research on values, including the appropriate theoretical background and understanding. ←56 | 57→The psychological systems of values are focused on the question of how many universal values can be distinguished. This particular subject has been investigated within two domains of research, with little connection to each other, referring back to (1) Spranger (1928) as well as Vernon and Allport (1931), and to (2) Rokeach (1973b) and Schwartz (1992, 1999). It is worth mentioning that the empirical value research played a lesser role within psychology during the first half of the 20th century and the first strain of research pursuit (Bilsky, 2005). The situation only changed towards the end of the 1960s in the second strain of research, in reference to Milton Rokeach, who enjoyed wide acceptance within the domain of psychology. Likewise, Schwartz (1992) aligned with Rokeach (1973b) value theory, in an attempt to explore a universal theoretical structure of values. The following sections describe more specifically the two separate research strains on values.
1a) Types of Men by Spranger
Eduard Spranger was a German philosopher, pedagogist, and psychologist, widely acknowledged for his contribution in establishing pedagogy as a distinct academic discipline. Spranger’s most influential contribution to personality theory was his book Lebensformen ([Types of Men]; Spranger, 1928).
Spranger (1928) held the opinion that the human personality is best understood by assessing the corresponding values. To facilitate the process of exploring knowledge, Spranger conceptualized the six “ideal types of individuality” based on rational thinking. This perspective accounts for the theoretical, the economic, the aesthetic, the social, the political, and the religious type. According to Spranger (1928), the various personality types and their corresponding values are characterized as follows (information retrieved from Krobath, 2009):
– Theoretical type: a passion to discover, systemize, and analyze; corresponding values include discovery of truth, discovery of rules, and search for knowledge.
– Economic/Utilitarian type: a passion to gain a return on all investments involving time, money, and resources; corresponding values include work, production, security, and wealth.
– Aesthetic type: a passion to experience impressions of the world and achieve harmony in life; corresponding values include individual expression, fantasy, beauty, harmony, and grace.
– Social type: a passion to invest myself, including my time and resources, into helping others achieve their potential; corresponding values include love, empathy, and loyalty.
– Political/Power type: A passion to achieve position and to use that position to affect and influence others; corresponding values include power, vitality, perseverance, self-realization, and influence.
←57 | 58→
– Religious/Traditional type: A passion to seek out and pursue the highest meaning in life, in the divine or the ideal, and achieve a system for living; corresponding values include unity and relativity of human existence.
According to Spranger (1928), this concept is a logical consequence of the assumption, “that each individual structure has a dominating value orientation” (p. 114). Spranger implied that no human personality was bound to fall exclusively into the scope of one of the six “ideal types of individuality.”
1b) “Study of Values” by Allport and Vernon
The studies by the psychologists Allport und Vernon in the 1930s initiated a first step towards an empirical research on values. Furthermore, Allport and Vernon (1931) established the “Study of Values” scale (SOV). This was the most generally used instrument in psychology for many years, based on Spranger’s rationally created model of the six “Types of Men” (cf. Lurie, 1937). The SOV was revised in 1951 (content-wise) and in 1960 (formally). Thereafter the “Study of Values” received strong international acceptance, although it was criticized for perceived “conservative-educational” items and for confounding effects in values and interests (Graumann & Willig, 1983). Specific information on this measurement instrument is provided in section 3.2.2.
1c) Psychology of Politics by Eysenck
In his book Psychology of Politics, personality psychologist Eysenck (1954) referred to values and interpreted the six value types described by Spranger. By analyzing various statements on the subject of social attitude, he identified two orthogonal personality factors which he named “tough-tender Mindedness” (T-factor) and “Radicalism-Conservatism” (R-factor) (cf. Ray, 1973). He assumed that each value type by Spranger (1928) is dominated by a different value attitude as captured by the T- and R-factor. Furthermore, Eysenck described various evaluation studies about the SOV and drew conclusions in his final part: “The evidence is fairly conclusive that the values as measured by the Allport-Vernon Scale are closely related to interest patterns and that these interest patterns show a structure well in line with our T-factor” (p. 169). However, Eysenck (1954) did not claim that the T-factor is a sufficient dimension of covering social attitudes. Accordingly, Eysenck searched for personality psychological explanations of why tough-mindedness (among the T-factor) goes beyond the continuum of left-right orientation (e.g., Stalin vs. Hitler). By investigating empirical data he concluded on the schematic solution that the fascist-right mindset is identified as a tough-minded conservative position and ←58 | 59→the communist-left mindset as a tough-minded radical position. He reasoned that the R-factor fundamentally includes social attitudes, and the T-factor can be seen as a projection on to the attitude level of a personality variable of Extraversion. By drawing a relationship to values, Eysenck succeeded in a first attempt to conceptually combine the two personality factors tender-mindedness vs. tough-mindedness (T-factor) as well as Radicalism vs. Conservatism (R-factor) with the value types of Spranger.
1d) Other systems of values
In the 1940s and 1950s Morris (1956) developed a different, equally well-respected, research approach. As a theoretical basis, he referred to the assumption of the three components of dependence, dominance, and detachment (named as Dionysian, Promethean, and Buddhist), which were considered fundamental to human personality (cf. Schlöder, 1993). He defined the concept of seven “Lebenswege” (“ways of life”), each of which he assigned to one of the three components: the Buddhist path of detachment of desire, the Dionysian path of abandonment to primitive impulses, the Promethean path of creative reconstruction, the Apollonian path of rational moderation, the Christian path of sympathetic love, the Mohammedan path of the holy war, and the path of generalized detachment-attachment. From an empirical perspective, his initial theoretical approach was too constraining. Therefore, Morris and Jones (1955) extended the theory to thirteen “ways of life,” which were assessed by participants on the basis of a combined rating and ranking scale (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991). Richards (1966) factor-analyzed ratings from college freshmen in 31 institutions of higher education on 35 items pertaining to the students’ goals. The factor-analysis was performed separately for males and females. The two groups were found to share seven factors, which according to Richards (1966) assess many of the same factors of the SOV by Allport and Vernon (1931).
2a) The system of values by Rokeach
As another theory, Rokeach (1973b) provided with his publication “The Nature of Human Values,” an influential theory concerning the way values are understood. His assumption was that i) the number of values held by an individual person is relatively small, ii) all human beings have the same values differing in their extent, and iii) values are organized into value systems. Accordingly, he was interested in a full set of values to describe an individual view. Rokeach implemented two distinctive lists of 18 instrumental values (describing modes of conduct as forms of behavior) and 18 terminal values (describing end-states of existence as lifetime goals).
←59 | 60→
The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS; Rokeach, 1973a) was widely used as a comprehensive psychological instrument to assess individual values (e.g., Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Feather, 1986; Rokeach, 1973b, 1979). The 18 terminal values, covered by nouns, and 18 instrumental values, covered by adjectives, are sorted into an individual ranking according to the degree the value is desired for one’s self and for others (referring to Tab. 2).
Tab. 2: Values of the RVS (Rokeach, 1973a)
| Terminal values (nouns) | Instrumental values (adjectives) |
| comfortable life | ambitious |
| exciting life | broadminded |
| a sense of accomplishment | capable |
| a world at peace | cheerful |
| equality | clean |
| family security | courageous |
| freedom | forgiving |
| happiness | helpful |
| inner harmony | honest |
| mature love | imaginative |
| national security | independent |
| pleasure | intellectual |
| salvation (belief in God) | logical |
| self-respect | obedient |
| social recognition | polite |
| true friendship | responsible |
| wisdom | self-controlled |
Table 2 identifies the two lists of terminal and instrumental values of the RVS. The instrumental values correlate well with concrete modes of conduct as norms of behavior14, while terminal values are positioned on a higher abstraction level. Terminal values can be attained by varying different modes of conduct. For example, social recognition (terminal value) can be accomplished through instrumental values such as polite, capable, cheerful, forgiving, responsible or helpful (Asendorpf, 2004). Factor-analysis based on rank-orders of the two lists of values showed six factors (Rokeach, 1974; Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989), called (1) immediate vs. delayed gratification, (2) competence vs. religious morality, (3) self-constriction vs. self-expansion, (4) social vs. personal orientation, (5) societal vs. family security, and (6) respect vs. love. Although Rokeach’s theory was aimed at differentiating between instrumental and terminal values, he assumed that instrumental and terminal values could be further specified, dependent on whether they relate to individual wellbeing or to the wellbeing of others. The instrumental values with individual focus he called “competence values” (e.g., to be ambitious, intellectual, or independent) while those instrumental values with the wellbeing-focus on others he called “moral values” (e.g., to be helpful, forgiving, or polite). Accordingly, terminal values with self-focus were called “personal values” (e.g., self-respect, comfortable life, or freedom), and those with the focus on others were addressed as “social values” (e.g., equality, national security, or a world at peace). Ultimately, Rokeach’s value system is based on the assumption that the differentiation between self-focus and other-focus is of high significance. Rokeach (1973b) concluded: “Values are the joint results of sociological as well as psychological forces acting upon the individual” (p. 29). With this perspective in mind, values represent the personal and the social preferences of individual needs and social norms. The model by Rokeach received broad acceptance within the psychology discipline, mainly justified by ←60 | 61→the RVS being an economical and widely applicable instrument. Nevertheless, it was not based on a coherent theory of values, instead being the result of a series of unconnected, predominantly plausible assumptions (Bilsky, 2005). The inadequate theoretical justification of Rokeach’s research approach led to repeated attempts to validate the inherent structure of the RVS.
2b) The system of values by Schwartz
In recent years, the conceptual framework of Schwartz (1992, 1994) and Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) has strongly influenced the research on values. From the outset, Schwartz was interested in developing a structural theory of human values, which can take cultural-specific and cross-cultural aspects into equal account. His approach was designed to summarize the multitude of unrelated individual values, which differ in their motivational content. By means of a facet-theoretical approach, he initially identified seven motivational domains of values and ultimately increased it to ten domains, representing a universal structure of the ten human values of universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction.
