Values and Virtues in the Military. Nadine Eggimann Zanetti

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