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
