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
