Abstract
Background
In today’s era of asymmetric and unconventional warfare, psychological fitness is equally important as physical fitness. Personality assessment of soldiers, and more so officers who are leaders of men is essential in deciding what makes a good “War asset” The present study was conducted to explore the correlation between personality traits of cadets undergoing training in an Armed Forces Training Academy and their performance in terms of their military and academic pursuits.
Methods
Personality traits of 607 cadets determined using Revised Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) were compared and correlated with their performance in terms of Officer Like Qualities (OLQ), Outdoor activities (ODT), Academics, and Extracurricular Activities (ECA).
Results
Cadets with high personality traits scores in Neuroticism and low scores in Conscientiousness (Work ethics) had performed poorly in all the domains/criteria for evaluation of performance viz Officer like qualities, Outdoor activities, Academics, and Extracurricular Activities. Further, a significant negative correlation was observed between facets of Neuroticism and Academics, ODT, and OLQ. In contrast, personality facets of Conscientiousness (Work ethic) were found to be positively correlated with performance in Academics, ODT, and OLQ. Extracurricular activities were found to be positively correlated with Modesty and Intellectual Curiosity.
Conclusion
The present study represents the first-ever attempt in Indian Armed Forces to correlate and identify personality traits most suited for military training. The findings of the study indicate that cadets with low scores of neuroticism and high scores of conscientiousness perform well in the military academy. However, more such studies are required to reaffirm the findings of the present study and to conclusively recommend personality traits most conducive for military training.
Keywords: Personality traits, Military training, Neuroticism, Officer Like Qualities
Background
Like many militaries of the developing world, efforts of the Indian Armed Forces are predominantly directed toward upgrading, developing, modernizing, and procuring hardware. While, physical fitness of personnel is given paramount importance, relatively, little importance is given to the psychological status or personality traits of Armed Forces personnel. In today’s world of constantly changing diplomatic policies, military strategies, and availability of cutting-edge technology, the threats and vulnerabilities to which Armed Forces are exposed, have also undergone unprecedented changes.1 The unethical, asymmetric, and unconventional strategies of the adversary have put the Armed Forces personnel at a greater risk of psychological casualties rather than physical injuries.2 Therefore, personality profiling of soldiers, and more so officers, who are leaders of men, is essential in deciding what makes a good “War asset.”
The military profession is unique, wherein an officer is expected to excel in every field, be it academics, outdoor military training, sports, or extracurricular activities. It is generally expected that trainees selected through a very robust selection process, including a battery of psychological assessment tests, have all the qualities of becoming a good military officer, but still some trainees lag, and some perform exceedingly well in various spheres of assessment. The history of personality assessment dates back to the First World War when large numbers of candidates were tested in very short time spans in order to assign them to the jobs in which they would function most efficiently during military operations.3 Over the years, personality assessment programs have evolved and have become more precise in order to select the best person suited for a specific military task. For example, the United States military conducts a Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) for identifying Soldiers for Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) training.4 Similarly, the Swiss Armed Forces conducts General Mental Ability (GMA) test to select officers.5 To summarize, psychological tests have proved their utility in selecting the best for military service, and their use goes beyond mere recruitment; psychological testing and assessment in the military is a “continuum.” Psychological tests can be utilized in recruitment, promotion, placement, special military missions, diagnosis, and treatment of personnel with psychopathology.
In India, numerous customized tests developed by the Defence Institute of Psychological Research are used for the selection of Armed Forces personnel for induction and for ascertaining psychological suitability for specific tasks or training. However, very few researchers have tried to explore personality traits, viz-a-viz the performance of selected candidates in terms of military service. Hence, the present study was conducted to ascertain the correlation between the personality traits of cadets undergoing training in an Armed Forces Training Academy and their performance in terms of their military and academic pursuits.
Material and Methods
This was a cross-sectional, questionnaire based study. Out of a total of 656 trainees, 607 participated in the study, and the remaining 49 trainees could not participate because of hospitalization, sick leave, or outstation visits. There were no inclusion/exclusion criteria, and no trainee declined to participate. Informed consent was obtained after explaining the details of the study. Revised Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) was used for personality assessment. The NEO PI-R consists of 240 items (questions) and is a personality inventory that examines a person’s “Big Five” personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Change, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). Each main personality trait has six subcategories called facets.6 Participants were asked to rate the items on a five-point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The reported reliability coefficient of responses on the five scales ranged from 0.89 to 0.93 (alpha).7,8 The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the NEO PI-R has also been found to be satisfactory in various populations, including India.9 The trainees were assembled in groups of 100–150 in an air-conditioned hall and administered the NEO PI-R questionnaire. The principal investigator was present throughout the session to clear any queries regarding the questions.
The term-end performance/results of the cadets were obtained from the Training Department of the Academy. Each cadet was adjudged by the faculty of the academy as per set protocols in the domains of Officer-like qualities (OLQ was assessed by the instructors and directing staff based on overall conduct/turnout/participation in team activities of the squadron, organizing and reasoning ability, sense of responsibility, initiative, decision making, determination, etc), Outdoor activities (performance in the outdoor activities was based upon completion specific outdoor training tasks such as rope climbing, obstacle course, etc), Academics and Extracurricular activities (the performance of cadets in extracurricular activities was adjudged by the directing staff and senior faculty based on participation and proficiency of the cadet in extracurricular activities such as music, painting, debating, elocution, etc). The collected data were recorded in a computerized spreadsheet (Microsoft ® Excel) and analyzed using SPSS software (version 21). Descriptive statistics used include frequencies, percentages, percentiles, and measures of central tendency. Data was compared using the Mann–Whitney U test, and Spearman rank correlation was applied for assessing co-relation between personality traits and term-end performance in various categories. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. The study had the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of the Institution.
Results
A total of 607 cadets undergoing training in an Armed Forces training institute participated in the study. All the trainees were males and were between 18 and 20 years of age. Based on the assessment results, for the purpose of analysis, the cadets were divided into two groups (score less than or equal to 25th percentile and score more than 25th percentile) with respect to their term-end score obtained in four broad categories i.e. Officer-like qualities, Outdoor activities, Academics, and Extracurricular activities. Personality traits of the two groups were compared to identify dominant traits in each group [Table 1]. It was observed that trainees who had scored ≤25th percentile in Officer-like qualities had significantly (p value < 0.05) higher scores of moodiness and low scores of positive emotions, outgoingness, and need to achieve personality characteristics. Similarly, when scores of outdoor activities were compared vis-à-vis personality traits, it was observed that cadets with lower scores in outdoor activity also had low scores of Outgoingness, Assertiveness, Excitement seeking, Positive emotions, Trust in others, Consideration for others, Sense of competence, and Self-discipline (p value < 0.05). Similarly, personality traits of cadets scoring >25th percentile in academics and extracurricular activities were compared with cadets scoring ≤25th percentile and are depicted in table no.1.
Table 1.
Difference in performance scores based on personality traits.
| Sl No | Personality trait | Academics |
Extracurricular Activities (ECA) |
Outdoor Training (ODT) |
Officer Like Qualities (OLQ) |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (Percentile <25) | Group 2 (Percentile >25) | p Value | Group 1 (Percentile <25) | Group 2 (Percentile >25) | p Value | Group 1 (Percentile <25) | Group 2 (Percentile >25) | p Value | Group 1 (Percentile <25) | Group 2 (Percentile >25) | p Value | |||
| 1. | Neuroticism | |||||||||||||
| (a) | Worry | 50.52 (±9.36) | 50.45 (±8.46) | 0.821 | 50.52 (±9.36) | 50.45 (±8.46) | 0.821 | 51.73 (±8.858) | 50.07 (±8.59) | 0.020 | 51.09 (±9.50) | 50.31 (±8.45) | 0.599 | |
| (b) | Frustration/Quickness to anger | 49.24 (±9.40) | 50.08 (±9.93) | 0.601 | 49.24 (±9.40) | 50.08 (±9.93) | 0.601 | 50.90 (±9.908) | 49.55 (±9.76) | 0.107 | 50.69 (±9.79) | 49.66 (±9.81) | 0.331 | |
| (c) | Moodiness | 55.27 (±8.39) | 55.32 (±7.72) | 0.758 | 55.27 (±8.39) | 55.32 (±7.72) | 0.758 | 57.56 (±8.688) | 54.58 (±7.48) | 0.000 | 56.71 (±9.18) | 54.94 (±7.48) | 0.042 | |
| (d) | Social concerns | 48.31 (±9.90) | 49.18 (±8.78) | 0.380 | 48.31 (±9.90) | 49.18 (±8.78) | 0.380 | 50.60 (±9.561) | 48.45 (±8.84) | 0.022 | 49.78 (±9.54) | 48.76 (±8.93) | 0.240 | |
| (e) | Self-indulgence | 48.16 (±8.48) | 48.62 (±7.60) | 0.911 | 48.16 (±8.48) | 48.62 (±7.60) | 0.911 | 50.18 (±7.435) | 47.97 (±7.87) | 0.004 | 49.21 (±8.42) | 48.32 (±7.65) | 0.183 | |
| (f) | Sensitivity of stress | 49.30 (±11.26) | 48.29 (±11.15) | 0.385 | 49.30 (±11.26) | 48.29 (±11.15) | 0.385 | 50.35 (±11.19) | 47.95 (±11.11) | 0.038 | 50.02 (±11.97) | 48.14 (±10.93) | 0.162 | |
| 2. | Openness to Change | |||||||||||||
| (a) | Imagination | 48.38 (±8.61) | 49.05 (±8.01) | 0.428 | 48.38 (±8.61) | 49.05 (±8.01) | 0.428 | 48.67 (±8.04) | 48.96 (±8.20) | 0.750 | 48.40 (±8.77) | 49.02 (±7.99) | 0.320 | |
| (b) | Aesthetic sense | 57.68 (±8.53) | 58.58 (±8.42) | 0.323 | 57.68 (±8.53) | 58.58 (±8.42) | 0.323 | 57.67 (±8.82) | 58.59 (±8.32) | 0.286 | 58.33 (±8.28) | 58.37 (±8.50) | 0.962 | |
| (c) | Depth of emotions | 50.75 (±10.00) | 50.72 (±10.16) | 0.805 | 50.75 (±10.00) | 50.72 (±10.16) | 0.805 | 51.07 (±10.36) | 50.62 (±10.04) | 0.711 | 51.92 (±10.00) | 50.42 (±10.13) | 0.184 | |
| (d) | Willingness to experiment | 54.18 (±35.90) | 51.45 (±8.76) | 0.825 | 54.18 (±35.90) | 51.45 (±8.76) | 0.825 | 50.78 (±8.70) | 52.53 (±21.53) | 0.279 | 50.93 (±8.83) | 52.42 (±21.13) | 0.369 | |
| (e) | Intellectual curiosity | 50.40 (±9.48) | 52.59 (±9.40) | 0.015 | 50.40 (±9.48) | 52.59 (±9.40) | 0.015 | 50.96 (±9.08) | 51.11 (±9.58) | 0.960 | 52.14 (±9.34) | 50.79 (±9.47) | 0.170 | |
| (f) | Tolerance for diversity | 46.59 (±7.42) | 60.08 (±288.81) | 0.679 | 46.59 (±7.42) | 60.08 (±288.81) | 0.679 | 45.93 (±7.55) | 60.30 (±288.79) | 0.154 | 46.24 (±7.77) | 59.59 (±282.43) | 0.183 | |
| 3. | Extraversion | |||||||||||||
| (a) | Warmth | 51.39 (±9.16) | 50.80 (±9.64) | 0.712 | 51.39 (±9.16) | 50.80 (±9.64) | 0.712 | 49.73 (±10.11) | 51.33 (±9.31) | 0.236 | 51.74 (±8.79) | 50.73 (±9.71) | 0.290 | |
| (b) | Outgoingness | 57.72 (±8.32) | 59.01 (±9.98) | 0.044 | 57.72 (±8.32) | 59.01 (±9.98) | 0.044 | 55.76 (±10.02) | 59.63 (±9.30) | 0.000 | 56.94 (±10.54) | 59.16 (±9.31) | 0.044 | |
| (c) | Assertiveness | 54.08 (±8.08) | 55.35 (±8.27) | 0.115 | 54.08 (±8.08) | 55.35 (±8.27) | 0.115 | 54.10 (±8.68) | 55.35 (±8.08) | 0.047 | 54.69 (±8.00) | 55.14 (±8.30) | 0.571 | |
| (d) | Activity level | 52.48 (±7.52) | 53.33 (±8.41) | 0.465 | 52.48 (±7.52) | 53.33 (±8.41) | 0.465 | 53.17 (±8.69) | 53.11 (±8.06) | 0.616 | 53.40 (±8.36) | 53.06 (±8.18) | 0.880 | |
| (e) | Excitement seeking | 57.11 (±7.30) | 57.33 (±7.61) | 0.958 | 57.11 (±7.30) | 57.33 (±7.61) | 0.958 | 56.08 (±8.13) | 57.66 (±7.30) | 0.048 | 57.00 (±7.74) | 57.35 (±7.48) | 0.674 | |
| (f) | Positive emotions | 55.71 (±9.46) | 56.52 (±9.09) | 0.460 | 55.71 (±9.46) | 56.52 (±9.09) | 0.460 | 54.65 (±9.55) | 56.86 (±9.01) | 0.019 | 54.96 (±9.57) | 57.68 (±9.06) | 0.040 | |
| 4. | Agreeableness | |||||||||||||
| (a) | Trust in others | 46.33 (±9.225) | 46.63 (±8.896) | 0.709 | 46.33 (±9.22) | 46.63 (±8.89) | 0.709 | 44.95 (±9.42) | 47.08 (±8.76) | 0.005 | 45.41 (±10.12) | 46.86 (±8.62) | 0.143 | |
| (b) | Candor | 45.85 (±10.928) | 44.05 (±9.769) | 0.099 | 45.85 (±10.92) | 44.05 (±9.76) | 0.099 | 43.74 (±10.52) | 44.72 (±9.93) | 0.216 | 44.58 (±10.45) | 44.46 (±9.99) | 0.918 | |
| (c) | Consideration for others | 47.75 (±10.244) | 48.94 (±10.118) | 0.096 | 47.75 (±10.24) | 48.94 (±10.11) | 0.096 | 46.97 (±9.90) | 49.19 (±10.18) | 0.023 | 48.04 (±10.02) | 48.81 (±10.19) | 0.392 | |
| (d) | Compliance | 48.54 (±10.389) | 47.97 (±9.895) | 0.702 | 48.54 (±10.38) | 47.97 (±9.89) | 0.702 | 47.71 (±10.64) | 48.24 (±9.80) | 0.567 | 47.02 (±11.06) | 48.40 (±9.70) | 0.280 | |
| (e) | Modesty | 44.39 (±8.033) | 45.12 (±8.121) | 0.313 | 44.39 (±8.03) | 45.12 (±8.12) | 0.313 | 44.97 (±8.53) | 44.93 (±7.96) | 0.947 | 44.36 (±8.62) | 45.09 (±7.95) | 0.464 | |
| (f) | Sympathy | 46.68 (±8.286) | 46.63 (±8.387) | 0.990 | 46.68 (±8.28) | 46.63 (±8.38) | 0.990 | 46.20 (±8.41) | 46.79 (±8.34) | 0.623 | 46.75 (±8.17) | 46.62 (±8.41) | 0.566 | |
| 5. | Conscientiousness | |||||||||||||
| (a) | Sense of competence | 49.04 (±11.50) | 49.98 (±11.13) | 0.523 | 49.04 (±11.50) | 49.98 (±11.13) | 0.523 | 47.49 (±11.96) | 50.48 (±10.89) | 0.025 | 48.60 (±11.74) | 50.05 (±11.07) | 0.426 | |
| (b) | Orderliness | 53.80 (±10.69) | 54.05 (±9.75) | 0.869 | 53.80 (±10.69) | 54.05 (±9.75) | 0.869 | 53.84 (±10.11) | 54.04 (±9.95) | 0.943 | 54.06 (±10.65) | 53.97 (±9.81) | 0.646 | |
| (c) | Sense of responsibility | 49.84 (±10.19) | 49.98 (±10.55) | 0.806 | 49.84 (±10.19) | 49.98 (±10.55) | 0.806 | 49.05 (±10.69) | 50.23 (±10.38) | 0.216 | 49.43 (±10.48) | 50.08 (±10.46) | 0.465 | |
| (d) | Need to achieve | 55.90 (±9.40) | 56.18 (±10.64) | 0.519 | 55.90 (±9.40) | 56.18 (±10.64) | 0.519 | 55.94 (±9.54) | 56.17 (±10.60) | 0.458 | 54.67 (±9.69) | 56.49 (±10.49) | 0.045 | |
| (e) | Self-discipline | 50.31 (±10.93) | 50.42 (±10.82) | 0.994 | 50.31 (±10.93) | 50.42 (±10.82) | 0.994 | 48.18 (±10.95) | 51.10 (±10.72) | 0.007 | 49.00 (±11.93) | 50.76 (±10.52) | 0.137 | |
| (f) | Deliberateness | 56.26 (±9.64) | 56.43 (±10.21) | 0.480 | 56.26 (±9.64) | 56.43 (±10.21) | 0.480 | 55.35 (±9.87) | 56.72 (±10.12) | 0.206 | 55.10 (±10.24) | 56.73 (±10.00) | 0.165 | |
Bold indicated statistically significant values.
For further analysis, the Spearman rank test was applied to assess the correlation between scores in different fields of assessment (Academic, ODT, ECA, and OLQ) the personality traits [Table 2]. A significant negative correlation was observed between facets of Neuroticism such as Warmth, Outgoingness, Assertiveness, Activity level, Excitement seeking, Positive emotions, and performance in Academics, ODT, and OLQ i. e. higher the score of neuroticism personality traits lower is the performance of cadets in terms of Academics, ODT, and OLQ. On the other hand, personality facets of Conscientiousness (Work ethic) such as Sense of Competence, Orderliness, Sense of Responsibility, Need to Achieve, Self-discipline, and Deliberateness were found to be positively correlated with performance in Academics, ODTs, and OLQ i. e. higher the score of Conscientiousness better was the performance of cadets in Academics, ODTs, and OLQ. Extracurricular activities were found to be positively correlated with Modesty and Intellectual Curiosity.
Table 2.
Correlation between personality traits and performance in military training.
| Sl No. | Personality Trait | Academics |
ECA |
ODT |
OLQ |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | P Value | R | P Value | R | P Value | R | P Value | |||
| 1. | Neuroticism | |||||||||
| (a) | Worry | −0.035 | 0.396 | 0.004 | 0.914 | −0.092 | 0.024 | −0.007 | 0.868 | |
| (b) | Frustration/Quickness to anger | −0.096 | 0.018 | −0.015 | 0.716 | −0.089 | 0.028 | −0.018 | 0.652 | |
| (c) | Moodiness | −0.113 | 0.005 | −0.022 | 0.594 | −0.156 | 0.000 | −0.078 | 0.042 | |
| (d) | Social concerns | −0.072 | 0.048 | −0.025 | 0.540 | −0.126 | 0.002 | −0.059 | 0.149 | |
| (e) | Self-indulgence | −0.092 | 0.024 | −0.055 | 0.175 | −0.118 | 0.004 | −0.107 | 0.008 | |
| (f) | Sensitivity of stress | −0.119 | 0.003 | −0.029 | 0.474 | −0.106 | 0.009 | −0.046 | 0.257 | |
| 2. | Openness to Change | |||||||||
| (a) | Imagination | −0.054 | 0.187 | −0.007 | 0.863 | 0.000 | 0.991 | −0.012 | 0.771 | |
| (b) | Aesthetic sense | −0.058 | 0.157 | −0.024 | 0.555 | 0.022 | 0.584 | 0.009 | 0.833 | |
| (c) | Depth of emotions | 0.048 | 0.233 | −0.009 | 0.824 | −0.038 | 0.348 | −0.093 | 0.023 | |
| (d) | Willingness to experiment | 0.046 | 0.260 | −0.044 | 0.284 | −0.035 | 0.385 | 0.001 | 0.898 | |
| (e) | Intellectual curiosity | 0.143 | 0.000 | 0.100 | 0.014 | −0.026 | 0.527 | −0.084 | 0.039 | |
| (f) | Tolerance for diversity | 0.176 | 0.000 | 0.027 | 0.505 | 0.070 | 0.085 | −0.030 | 0.459 | |
| 3. | Extraversion | |||||||||
| (a) | Warmth | 0.088 | 0.030 | −0.022 | 0.585 | 0.020 | 0.630 | 0.002 | 0.952 | |
| (b) | Outgoingness | −0.037 | 0.359 | 0.095 | 0.019 | 0.179 | 0.000 | 0.099 | 0.014 | |
| (c) | Assertiveness | 0.139 | 0.001 | 0.062 | 0.126 | 0.143 | 0.000 | 0.042 | 0.298 | |
| (d) | Activity level | 0.025 | 0.534 | 0.052 | 0.204 | 0.024 | 0.561 | −0.021 | 0.605 | |
| (e) | Excitement seeking | −0.061 | 0.134 | −0.018 | 0.654 | 0.060 | 0.143 | −0.012 | 0.768 | |
| (f) | Positive emotions | 0.032 | 0.434 | −0.039 | 0.337 | 0.101 | 0.013 | 0.009 | 0.816 | |
| 4. | Agreeableness | |||||||||
| (a) | Trust in others | 0.095 | 0.019 | −0.046 | 0.259 | 0.105 | 0.010 | 0.057 | 0.160 | |
| (b) | Candor | 0.179 | 0.000 | −0.016 | 0.693 | 0.046 | 0.262 | −0.011 | 0.796 | |
| (c) | Consideration for others | 0.136 | 0.001 | 0.072 | 0.076 | 0.069 | 0.063 | 0.029 | 0.481 | |
| (d) | Compliance | 0.062 | 0.045 | −0.034 | 0.402 | 0.057 | 0.162 | 0.037 | 0.367 | |
| (e) | Modesty | 0.050 | 0.218 | 0.113 | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.801 | 0.019 | 0.648 | |
| (f) | Sympathy | −0.055 | 0.176 | −0.013 | 0.752 | 0.076 | 0.061 | −0.010 | 0.810 | |
| 5. | Conscientiousness | |||||||||
| (a) | Sense of competence | 0.197 | 0.000 | 0.034 | 0.410 | 0.092 | 0.023 | 0.046 | 0.259 | |
| (b) | Orderliness | 0.136 | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.793 | 0.027 | 0.508 | 0.007 | 0.868 | |
| (c) | Sense of responsibility | 0.261 | 0.000 | 0.056 | 0.170 | 0.077 | 0.059 | 0.040 | 0.329 | |
| (d) | Need to achieve | 0.190 | 0.000 | 0.055 | 0.179 | 0.092 | 0.024 | 0.095 | 0.019 | |
| (e) | Self-discipline | 0.207 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.906 | 0.142 | 0.000 | 0.082 | 0.043 | |
| (f) | Deliberateness | 0.129 | 0.002 | 0.065 | 0.109 | 0.080 | 0.040 | 0.080 | 0.039 | |
Bold indicated statistically significant values.
Discussion
Prior to deliberating the findings of the study, it is important to consider why personality traits should correlate with performance of the cadets when most measures of the personality were not designed to predict performance in various virtues of military training. This has been explained by Blumberg and Pringle, who have proposed that both work and academic performance are determined by factors involving the ability to perform, availability of opportunity to perform, and willingness to perform.10 Ability includes knowledge, proficiency, and intelligence; availability of opportunity to perform is influenced by external factors such as socioeconomic limitations, availability of resources, etc.11 while the willingness to perform indicates individual enthusiasm, personality, and societal milieu.10 Factors associated with willingness to perform, such as attendance, enthusiasm, involvement in extracurricular activities, and attitudes toward hard work, have been reported to be positively correlated with performance in academic and professional spheres.12 Thus, with respect to willingness to perform, the “Five-Factor Model (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Change, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness)” is well known to contribute to the prediction of performance.
In our study, we found conscientiousness and some facets of Agreeableness (Intellectual curiosity and Candor) to be positively correlated with academic performance and outdoor activities. A similar positive relationship between conscientiousness and academic performance has been reported by a number of researchers.13,14 This positive relationship between conscientiousness and academic/professional achievement has been hypothesized to be mediated through motivation as individuals who are disciplined and organized are most likely to be motivated.13 This has been further explained by Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory, in which motivation is viewed as a continuum with intrinsic motivation at one end and unmotivated traits at the other end of the spectrum, and extrinsic motivation in the center. Intrinsically motivated individuals are considered to have an internal locus of control, and they are driven to achieve, are eager to learn, and pursue intellectual stimulations. Extrinsically motivated individuals engage in educational pursuits to achieve materialistic goals, rather than for internal satisfaction of gaining knowledge. Extrinsic motivations can be further classified as external regulation (for attaining external rewards and punishments), introjected regulation (pursuing academics due to environmental influences), or identified regulation (choosing to identify with the values associated with academics). At the other extreme end of the spectrum are unmotivated individuals who do not respond to environmental stimuli and do not care for worldly gains.15
In the present study, it was also observed that neuroticism had a negative correlation with Officer-like qualities, Outdoor activities, and Academics. The negative association of neuroticism personality traits with academic/professional achievement is well documented.16,17 Neuroticism has been defined by Caspi et al as “individual differences in one’s disposition toward constructing, perceiving and feeling realities in threatening, disturbing or problematic ways.”18 Furnham et al has postulated that the association between neuroticism and academic achievement is mediated through anxiety.19 Highly neurotic people are more prone to suffer adverse effects of stress such irritability, negative emotions, and low self-esteem, this combined with physical manifestation such as muscle stiffness, body aches, gastritis, etc., lead to poor performance in outdoor activities and academics.20
One of the important aspects of assessment in military training establishments is Officer Like Qualities (OLQ), which refers to personality facets, desires, drives, aims, outlook, interests, decision-making ability, and general attitude toward personal/social circumstances.21 The life of Military officers is very complex, with many highly specialized duties to perform, but above all is the capability to lead their men. An individual does not become a military officer by his personal attributes but by his ability to lead his men in peace or war. We found that Officer-Like Qualities correlated positively with Conscientiousness and negatively with Neuroticism. These findings are explainable because an officer in Armed Forces has to be positive, flexible, and imaginative to take urgent and effective decisions to counter enemy action. On the other hand, a highly neurotic individual might not be capable of making quick and bold decisions, and in turn, endanger the lives of many men. Thus to be an effective leader, an officer cannot be self-indulgent, prone to helplessness, temperamental, and sensitive to stress.
The present study has the unique distinction of being first of its kind to both explore the personality traits of cadets and to correlate them with the performance of these cadets in various spheres of assessment in the Armed Forces Academy. Notwithstanding the uniqueness, the present study is not devoid of certain limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, the findings of the study represent a maiden attempt to explore the correlation between personality traits and performance in various spheres of military training. Similar analysis needs to be conducted over a period of time to establish the correlation and finally evolve guidelines for practical application in the selection of individuals with personality traits most suited for military training/duties. Second, the results are not generalizable to Armed Forces personnel as this study included only trainees undergoing training in a single institute. Third, the present study has tried to explore the relationship between personality traits and performance in military training; hence, the finding of the study may not be generalizable to the performance of military duties for which long-term follow-up duties need to be conducted.
Conclusion
In today’s era of unconventional warfare, the human dimension is of prime importance for the success of any military operation because the outcome of any military engagement is determined by individual intelligence, intuition, and ability to maintain logical thinking rather than the availability of sophisticated armaments. In this scenario, personality traits play a crucial role in the development of a psychologically fit and resilient soldier. The present study represents the first-ever attempt in Indian Armed Forces to correlate and identify personality traits most suited for military training. However, more such studies are required to reaffirm the findings of the present study and to conclusively recommend personality traits most conducive for military training.
Disclosure of competing interest
The authors have none to declare.
References
- 1.National Research Council (Us) National Academies Press (US); Washington (DC): 2000. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Strategies to Protect the Health of Deployed U.S. Forces: Assessing Health Risks to Deployed U.S. Forces: Workshop Proceedings.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225065/ Characteristics of the Future Battlefield and Deployment Accessed on 12 Aug 19. Available from: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mastroianni G.R., Mabry T.R., Benedek D.M., Ursano R.J. In: Biobehavioral Resilience to Stress. Lukey B.J., Tape V., editors. Routledge; New York: 2008. The stresses of modern war; pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cohen R.J., Swerdlik M.E. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill; New York: 2010. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Trent J.D., Barron L.G., Rose M.R., Carretta T.R. Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) as an indicator for counterproductive work behavior: comparing validity in applicant, honest, and directed faking conditions. Mil Psychol. 2020;32(1):51–59. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2019.1652481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Melchers K.G., Annen H. Officer selection for the Swiss armed forces an evaluation of validity and fairness issues. Swiss J Psychol Schweiz Z Psychol Rev Suisse Psychol. 2010;69(2):105–115. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Paul T., Costa J.R., McCrae R. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Indiv Differ. 1992;13(6):653–665. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rituparna B., Anjali G. Personality traits and different career stages – a study on IndianSchool teachers. Procedia. Social. Behavioral Sciences. 2014;140(1):506–510. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lodhi P.H., Deo S., Belhekar V.M. In: The Five-Factor Model of Personality across Cultures. International and Cultural Psychology Series. McCrae R.R., Allik J., editors. Springer; Boston: 2002. The five-factor Model of personality. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lodhi P.H., Deo S., Belhekar V.M. Evaluating the five-factor Model of the personality: confirmatory factor analysis of the revised NEO personality inventory. J Psychol Res: Int J. 2004;48(1):17–24. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Blumberg M., Pringle C.D. The missing opportunity in organizational research: some implications for a theory of work performance. Acad Manag Rev. 1982;7(4):560–569. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kumari B. The correlation of Personality Traits and Academic performance: a review of literature. IOSR J Humanit Soc Sci. 2014;19(4):15–18. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Willingham W.W., Pollack J.M., Lewis C. Grades and test scores: accounting for observed differences. J Educ Meas. 2002;39(1):1–37. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Conard M. Aptitude is not enough: how personality and behavior predict academic performance. J Res Pers. 2006;40(3):339–346. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Komarraju M., Karau S.J., Schmeck R.R. Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learn Indiv Differ. 2009;19(7):47–52. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Laidra K., Pullmann H., Allik J. Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement : a cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42:441–451. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lounsbury J.W., Tatum H., Gibson L.W. The development of a big five adolescent personality scale. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2003;21(2):111–133. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Caspi A., Roberts B.W., Shiner R.L. Personality development: stability and change. Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56(1):453–484. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Furnham A., Zhang J., Chamoro T. The relationship between psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic achievement. Imagin, Cognit Pers. 2006;25(2):119–145. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chomoro-Premuzic T., Furnham A. Personality traits and academic exam performance. Eur J Pers. 2003;17(1):237–250. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Singh J.P., Tiwary D., Jha A., Mishra S.N. Leadership principles, officer like qualities and the selection System. Int. J. Sci. Res Publications. May 2016;6(5):168–175. [Google Scholar]