Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72 DOI 10.1007/s12646-012-0162-x

REVIEW ARTICLE

Hardiness and Personality as Predictors of Military Enlistment Intention among the Indian Youths S. Subramanian & A. Velayudhan & M. Vinothkumar

Received: 26 April 2012 / Accepted: 6 August 2012 / Published online: 13 September 2012 # National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2012

Abstract The present study examines the role of hardiness and personality factors in predicting youth’s enlistment intention towards Indian defence services. The participants were (n02500) higher secondary school students from the four states (TamilNadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh). The youth with high intention to join army scored higher on the measures of hardiness construct and two personality dimensions i.e. Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Furthermore, results of logistic analysis confirmed that the hardiness and personality factors significantly predicted the enlistment intentions of youth. The implications for recruitment of youths for the Defence Services are discussed. Keywords Enlistment . Intention . Hardiness . Personality

Today’s Indian Armed Forces maintain the second largest standing army in the world. Currently, 1.3 million army personnel enlist in Indian Defence Services. In order to maintain the strength, new recruitment has to be made each year to pursue the mission without any snag. In recent times Indian Defence Force faces multiple challenges in recruiting sufficient number of qualified personnel to meet recruitment goals. Contemporarily, Indian Armed Forces have a shortage of 15,0001 officers - 20% of the sanctioned strength. Apparently, many young people these days do not consider the military service as a viable career option while exploring future career prospects. The major shift in the socioeconomic paradigm in the last decade of our society cited as a major reason for decline in youth enlistment in the armed forces, 1

th

The Week, The War within, 25 July, 2010

S. Subramanian (*) : A. Velayudhan : M. Vinothkumar Department of Psychology, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641046 TamilNadu, India e-mail: [email protected]

perhaps, due to tremendous growth in higher education enrollment. Further, adults aspiring for overseas educational goals are additional causal factors for low intention to enlist in defence services (Orvis et al. 2011; Bourg and Segal 1999; Castro and Adler 1999). Surprisingly, the current recruiting difficulties are not unique to the Indian Armed Forces. Military services in other nations, such as United State, New Zealand, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, and the United Kingdom also reports similar problems. The literature highlighted that youth’s enlistment ratio is shrinking, their interest in the armed services is declining and largely recruiters perceive an increasing difficulty in attracting potential youth to meet the shortage in the armed forces (Bennett 1999; Okros 1999; Master 1996). In facing such increasing difficulty in meeting necessary recruitment goals, a clear understanding of youths’ career intention and the key psychological determinant factors of youth’s intention may provide proper guidelines for the military recruiter or policy maker to attract the potential youths. Recent research has emphasized the role of psychological factors which facilitate adolescent’s preference in pursuing career in the armed forces. Notably, psychological hardiness emerged as a promising personality factor in military selection, training and performance, especially relevant to military setting due to their being inherently stressful and demanding on the personnel involvement (Bartone et al. 2009; Maddi 2007). Hardiness appears to be an important contributor to the performance and adaptation of soldiers in training settings. Barton, Roland, Picano, and Williams (2008) studied the relationship between hardiness and success in the US Army Special Forces assessment and selection course. They found that hardiness is a significant individual characteristic associated with successful completion of the course. Maddi (2007) observed that military personnel undergoing hardiness training are more likely to have courage, coping, socially supportive

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72

interactions, and effective self-care, in order to turn stressful circumstances from potential disasters into constructive growth opportunities. Britt et al. (2001) examined the potential to derive benefits from stressful military operations utilizing the construct of hardiness as an indicator and reported that a strong correlation exists between personal hardiness and the tendency to perceive meaning in the deployment. Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) made a clear separation between resilience and hardiness. Resilience has been defined as a “dynamic process wherein individuals display positive adaptation despite the experiences of significant adversity or trauma”. This emphasizes that resilience as a two part concept, combining exposure to unexpected adversity and positive adjustment within the military context (Cornum et al. 2011). Hardiness, in turn, is focused on the aspects of personality that affect the way individuals view and behave in stressful situation. Conceptually, personality hardiness is characterized by a strong sense of commitment, control, challenge (Bartone 2000; Maddi 2007). People high in hardiness tend to see the world as interesting and meaningful one and they actively involved in various activities around them. They have a high belief in their own ability to control or influence the course of events, perceive new experience and utilized opportunity for learning and personal growth, and they have internal motivation creating their own sense of purpose. The first conceptualization of hardiness concept emerged from a 12-year longitudinal study of managers at Illinois Bell Telephone (IBT) Company (Kobasa 1979). It was found that among the managers experiencing high levels of stress, those who had exhibited the attitude of commitment, control and challenge had fewer levels of mental and physical illness symptoms (Kobasa 1979). While examining cadets’ leadership performance based on personality hardiness and several additional cognitive factors, Bartone (1999) stated that personality hardiness emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor of Military development grades for officer cadets. Further, studies conducted at Norweign Navy Cadets have found that hardiness factors have been associated with increases in both self-rated and peer-rated transformational leadership style after completing a week long training programme and field simulation (Eid et al. 2008; Johnsen et al. 2009). It is more logical to reason that hardiness may increase the predictive strength of youth’s enlistment intention, because when an individual has more commitment, control and willingness to face any challenges, they are more likely to engage a targeted behaviour (i.e. Enlistment). Hardiness has been researched well extensively in the military field and yields a fruitful result (Atwater et al. 1999; Bartone et al. 2009). Furthermore, in the context of

67

career research study, Maddi (2004) suggested that hardiness was perceived as unfamiliar construct and it has potential to apply in diverse areas. In addition, Bartone et al. (2008) revealed that hardiness was able to predict the successful completion of a selection course for U.S. Army Special Force candidates. Thus, it is conceivable that hardiness experience may have a strong interaction effect on youths’ enlistment intention. On the other hand, for more than three decades personality factors have been adopted as a self-reported psychological measure during the selection process examining the pattern of relationship between the influence of traits and success in military training and performance (Rumsey and White 2010; Sümer et al. 2001). In general, any attribute of an individual that affects job preference, job performance, and in general adaptability arguably has implications for the individual’s ability to adapt to the military. Bilgic and Sumer (2009) identified that emotional stability, self-discipline, and military bearing yielded support for the argument that specific personality measures could be respectable predictors of different aspects of military performance. Research studies suggest the link between the Big Five Model of personality and Goal Orientation. Wang and Erdheim (2007) identified that Neuroticism and Extroversion are important correlates of goal orientation. In parallel lines, Tarver et al. (1994) delineated that the personality dimensions such as dependence vs independence, and goal orientation vs exploring acts are major influencing factors in enlistment. Similarly, high scores on Extroversion, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience dimensions has been related to successful training and training completion of Naval Special Forces (Salgado 1998). Similarly, the study focused on US Navy Special Forces, McDonald et al. (1990) found that successfully enlisted candidates were more social, more emotionally stable, and more likeable. Personality is said to be more useful for predicting early career events, including school success and attrition, than for predicting later events, including reenlistment decisions (Vickers et al., 1996). However, the recent research finding revealed that dispositional factors have limited success in their prediction relating to enlistment intention and performance in the military training. (Hartmann and Grønnerød 2009; Hartmann et al. 2003). Hence, the studies implied that investigating the other psychological factors may help to understand the pattern of enlistment intention and actual enlistment, which may facilitate to promote the recruitment goals in a stipulated period. This study was undertaken to examine the extent to which personality and hardiness factors predict youth’s military enlistment intention. In view of past research it was hypothesized that these factors would be positively related to youth's enlistment intention.

68

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72

The data for this study is part of a larger research program undertaken in four different states of Southern India. The current study employs Cross - Sectional Design, in which the samples are drawn from the population at one time.

Method

Participants Two thousand five hundred (2500) male students between age 16 and 19 and pursuing higher secondary 11th and 12th grade or equivalent courses were chosen and requested to furnish the required data for this study. The mean age of the youths, was 17.49 years (SD0.76). The majority of youth’s were belonged to 17 and 18 years with the percentage of 42.3 %, and 40.8 % respectively of the total population. The sample characteristics revealed that the family income of the youths, the majority of them (38 %) had less than Rs. 5000 per month, followed by 5,000–10,000 per month (around 30 %). Around 28.3 % youths had a family income in the range of 10,000–20,000 per months. A meagre 3.8 % of youths reported to have an income between 20,000 and 30,000 and a thin number (0.3 %) of the family had a higher income more than 30,000 per month. While classifying youth parents’ educational level, nearly 74 % of their fathers had education at the high school up to 10th standard, followed by possessing a basic degree (12 %), and postgraduation (around 10 %). Finally, a very meager number of their fathers had a doctoral degree (0.08 %). More or less, the same trend was noticed for their mother’s level of education as nearly 70 % had completed basic school education, followed by possessing a basic degree (15.8 %) and post-graduation (around 10 %). In general, the socioeconomic status of family covers a wide range representing more or less all the cross-section of the population. Administration of Career Preference Rank Order List The Bharathiar University Career Preference Rank Order sheet developed by Subramanian et al. (2011) was administered to around 2500 respondents who were randomly selected in almost from 162 higher secondary schools located in both rural and urban areas of southern India (TamilNadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh). The career RankOrder sheet was administered in groups of minimum of 100 students per batch by giving the following instruction: “After going through a list of 10 broad categories of Vocational/Occupational, areas, you are requested to give a rank order for each of these vocation based on your strong preference shown in general. The

vocational choice which is most preferred can be given a rank of I, the second most preferred as rank II and so on by completing all the ten vocational choices”. Based on their given vocational preference, those students who had assigned the top 1, 2 or 3 ranking for the Defence Service as their most preferred choices of vocation were categorized as the High Intention Group of Youths to join Defence Services and those who had assigned the Defence Services in the bottom three – 8, 9 or 10 as the least preference choices which were categorized as the Low Intention Group of youths to join Defence Services. Using this general screening procedure followed at the initial stage-only around 1240 respondents who had exhibited the strong intention to join defence services were identified and another 1260 respondents who had assigned the least rank in the bottom 8, 9, and 10 ranks were identified as the “Low Intention to join Defence Services”. Those adolescents who had exhibited a high preference to join defence services and those who had a low preference for not joining Defence Services were selected by administering career preference rank order and career preference record. Finally, 100 respondents were eliminated from the further analysis due to incomplete of data. Measures NEO – Five Factor Inventory (FFI) This 60 item developed by Costa and McCrae (1992) assesses five broad dimensions of personality i.e. Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Sherry et al. (2007) reported that the internal consistencies are: N0.85, E0.80, O0.68, A0.75, C0.83. Internal consistency estimates for the current study for the five dimensions were N0.81, E0.82, O0.78, A0.77, C0.81 respectively. A brief description of these dimensions is given as follows. (i) Neuroticism: measures the extent to which individuals are prone to psychological distress. On the opposite end of the spectrum, individuals who score low on Neuroticism are more emotionally stable and less reactive to stress. They tend to be calm, even tempered, and less likely to feel tense or rattled, for example “I often feel inferior to others”. (ii) Extroversion: refers to the quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world, for example “I like to have a lot of people around me”. (iii) Openness to Experience: refers to the active seeking and appreciation of experiences which assesses an individual's willingness to explore, consider, and tolerate new and unfamiliar experiences, ideas, and

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72

feelings, for example “Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it”. (iv) Agreeableness: reflects individual differences in concern for cooperation and social harmony. High scorers tend to be empathetic, considerate, friendly, generous, and helpful, for example “I try to be courteous (polite) to everyone I meet”. (v) Conscientiousness: measure the extent which individual will tend to be self-disciplined, careful, thorough, organized, deliberate (the tendency to think carefully before acting), and need for achievement, for example “I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously (carefully)”. Hardiness The 18 item measure developed by Maddi and Kobasa (1984) was used to measure hardiness personality (ability of individuals to turn stressful circumstance into growth inducing experiences). It consists of three dimensions such as Commitment, Control and Challenge. The internal consistency of the total measure was .80 in the present sample and was .74 for commitment, .78 for control, and .73 for challenge. i) Commitment measures the extent to which individuals seek involvement rather than withdrawal. Commitment contains a vital motivational quality that compels the individual to persist in pursuing a goal even in the fact of repeat obstacles, for example, “By working hard, you can always achieve your goal”. ii) Control deals with the extent to which an individual strives to exert control over their circumstances rather than feeling powerless. Perception of control or the degree to which a stressor is seen as under an individual control are thus important in the appraisal of threat (e.g., “Most days, life is really interesting and exciting for me”. iii) Challenge measures the extent to which individuals strive to learn from experiences rather than feeling threatened, one of the examples of an item is “My mistakes are usually difficult to correct”.

69

Similarly, the result revealed that high intention youths hardiness scores were significantly higher than low intention cohorts (commitment, p<. 01; Control, p<. 05; Challenge, p<. 01). To further examine these results, the logistic regression analysis was used to address the research questions stated in the study. The two possible dichotomous response options were “High Intention” and “Low Intention.” The variables were coded “1” for a “High Intention” response and “0” for a response of “Low Intention” respectively. Following, personality factors were entered in block 1 and consequently hardiness scores were entered in block 2 by using enter method. Table 2 shows that personality factors such as Extraversion and Conscientiousness account a positive association with youth’s intentions to enlist in defence. (χ2 (8)016.45, p<.036). The increase in one unit of Extraversion and Conscientiousness, contributed to youth's intention to join in Defence Service increase by 2.7 % in odds (Exp (β)01.027) and 5.4 % in odds (Exp (β)0 1.054) respectively with personality variables. However, the hardiness dimensions entered in the block 2 except control, the other two dimensions such as Commitment and Challenge were significantly influenced the criterion variable (χ2 (8)022.38, p<.004). The result suggests that, for each one unit increase in Commitment and Challenge youth’s intention to enlist in Defence Services increased by 5.8 %, (odds ratio, 0 1.058), 5.6 % (odds ratio01.056) respectively. The initial analysis utilized the independent t - test to determine the extend to which the key factors distinguish the two categories of youth’s enlistment intention. The

Table 1 Comparison of the youths who have “High Intention” and “Low Intention” to join Defence services on NEO-FFI Big five Factors and Hardiness Variable

Results and Discussion The hypothesis was tested by comparing personality and hardiness scores of high intention (n01200) and low intention (n01200) youths’ cohorts using an independent-sample t-test. As from the Table 1, the result showed that the high intention respondent’s personality factors were significantly higher than their counterparts. Among the five personality dimensions, the high intention cohorts possess high score on Extraversion (p <. 01), Openness to experience (p <. 05), and Conscientiousness (p <. 05).

Extraversion Neuroticism Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Commitment Control Challenge *p<.05; **p<.01

Group High Intention (N01200)

Low Intention (N01200)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

29.89 22.52 24.84 24.68 36.53 11.45 11.75 10.48

5.32 4.81 4.64 3.97 5.96 2.73 2.41 2.82

29.11 22.57 24.42 24.56 33.63 10.90 11.50 10.03

4.94 4.68 4.32 4.60 5.90 2.59 2.40 2.58

t

3.74** 0.91 2.31* 0.35ns 5.97** 5.06** 2.56* 4.10**

70 Table 2 Result of Logistic Regression Analysis predicting youth’s enlistment intention in defence services

N02400. B0unstandardized regression coefficient; S.E0Standard Error; Z Wald 0odds ratio; C I0confidence interval. Low Intention00; High Intention01.

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72

VARIABLE

Block 1 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Constant Block 2 Commitment Control Challenge Constant

Β

S.E

Z

WALD

df

Sig

Exp (β)

95 % C.I. for Exp(B) Lower

Upper

-.009 .027 .014 -.011 .053 2.835

.008 .009 .010 .009 .008 .504

1.57 8.408 1.958 1.522 41.997 31.656

1 1 1 1 1 1

.209 .004** .162 .217 .000** .000

1.010 1.027 1.014 .989 1.054 .059

.995 1.009 .994 .973 1.037

1.025 1.045 1.035 1.006 1.071

.057 .006

.017 .019

10.78 .101

1 1

.001** .750

1.058 1.006

1.023 .969

1.095 1.044

.054 4.606

.016 .578

11.843 63.442

1 1

.001** .000

1.056 .010

1.024

1.089

results elucidated that high intention youths were scored high in key dimensions in both personality and hardiness factors. The result obtained is more or less consistent with the previous findings (Eid et al. 2008; Johnsen et al. 2009; Rumsey and White 2010). This emphasizes the relative importance of hardiness as a measure to screen the prospective candidates during the armed forces selection process along with the other personality measure. The results of logistic regression showed that hardiness had a significant positive influence on enlistment. The results demonstrated that high level of commitment such as putting hard work, looking forward to completing their work in time, trying their level best at what they pay off at the end etc., may facilitate the military scenario owing to its complex and difficult work environment in which the defence personnel are required to work. Previous studies on the performance factor have proved that the components of hardiness were remain relatively stable over time. It has emphasized that individual levels can be trained accordingly during the field stimulation (Maddi 2007; Bartone et al. 2008). The results of logistic regression analysis also confirm the influence of challenge factor in forecasting the enlistment behaviour. The results reported that the high scores on challenge dimension, the higher the level of intention and the cohorts face any kind of adverse situations, confident in making the assigned plans to work, prefer challenging task to remain free etc. The present finding is supported by the research work of Kobasa (1979) who reported that personnel undergoing hardiness training will improve their courage, coping, socially supportive interactions, and effective self-care, traits-in order to turn stressful circumstances from potential disasters into constructive growth opportunities. The present study suggests that incorporating the hardiness as a tool for selection may facilitate to predict

the success rate in a military career. Further, it emphasized that hardy individual will learn from change and develop them towards becoming an effective officer in the armed forces. Also, the present result supported the recent findings of hardiness factor in predicting successful enrolment in Norweign Military Officers Schools (Hystad et al. 2011). The study also showed that conscientious individuals are more likely to prefer military services as they value the professional life style of excitement, keeping their belongings clean and neat, organizing their time very well so as to get things done on time, very methodical, performing all the tasks assigned to them conscientiously, setting clear goals and working towards them in an orderly fashion, not wasting time, working hard to accomplish their goals, honoring the commitments made and striving for excellence in everything they do (Salgado 1998; Hartmann et al. 2003; Halfhill et al. 2005). This finding is consistent with the work of Sümer et al. (2001), which demonstrated that the conscientious was able to predict self-discipline. Self-discipline and leadership perfectly match the requirements of military occupation. The results indicated that high intention group of youths tends to have a lot of people around them, possess light heartedness, enjoy talking to people, remain where activities/things are happening, feeling that they are bursting with energy, felt that they are cheerful optimists, prefer fast paced life style etc. Perhaps such attributes may facilitate the youths to get attracted towards military services as the career in military service demand the same attributes of extroversion tendencies. The results of the current study are supported by the previous findings of Salgado (1998), Wang and Erdheim (2007). Nonetheless, the extroversion trait may be considered as a predictive factor with regard to youth’s enlistment intention to join Defence Services.

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72

Conclusion The key findings of this study open an avenue for using the hardiness measure as a viable selection tool to screen the prospective candidates for the armed forces. Specifically, hardiness factors forecast cadet’s performance, not only during the assessment and selection, but also it predicts the success in training and a real combat situation. The hardy individuals demonstrate a high level of performance in the military arena by adopting the knowledge and stubbornness from the hardiness framework which may facilitate the high success rate in the armed forces (Bartone et al. 2008). Hence, the suitable tool should be applied to the selection of potential youths for such a demanding occupation (Flin 2001). This study has found that individuals who showed high intention to join military are significantly higher in hardiness than their counterparts, which implies that early identification of psychological features such hardiness, may help in the designing of appropriate training modules and avoiding future attrition rate. Acknowledgement This research was funded and supported by the Defence Research and Development Organisation - Defence Institute of Psychological Research (DRDO-DIPR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.

References Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B., Camobreco, J. F., & Lau, A. W. (1999). A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 52, 1543–1562. Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in Army Reserve Forces. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51, 72– 82. Bartone, P. T. (2000). Hardiness as a resiliency factor for United States Forces in the GulfWar. In J. M. Violanti, D. Paton, & C. Dunning (Eds.), Posttraumatic stress intervention: Challenges, issues and perspectives (pp. 115–133). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd. Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, 498–521. Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2008). Psychological hardiness predicts success in US Army Special Forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 78–81. Bennett, C. (1999). Outside in inside out society meets military: Who gives way? In S. R. Truscott (Ed.), Strategic Approaches to Recruiting. Monterey, CA: Symposium conducted at the 41st Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association. Bilgic, R., & Sumer, C. H. (2009). Predicting Military Performance from Specific Personality Measures: A Validity Study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2), 231–238.

71 Bourg, C., & Segal, M. (1999). The impact of family supportive policies and practices on organizational commitment to the army. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 633–652. Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 53–63. Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (1999). The impact of operations tempo on soldier and unit readiness. Parameters, 86–95. Cornum, R., Matthews, M. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Comprehensive Soldier Fitness: Building Resilience in a Challenging Institutional Context. American Psychologist, 66(1), 4–9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory (revised) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assesment Ressources. Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growing transformational leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 4–23. Flin, R. (2001). Selecting the Right Stuff: Personality and high reliability occupations. In R. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psych ology in the workplace (pp. 253–276). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Halfhill, T., Nielsen, M. T., Sundstrom, E., & Weilbaecher, A. (2005). Group personality composition and performance in military service teams. Military Psychology, 17(1), 41–54. Hartmann, E., & Grønnerød, C. (2009). Rorschach variables and Big Five scales as predictors of military training completion: A replication study of the selection of candidates to the Naval Special Forces in Norway. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 254– 264. Hartmann, E., Sunde, T., Kristensen, W., & Martinussen, M. (2003). Psychological measures as predictors of military training performance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 87–98. Hystad, S. W., Eid, J., Laberg, J. C., & Bartone, P. T. (2011). Psychological hardiness predicts admission into Norwegian military officer schools. Military Psychology, 23, 381–389. Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Pallesen, S., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2009). Predicting transformational leadership in Naval cadets: Effects of personality hardiness and training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2213–2235. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An enquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885. Maddi, S. R., & kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Maddi, S. R. (2007). Relevance of hardiness assessment and training to the military context. Military Psychology, 19(1), 61–70. Maddi, S. R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279–298. Master, F. (1996). The role of recruitment and selection in the transition from a regular and conscript army to an all-volunteer force. San Antonio, TX: Paper presented at the 38th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association. McDonald, D. G., Norton, J. P., & Hodgdon, J. A. (1990). Training Success in U.S. Navy Special Forces. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 61(6), 548–554. Orvis, B. R., Orvis, B. R., & Asch, B. J. (2011). Military Recruiting: Trends, Outlook, an Implication. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Okros, A. C. (1999). Attracting and retaining the best: An integrative analysis of future human resources issues and trends. Monterey,

72 CA: Paper presented at the 41st Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association. Rumsey, M. G., & White, L. A. (2010). Barriers to personality measures in military personnel selection. In P. T. Bartone, B. H. Johnsen, J. Eid, J. M. Violanti, & J. C. Laberg (Eds.), Enhancing human performance in security operations. International and law enforcement perspectives (pp. 85–119). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five Personality dimensions and job performance in army and civil occupations. A European perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271–288. Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee-Baggley, D. L., & Hall, P. A. (2007). Trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality pathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (3), 477–490. Subramanian, S., Velayudhan, A., Vinothkumar, M., Justine, K. J., & Kruthika, J. (2011). A survey on psycho-social predictors of

Psychol Stud (January–March 2013) 58(1):66–72 potential youth’s intentions to join Indian defense services. New Delhi, India: Unpublished research report submitted to Defence Institute of Psychological research (DIPR), Ministry of Defence. Sümer, H. C., Sümer, N., Demirutku, K., & Çifci, O. S. (2001). Using a Personality-Oriented Job Analysis to Identify Attributes to Be Assessed in Officer Selection. Military Psychology, 13(3), 129–146. Tarver, S. M., Miller, A. E., & Ginexi, E. M. (1994). A quantitative evaluation of reasons for enlisting in the Military: Interviews with new active- duty recruits. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center, Program Evaluation Branch. Vickers, R. R., Hervig, L. K., & Booth R. F. (1996). Personality and success among military enlisted personnel: An historical prospective study of U.S. navy corpsmen. San Diego, CA: Naval Research Centre. Wang, M., & Erdheim, J. (2007). Does the Five-Factor Model of Personality Relate to Goal Orientation? Personality and Individual Difference, 43, 1493–1505.