Measuring Military Identity: Scale Development and Psychometric Evaluations

Abstract

Our purpose was to perform a psychometric evaluation of a new 33-item questionnaire developed in Norway. To evaluate it we assessed its internal consistency, performed an exploratory factor analysis, and investigated aspects of construct validity. We also examined test-retest reliability. A second purpose was to investigate whether or not individual level variables such as age, gender, or service were related to different military identities. In Study 1 we collected cross-sectional data from military personnel in the Norwegian Armed Forces (N = 317). In Study 2 we collected longitudinal data from students undertaking junior officer education (N = 238). We identified a 3-factor structure, comprising professionalism, individualism, and idealism. Internal consistency for the 3 subscales was acceptable ( = .60-.83). Test-retest reliability and construct validity were supported. We found professionalism to be significantly higher in the Army as compared to in the Navy and Air Force. We did not detect gender differences in terms of military identities, but we did detect small negative correlations between age and professionalism and between age and idealism.

Perceptions of Officer Training Among Newly Employed Officers and Specialist Officers in the Swedish Armed Forces – A Qualitative Study

“…Furthermore, he also questions the benefit of cadets being educated in an institute more or less isolated from the rest of the organisation. In previous attempts to introduce a general military operational identity, shortfalls have been associated with undervaluing institutional features such as serving a greater cause and also overstating the significance of aspects related to warfighting (Johansen, Laberg & Martinussen, 2013).…”

Warrior and peacekeeper role identities: associations with self-esteem, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior

“…Since the end of the Cold War, the military role has been qualified as a unidimensional bipolar construct (Franke 1999a(Franke , 1999bReed and Segal 2010). The more a soldier takes on the role of a warrior, the less the soldier takes on the role of a peacekeeper, and vice versa.1 Although Johanson et al (2013) conceptualized military identity as a multidimensional construct, besides idealism, professionalism and individualism, they used "warriorism" as a typical military component, but did not focus on the peacekeeper role. With the construction of the Warrior Peacekeeper Role Identity Questionnaire (WPRIS), it was demonstrated that the concept of military role identity is a bidimensional construct: Dutch soldiers identify with both roles simultaneously, and a preference for one role is not related with a preference for the other role (Broesder 2011;; Op den Buijs and Broesder 2013).…”

Confirmation of Military Identity after Exposure to Stress – Influence of Status Dimensions

“…Being deployed to such operations probably represents a hallmark of their soldiering, and one could assume that such an experience further strengthens their personal skills, tactical skills and overall military identity. The military operational identity encompasses professionalism and warriorism (Johansen, Laberg and Martinussen, 2013a;2013b). Even though operational identity is regarded as valuable for a military organisation, it might also give cause for concern.…”

“…This might imply that soldiers become less motivated for peacetime service aimed at territorial defence. Additionally, a professionalisation of the Armed Forces might recruit self-centred individuals and thus promote individualistic values (Eriksson, 2004(Eriksson, , 2007Johansen et al, 2013a). To better understand important motivational characteristics of the soldiers, the current study examines whether a deployment to international operations strengthens or weakens military identities.…”