The Psychology of Risk and Safety in the Military: a Balancing Act

Home , Military psychology

The psychology of risk and safety in the The psychology of risk and military: A balancing act safety in the military: The human ability to deal with risks has increasingly been coming into focus in our society. However, the research has to a great extent focused on everyday or social risks. Considerably less attention has been directed towards the individuals A balancing act and groups that have to deal with dangerous and extreme environments in their professional roles, such as the military.

The primary purpose of this thesis was to examine how individual, leadership, group, and situational factors affect the risk and safety perceptions and behaviors of military personnel. A secondary purpose was to examine how first-line military leaders perceive and deal with risk and safety issues in their leadership roles. Marcus Börjesson The thesis comprises three articles that show the significant impact that both internal and external factors can have on the perceptions of risk and safety held by military personnel. Factors are identified that jointly could create a “vulnerability-chain” for maladaptive risk-taking, and others that jointly form a “strengthening-chain” for adaptive risk-taking and safety efforts.

The findings have practical implications for military selection, team composition, leadership education, and military training.

ISBN 978-91-7867-163-2 (print)

ISBN 978-91-7867-167-0 (pdf) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

ISSN 1403-8099 Psychology

DOCTORAL THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34 DOCTORAL THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34 The psychology of risk and safety in the military: A balancing act

Marcus Börjesson

DOCTORAL THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34 The psychology of risk and safety in the military: A balancing act

Marcus Börjesson

DOCTORAL THESIS

Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34 urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-81105

ISSN 1403-8099

ISBN 978-91-7867-163-2 (print)

ISBN 978-91-7867-167-0 (pdf)

Distribution: Karlstad University Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of Social and Psychological Studies SE-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden +46 54 700 10 00

Print: Universitetstryckeriet, Karlstad 2020

WWW.KAU.SE

The psychology of risk and safety in the military: A balancing act

Marcus Börjesson

Contents

CONTENTS ...... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 4

ABSTRACT ...... 5

SAMMANFATTNING ...... 6

LIST OF APPENDED PUBLICATIONS...... 7

INTRODUCTION ...... 8

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 9

GENERAL RESEARCH AIMS ...... 11 AIMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES ...... 12

STUDY CONTEXT ...... 13

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 14

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ...... 14 Risk, risk-taking, risk perception and risk propensity ...... 14 Safety, safety attitudes and safety climate ...... 15 RISK PSYCHOLOGY ...... 15 Implications for the present investigation ...... 18 THE INDIVIDUAL ...... 19 Personality ...... 19 Sensation-seeking, impulsivity and lack of deliberation...... 20 Personal invincibility ...... 21 Socio-demographic factors ...... 22 Beliefs and attitudes ...... 23 LEADERSHIP ...... 24 Leadership behaviors ...... 25 Leadership and implications for risk and safety ...... 27 THE GROUP ...... 28 Group cohesion ...... 29

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ...... 30

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHOD ...... 30 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS ...... 31 THE SAMPLING PROCEDURE ...... 32

SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ...... 33

ARTICLE I ...... 33 Aim ...... 33 2

Participants ...... 33 Measures ...... 33 Analysis ...... 34 Main results and conclusions ...... 35 ARTICLE II ...... 36 Aim ...... 37 Participations ...... 37 Measures ...... 37 Analysis ...... 38 Main results and conclusions ...... 38 ARTICLE III ...... 40 Aim ...... 40 Participants ...... 40 Measures ...... 40 Analysis ...... 41 Main results and conclusions ...... 41 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 42

GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 43

RISK PROFILES: DARE AND DELIBERATE ...... 44 ADAPTIVE AND BALANCED LEADERSHIP: SETTING THE THERMOSTAT ...... 46 BALANCING RISK WITHIN THE GROUP ...... 50 IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH...... 54 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 57

REFERENCES ...... 59

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my employer the Swedish Defence University for all support, the Swedish Armed Forces for the funding, and Karlstad University for the possibility to become a doctoral student. A special thank you to Colonel (retired) Anders Emanuelsson who helped to open up some important doors in order for us to conduct our studies.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor Professor Ann Enander, Swedish Defence University. Ann, I have deeply appreciated our research discussions and you have affected my development as a researcher in so many ways. I have great admiration for you as a person and the tremendous wisdom you possess. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my assistant supervisors Professor Per Kristensson, Karlstad University, and Assistant Professor Claes Wallenius, Swedish Defence University. Thank you for helpful advice, feedback, and encouraging support working with this thesis. Ann and Claes, thank you also for your crucial contribution as co-authors.

I also wish to convey gratitude to my co-author Doctor Johan Österberg, Swedish Defence University. You are truly a social genius and made it possible to come into contact with participants and key persons in the studies.

To my colleagues at the Swedish Defence University. Thank you all for your support, ideas, and general advice. A big thank you to my colleagues Doctor Eva Johansson, Professor Gerry Larsson, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Vrenngård, and Doctor Alicia Ohlsson for giving me excellent feedback on my text and to Lena Carlsson for your administrative help.

To my “mentors” Doctor Per Folkesson and Assistant Professor Henrik Gustafsson, Karlstad University. Words cannot express how important your support has been to me, both in work and in life.

Last but not least. I would like to thank my family for all their support and love. To my north star, my son Lucas. I love you 5020!

Abstract

The thesis comprises three articles. The first article reports on a longitudinal study of conscripts during their compulsory military training. Results show that individual characteristics, safety beliefs, leadership behaviors, and group cohesion all do have an impact on the risk and safety attitudes of the conscripts. Significant differences in ratings of risk and safety attitudes between basic training and unit training were also found. The second article includes two different samples of rank and file and officers and shows that personality traits and socio-demographic factors are related to negative safety beliefs, as well as to the degree of risk propensity. The third article is based on interviews with military leaders with experience of high-risk military missions. A core theme identified in the study concerns the balancing of risk and safety as a key aspect of the role of the first-line military leadership. The interviews demonstrate how this balancing act underpins several challenges, related to individual, group, leadership, situational and organizational factors.

In conclusion, this thesis shows the significant impact that individual, leadership, group, and situational factors can have on the perceptions of risk and safety held by military personnel. The thesis identifies factors that jointly could create a “vulnerability-chain” for maladaptive risk-taking, and factors that jointly form a “strengthening-chain” for adaptive risk-taking and safety efforts.

The findings have practical implications for military selection, team composition, leadership education, and military training.

Sammanfattning

Det primära syftet med denna avhandling var att undersöka hur individuella-, ledarskaps-, grupp- och situationsfaktorer påverkar risk- och säkerhetsuppfattningar och beteenden hos militär personal. Ett andra syfte var att undersöka hur första-linjens militära ledare upplever och hanterar risk- och säkerhetsfrågor i sin ledarroll.

Avhandlingen omfattar tre artiklar. Den första artikeln presenterar en longitudinell studie av värnpliktiga. Resultatet visar att individuella karakteristika, trosuppfattningar om säkerhet, ledarskapsbeteenden och gruppsammanhållning har en påverkan på de värnpliktigas risk och säkerhetsattityder. Signifikanta skillnader i risk och säkerhetsattityder mellan grund- och befattningsutbildning kunde också påvisas. Den andra artikeln inkluderar två urvalsgrupper och visar att personliga egenskaper och socio-demografiska faktorer är relaterade till negativa trosuppfattningar kring säkerhet och graden av riskbenägenhet. Den tredje artikeln är baserad på intervjuer med militära ledare som har erfarenhet av militära hög-risk missioner. Studien identifierar att balanserandet av risk och säkerhet utgör ett kärntema som är central i den militära ledarskapsrollen. Intervjuerna visar hur denna balansakt inbegriper flera utmaningar som kan relateras till individ-, grupp-, ledarskaps-, situations och organisationsfaktorer.

Sammantaget visar denna avhandling att individuella-, ledarskaps-, grupp- och situationsfaktorer kan ha en betydande påverkan på risk- och säkerhetsuppfattningar hos militär personal. Avhandlingen identifierar faktorer som tillsammans kan skapa en ”sårbarhets-kedja” för dysfunktionellt risktagande och faktorer som tillsammans formar en ”stärkande-kedja” för adaptivt risktagande och agerande för säkerhet.

Resultatet torde ha praktiska implikationer för militär selektion, gruppsammansättning, ledarskapsutbildning och militär träning.

List of appended publications

Article I. Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2011). Risk and safety among conscripts during compulsory military training. Military Psychology, 26, 659-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.616815

Reprinted with permission (© Taylor & Francis)

Marcus Börjesson was mainly responsible for the data collection, analyses, methodological issues, and discussion and played a major part in the writing.

Article II. Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2015). Risk propensity within the military: a study of Swedish officers and soldiers. Journal of Risk Research, 18, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.879489

Reprinted with permission (© Taylor & Francis)

Marcus Börjesson was mainly responsible for the data collection, analyses, methodological issues, and discussion and played a major part in the writing.

Article III. Börjesson, M., Wallenius, C., & Enander, A. Risk and safety in the mind of the military leader. (Manuscript under review).

Marcus Börjesson was mainly responsible for the data collection, analyses, methodological issues, and discussion and played a major part in the writing.

Introduction

The human ability to deal with risks has increasingly been coming into focus in our society. This applies to risks to the individual, e.g. risks to do with traffic, work, home or lifestyle, but it also concerns more complex global risks, e.g. climate change and the spread of infectious diseases. The COVID-19 crisis during 2020 is a clear example of the realization of this complex global risk scenario. Research into how humans perceive and react to risks has also grown markedly over the last half-century (Breakwell, 2014). However, this research has to a great extent focused on everyday or social risks, as well as on the prerequisites necessary for citizens and decision-makers to perceive, communicate and deal with risks. Considerably less attention has been directed towards the individuals and groups that have to deal with dangerous and extreme environments in their professional roles.

The military is, perhaps, the societal activity most explicitly dealing with extreme environments and risks, both to the individual him- or herself and to others. Facing risks and hazards is at the heart of the military profession, with violence and hostile actions being the ultimate threat. Furthermore, today’s military operations are characterized by complexity and uncertainty and involve a broad range of dangerous situations. Missions can range from peacekeeping and peace enforcement to carrying out humanitarian relief operations (Hedlund, 2011), involving a diverse spectrum of risks and threats (Rasmussen, 2006). Military activities are also characterized by an increasing number of missions in unfamiliar environments and with new collaboration partners. Hence, today’s military personnel have to deal with new and non-traditional threats and risks (Coker, 2009). Thus, substantial demands are being made of military personnel, not least leaders, to have a good ability to judge, act and communicate with regard to risks.

How does one prepare for and act successfully during these complex and dangerous risks? On the one hand, a certain degree of risk-taking is necessary in order to develop and prepare military personnel for these situations, as well as accomplish operational goals (Killgore et al., 2008; Momen et al., 2010). On the other hand, given these risky

environments and the fact that military personnel need to handle dangerous equipment, it is clearly the case that adhering to safety regulations and maintaining safety awareness also have an important part to play (Momen et al., 2010; Turner & Tennant, 2009). Failure to successfully manage both risks and safety could lead to unnecessary risk-taking, e.g. the careless handling of equipment and vehicles, behaviors which have been demonstrated to contribute significantly to the occurrence of incidents and accidents, during both military training and missions (Bell et al., 2000; Fear et al., 2008; Glicksohn et al., 2004; Hooper et al., 2006).

Thus, research facilitating an understanding of the factors influencing the “trade-offs” between risk and safety should be of considerable importance in the military context. However, psychological research focusing on these issues in such contexts is scarce, although there are exceptions, particularly with regard to risk-taking (e.g. Glicksohn et al., 2004; Killgore et al., 2006; Momen at al., 2010). The lack of attention to this area is somewhat surprising since risk and safety issues are fundamental to all military activities. Knowledge of this area could provide important insights, not only for military personnel but also for other professions operating in high-risk situations, e.g. first- responders. Looking at both civil research and existing military research, it is clear that a range of individual, group, leadership and situational factors influence perceptions and behaviors related to risk and safety. It is also clear from existing research that a key player in this regard is the first-line leader (e.g. Hayes et al., 1998; Johnson, 2007; Probst & Estrada, 2010; Zohar, 2000; 2002).

Research objectives

A core theme and overall objective of this thesis is to gain a better understanding of the “trade-offs” between risk and safety in a military context; in particular, how different factors might affect the perceptions and behaviors related to these two important dimensions. The greater purpose of this thesis is to present both theoretical and practical findings, which could be used for managing unnecessary risk- taking and facilitating adaptive risk-taking and safety.

Researchers in the area of interest have pointed to the need for more studies using an interactionistic approach (see, for example, the review by Breivik et al., 2019). This thesis responds to this call and examines how individual, leadership, group and situational factors can affect perceptions and behaviors related to risk and safety. The conceptual model presented below shows an overview of these factors, as well as the specific constructs of interest and the intended outcomes of the thesis.

Fig 1. Conceptual model showing the key constructs and intended outcomes of the thesis.

General research aims Studies in the field of risk psychology have shown that people’s perceptions and reactions to risk and safety are influenced by different individual characteristics, but also by the social environment with which they are interacting (i.e. leader, group, organization). While there has been significant progress in studying many of these factors individually, the complex interactions between them are less well documented. Indeed, scholars (e.g. Breivik et al., 2019) have expressed the need to further understand the interplay between individual and social factors, as well as how risk and safety are given meaning in different contexts. Furthermore, an extensive amount of research has demonstrated the importance of leadership, especially first-line leadership, to safety. However, the relationship between leadership and risk-taking has not received the same amount of interest. In a military context, a certain degree of risk-taking is necessary in order to develop personnel and accomplish operational goals. Thus, first-line military leaders represent a particularly interesting population, given that they need to consider and actively manage both risk and safety in their leadership roles. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding how first-line military leaders perceive and deal with risk and safety issues. By studying such leaders, and the real-life challenges they face, we can learn how these critical issues are managed in the complex military environment, but we can also gain a broader understanding of how leaders might deal with high-risk situations in other contexts.

Therefore, the general aims of this thesis are:

1) To examine how individual, leader, group and situational factors affect the risk and safety perceptions and behaviors of military personnel.

2) To examine how first-line military leaders perceive and deal with risk and safety issues in their leadership roles.

Aims of the individual articles The thesis comprises three articles, each one having specific aims but also the common purpose of contributing to the overall research questions of this dissertation, as presented above. The first article reports on a longitudinal study of conscripts during their compulsory military training. The focus here is on their initial introduction to military life and the factors affecting their attitudes during this period. In the second article, the focus is on more experienced military personnel and the factors affecting their propensity for taking risks. The third study takes the perspective of military leaders with experience of high-risk missions. Taken together, this means that the three articles reflect a temporal aspect spanning between military training for the novice and military leaders with experience of actual high-risk mission tasks.

More specifically, the aim of the first article was to examine how individual characteristics influenced the risk and safety attitudes of conscripts doing their compulsory military training. In terms of individual characteristics, the roles of sensation seeking, safety skepticism and fatalistic beliefs were examined. A second aim was to examine how different leader behaviors and group cohesion influence risk and safety attitudes. In terms of leader behaviors, those promoting both safety and risk-taking were examined. A third aim was to examine the differences between basic training and unit training, with regard to the studied variables. Lastly, the article examines the predictive validity of individual characteristics, leader behaviors, and group cohesion, measured during basic training, as regards risk and safety attitudes after unit training. The overall contribution made by this article was to shed light on research questions 1 and 2 above.

Article II includes two different samples of rank and file and officers. One sample included personnel forming part of the rapid reaction force The Nordic Battle Group while the other included personnel taking part in the 25th Swedish contingent in Kosovo. The aim of the article was to examine the relationships between risk propensity, socio-demographic factors (gender, age, military background, experience of international missions, parental status), the personality trait of lack of deliberation, and safety skeptical and fatalistic beliefs. Risk propensity comprised 12

three dimensions: i.e. a general risk propensity score, danger-seeking tendencies and invincibility thinking. The overall contribution made by this article was to shed light on research question 1 above.

Finally, Article III is a qualitative study of military officers with experience of high-risk military missions. The aim of the article was to describe how military leaders view risk and safety issues in their professional roles. In addition, the article also investigates what kind of challenges first-line military leaders might face and how they might try to manage these challenges while dealing with risk and safety issues. The overall contribution made by this article was to add further robustness to the findings regarding research questions 1 and 2.

Study context

The research in this thesis was conducted on members of the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF). The primary responsibility of the SAF is the capacity to engage in armed combat. Sweden’s defense is known as mission-based defense. This means that our forces must have the capacity to rapidly be able to engage in combat and other forms of crisis, both nationally and internationally. The SAF’s missions embrace both national operations, including supporting civil society, and missions abroad (Swedish Armed Forces, 2020).

The SAF has undergone several substantial organizational changes over the past decade. On 1 July 2010, Sweden abandoned military conscription in favor of an all-volunteer force, in doing so departing from an approximately 100-year-old tradition. The most important reason for this transition was the new security situation in Europe after the Cold War, which gradually led the SAF toward focusing more on participation in multinational missions abroad (Österberg & Jonsson, 2012). It also meant new types of missions, ranging between classical peacekeeping and counterinsurgency and combat (Hedlund, 2011). However, the new manning system for the SAF only lasted for eight years, after which the Swedish government decided to re-activate conscription, from January 2018. One reason for this decision was that all-volunteer recruitment had not provided the Armed Forces with

enough trained personnel. The second reason was that the security environment both in the rest of Europe and in Sweden’s immediate vicinity had deteriorated, putting an increased focus on defence of the national territory.

Data collection for this thesis was conducted in 2008-2009 (study I), 2012 (Study III) and 2013 (study II). Hence, the samples consist of individuals from both the conscript and all-volunteer systems. The samples include conscripts as well as contract personnel with experience of both peace-keeping and high-risk peace enforcement missions. Furthermore, the participants are drawn from both rank and file and officers, as well as individuals from both the army and the navy.

Theoretical framework

Definition of key terms Outlined below are definitions of the key terms used in this thesis

Risk, risk-taking, risk perception and risk propensity In more technical terms, both risk and risk-taking have traditionally been defined from a negative perspective. The Cambridge Dictionary (2020) defines the term risk as "the possibility of something bad happening", while risk-taking has been viewed as voluntary participation in any behavior which involves the probability of negative consequences (Boyer, 2006). However, psychological research indicates that there seems to be a poor level of correspondence between this type of description and the way in which people intuitively perceive and judge risks. Aven and Renn (2009) place risks in a social and psychological context, defining risk thus: "Risk refers to uncertainty about and severity of the consequences (or outcomes) of an activity with respect to something that humans value” (Aven & Renn, 2009, p. 6). Thus, from this perspective, risk may have both a negative and a positive aspect depending on the person, situation and context (Breivik et al., 2019). In a similar vein, risk-taking has also been defined as behaviors that involve making choices that result in uncertain outcomes, whether positive or negative, and entail balancing potential harm or danger to the individual with potential achievement and

reward (Byrnes et al., 1999). In the present thesis, I adhere to the latter definitions, thus viewing risk and risk-taking as terms that could have both negative and positive values and consequences. The term risk perception denotes the subjective interpretation of risk and is a phenomenon consisting of beliefs, attitudes, values and risk assessment (Breakwell, 2014). Risk propensity has been used as a term describing a person’s disposition or inclination to take risks (Breivik et al., 2019; Killgore et al., 2006).

Safety, safety attitudes and safety climate The Royal Society (1992) has defined safety as freedom from unacceptable risk of personal harm. This definition implies a balance between acceptable risk and safety. Safety attitude is an individual- level construct that reflects the beliefs and feelings that a person holds regarding safety policies, procedures, and practices (Henning et al., 2009; Neal & Griffin, 2004; Rundmo & Hale, 2003). Safety climate is commonly referred to as a group’s shared perception of an organization’s policies, procedures, and practices relating to the value and importance of safety within that organization (Zohar, 1980; Griffin & Neal, 2000). A view commonly held by researchers is that safety climate can be seen as a “snapshot” of the state of safety within an organization or group (Flin et al., 2000). It is a manifestation of an underlying safety culture that provides an understanding of the attitudes and perceptions of a workforce at a given point in time (Cox & Flin, 1998; Cooper & Phillips, 2004).

Risk psychology Fischoff and Kadvany (2011) describe the psychological study of risk as having started in the 1970s. Since then, a number of different questions and theoretical models have been suggested, guiding this line of research. Together, these different perspectives form the multidimensional nature of risk psychology today. In her book "The Psychology of Risk", Breakwell (2014) provides a comprehensive overview of and useful insights into the field of risk psychology. In the sections below, I will draw on this book to present the main clusters of research which have been developed, throughout history, in risk psychology and which are all of relevance to the present thesis.

The first cluster of research was developed during the 1970s, and its key question dealt with how people make (risk) judgments when faced with uncertain outcomes. Groundbreaking research by Kahneman and Tversky (see Kahneman, 2011), showed that people’s risk judgments, under such conditions, are seldom based on a rational calculation regarding probability. Instead, we use a number of different mental shortcuts, so-called heuristics, shortcuts which can bias our judgments. Our heuristics are the product of a range of factors that include biology, values, norms and experiences (Kahneman, 2011).

During the 1980s, risk researchers became interested in why people sometimes react strongly to risks of low probability but more weakly to risks of high probability. What is it about the risk itself that makes us perceive it as severe? Within this cluster, “the psychometric paradigm” became the most influential methodological approach. From this perspective, researchers identified the different underlying dimensions associated with the risk that lead to characteristics influencing people’s risk perceptions. One of the most influential arguments here stated that risks can be understood using a two-dimensional matrix. One of these dimensions refers to the perceived degree of dread and the controllability of the risk while the other refers to the degree of uncertainty associated with the risk (Breakwell, 2014). Risks that are perceived as being dreadful and low in controllability and as having a high degree of uncertainty (e.g. terrorism) are perceived as severe, even though the probability of their occurring may be low.

Another research question that gained ground during the 1980s focused on individual and group differences when reacting to risk. For example, socio-demographic (e.g. age, gender) and socio-economic differences were studied in relation to perceptions of risk. Associations between personality and risk perception are another main focus of this cluster, as is the influence of the norms, attitudes and beliefs held by the groups that the individual identifies with.

The book “The feeling of risk” by Slovic (2010) is an illustrative representation of a cluster that emerged at the turn of the last century. Researchers argued that people’s risk reactions are not merely a result of cognitive processes. Instead, they argued, people’s feelings toward 16

risk are equally important when it comes to understanding their perceptions and reactions. The term “affective heuristics” was introduced by Slovic (2010); this term suggests that people have an “affective pool” through which they make sense of, and react to, risk.

Risk communication is a cluster that has been present since the development of risk psychology began. Many theoretical models have been suggested and studied. Two of the most influential are the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) (Kasperson et al., 1988) and the “mental models” approach (Fischoff et al., 1997). SARF describes how different mechanisms and stakeholders (i.e. media, authorities, organizations) can either amplify or attenuate our perceptions and reactions to risk and risk events. Through this process, commonly held social representations can be propagated within society, or within certain societal groups (e.g. the media’s and the authorities’ framing of terrorism). The mental model approach was developed at about the same time as SARF. A mental model represents the beliefs, feelings and attitudes that individuals hold as regards risk. It has been suggested that understanding people’s mental models is crucial when it comes to succeeding with risk communication (Morgan et al., 2002). The phenomenon has also been studied at the group-level, defined as “shared mental models”, in terms of risk representing the shared beliefs, feelings and attitudes of a group of individuals (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993).

Lately, another approach has received some interest in this cluster, namely the Identity Process Theory (Jaspal & Breakwell, 2014). Here, researchers are interested in the way risk can threaten our identity and how our efforts to maintain our identity influence our perceptions and actions regarding risks.

Finally, a cluster worth mentioning is what Breakwell (2014) calls the management of risk in complex organizations. This approach has been especially highlighted in the High Reliability Organization (HRO) literature, as well as in the extensive research studies published on the concept of safety culture (e.g. Zohar, 2000; Reason, 1997). This perspective turns the spotlight on safety and the importance of a good safety culture within the organization when it comes to dealing with 17

risks. One of the key findings of these studies is the importance of leadership for establishing a good safety culture.

Implications for the present investigation I argue that the clusters of research as well as the questions raised throughout the history of risk psychology are all more or less relevant to understanding the research questions in this thesis, and to understanding the specific population of interest.

Military personnel are trained to operate in a context characterized by high risk, complexity and great uncertainty. They can face risks to themselves as well as to others, risks that are dreadful and low in controllability (e.g. Improvised Explosive Devices, the loss of comrades, civilian deaths). It is well documented that these types of situations can evoke feelings such as stress, anger, frustration and guilt, feelings which may affect the wellbeing, operational capability and risk behaviors of personnel (e.g. Cardozo & Salama, 2002; Driskell et al., 2006; Kavanagh, 2005). Issues of identity and mental models are definitely key. For example, these are clearly being addressed in the debate on and research into the differences in values and behaviors between personnel with a warrior identity, compared to those with a peacekeeping identity (Johansen, 2013; Buijs et al., 2019). Furthermore, military organizations are so-called Critical Action Organizations, characterized by a high degree of risk to their personnel (Hannah et al., 2009). Clearly, this type of organization is responsible for making safety a priority and for developing safety regulations and measures that foster a sound safety culture. Leadership is one of the key success factors in military tasks, and there is considerable evidence that this also applies to handling risks and safety issues in an effective manner (e.g. Probst & Estrada, 2010; Zohar, 2000).

Looking at the evidence from previous research, there is a strong argument for applying an interactionistic approach in order to try to understand how people view and react to risk and safety issues. This thesis takes this approach; in the following sections, I present an overview of the individual, leader and group factors that may influence people’s views of risk and safety issues, with a particular focus on the military context. However, each one of these factors represents a large 18

body of important research questions and theoretical models. Hence, a demarcation must be made and I thus focus on the key aspects most relevant to the questions and aims specific to the present thesis.

The individual A key theme of risk psychology has been studying differences in how individuals react to risks, why some individuals perceive risks to be higher, and why some individuals are more inclined to take risks. Researchers have focused on aspects such as personality, beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic factors in order to gain an understanding of these issues. Being able to identify individual differences in reactions to risks and safety has been regarded as particularly important in high-risk occupations, bearing in mind that single individual risk behaviors can have life-threatening consequences. Scholars have pointed to the need to study combinations of different individual factors that jointly form a type of "risk profile". This profile could be more or less adequate depending on the context (Nicholson et al., 2005; Killgore et al., 2010)

Personality There are many different opinions about what personality actually is. One definition, suggested by the American Psychological Association (APA), is that personality refers to “individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving”. There are also several different theories about personality. From a trait- perspective, personality consists of more stable traits that make the person more dispositioned to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation or circumstances (Deary, 2009). In contrast, the social learning theory suggests that our personality is not composed of stable traits. Rather, changes may occur to this in different situations and circumstances, being made up of our experiences of the social world. For example, our personality could change and develop through modelling of and reinforcement from significant others (Bandura, 1977). The interactional approach suggests that our personality is a combination of both inherent traits and environmental factors (Hollander, 1967).

Sensation-seeking, impulsivity and lack of deliberation Two traits which have received particular attention in the risk literature are sensation-seeking and impulsivity. These traits are related and have at times been treated as synonymous. The sensation-seeking theory is closely linked to the researcher Zuckerman, who defines the concept as “a trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex and intense sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical, social, legal and financial risks for the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27). Individuals with high levels of sensation-seeking are curious about novel experiences and environments. They perceive situations as less risky than individuals with low levels of sensation-seeking; in risky situations, high-level sensation-seekers experience more positive and less negative feelings than low-level sensation-seekers. Impulsivity, on the other hand, concerns a person’s control over his/her thoughts, feelings and behaviors. People with high levels of impulsivity tend to act rapidly, with diminished consideration for future consequences (Hamilton et al., 2015; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).

Both sensation-seeking and impulsivity have been related to negative risk behaviors, e.g. careless driving, alcohol and drug abuse, aggressivity and criminal behavior (Dahlen et al., 2005; Joireman et al., 2003; Lynam & Miller, 2004; Miller et al., 2003; Stanford & Barrat, 1992; Zuckerman, 2007). In military contexts, high levels of sensation- seeking and impulsivity have been linked to the use of illegal drugs (Sáiz et al., 1998), an increased risk of being suspended from basic military training (Lubin et al., 1999), and weapon-related risks (Glicksohn et al., 2004).

It also seems to be the case, however, that sensation-seeking is a common characteristic of individuals who apply for high-risk situations and occupations, both in the civil and military fields (Zuckerman 2007). Several studies also demonstrate that sensation- seeking can have a number of positive effects in combat situations. Thus, Neria et al. (2000) found a positive relationship among Israeli veterans between sensation-seeking and being decorated for valor in combat. Parmak et al. (2013) found that soldiers scoring high in sensation-seeking perceived themselves to be able to manage 20

unpredictable and chaotic situations better than soldiers scoring lower on this trait. This personality characteristic also appears to have a buffering effect regarding the development of PTSD (Neria et al. 2000; Solomon et al., 1995). Thus, in sum, it appears difficult to distinguish functional from malfunctional risk-takers on the basis of their degree of sensation-seeking alone. Indeed, Fischer and Smith (2004), in a study of college students, found that sensation-seeking was positively correlated with risk-taking activities that had both positive and negative outcomes. However, in the same study, they also examined a personality trait labeled lack of deliberation (Whitside & Lynam, 2001), which could be described as a weak ability to plan ahead, or as acting without thinking (Fischer & Smith, 2004). Low levels of deliberation were found to increase the likelihood of participation in risk activities that had negative outcomes. Based on these results, these researchers also suggest that individuals could be deliberate sensation-seekers or risk-takers, and that they will be more successful in risk situations than those who do not plan ahead. Speaking in similar terms, Momen and colleagues (Momen et al., 2010) describe individuals who take deliberate and essential risks as adaptive risk-takers, and those who take risks without planning ahead, or who act without thinking, as maladaptive risk-takers. They also suggest that it is essential to understand both these types when it comes to assessing and maintaining a high level of safety in an operational environment. This pattern of relationship has not been directly studied in a military context. However, one of the aims of this thesis is to examine how impulsivity and sensation-seeking tendencies are related to perceptions of risk and safety.

Personal invincibility The phenomenon of "unrealistic optimism", or "the illusion of personal invulnerability", has been the subject of numerous civil risk studies. A form of this type of optimism has also been observed in military contexts, and has been described in terms of personal invincibility. Killgore et al. (2010) suggest that risk-taking behavior is influenced by an individual’s degree of perceived invincibility. They developed a scale for measuring perceived vulnerability-invincibility and tested this on a sample of US Army soldiers. According to these researchers, the scale measures “the degree to which an individual perceives him/herself as 21

consistently unconquerable, immune to consequences and prone to success across situations, versus being chronically susceptible to harm, failure, and defeat” ( 2010, p. 500). They found that invincibility correlated positively with sensation-seeking; together, these two variables predicted risk behavior (in this case, measured as the frequency of alcohol use). Based on the results, they also suggest that it is necessary to study the interaction between different risk-related traits, beliefs and motivational factors when it comes to understanding risk-taking and behavior. Hence, high levels of perceived invincibility alone may not lead to risk-taking; however, in conjunction with other factors such as sensation seeking, the probability of an individual engaging in such behaviors increases. Although Killgore et al. (2010) study invincibility from a trait perspective, there is also evidence and anecdotal reports suggesting that perceptions of vulnerability to danger could change with experiences and across a person’s lifespan. Exposure to life-threatening situations may lead to increased risk- taking behaviors; veterans who have been involved in combat have been shown to be more likely to have an increased propensity for risk- taking (Killgore et al., 2008; Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 2009).

Socio-demographic factors There is strong support that risk-taking and risk perception are related to sociodemographic factors. A number of studies demonstrate that men and young people are more inclined to take risks (see, for example, Byrnes et al., 1999; Roth et al., 2007; Nicholson et al., 2005). Similar results apply to the military context where, for example, careless driving was found to be more frequent among men and young people (Bell et al., 2000; Fear et al. 2008; Krull et al., 2004). Killgore et al. (2006) have also demonstrated that certain dimensions relating to risk propensity, e.g. impulsiveness, seem to be negatively related to age and military experience. Similarly, Momen et al. (2010) found a negative relationship between age and dysfunctional forms of risk-taking. Furthermore, studies have also indicated that adolescents in particular may have a greater sense of invincibility, seeing themselves as less vulnerable to harm in risk situations and with regard to high-risk behaviors (Wetherill & Fromme, 2007; Wickman et al., 2008).

Beliefs and attitudes Civil risk research provides supporting evidence for the relationship between attitudes and beliefs regarding risk and actual risk and safety behaviors (see Breakwell, 2014). In particular, civil research has focused on attitudes and beliefs related to safety. It has been suggested that safety attitudes represent an individual antecedent that may significantly influence the individual’s safety behaviors (Neal & Griffin, 2004), and there are also some findings that support this claim. For example, Rundmo (1996) found that safety attitudes had a direct effect on risk behavior. There is also evidence that safety attitudes are related both to safety compliance behaviors (McGovern et al., 2000) and intentions to break safety rules (Fogarty & Shaw, 2010). Furthermore, individuals who hold more positive attitudes are more likely to remain free from injury (Clarke, 2006; Donald, 1994).

Although safety attitudes are positively related to the more commonly studied concept of the safety climate, i.e. shared perceptions about the value of safety in the work environment (Neal & Griffin, 2004; Zohar, 2000), they still represent a conceptually different construct (Christian et al., 2009; Henning et al., 2009; Neal & Griffin, 2004). Whereas the safety climate is primarily determined by the work environment, safety attitudes are conceived of as being influenced by both organizational factors and individual differences (Henning et al., 2009; Neal & Griffin, 2004).

Two beliefs that have interested risk researchers are fatalism and skepticism. Safety fatalism refers to the belief that accidents are unavoidable and occur due to chance or fate (Henning et al., 2009). This is related to the belief that safety practices have little influence on accidents (Rundmo & Hale, 2003). Safety skepticism, on the other hand, can be viewed as an active reluctance to become overly involved in precautionary activities. Skepticism has been emphasized by Cox and Cox (1991) as an important aspect of the structure of employee attitudes to safety, but has received little research interest otherwise. The concept of skeptical beliefs regarding safety has, however, gained the attention of theorists and researchers in the debate concerning the “overly protective” society (Furedi, 2002; Jenkins, 2006; Schneier, 2003). In this debate, it is propounded that increased information 23

regarding risk in society could induce a skepticism in the citizenry in terms of risk and safety issues. Against this backdrop, it would seem to be of interest to examine the possible role of safety fatalism and safety skepticism in a military context.

However, as described by Turner & Tennant (2009), constructions of risk and safety in the military environment are influenced by the need for trade-offs between implementing safety and accepting exposure to certain risks. Thus, on the individual level, it would seem relevant to examine not only safety attitudes, but also attitudes toward risk and risk-taking. While risk-related attitudes have received some attention in relation to personality traits and risky behaviors, this attention has primarily concerned voluntary individual activities and non-military settings, e.g. sports, financial risk, etc. (Weber et al., 2002). However, from the point of view of training young people in an activity where risk is an intrinsic component, further knowledge of the influence of both individual differences and organizational factors on attitudes to risk seems particularly relevant. Hence, in this thesis, both risk and safety attitudes were of interest to examine.

Leadership Leadership can be described as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2010, p. 8). When examining safety-related research, one finds that probably the most studied dimension of research on safety in organizations is management safety, which refers to employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ regard for, and commitment to, safety (Seo et al., 2004). Supervisors are the primary channel through which connections are established between the organization, as a whole, and the individual employees (Morrow et al., 2010). Through their actions, supervisors communicate the relative priorities of safety versus other competing demands, e.g. speed or efficiency (Zohar, 2000; 2002). Several studies, both on the individual and group levels of analysis, have demonstrated that the actions of supervisors tend to exert a strong influence on the occupational safety of their subordinates. Employees who perceive their supervisors to be prioritizing safety are more likely to engage in safety-related activities 24

and are involved to a lesser extent in injuries and accidents (e.g. Hayes et al., 1998; Johnson, 2007; Probst & Estrada, 2010; Zohar, 2000).

In the context of the military, the platoon leader can be regarded as an immediate supervisor. Studies by Zohar and colleagues demonstrated a stronger safety climate within subunits where the platoon leaders, through their actions, communicated safety as a priority (Luria, 2010; Zohar & Luria, 2004). Fogarty and Shaw (2010), in a study of the Australian Defence Force, found that subordinates’ perceptions of management beliefs and actions regarding safety topics did have a direct effect on their own attitudes to safety violations. The examination of protocols, during field training exercises, further indicated that most task-related choices faced by army platoon leaders include safety considerations (Zohar & Luria, 2003). Thus, as part of their leadership role, these leaders must face competing demands in terms of mission accomplishment and safety considerations (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008).

Leadership behaviors From a theoretical perspective, there seems to be one leadership theory in particular that has been studied more extensively and been shown to be relevant, describing the relationship between leadership and risk and safety issues; i.e. the Full Range of Leadership Theory (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

This theory describes three different groups of leadership behaviors; laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership. The laissez-faire leader is basically a non-leader who avoids making decisions and taking responsibilities, refusing to take a stance and showing a lack of interest (Avolio et al., 1999). Transactional leadership is based on an exchange process of action and rewards between the leader and his/her subordinates, with the leader making decisions based on rules and regulations (Avolio et al., 1999). There are three types of transactional behaviors:

Contingent reward. The leader communicates the goals and strategies as well as the positive consequences and rewards for following them.

Active Management by exception. The leader continuously follows up on his/her subordinates’ work, looking for mistakes and giving corrective feedback. This could also mean that the leader makes sure that his/her subordinates know about the possible negative consequences and punishments associated with not following rules and regulations.

Passive management by exception. The leader does not act (either correct or impose punishments) until deficits or problems are severe or until an “accident” has already happened (Bass, 1999).

According to Bass and Riggio (2006), transformational leadership involves inspiring followers to commit to the shared vision and goals of an organization or unit, challenging them to be innovative problem- solvers and developing followers’ capacities via coaching, mentoring, and the provision of both challenges and support. Transformational leadership, according to Bass (1999), involves four types of behaviors:

Idealized Influence. The leader acts as a role-model by communicating the importance of morale and loyalty and acting in line with the shared values of the organization and unit. Moreover, being a role-model also means taking the responsibility for mistakes and giving credit to others when the group performs well.

Inspirational Motivation. The leader communicates a clear vision and the strategies for achieving this, clarifying why it is important to act in accordance with the vision (e.g. values). Furthermore, the leader also motivates his/her subordinates by communicating high expectations and clarifying how each and every person can contribute to the shared goals and visions of the group.

Intellectual Stimulation. The leader stimulates his/her subordinates into taking the responsibility for sharing ideas, coming up with new solutions, actively taking part in the decision-making process of the group, and trying out new behaviors.

Individual Consideration. The leader listens, asks questions, and coaches from the perspective of his/her subordinates’ personal need for achievement and growth.

Leadership and implications for risk and safety Both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors have been shown to have important implications for safety. Studies have shown that a higher degree of transformational leadership (as perceived by subordinates) is associated with a stronger safety climate and a higher frequency of safety behaviors among subordinates (Clarke, 2013; Conchie et al., 2012, Johnson, 2007). In particular, transformational leadership seems to generate more active safety participation among subordinates, who communicate more openly about safety issues with other co-workers and make suggestions about how to improve safety efforts (Neal et al., 2000). Transformational leadership has also been related to fewer incidents and accidents (Kelloway et al., 2006).

Clarke (2013) argues that transformational leadership behaviors focusing on safety can be executed in several ways. The leader could be a role-model, showing, by means of his/her own behaviors, the importance of safety (i.e. idealized influence). The leader can encourage his/her subordinates to be responsible for safety by asking them to come up with their own suggestions on how to improve safety (i.e. intellectual stimulation). The leader can show individual consideration by communicating that he/she cares about the health and safety of everyone (Clarke, 2013). Safety-oriented transformational leadership behaviors are important prerequisites of good safety communication, but they also lead to a greater understanding of safety efforts (Conchie et al., 2012).

Transactional leadership behaviors have also been shown to effect safety positively. This applies to the active management of the exception dimension in particular. In regard to safety, this type of leadership behavior means that the leader is good at articulating clear safety-related goals and strategies, while actively observing and following up compliance with goals and strategies, acting quickly regarding safety deficits, and giving corrective and rewarding feedback 27

in order to achieve goals and improve safety efforts (e.g. Kapp, 2012). This type of leadership behavior has been shown to lead to a higher degree of safety compliance (Zohar, 2002), (i.e. following rules and procedures), and a lower frequency of injuries (Krause et al., 1999).

Despite the overall interest in this research field, studies with a military application are scarcer. However, empirical evidence supports the importance of leadership for safety in the military context. In line with civil studies, first-line leadership is emphasized as being particularly critical (e.g. Luria 2010; Zohar & Luria, 2004; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Military studies also mirror civil studies in the sense that both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors seem to be important for safety (Adamshick, 2007).

To summarize, it is clear that leadership, especially among first-line leaders, is a key factor in attitudes and behaviors related to safety. Therefore, the relationship between leadership and risk and safety perceptions represents a key issue in the present thesis. However, a certain degree of risk-taking is a necessity in military training and operations. Thus, both leaders and their subordinates need to have a willingness to take risks in their professional roles. There is evidence that leaders demonstrating personal risk-taking in high-risk situations are perceived to be more effective (Frost et al., 1983; Kolditz, 2007). Therefore, it would seem to be the case that the possible risk-promoting actions of leaders should also be of relevance to understanding subordinates’ risk and safety perceptions.

The Group A distinctive characteristic of the military profession is that much of its work is about working together in groups. Military groups are often described as cohesive and having a strong esprit de corps (Bartone et al., 2002; Johansen, 2013). Through the process of social interaction, the group develops its own identity and a particular type of group climate. The values and norms arising within the group not only affect the group’s identity and motivation, but also its perceptions and behaviors (Johansen, 2013).

The shared understanding of norms, values, strategies and goals existing within a group has been described in terms of being "shared mental models" (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). These models provide the possibility of the group engaging in collective sensemaking, which provides a shared understanding, and meaning, as regards situations and agreed upon strategies for action (Blatt, 2009; Weick, 1993). The shared mental models and sensemaking seem to be particularly important during uncertain situations, where previous experience is not enough when it comes to categorizing a situation. They enable groups to better communicate, cooperate and coordinate their actions in order to meet challenges and deal with adversity (Blatt, 2009; Mathieu et al., 2000; Weick, 1993).

However, there is also the possibility that negative group processes will develop and that group members will gather around norms, values and actions that are dysfunctional. Hence, negative and unnecessary risk- taking might be a product of pressure, on the individual, to adhere to what are perceived to be the most salient norms and values of the group (Turner et al., 1987). Furthermore, phenomena such as risky-shift (Stoner, 1961) and group polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969) indicate the strong influence that group processes can have on people.

Clearly, group processes represent factors having an important influence on people’s perceptions and behaviors. One aim of the present thesis is to explore and identify group factors that may affect how military personnel perceive and react in regard to risk and safety issues. One factor that has been more explicitly studied in this thesis is group cohesion.

Group cohesion Group cohesion is one of the most studied group factors; there is major support for it being a key factor in group functioning and performance (Rosh et al., 2012). A number of meta-analyses, both in civil (e.g. Mullen & Cooper, 1994) and military contexts (Oliver et al., 1999), have been conducted, showing that cohesion has several positive effects on psychological, social and behavioral outcomes. For example, there are positive relationships between cohesion and job satisfaction (Ahronson

& Cameron, 2007), reduced stress (Griffith & Vaitkus, 1999) and group performance (Evans & Dion, 1991).

Despite the extensive amount of research, scholars are still very much debating how to operationalize the concept. However, there seems to be a dominant view as regards seeing it as a multidimensional construct, with the most relevant dimensions being task and social cohesion (Grossman et al., 2015). According to Siebold (2007), task cohesion refers to group members’ shared commitment to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of that group, while social cohesion captures the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness among the group members. These two dimensions are also present in one of the most commonly-used definitions, which describes cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron et al., 1998, p. 213).

Studies that have examined the relationships between cohesion and risk and safety are scarcer. However, there are empirical findings indicating that cohesion can be expected to be important in this respect. Cohesion has been shown to be positively related to a caring attitude (i.e., a specific safety attitude) among employees (Burt et al., 2008; Geller et al., 1996; Roberts & Geller, 1995). Employees who care greatly tend to be more positively inclined toward discussing safety issues with coworkers, and toward helping and warning others about safety issues and recognizing coworkers’ limits (Burt et al., 2008). Greater cohesion has also been linked to a stronger safety climate (Luria, 2008) and to stronger compliance with safety rules and procedures (Simard & Marchand, 1997)

Methodological approach

Quantitative and qualitative method The present investigation uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative design. Quantitative research techniques involved using questionnaires containing predetermined scales, while qualitative

techniques involved in-depth semi-structured interviews. The strength of the quantitative method lies in making it easier to gather data from a larger sample, in doing so generalizing the result to a larger population. Also, this approach makes it possible to examine the strength of the variables, e.g. perceptions, attitudes and beliefs, within a group of people, as well as the statistical differences between the groups. It also makes it possible to identify the statistical relationships between the variables (Choy, 2014; Atieno, 2009). However, the weakness of quantitative methods is that they do not identify the deeper meaning and interpretations that people use to make sense of their lives and experiences. Neither do quantitative methods provide a deeper understanding of how contextual and social factors may interplay with people’s perceptions, emotions, beliefs and values (Choy, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Parry et al., 2014). This is, however, the strength of qualitative methods, e.g. in-depth interviews, in that they make it possible to identify the underlying processes and driving forces of people’s perceptions and behaviors (Choy, 2014; Atieno, 2009; Conger, 1998). Atieno (2009) argues that it is not possible to understand human behavior without understanding the framework on the basis of which people think, feel and act. As such, qualitative methods can bring rich details and nuances to knowledge that is generated quantitatively (Ospina, 2004). The weakness of qualitative methods, however, is that it is harder to generalize the results to a larger population (Choy, 2014; Queiròs et al., 2017). Consequently, the approach of combining both quantitative and qualitative methods has been advocated by many research scientists (e.g. Conger, 1998; Kelle, 2006; Parry, 1998).

Level of analysis In regard to level of analysis, this thesis studies concepts that can be investigated from different levels. Hence, they are multi-level concepts. Thus, leadership, cohesion and climate/culture have all been operationalized, measured and analyzed on the individual, group and organizational levels. In the present thesis, I use an individual-level approach in terms of analysis. Thus, the data are non-aggregated and reflects the perceptions, beliefs and attitudes held by the individuals. This approach has been described by scholars as the study of psychological climate. In contrast, the aggregated, shared perceptions 31

of groups of people have been described as group climate or organizational climate.

Psychological climate has been defined as "a set of perceptions that describe how an individual cognitively appraises the environment, based on personal experience" (Barkhi & Kao, 2011, p. 125). Brown and Leigh (1996) further emphasize psychological climate as "employees´ perceptions and valuations of the environment rather than the environment itself that mediate attitudinal and behavioral responses" (p. 359). This argument is also supported by the meta-analysis of Parker et al., (2003), which showed that people organize their perceptions through the filter of their values and needs, and not in line with the objective features of their environment. However, individual perceptions and psychological climate are not only affected by individual factors (viz. needs, values, age, work experience, gender etc.) (e.g. Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Reaves et al., 2018), but also by other factors, e.g. job role, leadership, workgroups and organizational subsystems (James & McIntyre, 1996).

Thus, although this thesis pursues an analysis at the level of the individual, this still includes the examination of various external factors possibly affecting the perceptions and psychological climate of the individual.

The sampling procedure A purposive sampling method was used in all three articles. This method is particularly applicable when a group of subjects is the main focus, and not the studying of a general issue or phenomenon (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). Thus, purposive sampling increases the likelihood of reaching participants who match the objectives of the investigation and the sample criteria (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Purposive sampling procedures match the aims of the thesis since it focuses on military groups with specific characteristics and experiences. Thus, in the first study (Article I), an age band of conscripts was selected, in the second study (Article II), two samples were selected with differing mission experience and degrees of potential risk exposure, and in the third study (Article III), the sample included military leaders with experience of high-risk situations. 32

Summary of empirical studies

In this section, an overview of the empirical studies is presented. The three studies are presented in brief with regard to their aim, participants, measures, analysis, main results and conclusions.

Article I Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2011). Risk and safety among conscripts during compulsory military training. Military Psychology, 26, 659-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.616815

Aim The general aims of the study were to examine: I) the influences of individual characteristics on risk and safety attitudes; II) how different kinds of leader behavior and group cohesion influence risk and safety attitudes; III) the differences between basic training and unit training regarding the studied variables; IV) the predictive validity of individual characteristics, leader behaviors, and group cohesion measured during basic training, in relation to risk and safety attitudes after unit training.

Participants The sample consisted of one age band of conscripts from a logistics regiment. The first questionnaire (N = 445) was completed one week after joining up. The second questionnaire (N = 436) was completed after the first term of basic training (month 4 of training), and the third questionnaire (N = 421) was completed after unit training (month 11), one week before the conscripts were due to complete their compulsory military service. In total, 389 conscripts responded to the questionnaire. The sample consisted of 97 % men, most of whom were 20 years old (98%).

Measures Risk and safety attitudes. The items in this theme were developed by the researchers and were examined using principal component analysis (PCA). Analysis revealed three factor components, which were labeled: appropriate safety, necessary risk-taking, and unnecessary risk-taking. All three scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Individual characteristics and beliefs. This theme was conceptualized in this study by measurements of the trait of sensation-seeking and two beliefs, labeled safety fatalism and safety skepticism. Sensation- seeking was measured using scales that capture three different tendencies; i.e. dangerous thrill-seeking, impulsive thrill-seeking, and calculated thrill-seeking. Items were retrieved from the International Personality Item Pool (2006). Safety fatalism and safety skepticism were measured using items developed by the authors and were thus examined using PCA, which provided support for the two-factor solution. All three scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Leadership behaviors. Conscripts rated their most immediate officer’s leadership behaviors. In total, 12 officers were rated. Leadership behaviors were assessed using the scale developed by Johnson (2007), measuring three different dimensions of safety-related leadership; i.e. caring, coaching, and compliance. We supplemented this scale with questions designed to measure the promotion of risk-taking. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed that a four-factor solution provided a good fit. All four scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Group cohesion. The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ: Carron et al., 1985) was used to measure group cohesion; however, we used a version that has been modified from a sporting to a military context (Ahronson & Cameron, 2007). PCA was conducted to assess the factor structure of the “adapted” GEQ. Our analysis did not provide any support for the intended four-factor solution. Instead, a two-factor solution was determined to be the best solution. Factor one consisted of items measuring social cohesion, while factor two consisted of items measuring task cohesion. Both scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Analysis The data collected for leadership behaviors and cohesion was multi- level in nature since a number of soldiers evaluated the same platoon commander’s behaviors as well as the cohesion within a specific platoon. However, the limited sample, comprising only 12 platoons, 34

restricted us from conducting a meaningful analysis at the group level. The potential for non-independence between the observations was, however, controlled for by using hierarchical linear modeling, using the predictors as fixed factors and platoons as random factor, and allowing intercepts to vary (mixed effects model). Cohen and Cohen (1983) have argued that static variables should be entered before entering more dynamic variables. Following this advice, while bearing in mind the specific hypotheses, individual characteristics were entered after the control variable (platoon), followed by leadership and group cohesion variables. In accordance with the advice of Field (2005), we conducted our analyses in two steps. First, all the indices showing significant correlations with the criterion variable were included in the analysis. The second step was a rerun of the analysis but only including the significant predictors from the initial analysis. Predictors were standardized to z-scores. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. No serious violations were found. Analyses were performed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences 19.0 (SPSS inc. 2010, Somer, NY).

Main results and conclusions The findings of the study suggest that individual characteristics and beliefs, expressed in terms of sensation-seeking tendencies, safety skepticism and safety fatalism, do have an impact on the risk and safety attitudes of the conscripts. Greater, dangerous thrill-seeking tendencies were associated with a stronger positive attitude toward necessary risk-taking. Higher scores in safety skepticism were associated with a negative attitude toward safety practices (appropriate safety), whereas safety fatalism was positively related to the attitude of taking unnecessary risks. Furthermore, higher scores in safety skepticism and safety fatalism, during basic training (first months of training), were related to greater risk-taking attitudes after unit training (1 month before the end of military service).

Leadership behaviors and group cohesion emerged as important factors in explaining variation in risk and safety attitudes. Thus, the result showed that leadership behaviors, which included the promotion of risk-taking, were positively associated with both the attitude of 35

necessary risk-taking and the attitude of unnecessary risk-taking. On the other hand, leadership characterized by the clear communication of the importance of obeying safety regulations (coaching and compliance) appeared to be important to the engendering of positive attitudes toward safety (appropriate safety). Safety-oriented leadership and the promotion of risk-taking were moderately to highly correlated, which indicates that leaders could practice both aspects in their leadership. The study did not demonstrate any support for a strong relationship between group cohesion and attitudes; however, task cohesion did emerge as an important aspect of preventing the attitude of unnecessary risk-taking, also showing predictive validity over time.

Significant differences were found in the ratings over time. Thus, ratings regarding appropriate safety and all of the leadership dimensions decreased between the second and third measurements, while ratings regarding unnecessary risk-taking increased. One explanation for this could be that safety regulations and standards are well adapted to basic training but more difficult to apply to more complex situations during field training.

The results highlight the importance of balanced leadership in terms of safety-oriented and risk-promoting behaviors, and the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risk-taking in the military context. Furthermore, the study indicates that risk and safety attitudes, formed early on during group formation and training, are strong predictors of final attitudes after completed training, emphasizing the importance of building a sound base during the first months. In this sense, leaders should be observant of opportunities for tempering negative beliefs during the early, formative months of training.

Article II Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2015). Risk propensity within the military: a study of Swedish officers and soldiers. Journal of Risk Research, 18, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.879489

Aim The study aims to examine the relationships between the degree of risk propensity and 1) demographic factors, e.g. gender, age, military background, experience of international missions, parental status; 2) the personality trait of lack of deliberation; 3) safety skepticism and safety fatalism.

Participations Data were gathered from two samples. The first sample comprised rank and file (n = 119) and officers (n = 12) from a logistics regiment, part of the core battalion of the Nordic Battle Group (NBG) - which stood ready from 1st of January 2011. Data were collected approximately 4 months into this standby readiness. The sample consisted of 79.4 % men and 20.6 % women with a mean age of 27.2 years (range 21-60 years). Of the participants, 9.2 % had experience of one international mission and 4.6 % of two or more international missions. Of these, 13.7 % reported having children. This was a convenience sample and the response rate from this specific regiment was approximately 60 %.

The second sample consisted of officers (n = 23) and rank and file (n = 10), also from a logistics regiment, part of the 25th Swedish contingent in Kosovo. Data were collected four days before the respondents were deployed to Kosovo. For those not present at the time of data collection, questionnaires were administered by the platoon leaders and then sent to the research team. Of the participants in this sample, 76.3 % were men and 23.7% women. The mean age was 34.18 years (range 22-57 years), with 23.7 % having experience of one international mission and 13.2% of two or more international missions. Of these, 42.1 % had children.

Measures Demographic factors. The questionnaire included questions about gender, age, military background (officers or rank and file), experience of international missions (none, one, two or more missions) and if the participant had children or not.

Lack of deliberation. Was measured using a Swedish translation (Marklund, 2008) of Whiteside and Lynams (2001) UPPS Impulsivity 37

Scale. Lack of deliberation constitutes a sub-scale of this instrument. The scale showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Safety beliefs. Safety skepticism and safety fatalism were measured using scales developed in Study I. Both scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Risk propensity. The Evaluation of Risks (EVAR) Scale (Sicard et al., 1999; Killgore et al., 2006) was used to measure the participants’ risk propensity. After analyses of the measurement qualities, we decided to use three scales in the instrument; i.e. the total EVAR score, the sub- scale of danger-seeking, and invincibility. All three scales showed a sufficient level of internal consistency.

Analysis The relationships between the demographic factors, the lack of deliberation, safety beliefs and risk propensity were examined using hierarchical multiple regressions. First the relationships between demographic factors and measures of deliberation and safety values were examined. Second, the relationships between different measures of risk propensity and demographic factors, deliberation and safety values were examined. In order to test the specific hypotheses, demographic variables were entered at Step 1, followed by deliberation at Step 2 and lastly safety values at Step 3. Following the advice of Field (2005), regressions were first conducted with all the variables and, based on the result, a rerun of the analysis was conducted including only the significant predictors from the initial analysis. Only the second analysis is presented in this paper. Analyses were performed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences 19.0 (SPSS inc. 2010, Somer, NY).

Main results and conclusions The study showed that there were significant relationships between the demographic variables of gender and age and safety beliefs and risk propensity. Negative safety beliefs (safety skepticism and safety fatalism) and risk propensity tend to decrease with age. Compared to women, men demonstrate a more skeptical view of safety measures, as well as a higher degree of risk propensity.

Furthermore, officers and rank and file with less of a tendency to deliberate (lack of deliberation) show a stronger general risk propensity (total EVAR score), as well as a more positive attitude toward risk that involves elements of danger (danger-seeking). A more skeptical view of safety (safety skepticism) was shown to be associated with a higher degree of assuming personal invincibility, predicting, together with a lack of deliberation, variations in danger-seeking scores.

The result of the study highlights some important issues that may have significant practical implications. As has been noted by both civil and military risk researchers, risk propensity and sensation-seeking are not per se negative dispositions and traits shown by military personnel. In fact, individuals seeking high-risk occupations, e.g. the military or the police, are likely to score highly in these characteristics (Zuckerman 2007), which is probably a necessity when it comes to being mentally prepared for handling risk situations. It has furthermore been suggested that even high levels of these traits/dispositions could be adaptive among certain special military groups and situations, as long as high levels of control and discipline are also present (Killgore et al. 2010). However, it is most likely that these attitudes and behaviors can be maladaptive and even harmful in many other situations and environments, e.g. in civilian or routine garrison life (Killgore et al. 2010). Adaptive risk-taking involves deliberation and a great deal of safety awareness (Börjesson et. al. 2011; Momen et. al. 2010). A lack of deliberation and safety skepticism may thus represent negative individual characteristics that can lead to maladaptive risk-taking, especially among individuals high in risk propensity and sensation- seeking.

This study, together with civil studies (Miller et al 2003; Lynam & Miller 2004; Laurence et al 2005), suggests that a lack of deliberation represents a relatively stable trait associated with negative risk behaviors, and is thus relevant to the process of military recruiting. Clearly, age and gender also influence the individual’s risk perceptions and behaviors and should be considered when putting together groups for military missions. Lastly, leadership behaviors have been shown to have a significant influence on subordinates’ views and behaviors with 39

regard to risk and safety issues (Börjesson et. al. 2011; Probst & Estrada 2010; Luria 2010; Zohar & Luria 2004).

Article III Börjesson, M., Wallenius, C., & Enander, A. Risk and safety in the mind of the military leader. (Manuscript under review).

Aim The aims of this study were; to gain a deeper understanding of how military officers view risks and safety issues in their professional roles, what kinds of challenges they might face, and how they would try to manage these challenges.

Participants Seventeen military officers in first-line positions were interviewed. Just over half of these belonged to an army unit, with the remainder belonging to a navy unit. These units were selected in consultation with the Safety Inspector of the Swedish Armed Forces; the aim being here that they had experienced risk-taking, either due to the nature of their service or due to participating in international operations.

The ages of the respondents ranged between 28 and 46, with a median age of 33. All were males. They had participated in between one and five international operations, with the median being two. Before taking part, the participants were informed about the aim of the study, as well as the voluntary nature of participation. They were also presented with a short text outlining ethical considerations. All the respondents who were approached agreed to be interviewed.

Measures A semi-structured interview guide was used which included the following main topics; perception of risk and safety, perception of risk and safety communication, preparedness to face the risks, factors which might all affect the management of risk and safety. Relevant follow-up questions were then asked, depending upon the direction of the interviewee responses. The interviews were conducted by the authors during visits to the units. The interviews were audio recorded and ranged between 60 and 90 minutes. 40

Analysis The interviews were transcribed verbatim, with the transcripts then being imported into QSR Nvivo version 9 (2010). The data were then subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Analysis followed the steps suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006). First, the transcripts were read and re-read to enable familiarization with the data and to generate initial ideas regarding the interesting aspects related to the research questions. Second, codes representing the key features of the data were identified. Third, codes and collated interpretations were grouped into further themes. Fourth, a thematic map was generated, followed by the reviewing and refining of themes and sub-themes and the making of comparisons both within and between the categories. Finally, the themes were defined (and further refined) and then named.

Each step of the analysis was first conducted separately by two researchers, followed by joint discussions aimed at resolving discrepancies and bringing about a common understanding of codes, themes and definitions.

Main results and conclusions A core theme identified in the study concerns the balancing of risk and safety in terms of being key to the first-line military leadership role. The interviews show how this balancing act underpins several challenges, in addition to being fundamental to the strategies leaders apply.

One key challenge concerns group make-up and various individual "risk profiles". The officers in particular highlight two different "risk profiles", representing different ends of the risk-safety continuum. At one end lie the so-called "dare-devils", described as having a great need for adventure and impulsive risk-taking tendencies. At the other end lie the "deliberators", who represent a high degree of safety awareness and calculated risk-taking. Although the officers recognize the potentially negative risk behaviors among the “dare-devil” type of individual, they also see the functional aspect of having both "dare- devils" and "deliberators" in the group in order to create a well- balanced risk and safety climate.

Another challenge identified in the interview data concerns the collective sense-making process of the group in terms of risk and safety issues. This process is said to be filtered by the most salient values, drives and emotions of the group, which could "tip" the balance toward the group having either a more risk-prone or a more risk-averse stance. A clear example highlighted by the officers is the drive to seek combat situations as a way of proving competence and enhancing recognition and status.

In terms of strategies for balancing risk and safety, the officers point to the need for realistic and challenging training in order to develop the necessary competence to face risk situations. This form of training is considered to strengthen cohesion, as well as shared mental models concerning adaptive risk behaviors and the application of safety procedures. Furthermore, the importance of leadership is firmly emphasized by the officers as an essential ingredient of achieving a sound risk and safety balance. Key leadership characteristics emerging from the interviews include vigilance and an awareness of possible negative signals that could affect balance, as well as the ability to use "common sense" and "gut feeling" when applying safety routines and making decisions in complex and dynamic risk situations. Furthermore, functional leadership, in this regard, is described as adaptive and balanced in terms of being supportive or directive, as well as in terms of risk-promoting or safety-oriented leader behaviors.

Finally, the officers point to several organizational constraints that make it more difficult to maintain a good risk-safety balance and to be functional in the leadership role. Constraints mentioned include bureaucracy, experiences from the "field-level" being insufficiently taken into account, and a fear of making mistakes and being made a scapegoat by the organization.

Ethical considerations All the studies were designed and carried out in accordance with ethical principles of human research (Swedish Research Council, 2002; 2011; 2017). Before taking part in any of the studies, the participants were informed about the aims of these studies, as well as the voluntary nature of participation. They were also presented with a brief text 42

outlining ethical considerations, the confidential treatment of data, voluntary participation, and details of how to contact the researchers. Researchers from the Swedish Defence University were present during the initial data collection for each study. Thus, they were able to answer the participants’ questions about the study and ethical issues.

For Study I, a text about ethical considerations was presented on all three occasions of data collection. Before the first occasion of data collection, the participants were asked to provide their written consent to participation in the study and the use of their personal ID numbers, in order to enable matching the three questionnaires. A code-key was used to anonymize the personal ID numbers when the data were coded into SPSS. Only the researchers in charge of the study had access to the code-key. Once the coding had been completed, the personal ID numbers were removed from the questionnaire and destroyed. The raw data and the code-key will be kept in a safe at the Swedish Defence University for ten years. For Study II, no personal data or questions, defined by the Swedish ethical committee as sensitive data, were collected. Regarding the qualitative study (Study III), the participants were informed and then gave their consent for the interviews to be recorded and then transcribed verbatim.

The results of all the studies have been presented on the group level, thus individual responses cannot be identified by external parties.

General discussion

The aim of this thesis was twofold: First, to examine how individual, leader, group and situational factors affect risk and safety perceptions and behaviors among military personnel and, secondly, to examine how first-line military leaders perceive and deal with risk and safety issues in their leadership roles.

The three articles present findings of both theoretical and practical relevance, in addition to providing an increased understanding of how to manage unnecessary risk-taking and facilitate adaptive risk-taking and safety efforts. One key finding and overarching theme identified in

this thesis concerns the act of balancing risk and safety. The studies show that a number of factors and challenges underpin the balancing act and can swing the pendulum too far in either direction, towards impulsive and unnecessary risk-taking, on the one hand, or rigidity and passivity in safety matters, on the other. Ultimately, positions at either end that are too extreme represent a threat to the safety of military personnel. In the following sections, I first discuss the factors and challenges enabling the balancing of risk and safety, as well as the role of leadership in this regard. Subsequently, I focus on the implications for theory, practice and future research.

Risk profiles: Dare and deliberate The results of the three articles indicate that differences in personality traits, values, and beliefs, as well as socio-demographic factors, explain the variations in the risk and safety perceptions of military personnel. More specifically, two different “risk profiles” can be illustrated, representing opposite ends of the risk-safety continuum. At one end, we find what the officers in Article III call the “dare-devils”. This risk profile tends more toward impulsive and unnecessary risk-taking, and these individuals are described as having a stronger need for ‘kicks’ and adventure. At the other end of the continuum, we find what the officers describe as the "deliberators", who represent a high degree of calculated risk-taking and safety awareness. According to the experiences of the officers, the tendency for individuals to lean toward a more "dare-devil" or "deliberating" profile can be related to several factors. The "dare-devils’" inclination toward risk-taking is attributed, by the officers, to striving to be cool, thus being a way of strengthening personal identity and value. As such, they may perceive that greater gains are to be had from risky situations.

Articles I and II provide further understanding of the individual factors linked to a more risk-prone profile and the characteristics possibly underpinning the "dare-devil" profile. The results of the studies indicate that individuals with a more skeptical attitude toward safety (i.e. safety skepticism) have a stronger positive attitude toward risk- taking, a stronger general risk propensity, a tendency to seek out dangerous situations, and think of themselves in terms of being invincible, as well as a more negative attitude toward safety practices. 44

Also, Article II indicates that a lack of deliberation is a personal trait worth considering in this regard. Individuals with a weaker tendency to deliberate show a higher general risk propensity, as well as a more positive attitude toward risks involving elements of danger. Furthermore, Article I highlights another interesting relationship. Individuals with a fatalistic view of safety (i.e. safety fatalism) reported, to a higher degree, that unnecessary risk-taking was more frequent. This might reflect a subjective feeling of having a lack of control in risk- situations (Henning et al., 2009).

In terms of risk-related perceptions and behaviors, scholars have pointed to the need to study combinations of the traits and beliefs that might represent different "risk profiles"(Nicholson et al., 2005; Killgore, Kelley & Balkin, 2010). Whitside and Lynam (2001), for example, found that it was the combination of sensation-seeking and a lack of deliberation that was associated with negative risk activities. Based on the results, these scholars suggest that individuals can be deliberate sensation-seekers or risk-takers and that these individuals will be more successful in risk situations than those who do not plan ahead regarding safety measures. Speaking in similar terms, from a military perspective, Momen et al. (2010) describe individuals who take deliberate and essential risks as adaptive risk-takers, and those who take risks without planning ahead, or who act without thinking, as maladaptive risk-takers

This thesis extends our understanding of "risk profiles" by adding a potentially stronger tendency for unnecessary risk-taking. Based on the results, a maladaptive risk-taking profile can be described in terms of a high level of sensation-seeking and a great risk propensity, in combination with a lack of deliberation, thinking in terms of invincibility, and a skeptical view of safety. Furthermore, both the qualitative and quantitative results indicate that this type of profile is partly related to socio-demographic factors. Thus, it was shown in Article II that men and younger individuals had higher levels of risk propensity, danger-seeking, invincibility and safety skepticism, while a lack of deliberation was non-significantly related to socio-demographic factors.

However, caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this "risk profile" as unambiguously negative. For example, several studies indicate that sensation-seeking is a functional characteristic of the military occupation, especially when dealing with high-risk situations, e.g. combat, mentally and emotionally (Neria et al., 2007; Parmak et al., 2013; Solomon et al., 1995). The officers in Article III also point to the functional aspect of the "dare-devil" profile in balancing the risk climate of the group. "Dare-devils" push the group while "deliberators" hold it back so that it takes calculated, rather than impulsive, risks and maintains a high level of safety awareness. Overall, the officers held that a heterogeneous group is optimal when it comes to creating a balanced risk-safety climate. Differences in socio-demographics, e.g. age, experiences and risk profiles, are perceived to contribute to different perspectives, being important for decision-making in complex and uncertain situations. However, the officers also recognize that there is always a risk of the pendulum swinging too far in either direction, leading to either impulsive risk-taking or passivity. Killgore et al., (2010) reflect similarly, holding that sensation-seekers and risk- prone individuals might be highly adaptive in military operational situations, as long as high levels of control and discipline are also present. Thus, these risk profiles and individual characteristics need to be considered in relation to the context. This thesis further points to the importance of leadership in this regard.

Adaptive and balanced leadership: Setting the thermostat Another key finding of this thesis concerns the balancing of risk and safety in terms of being key to the first-line military leadership role. The officers in Article III express the strong conviction that risk is a natural part of the profession and that some degree of risk-taking is necessary to complete assignments. This unique aspect is highlighted in terms of differentiating the military professional from other civil professional roles. They further emphasize that all forms of risk-taking must be combined with a high degree of safety awareness and deliberation. Thus, a core task of the professional role of the officer is balancing risk and safety satisfactorily and assessing what is an acceptable level of risk. We suggest that the act of balancing, metaphorically speaking, can be likened to a thermostat; in this case, a thermostat regulating risk-taking versus safety considerations. The 46

"risk temperature" of the thermostat can be seen as set in accordance with factors such as the purposes and demands of the task or mission, as well as the values, attitudes, emotions and behaviors of both individual and group. The task of the officers is then to maintain this level, but to also be prepared to "adjust the setting" if circumstances change. This calls for both responsibility and the ability, as a leader, to be a good role model, and to be attentive to negative signals and apply adaptive and balanced leadership behaviors.

The officers (Article III) show great awareness of the significance of being a role model, and of the fact that their actions and attitudes will have a significant impact on the actions of the group during risk situations. In other words, how the group assesses the "risk profile" of the leader will influence the reactions of the rank and file towards risk and safety. For example, if the leader is more risk-prone, the group will follow suit. In order to establish a healthy risk climate, the leader must be ever-present and communicate the importance of safety in both word and deed. Article I indicates that this is especially important during the early stage of group development, as risk and safety attitudes, after the first months of training, were strong predictors of final attitudes on completion of training. Reflecting on the nature of his/her role in this regard, the ideal officer is described as reflective and prepared, as opposed to impulsive and unprepared. Thus, when relating these views to the aforementioned discussion about risk profiles (Articles I and II), the ideal officer seems to lean toward being a "deliberator". The elements of reflection and preparedness are also evident in how the officers describe setting their own thermostats and strengthening their personal inner compasses for action as a leader in order to deal with potential risk situations and emotional adversity. As one officer in Article III describes it:

”We have to count on finding ourselves in combat, because really that’s what we’re there for. And then that raises a whole lot of questions, is it worth being injured or killed, how do I deal with comrades being injured or killed? How do I deal with fatalities? When and how do I determine whether or not to take a bullet ... ?”.

Setting and controlling the thermostat further calls for the ability, as a leader, to demonstrate vigilance and "common sense". As described by the officers, vigilance appears to be closely linked to a sensitive 47

awareness of potential negative signals and even to a certain sense of unease. This description closely resembles a mindset known as chronic unease, which has been suggested to be important in the context of managing risks in uncertain and complex settings (Flin & Fruhen, 2015). Key components of the conceptualization of chronic unease are: vigilance, propensity to worry, requisite imagination, flexibility and a degree of pessimism. Clearly, these components favor a mindset geared toward identifying and managing risk. For officers, this mindset needs to be balanced with the adaptive ability to take certain risks whenever necessary. This is the ability which the informants identify as key to their role as leader and which seems to be encapsulated within the general concept of “common sense.” Interestingly, this concept of common sense has emerged in descriptions of the balancing strategies of a number of other risk-related professions (Borys, 2009; Thorvaldsen, 2013). As described by the officers, common sense incorporates reflection, preparation and experience, coupled with what might be termed “gut feeling”.

Speaking in terms of leadership behaviors, the findings of this thesis further point toward the importance of adaptive leadership. This form of leadership has been described as the ability to change behavior in appropriate ways as the situation changes (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Taken together, the results of Articles I and III indicate that adaptive leadership, in a military risk environment, involves the ability to balance supportive and directive leadership, as well as safety-oriented and risk-promoting leadership behaviors. Supportive safety-oriented leadership is operationalized behaviorally in Article I in terms of spending time with rank and file and teaching them to see safety problems before they arise, discussing with them how safety can be improved and explaining how to act safely. This form of leadership was related to more positive safety attitudes among conscripts. However, a more directive and safety-oriented leadership, e.g. communicating the importance of complying with safety rules and firmly dealing with rank and file not following suit, was also related to positive safety attitudes. The officers in Article III similarly address the importance of balancing supportive and directive leadership, e.g. building trustful relationships, without giving up the role of leader, and the ability to dare to be the boss. 48

One important contribution made by this thesis is the examination of the leadership behaviors that we named risk-promoting leadership. For example, communicating to rank and file that it is sometimes necessary to deviate from safety instructions, in order to best complete the task, and praising individuals who show boldness. We argue that this type of leadership has an adaptive function in the military, as many times some degree of risk-taking is necessary in order to deal effectively with military tasks (Momen et al., 2010). Thus, the first-line leader could, in this sense, have an important role in establishing the mental preparation and willingness of rank and file to engage in necessary and adaptive risk-taking. This argument is supported by the views of the officers interviewed in Article III, with the results of Article I showing that risk-promoting leadership is related to more positive attitudes toward risk-taking among conscripts. However, the study also indicates that leadership that is too one-sided in terms of promoting risk-taking could lead to negative safety perceptions as this form of leadership was also related to the perception among conscripts that unnecessary risks were taken, over which the individual had little control. On the positive side, Article I shows that it is possible to practice both safety-oriented and risk-promoting leadership, as these forms were found to be moderately to highly correlated.

Although the act of adaptive and balanced leadership, in terms of risk and safety implications, seems to be desirable for first-line military leaders, challenges are also entailed. Vogelaar (2007) has previously discussed the role of the front-line military leader, arguing that this form of leadership requires the ability to balance opposing tendencies. In a similar vein, Kaiser and Overfield (2010) state that adaptive and flexible leadership is challenging as the leader needs to find an appropriate balance and tradeoff between occasionally competing values, objectives and behaviors. Indeed, the officers (Article III) perceive themselves to be standing between two competing driving forces. On the one hand, they feel a strong obligation to develop and prepare the group for the mission and risk situations, and to solve professional tasks in the best manner possible. This demands challenging and realistic training, as well as a willingness to expose oneself to task-related risks. On the other hand, they perceive the message from "higher levels" to be that safety is paramount and that 49

incidents and accidents are not acceptable. The officers also express a fear of making mistakes and being held responsible by the organization, or the media. This fear is underpinned by the feeling that the organization tends to seek "scapegoats" when risk incidents occur. Together, these concerns are considered to have potentially negative consequences, e.g. leading to risk-avoidance during training and missions, something which in turn can hamper a soldier’s development, mission preparation and task accomplishment.

Balancing risk within the group Working together in groups is a distinctive characteristic of the military profession, with military groups commonly developing strong identities, values and norms that guide their perceptions and behaviors (Bartone et al., 2002; Johansen, 2013), especially in risky and uncertain conditions (Hogg, 2007). The present thesis contributes an understanding of how risk perceptions and behaviors develop in the group through a sense-making process filtered by values, drives, emotions and experiences. The findings identify several challenging factors that could "tip" this sense-making process toward the group having a more risk-prone, or risk-averse, stance. Moreover, the results also point to important group factors and strategies for balancing risk perceptions and behaviors within the group. Taken together, the results of the three articles indicate that elements of danger, adventure and the demonstrating of competence are important drivers of both individuals and groups when it comes to voluntarily engaging in risk situations. As such, the military arena offers tasks and risk situations that can fulfil these needs. Thus, from a sense-making stance, and as illustrated in the qualitative interviews (Article III), risk situations can be viewed from the perspective of several possible gains being made. One particularly rewarding risk situation, highlighted by the officers in Article III, is combat. Combat situations are valued as an opportunity for the soldier, group and leader to demonstrate his/her/their true professional capacity, and to gain enhanced recognition and status from peers. The will to experience combat could tip the balance toward the group having a risk-prone stance, making soldiers more aggressive and inclined toward impulsive risk-taking. Experience of combat could further trigger a sense of

invincibility, thus strengthening the group’s risk-prone stance. This process is illustrated by the following citation from Article III:

"There’s a very fine balance between completing the task up until almost becoming bloodthirsty. So you need to watch out, it can happen pretty quickly ... and there’s this thing that you want to push on with, to take up another notch".

Furthermore, the officers (Article III) suggest that, if the situation or professional role does not meet drives and expectations, this could lead to feelings of boredom, accompanied by a tendency to neglect safety regulations and an increase in unnecessary risk-taking. These views are supported by previous military studies, which have found that accumulated boredom could lead to a lack of judgement and adaptability, increasing the risk of injury (Bartone, 2006; Hancock, 2009). Taking into account the results in Articles I and II, one could assume that groups dominated by "dare-devils" are more inclined to act on the drives and emotions associated with risk proneness.

This thesis also identifies several factors that can tip the balance toward the group having a more risk-averse stance, potentially with the negative effect of it not being prepared to take risks when necessary. Article III suggests that, if the purpose of the task or mission is diffuse, or if the ability of the group to meet task requirements is perceived as uncertain, then the willingness to take task-related risks will be reduced. Furthermore, experiencing the loss of comrades or suffering defeat can generate feelings of fear and vulnerability, leading to more caution and risk aversion. Thus, according to the officers (Article III), combat experience can both increase and decrease risk-taking tendencies. A significant aspect suggested by the officers is that consequences depend on the group’s interpretation of the outcomes, as well as on how the leader communicates his/ her interpretation to the group. This line of reasoning has found support in the work of Weinstein (1989), who demonstrated two opposing effects of risk experiences (i.e. risk-prone vs. risk-averse), suggesting that the subjective interpretation of these experiences was the determining factor.

A number of the key factors in providing a balanced risk and safety climate are addressed in the articles. The importance of leadership has already been discussed, and there are also several other important factors. Firstly, the officers (Article III) point to the importance of a communication climate characterized by active reflection and openness, where everyone feels safe to express their views and feelings regarding tasks and group actions. This kind of non-judgmental communication is perceived to be crucial when dealing with sensitive and emotional issues, as well as potential stress that has built up during the mission. On the group level, the reflection process can be seen as a way of creating collective sense-making (Blatt, 2009; Weick, 1995) and shared mental models (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Such models can provide a common understanding of risk situations and agreed strategies for action. Collective sense-making seems to be particularly important during uncertain situations, where previous experience is not enough when it comes to categorizing the situation and enabling groups to better communicate, cooperate and coordinate their actions in order to face challenges and adversity (Blatt, 2009; Heverin & Zach, 2012; Mathieu et al., 2000; Weick, 1995).

Secondly, the importance of challenging and realistic training is highlighted in Article III. Specifically, this involves training in potential risk and threat scenarios, as well as exercising the mental and physical abilities of the individual and group. In this way, the group develops a common view of risk and safety issues, as well as an increased ability, and the confidence, to apply safety routines. The latter is a crucial aspect; previous studies have shown that it is more difficult to apply safety procedures to uncertain and complex situations and that the gap between training and mission constitutes a potential threat to the risk- safety balance (Hale & Swuste, 1998; Pidgeon, 1997; Weibull, 2003). Article I indicates that this might be a challenge also during military training, as perceptions of safety efforts decreased between basic and unit training.

In light of the previous discussion about different risk profiles (Articles I and II), and factors that can lead to an unbalanced risk-safety climate within the group, the positive climate effects developing from this type of training seem to be crucial. A common understanding and 52

cohesiveness regarding adaptive risk and safety behaviors should act as important buffers against the impact of the negative values, attitudes, drives and emotions of the individuals and groups, making rank and file more robust vis-à-vis unnecessary risk-taking. Article I contributes important findings in this regard, as stronger task-cohesion was negatively related to perceptions of unnecessary risk-taking among conscripts. Thus, cohesiveness might foster a sense of control in risk situations. Moreover, trust and collective efficacy, in the group’s ability to deal with risk situations, are likely to be important for necessary and adaptive risk-taking as a lack, or uncertainty, in this regard could lead to a risk-averse stance. Thus, individuals and the group might not be mentally and functionally prepared to get involved in risk situations when this is necessary.

However, the issue is again one of balance, weighing the benefits of realistic and challenging training against the potential risks. The general view of the interviewed officers (Article III) is that the potential negative consequences are outweighed by better preparation and the ability to avoid serious incidents in a real-risk scenario. Turner and Tennant (2009) express similar views, advocating that military training be allowed to involve a higher degree of risk-taking than is considered acceptable in civil contexts. However, if not executed with a high degree of safety awareness, training using dangerous equipment and vehicles might entail a severe cost in terms of injury and death (Worrell, 1997). Thus, a key challenge seems to be finding the right balance as regards exposing personnel to and preparing them for realistic risk scenarios during training, but doing so in the safest manner possible (Turner & Tennant, 2009). The officers (Article III) point to an important leadership aspect in this regard, i.e. knowing your subordinates well in order to determine their maturity, knowledge and skill levels. This is crucial when it comes to setting the right challenges and risk levels during training, and when it comes to avoiding unnecessary incidents and accidents.

Assessing maturity, skills, emotions and attitudes, as well as setting the thermostat at the right temperature, demands presence of leadership, according to the officers. However, the formal work burden, including safety efforts, that the specific organization places on its officers is 53

perceived to be bureaucratic, laborious and time-consuming, preventing them from spending time with their subordinates out in the field.

Implications, limitations and suggestions for future research This thesis contributes to both theoretical and practical knowledge in the field of risk psychology, and to practitioners who have to deal with risks as a natural part of their occupation in their professional role. One clear theoretical standpoint taken is viewing risk and safety through the lens of balance. Previous studies have tended to view these concepts from a one-sided perspective, either studying positive antecedents for safety or identifying negative risk factors. Applying a balanced perspective means looking at the interdependency between risk and safety, as well as looking at the adaptive and maladaptive sides of these concepts. By applying an interactionistic approach, this thesis points to individual, leader, group and situational factors that are of importance in creating an appropriate balance, as well as factors that might swing the pendulum too far to either side of the risk-safety continuum. Together, the three studies also show the importance of considering both the interaction between factors and the dynamic nature of the risk-safety continuum, especially in a complex and highly changeable context like the military. Hence, just how military personnel perceive and react to risk and safety issues seems to be a matter of a combination of both more stable, individual characteristics and dynamic and changeable factors, e.g. the group climate, leadership and situational characteristics.

Firstly, the studies explore the individual characteristics and beliefs which have received attention in civil risk research, but which have not previously been highlighted in the military context. Thus, the findings demonstrate the significance attached to safety skepticism, safety fatalism and a lack of deliberation. However, this thesis points to the importance of considering individual characteristics in relation to the social and situational context. In this regard, Article III points to the advantages of having diversity in a group in terms of individual characteristics and experiences. These findings have interesting implications both for military selection and for the process of team composition, demonstrating the need to pay attention to suitable 54

combinations rather than just individual characteristics. Achieving a suitable team composition with regard to risk and safety issues should be examined more closely in further studies.

Secondly, the thesis identifies a number of important group factors that can challenge the risk-safety balance, as well as factors important for maintaining an appropriate balance. Thus, these group factors should be of importance in the education and training of military leaders, although further studies are needed in order to fully understand how such factors and processes can contribute to adaptive safety work and risk-taking, and how their development can be facilitated within the group. However, one such facilitation process, pin-pointed by the officers in Article III and supported by research (e.g. Dixon et al., 2017; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), is realistic and challenging team training. Based on the findings of this thesis, team training should preferably also include discussions and reflections concerning values, emotions, attitudes and morally-stressful issues.

Thirdly, the findings of the thesis stress that, in a changing and complex context such as the military, adaptive and balanced leadership seems to be necessary in order to balance risk and safety issues. The results indicate that this type of leadership includes safety-oriented, supportive and directive leadership behaviors in a balanced combination together with risk-promoting leadership behaviors. These forms of leadership behavior can be attributed to the ingredients of both transformational (i.e. being a role model, encouraging subordinates to question assumptions, being sensitive to group member needs) and transactional leadership (i.e. communicating clear expectations, providing proactive and corrective behavior management). Thus, these leadership styles provide leaders with important knowledge as regards achieving a good risk climate within the groups they lead. However, these general leadership models do not fully capture some of the crucial leader abilities addressed in the thesis, e.g. the continuous monitoring of interpersonal and external changes and the active regulation and adaptation of behaviors and procedures to the current situation and reality. Indeed, researchers have highlighted some weaknesses of these general leadership theories, claiming that they neglect important aspects of teamwork and 55

development, as well as the dynamic nature of the context in which many teams have to operate (see, for example, Antonakis & House, 2014; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Morgeson et al., 2010). In response to this critique, several interesting leadership frameworks have been developed, e.g. instrumental leadership (Antonakis & House, 2014) and the functional team leadership model of Morgeson et al. (2010). In terms of balancing the risk-safety continuum with setting the thermostat as a first-line leader, these functional frameworks of leadership provide meaningful theoretical and practical implications. Further studies are needed which apply both these frameworks and functional leader activities to a risk and safety context.

In interpreting the results of this thesis, it should be noted that the studies conducted could have several limitations. Firstly, the results of Articles I and II are based on self-reported questionnaire data. Thus, the relationships between different constructs may partly be attributable to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012) and to social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Secondly, the cross- sectional design of Study II precludes conclusions being drawn about causality. Thirdly, the studies did not include any criteria measurement of actual risk or safety behaviors. Therefore, the relationships with behaviors are qualitative in nature. Fourthly, the participants in Studies I and II come from the same regiment. Therefore, regiment- specific cultural factors could have affected the results and generalizability. However, Study I involves conscripts, Study II involves two different types of platoons (infantry and maintenance) and Study III comprises individuals diverse in their military backgrounds and experiences. Lastly, the qualitative method used in Study III does not permit generalizability.

However, the strength of the thesis lies in the results also being supported by a longitudinal design (Study I), qualitative and quantitative data and the examination of different situational (basic training, field training and mission) and group factors (conscripts, contracted personnel, high- and low-risk mission experiences). Nevertheless, future studies face the challenging task of identifying and measuring objective behaviors relevant to the military context, given both that actual incidents are infrequent and may be underreported 56

and that what constitutes risk-taking may vary from situation to situation. Thus, relevant objective measures also need to consider functional risk-taking that is relevant both to the situation and the task in hand. Furthermore, although this thesis follows the risk psychology tradition of using questionnaires and interviews, the need also exists to apply different measures, e.g. field observations and experimental research. Preferably, studies might apply method triangulation to capture the dynamic nature of the risk-safety continuum.

Concluding remarks This thesis has shown the significant impact that both internal and external factors can have on the perceptions of risk and safety held by leaders and subordinates in the military context. In conclusion, the results point to the importance of a balanced approach toward risk and safety issues, as well as the importance of continuous monitoring and paying attention to signals that can swing the pendulum toward the extremities of the risk-safety continuum. The results also point to several balance strategies that should be of importance to leaders, groups and organizations in high-risk environments. Viewing the results in connection with previous studies, I would argue that it is possible to identify factors that jointly create a "vulnerability-chain" for maladaptive risk-taking. Likewise, it is also possible to identify factors that jointly represent a "strengthening-chain" for adaptive risk-taking and safety efforts (see Fig. 2). Separately, each link represents an important influencing factor; in combination, these increase the chances of the outcome being either maladaptive or adaptive risk- taking. At the same time, it is reasonable to argue that the different links of the "strengthening-chain" can compensate for, or outweigh, the negative effect of the links of the "vulnerability-chain". For example, balanced leadership behaviors that communicate the importance of safety, or a strong safety climate, within the group should be able to influence individuals who essentially have a maladaptive risk-profile. However, these arguments need to be examined more substantially in further studies.

Last but not least, balancing risk and safety while maintaining vigilance in order to adjust the thermostat demands presence of leadership. Hence, military organizations need to support this by unchaining first- 57

line leaders from their computers and putting them in the field with their groups where they can fulfil their roles as key players in developing a balanced risk and safety climate.

Maladaptive risk-profile Adaptive risk-profile Safety skepticism, a lack of Sensation-seeking in combination deliberation, a high level of with a high level of deliberation and sensation-seeking and safety awareness invincibility thinking

Maladaptive leadership Adaptive leadership Too one-sided in terms of being Adaptive and balanced in terms of supportive or directive and safety- being supportive or directive and oriented or risk-promoting safety-oriented or risk-promoting

Adaptive group climate Maladaptive group climate “Active reflection and an open A “closed communication climate”, communication climate”, a high a low level of cohesion, a lack of level of cohesion, shared mental shared mental models models

Adaptive risk-taking Maladaptive risk-taking Necessary and deliberate risk- Impulsive and unnecessary risk- taking in combination with a high taking or passivity degree of safety awareness

Fig 2. Hypothetical model illustrating the potential factors contributing to maladaptive risk-taking or adaptive risk-taking.

References

Adamshick, M. H. (2007). Leadership and Safety Climate in High- Risk Military Organizations. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2007). The nature and consequences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701323277 Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121– 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012 American Psychological Association. (2020 3 July). Personality. https://www.apa.org/topics/personality Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.005 Atieno, O. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, 13-18. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883 Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership: Cases on transactional and transformational. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Barkhi, R. & Kao, Y. (2011). Psychological climate and decision- making performance in a GDSS context. Information & Management, 48(4-5), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.02.003 Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small-unit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1401_01 Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: Can leaders influence hardiness? Military Psychology, 18, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410 Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bell, N. S., Amoroso, P. J., Yore, M. M., Smith, G. S., & Jones, B. H. (2000). Self-reported risk-taking behaviors and hospitalization for motor vehicle injury among active duty Army personnel. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18 (Suppl 3), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00168-3 Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (2009). Threat to life and risk-taking behaviors: A review of empirical findings and explanatory models. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308330104 Blatt, R. (2009). Resilience in entrepreneurial teams: Developing the capacity to pull through. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29, 1-14. http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol29/iss11/1

Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2011). Risk and safety attitudes among conscripts during compulsory military training. Military Psychology, 23(6), 659-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.616815 Borys, D. (2009). Exploring risk-awareness as a cultural approach to safety: Exposing the gap between work as imagined and work as actually performed. Safety Science Monitor, 13 (2), 1-11. Boyer, T. W. (2006). The Development of Risk-taking: A Multi- perspective Review. Developmental Review, 26(3), 291-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.05.002 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Breakwell, G. (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Breivik, G., Sand, T. S., & Sookermany, A. M. (2019). Risk-taking and sensation seeking in military contexts: A literature review. Literature Review-Original Research, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018824498 Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358 Buijs, T., Broesder, W., Goldenberg, I., Resteigne, D., & Kivirähk, J. (2019). Warrior and peacekeeper role identities: associations with self-esteem, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Military Studies, 8 (special issue), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2019-0002 Burt, C. D. B., Sepie, B., & McFadden, G. (2008). The development of a considerate and responsible safety attitude in work teams. Safety Science, 46(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.10.005 Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367

Cambridge Dictionary. (2020, 31 Aug). Meaning of risk in English. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/risk Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making (pp. 221-246). Erlbaum. Cardozo, B. L., & Salama, P. (2002). Mental health of humanitarian aid workers in complex emergencies. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), Sharing the front line and the back hills: International protectors and providers: Peacekeepers, humanitarian aid workers and the media in the midst of crisis (pp. 242–255). Baywood Publishing Co. Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213- 226). Fitness Information Technology. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266. Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-194399104 Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172 Clarke, S. (2006). The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076- 8998.11.4.315 Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 86(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044- 8325.2012.02064.x Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Coker, C. (2009). War in an age of risk. Polity Press. Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012). Promoting safety voice with safety-specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025101 Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(98)90044-3 Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.08.004 Cox, S., & Flin, R. (1998). Safety culture: Philosopher’s stone or man of straw? Work & Stress, 12(3), 189-201. Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European example. Work & Stress 5, 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379808256861 Crowne, D. P., Marlowe, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M. M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(2), 341-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.10.006

Deary, I. J. (2009). The trait approach to personality. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (p. 89–109). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596544.009 Dixon, D. P., Weeks, M., Boland Jr, R., & Perelli, S. (2017). Making sense when it matters most: An exploratory study of leadership in extremis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(1), 294-317. https://doi-org/10.1177/1548051816679356 Donald, I. (1994). Measuring psychological factors in safety. The Safety and Health Practitioner, 12(3), 26-29. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. H. (2006). Decision making and performance under stress. In T. W. Britt, C. A. Castro, & A. B. Adler (Eds.), Military performance. Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat: Military performance (pp. 128– 154). Praeger Security International. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002 Fear, N. T., Iversen, A. C., Chatterjee, A., Jones, M., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., Rona, R. J., Hotopf, M., & Wessely. S. (2008). Risky driving among regular armed forces personnel from the United Kingdom. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (3), 230- 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.027 Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage. Fischer, S., & Smith; G. T. (2004). Deliberation affects risk-taking beyond sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 527-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00112-0 Fischoff, B., & Kadvany, J. (2011). Risk: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Fischoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1997). Risk Perception and Communication. Oxford University Press. Flin, R., & Fruhen, L. (2015). Managing safety: Ambiguous information and chronic unease. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(2), 84-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 5973.12077 64

Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34 (1-3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6 Fogarty, G. J., & Shaw, A. (2010). Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: Towards the prediction of unsafe behavior. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1455–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.008 Försvarsmakten. (2020, 3 juni). Vårt uppdrag [Our mission]. https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/om-forsvarsmakten/darfor- finns-forsvarsmakten/vart-uppdrag/ Frost, D. E., Fiedler, F. E., & Anderson, J. W. (1983). The role of personal risk-taking in effective leadership. Human Relations, 36(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678303600207 Furedi, F. (2002). Culture of fear. Continuum. Geller, E. S., Roberts, D. S., & Gilmore, M. R. (1996). Predicting propensity to actively care for occupational safety. Journal of Safety Research, 27(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- 4375(95)00024-0 Glicksohn, J., Ben-Shalom, U., & Lazar, M. (2004). Elements of unacceptable risk-taking in combat units: An exercise in offender profiling. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00068-0 Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076- 8998.5.3.347 Griffith, J., & Vaitkus, M. (1999). Relating cohesion to stress, strain, disintegration, and performance: An organizing framework. Military Psychology, 11(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1101_3 Grossman, R., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E. (2015). What matters most for team cohesion measurement? A synthesis. In Salas, E., Vessey, W. B., & Estrada, A. X (Ed.), Team Cohesion: Advances in

Psychological Theory, Methods and Practice (pp. 147-180). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hale, A. R., & Swuste, P. (1998). Safety rules: Procedural freedom or action constraint? Safety Science, 29(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00020-4 Hamilton, K. R., Littlefield, A. K., Anastasio, N. C., Cunningham, K. A., Fink, L. H. L., Wing, V. C., Mathias, C. W., Lane, S. D., Schütz, C. G., Swann, A. C., Lejuez, C. W., Clark, L., Moeller, F. G., & Potenza, M. N. (2015). Rapid-response impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000100 Hancock, P. A. (2009). Performance on the very edge. Military Psychology, 21, 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600802554680 Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J. & Cavaretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006 Hayes, B. E., Perandan, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998). Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Development and validation of the Work Safety Scale. Journal of Safety Research, 29(3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00011-5 Hedlund, E. (2011). Self-images among Swedish peacekeeping soldiers. Res Militaris, 2(1). 1-17. http://resmilitaris.net/ressources/10161/26/1.pdf Henning, J. B., Stufft, C. J., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., Mannan, M. S., & Keren, N. (2009). The influence of individual differences on organizational safety attitudes. Safety Science, 47(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.05.003 Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2012). Use of microblogging for collective sense-making during violent crises: A study of three campus shootings. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21685

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 69-126). Elsevier Academic Press. Hollander, E. P. (1967). Principles and methods of social psychology. Holt. Hooper, T. I., DeBakey, S. F., Bellis, K. S. H., Kang, H. K., Cowan, D. N., Lincoln, A. E., & Gackstetter, G. D. (2006). Understanding the Effect of Deployment on the Risk of Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes. A Nested Case-control Study of Fatalities in the Gulf War Era Veterans, 1991-1995. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(3), 518- 525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.11.009 International Personality Item Pool. (2006, Sep 2). Sensation-seeking facets (Hoyle et al., 2002). https://ipip.ori.org/newSingleConstructsKey.htm#Sensation- Seeking_Dangerous James, L. R. & McIntyre, M. D. (1996). Perceptions of organizational climate. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 416–50). Jossey-Bass. Jaspal, R., & Breakwell, G. M. (eds.) (2014). Identity process theory: Identity, social action and social change. Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, N. E. (2006). 'You can't wrap them up in cotton wool!' Constructing risk in young people’s access to outdoor play. Health, Risk & Society, 8(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570601008289 Johansen, R. B. (2013). The impact of military identity on performance in the Norwegian armed forces. Dissertation, University of Bergen, Norway. Johnson S. E. (2007). The predictive validity of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research, 38(5), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2007.07.001 Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox: Understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1287–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1287 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019987 Kapp, E. A. (2012). The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Safety Science, 50(4), 1119–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.011 Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x Kavanagh, J. (2005). Stress and performance: A review of the literature and its applicability to the military. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR192.html Kelle, U. (2006). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: Purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(4), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478088706070839 Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76 Killgore, W. D. S, Cotting, D. I, Thomas, J. L, Cox, A. L., McGurk, D, Vo, A. H, Castro, C. A, & Hoge, C. W. (2008). Post-combat invincibility: Violent combat experiences are associated with increased risk-taking propensity following deployment. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(13), 1112-1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.01.001 Killgore, W. D. S., Vo, A. H., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2006). Assessing risk propensity in American soldiers: preliminary reliability and validity of the Evaluation of Risks (EVAR) scale-- 68

English version. Military Medicine, 171(3), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.171.3.233 Killgore, W. D., Kelley, A., & Balkin, T. J. (2010). So you think you're bulletproof: Development and validation of the Invincibility Belief Index (IBI). Military Medicine, 175(7), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-09-00240 Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: Leading as if your life depended on it. Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529- 1006.2006.00030.x Krause, T. R., Seymour, K. J., & Sloat, K. C. M. (1999). Long-term evaluation of a behavior-based method for improving safety performance: A meta-analysis of 73 interrupted time-series replications. Safety Science, 32(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(99)00007-7 Krull, A. R., Jones, B. H., Dellinger, A. M., Yore, M. M., & Amoroso, P. J. (2004). Motor vehicle fatalities among men in the U.S. Army from 1980 to 1997. Military Medicine, 169(11), 926–931. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed.169.11.926 Laurence, C., Vandereycken, W., & Vertommen, H. (2005). Impulsivity-related traits in eating disorder patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 3(4), 739-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.022 Lubin, B., Fiedler, E. R., & Van Whitlock, R. (1999). Predicting discharge from Air Force basic training by pattern of affect. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199901)55:1<71::AID- JCLP7>3.0.CO;2-I Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength--How leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004

Luria, G. (2010). The social aspects of safety management: Trust and safety climate. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1288- 1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.006 Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2004). Personality pathways to impulsive behavior and their relations to deviance: Results from three samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 319– 341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-5867-0 Marklund, K. (2008). Impulsivitet som Mångfasetterat Konstrukt: En Psykometrisk Studie av UPPS-skalan och Sambandet mellan Impulsivitet och Upplevelser av Kontroll. (Impulsivity as a Multifaceted construct: a Psychometric study of the UPPS scale and the Relationship Between Impulsivity and Perceived control). MSc thesis in psychology, University of Stockholm, Department of Psychology. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon- Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.85.2.273 Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage. McGovern, P. M., Vesley, D., Kochevar, L., Gershon, R. R. M., Rhame, F. S., & Anderson, E. (2000). Factors affecting universal precautions compliance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007727104284 Miller, J., Flory, K., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). A test of the four-factor model of impulsivity-related traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1403–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00122-8 Momen, N., Taylor, M., Pietrobon, R., Gandhi, M., Markham, A., Padilla, G., Miller, P., Evans, K., & Sander, T. (2010). Initial validation of the Military Operational Risk-Taking Scale (MORTS). Military Psychology, 22(2), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995601003638942

Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376 Morrow, S. L., McGonagle, A. K., Dove-Steinkamp, M. L., Walker, C. T., Jr, Marmet, M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Relationships between psychological safety climate facets and safety behavior in the rail industry: A dominance analysis. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1460–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.011 Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027568 Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.115.2.210 Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (p. 15–34). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10662-002 Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety and individual behaviour. Safety Science 34(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925- 7535(00)00008-4 Neria, Y., Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, R., & Dekel, G. (2000). Sensation seeking, wartime performance, and long-term adjustment among Israeli war veterans. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 921-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00243-3 Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk

Research, 8(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000123856 Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1101_4 Ospina, S. (2004). Qualitative research. In G. Goethals, G. Sorensen, & J. McGregor (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 1279-1284). Sage. Österberg, J., & Jonsson, E. (2012). Recruitment to international military service: The officers’ view. In G. Kümmel & J. Soeters (Eds.), New wars, new militaries, new soldiers: Conflicts, the Armed forces and the soldierly subject contributions to conflict management, peace economics and development (pp. 233-245). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1572-8323(2012)0000019018 Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta- analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389– 416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.198 Parmak, M., Mylle, J. J. C., & Euwema, M. C. (2013). Personality and the perception of situation structure in a military environment: Seeking sensation versus structure as a soldier. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1040–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12067 Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90043-1 Parry, K., Mumford, M. D., Bower, I., & Watts, L. L. (2014). Qualitative and historiometric methods in leadership research: A review of the first 25 years of The Leadership Quarterly. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.006

Pidgeon, N. (1997). The limits to safety? Culture, politics, learning and man-made disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crises Management, 5(1), 1-14. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev- psych-120710-100452 Probst, T. M., & Estrada, A. X. (2010). Accident under-reporting among employees: Testing the moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety practices. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 42(5), 1438–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.027 Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1017. Rasmussen, M. V. (2006). The risk society at war. Cambridge University Press. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate. Reaves, S., McMahon, S. D., Duffy, S. N., & Ruiz, L. (2018). The test of time: A meta-analytic review of the relation between school climate and problem behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 100– 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.01.006 Roberts, D. S., & Geller, E. S. (1995). An "actively caring" model for occupational safety: A field test. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80051-4 Rosh, L., Offermann, L. R., & Van Diest, R. (2012). Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.004 Roth, M., Hammelstein, P., & Brähler, E. (2007). Beyond a youthful behavior style--Age and sex differences in sensation seeking based

on need theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1839-1850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.004 Royal Society (1992). Risk: Analysis, perception and management. Report of a Royal Society study group, London. Rundmo, T. (1996). Associations between risk perception and safety. Safety Science, 24(3), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925- 7535(97)00038-6 Rundmo, T., & Hale, A. R. (2003). Manager's attitudes towards safety and accident prevention. Safety Science, 41(7), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00091-1 Sáiz, P. A., Gonzáles, M. P., Bousõno, M., & Bobes, J. (1998). Drug use and psychological profiles in military conscripts. European Psychiatry, 13(4), 230. Schneier, B. (2003). Beyond fear: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. Copernicus. Seo, D-C., Torabi, M. R., Blair, E. H., & Ellis, N. T. (2004). A cross- validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Safety Research, 35(4), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.04.006 Sicard, B., Jouve, E., Blin, O., & Mathieu, C. (1999). Construction et validation d'une échelle analogique visuelle de risque (EVAR) [Construction and validation of visual analogue scale for risk assessment]. L'Encephale, 25(6), 622–629. Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X06294173 Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1997). Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety rules: The influence of micro-macro organisational factors. Ergonomics, 40(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397188288 Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk. Earthscan. Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., Neria, Y., & Ohry, A. (1995). Coping with war captivity: The role of sensation seeking. European Journal of Personality, 9(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410090105

Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1992). Impulsivity and the multi- impulsive personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(7), 831–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191- 8869(92)90057-V Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions including risk. Thesis quoted in R. Brown, Social Psychology. Free Press, 1965. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430 Thorvaldsen, T. (2013). The importance of common sense: How Norwegian coastal fishermen deal with occupational risk. Marine Policy, 42, 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.02.007 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. In G. Breakwell (Ed.). The psychology of risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Turner, N., & Tennant, S. J. (2010). “As far as is reasonably practicable”: Socially constructing risk, safety, and accidents in military operations. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0065-5 Vogelaar, L. W. (2007). Leadership from the edge: A matter of balance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(3), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030301. Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414 Weibull, A. (2003). Yrkeskunnande i beredskap: Om strukturella och kulturella inflytelser på arbetet i det svenska flygvapnet [Professional knowledge in readiness: Structural and cultural influences on work in the Swedish Air Force]. PhD dissertation. Linköping University.

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339 Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Effects of personal experience on self- protective behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.31 Wetherill, R. R., & Fromme, K. (2007). Perceived awareness and caring influences alcohol use by high school and college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.2.147 Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669– 689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7 Wickman, M. E., Anderson, N. L., & Greenberg, C. S. (2008). The adolescent perception of invincibility and its influence on teen acceptance of health promotion strategies. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 23(6), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2008.02.003 Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed). Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.65.1.96 Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587 Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.130 76

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2003). Organizational meta-scripts as a source of high reliability: The case of an army armored brigade. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(7, Special Issue), 837–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.216 Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 322-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.322 Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 744–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.744 Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press. Zuckerman. M. (2007). Sensation Seeking and Risky Behavior. American Psychological Association.

The findings have practical implications for military selection, team composition, leadership education, and military training.

ISBN 978-91-7867-163-2 (print)

ISBN 978-91-7867-167-0 (pdf) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

ISSN 1403-8099 Psychology

DOCTORAL THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34 DOCTORAL THESIS | Karlstad University Studies | 2020:34