Technical Report 1208 

Personality Profiles of U.S. Army Initial Entry Rotary 

Wing Students Versus Career Aviators 

Robert L. Grice

Liberty University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Lawrence C. Katz 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

September 2007 

 United States Army Research Institute

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

PAUL A. GADE, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

Acting Technical Director Director 

 

Technical review by 

David M. Johnson, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Elizabeth Plumb, U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center Directorate of Training 

 and Doctrine 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

 

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

September 2007 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 June 2005-July 2006 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Personality Profiles of U.S. Army Initial Entry Rotary Wing

Students Versus Career Aviators

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

633007 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Robert L. Grice (Liberty University) and Lawrence C. Katz (U.S. 

Army Research Institute) 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A792 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

351 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IR 

Bldg 5100 

Ft. Rucker, AL 36362-5354

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

ARI-RWARU

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IR, (RWARU) 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Technical Report 1208 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: 

Subject Matter POC: Lawrence C. Katz 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Rotary Wing Aviation Research Unit (ARI 

RWARU) administered the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to 217 student Army aviators awaiting Initial Entry 

Rotary Wing training. Scores reflected the incoming aviators’ standings on five personality factors: neuroticism, 

extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The male student factor and facet scores were then 

compared with a sample of male career Army aviators. Personality differences and similarities between the two 

samples are discussed as laying the foundation for longitudinal research. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Aviator personality; Army aviator; personality; neuroticism; extraversion; openness; agreeableness; 

conscientiousness; NEO-PI-R

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

 

Unlimited 

 

35 

 Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication Specialist 

(703) 602-8047
ii 
iii 

Technical Report 1208 

Personality Profiles of U.S. Army Initial Entry Rotary Wing 

Students Versus Career Aviators 

Robert L. Grice

Liberty University 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Lawrence C. Katz

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Rotary-Wing Aviation Research Unit 

William R. Howse, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

 September 2007 

Army Project Number Personnel, Performance 

633007A792 and Training 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
iv 
v 

PERSONALITY PROFILES OF U.S. ARMY INITIAL ENTRY ROTARY WING STUDENTS 

VERSUS CAREER AVIATORS 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

In 2004, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) 

was tasked with conducting the research and development towards developing a computer-based 

and web-administered Selection Instrument for Flight Training (SIFT), with emphasis upon 

aptitudes for Future Force aviator performance. The review of the selection literature and aviator 

job analysis conducted for that effort indicated that personality is an attribute that might warrant 

consideration in Army aviator selection and aircraft assignment. Thus, the goals of this research 

were to identify those personality traits of individuals selecting aviation as their specialty and to 

compare these scores with the scores of career aviators. 

Procedure: 

 To address the question, “What is the personality profile of incoming student U.S. Army 

rotary-wing aviators?” 217 student Army rotary-wing aviators attending initial entry rotary-wing 

flight training completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The NEO-PI-R 

is a self-report questionnaire in which subjects rate statements on a 5-point scale from “strongly 

disagree” to “strongly agree.” Scores depict the five personality factors of: Neuroticism, 

Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Scores were compared based on 

rank and gender. 

 To address the question, “What similarities and differences exist between the personality 

profiles of incoming students and career Army aviators?” factor scores from the male 

respondents of the student sample (n = 196) were compared with a male sample of career 

aviators (n = 75). Since the career sample was entirely male, the data collected from the female 

incoming student aviators were eliminated from this report. However, a future technical report 

will concentrate on female aviators and will include the findings from the incoming female 

student aviators. 

Findings: 

 The male student aviators scored in the average range on four of the five factors of the 

Five-Factor Model. Only Agreeableness was in the low range. Low Agreeableness suggests that 

the student aviators are more concerned with individualism and improving individual 

competence than maintaining social relationships that consume their time and energy. 

The second research question involved a comparison between student aviator profiles and 

the personality profiles of career aviators. Differences were found in Neuroticism, Openness, 

and Agreeableness. Career aviators scored low in Neuroticism and Openness while student 

aviators were in the average range. Student aviators scored low in Agreeableness while career 

aviators were in the average range. 
vi 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

This research is one of many emanating from the SIFT effort. This report documents the 

personality evaluation portion of the effort, which may contribute to the development of a 

classification instrument to accompany the SIFT selection instrument. Documentation of the 

development of these instruments helps to establish the scientific and theoretical underpinnings 

of the tests and serves to provide a basis for any revisions the Army may wish to make later. 

Therefore, the findings will be disseminated to the entities involved in or interested in the 

development of the Army’s aviator selection and classification systems, as well as those 

interested in personality and aviation.
vii 

PERSONALITY PROFILES OF U.S. ARMY INITIAL ENTRY ROTARY WING STUDENTS 

VERSUS CAREER AVIATORS 

 

CONTENTS 

Page

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1

Background.............................................................................................. 1

 Purpose.................................................................................................... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 2

 Aviator Personality...................................................................................... 2

 Five-Factor Model........................................................................................ 3

 U.S. Army Aviators...................................................................................... 5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................ 6

 

RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................... 7

 Sample.................................................................................................... 7

 Instruments................................................................................................ 7

 Procedures................................................................................................. 9

FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 9

 Demographics............................................................................................ 9

 Research Question #1................................................................................... 10

 Research Question #2.................................................................................... 12

DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 18

Student Personality Profiles........................................................................... 18

Comparison of Student Aviators to Career Aviators.............................................. 18

Causes of Student Versus Career Aviator Differences............................................ 19

RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES............................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX A. STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC FORM............................................... A-1

 
viii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

TABLE 1. FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL.................. 3

 

TABLE 2. THE FACETS OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL.................................. 4

 

TABLE 3. STUDENT AVIATOR NEO-PI-R FACTOR SCORES............................ 10

 

TABLE 4. WARRANT OFFICER STUDENT AVIATOR NEO-PI-R FACTOR 

SCORES................................................................................... 11

 

TABLE 5. COMMISSIONED OFFICER STUDENT AVIATOR NEO-PI-R FACTOR 

SCORES......................................................................................................... 11

 

TABLE 6. NEO-PI-R FACET MEANS FOR STUDENT AVIATORS....................... 13

 

TABLE 7. CAREER AVIATOR NEO-PI-R FACTOR SCORES.............................. 14

 

TABLE 8. MEAN FACTOR SCORES FOR STUDENT AND CAREER 

AVIATORS.............................................................................. 14

 

TABLE 9. MEAN FACTOR SCORES FOR WARRANT OFFICER STUDENTS, 

OFFICER STUDENTS, AND CAREER AVIATORS........................... 15

 

TABLE 10. NEO-PI-R FACET MEANS FOR STUDENT AVIATORS AND CAREER 

AVIATORS............................................................................... 16

 

TABLE 11. MEAN FACET SCORES FOR WARRANT OFFICER STUDENTS, 

OFFICER STUDENTS, AND CAREER AVIATORS........................... 17
1 

PERSONALITY PROFILES OF U.S. ARMY INITIAL ENTRY ROTARY WING STUDENTS 

VERSUS CAREER AVIATORS 

Introduction 

 U.S. Army rotary-wing aviation has a proud heritage of providing support to troops on 

the battlefield. Army aviation relies upon highly skilled aviators to fly the different types of 

rotary-wing aircraft that are often tasked with unique support or combat functions within the 

Army. The Army relies upon an extensive selection process involving an interview with a 

current Army aviator and passing a physical examination as well as successful completion of an 

aptitude test measuring different dimensions (e.g., perceptual skills, mathematical knowledge) 

considered necessary for effectiveness as an Army aviator. 

Findings from organizational and military psychology have suggested that personality 

traits could be predictive of vocational performance and productivity. For instance, personenvironment fit theory suggests that perceptions of congruence between personality traits and 

interests and the characteristics associated with different types of vocations will increase the 

likelihood of the individual experiencing job satisfaction and high performance over time, while 

incongruence increases the likelihood of job dissatisfaction and attrition (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 

1991). The relevance of this possibility for Army aviation applies to the desire for maximum 

aviator performance in the cockpit and to the desire to keep highly performing aviators in Army 

aviation since the Army makes a substantial investment in aviators’ initial training. Under the 

newly implemented Flight School XXI training program, Wesolek (2007) estimated the cost to 

train a single aviator as ranging from $265,000 to $509,000, depending on the type of aircraft 

(Wesolek, 2007). 

 

 The personality profiles of experienced Army aviators could provide some indication of 

the profile most likely to demonstrate high performance and to assimilate into the organizational 

environment of Army aviation. For example, Picano (1991) reported that the experienced Army 

aviators (i.e., instructor pilots) in his study typically cluster under the same set of personality 

characteristics that he defined as the “right stuff” for Army aviators. One reported investigation 

identified a baseline personality profile for experienced Army aviators using the Revised NEO 

Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) which is based on the Five-Factor 

Model (Costa & McCrae, 1985) of personality (Grice & Katz, 2006). No published research has 

compared the personality profiles of experienced aviators with new student aviators. 

Background 

 Personality research with U.S. Army rotary-wing aviators is sparse. Four online 

databases were searched for this investigation. These included PsychInfo, EBSCOhost, Annual 

Review of Psychology, and the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The databases 

were searched using terms such as “aviator personality,” “personality and performance,” and 

“aviator performance.” DTIC is devoted primarily to military technical reports while the 

remaining databases report primarily refereed journal articles. 
2 

Different personality instruments have yielded results that can be confusing or difficult to 

interpret in relation to job performance, especially since these instruments were designed for a 

clinical population with psychopathology (Callister, King, Retzlaff, & Marsh, 1997; Dolgin, 

Kay, Langelier, Wasel, & Hoffman, 2002; King, McGlohn, & Retzlaff, 1997; Retzlaff & 

Gibertini, 1987). Studies using the NEO-PI-R have proven to be more helpful in identifying the 

personality traits of aviators. For example, Fitzgibbons, Davis, and Schutte (2004) reported a 

personality profile for commercial aviators as being emotionally stable (low Neuroticism) and 

highly conscientious about their performance. These aviators were likely to be trusting, 

straightforward, and assertive. The NEO-PI-R has been used to link personality with 

performance. For example, Anesgart and Callister (2001) found that scores on Neuroticism 

could predict who would likely attrite from flight training in the U.S. Air Force (USAF). 

Purpose 

 Personality profiles could be one of the factors that will predict the aviator most likely to 

demonstrate high performance and pursue tenure in Army aviation. High performance and 

tenure are important considerations since the Army expends tremendous resources on initial 

aviation training (Wesolek, 2007). Therefore, the dual purposes of this research were to identify 

a baseline personality profile for incoming aviation students and to compare this with findings 

from career aviators to see if the profiles differed between the two groups. 

Literature Review 

Aviator Personality 

Descriptions of aviator personality traits have been offered since the birth of aviation at 

the beginning of the twentieth century (Dockery & Isaacs, 1921; Rippon & Manual, 1918). The 

lack of an empirically-based instrument for measuring personality traits resulted in mixed 

personality descriptions. For example, Rippon and Manuel depicted aviators as “outgoing” and 

“risk-taking” while Dockery and Issacs described them as “methodical” and “quiet.” 

 Subsequent research has attempted to use empirically-validated instruments in an attempt 

to identify an aviator personality profile. Findings from these studies have often resulted in 

identifying clusters of traits rather than a specific profile (Picano, 1991; Retzlaff & Gibertini, 

1987). For example, Retzlaff and Gibertini administered the Personality Research Form and the 

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1977) with 350 male students entering 

USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training. Rather than finding one personality profile that could be 

generalized to all of the aviators, they found that the trait levels reported produced three clusters 

of traits they labeled “wrong stuff,” “company-man,” and “right stuff” in terms of characteristics 

they perceived as being most conducive to performance as aviators. 

 A potentially useful approach to assessing aviator personality would be to use a 

personality instrument that will reduce the number of characteristics to a smaller number of 

broad factors. This was the rationale behind the use of the NEO-PI-R for evaluating the profiles 

of experienced Army aviators (Grice & Katz, 2006), as well as the current investigation. The 

NEO-PI-R is based on the factors and facets of the Five-Factor Model (FFM). 
3 

Five-Factor Model 

 The FFM did not develop from any particular theory of personality. It grew out of factor 

analyses conducted through much of the twentieth century in response to the different traitmodel approaches to personality such as the 16 PF model offered by Cattell (1943). Efforts to 

replicate Cattell’s findings resulted in the personality dimensions clustering around five basic 

categories of traits rather than the 16 offered by Cattell (Fiske 1949; Tupes, 1957; Tupes & 

Christal, 1961). 

 The five categories of traits identified by Fiske (1949) and Tupes (1957; Tupes & 

Christal, 1961) were examined by Norman (1963) and support was found for their validity 

(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981; McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & 

Parker, 1998). Costa and McCrae (1985) provided the global factor labels for the FFM that are 

measured by the NEO-PI-R, including: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, 

and Conscientiousness (Table 1). 

Table 1 

Factor Descriptions of the Five-Factor Model 

Factor Description 

Neuroticism Contrasts emotional adjustment and stability with maladjustment such as 

a frequent depression or anxiety 

Extraversion Contrasts aspects of sociability with a disposition towards introversion 

and independence 

Openness Contrasts aspects of imagination and curiosity with conventionality and 

obeying the rules 

Agreeableness Contrasts aspects of altruism and compliance with aspects of antagonism 

and egocentrism 

Conscientiousness Contrasts aspects commonly associated with character such as selfdiscipline and dependability with impulsivity and disorganization 

 

Each of the five factors of the FFM is comprised of six facets on the NEO-PI-R (see 

Table 2). Scores from the eight item statements that comprise each facet are totaled resulting in 

the facet scores. Each of the five factor scores is a total of the six facet scores that comprise that 

factor. Examining data at the facet level might increase the robustness of findings and increase 

the ability of the FFM to predict performance (Costa, McCrae, & Kay, 1995; Paunonen & 

Ashton, 2001). 
4 

Table 2 

The Facets of the Five-Factor Model 

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness

Anxiety Warmth Fantasy Trust Competence 

Angry Hostility Gregariousness Aesthetics Altruism Order 

Depression Assertiveness Feelings Compliance Dutifulness 

SelfConsciousness ExcitementSeeking Actions Straightforwardness AchievementStriving 

Impulsiveness Activity Ideas Modesty Self-Discipline 

Vulnerability 

Positive 

Emotions Values Tender-Mindedness Deliberation 

Note. Facet labels provided by Costa & McCrae, 1992. 

 

Measuring the “Big Five” variables depicted by the FFM has emerged as one of the most 

frequently used methods for correlating personality traits with workplace performance (e.g., 

Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Digman, 1989, 1990; Mount, Barrick, 

& Stewart, 1998; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Waldman, Atwater, & Davidson, 2004). Therefore, a 

review of the factors and facets of the FFM might suggest certain trait levels that could predict 

job performance for Army rotary-wing aviators. For example, high levels of Neuroticism would 

be expected to negatively correlate with performance, since this population must be able to 

manage operational stress adeptly. On the other hand, high Conscientiousness would seem to 

relate positively to performance outcomes since Army aviators are required to function within 

highly technical environments where a high degree of competence must be maintained in order 

to mitigate risks. Similarly, since aviators coordinate their actions as members of small, taskoriented aircrews, a high level of Agreeableness would be expected to correlate positively with 

performance outcomes. 

FFM and aviator performance research. Performance issues with aviators are often 

based upon training proficiency and performance in the cockpit. The factors of the FFM have 

been found to predict aviator training attrition (Anesgart & Callister, 2001; Helton & Street, 

1993). For instance, Anesgart and Callister (2001) found that high Neuroticism coupled with 

low Extraversion indicated that an aviator was more likely to self-eliminate from USAF flight 

school. 

Aviator performance can be viewed as being related to a combination of attitudes, skills, 

and personality factors (Chidester, Helmreich, Gregorich, & Geis, 1991). Personality has been 

found to influence decision-making (Murray, 1999), crewmember leadership styles and 

communication in the cockpit (Kanki, Palmer, & Veinott, 1991), and the likelihood of 

experiencing an aviation mishap (Lardent, 1991). Kanki and Palmer (1993) concluded, “One 

important input to the interpersonal-communication-performance formula is the personality of 

each individual making up the crew. The separate personalities of crewmembers must be 
5 

integrated to create a single, effective, team with a positive orientation toward sharing tasks and 

information relevant to those tasks” (p. 116). 

The personality traits relevant to aviator performance include those that apply to the tasks 

and those that influence interpersonal dynamics between crewmembers. Chidester and 

associates (1991) found that certain traits related to task performance such as goal orientation 

and independence, and others related to relationships such as interpersonal warmth, may predict 

team performance in the cockpit. Shinar (1995) found three personality characteristics that 

influence aviator performance: (a) a high need for achievement; (b) self-assertiveness and a 

willingness to face difficulties to complete the mission; and (c) a positive self-identity that 

remains stable regardless of cockpit experiences. 

U.S. Army Aviators 

 Only four reported studies (Caldwell, O’Hara, Caldwell, Stephens, & Krueger, 1993; 

Geist & Boyd, 1980; Grice & Katz, 2006; Picano, 1991) examined the personality traits of Army 

rotary-wing aviators. Geist and Boyd (1980), using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 

Inventory (MMPI), found that aviators report more pathology than non-aviators, with higher 

scores in hypochondriasis, depression, psychasthenia, social introversion, and hysteria. While 

this research provided a snap-shot of Army rotary-wing aviator personality traits, it used a small 

sample (15 aviators and 16 non-aviation Army officers) and is over 25 years old, while numerous 

changes have taken place in Army aviation in the past quarter century. Changes in aviation 

technology and in the operational conditions where Army aviators are called upon to fly might 

indicate that a different set of characteristics such as personality traits are needed today. 

 Picano (1991) surveyed 170 U.S. Army rotary-wing aviators in order to validate the 

Occupational Personality Questionnaire. He found that three personality clusters or groups 

emerged in the sample. The largest group (48%) resembled those traits stereotypically ascribed 

to military aviators. Picano suggested that this group of aviators was outgoing and emphasized 

planning, logical analysis, and attention to detail. The aviators were also concerned with 

maintaining a positive image that would reflect positively on the Army. The second group 

(36%) was emotionally controlled, inhibited, and appeared apprehensive. They were found to 

prefer stability and predictability, and were uncomfortable in social situations. Picano suggested 

that they represented the “wrong stuff” and predicted these aviators would be the ones most 

likely to exit from military aviation. The third group (16%) of aviators represented the traits that 

are consistent with having the “right stuff.” Aviators in this group were described as highly 

independent, competitive, and decisive. They were found to be least emotionally sensitive and 

exhibited the lowest concern for making a good impression. Picano found that many of the 

instructor pilots in his sample were in this group and offered that this might be due to the high 

competitiveness and need for achievement that often characterizes instructor pilots. 

 

 Using the MMPI, Caldwell et al. (1993) found personality differences between Army 

aviators applying to Special Operations training and conventional aviators, or those remaining in 

general aviation. Conventional aviators were found to have a greater sense of balance between 

characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity than Special Operations aviators. An 

explanation offered for this difference was that many of the conventional aviators were college-
6 

educated and were more passive, aesthetically-oriented, and indirect in problem solving. The 

Special Operations aviators were more stereotypically masculine, more traditional, and more 

inflexible. While these findings are helpful in understanding the differences in masculinity 

between types of aviators, their benefit is limited in providing detailed insight into the 

personality profiles of Army rotary-wing aviators. 

In addition to the age of personality research addressing Army aviators, a second 

shortcoming is the lack of research using the NEO-PI-R and the FFM. The FFM has received 

meta-analytical support as the best approach to use in making aircrew selection decisions for the 

USAF (Pedersen, Allan, Laue, Johnson, & Siem, 1992). Also, a study with U.S. Navy aviators 

found that the traits identified using other personality instruments could be categorized under 

similar dimensions as those comprising the FFM (Helton & Street, 1993). The NEO-PI-R has 

been offered as the instrument of choice to use in predicting performance with Air Force aviators 

(Anesgart & Callister, 2001; Callister et al., 1997). 

Only Grice and Katz (2006) have explored the personality traits of career Army rotarywing aviators using the NEO-PI-R. They found that career aviators were low in Neuroticism and 

Openness while in the average range in the remaining factors, compared to a normative sample. 

Aviator’s scores were then compared based upon the aviator’s primary aircraft (i.e., Attack, 

Scout/Observation, Cargo, or Utility). The only significant difference (p < .01) was between 

Attack and Utility aviators in Agreeableness. Specifically, the Attack aviators were lower in the 

Agreeableness facet of Trust. Low Trust suggests that the Attack helicopter pilots had more of a 

tendency to be self-reliant rather than placing their confidence in the input of others. 

The Grice and Katz (2006) investigation was an initial step in creating a base of 

information for identifying the personality profile of experienced Army aviators based upon the 

NEO-PI-R. Surveying student aviators gives us some understanding of the personality profiles 

of individuals who are attracted to, and selected into, Army aviation today. A comparison of 

NEO-PI-R scores between the two groups enables the identification of traits that are similar and 

traits that are different. The causes of any identified differences would be a basis for future, 

longitudinal research. 

Research Questions 

The first purpose of this investigation was to identify the personality profiles of incoming 

student U.S. Army rotary-wing aviators based upon the personality factors of the FFM. 

Additionally, this research compared the NEO-PI-R scores of the student aviators with those of 

career Army aviators to see what similarities and differences might exist. 

• Research Question #1: What is the personality profile of incoming student U.S. Army 

rotary-wing aviators? 

• Research Question #2: What similarities and differences exist between the personality 

profiles of incoming students and career Army aviators? 
7 

Research Design 

Sample 

Student aviators. Survey packets were provided to 240 incoming student aviators waiting 

to begin their Initial Entry Rotary-Wing training at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Survey packets 

consisted of a copy of the NEO-PI-R and a demographic form (Appendix A). Confidentiality 

forms were collected at the beginning of testing. Subjects were scheduled to being the initial 

phase of flight training in 2006. Twenty-three of the survey packets contained incomplete 

information on the NEO-PI-R or the demographic form and were not included in the sample (n = 

217). The sample pool consisted of 196 male and 21 female incoming student aviators. The 

information collected from the females was eliminated from this research for comparison 

purposes since the career aviator sample was entirely male. A future technical report will 

examine the incoming female student data. 

Career aviators. The career aviator sample (n = 75) was comprised of Warrant Officers 

who had achieved the rank of Chief Warrant 3 (CW3), Chief Warrant 4 (CW4), and Chief 

Warrant 5 (CW5). Aviators at this rank were chosen for this investigation because they 

represent sufficient performance and perceived congruence with Army aviation to have pursued 

Army aviation as a career and are typically in instructor or leadership roles in Army aviation. 

All respondents were male. 

Instruments 

 A demographic form was created for the research and was provided to the student 

aviators seeking biographical information such as age, gender, level of education, aviation 

experience, and military experience. No names or Social Security Numbers were requested, in 

order to protect anonymity. 

 

The NEO-PI-R was used to measure personality. The most commonly used instrument 

for measuring FFM domains (Bernard & Walsh, 2004), the NEO-PI-R has been used across 

numerous vocations to evaluate relationships between personality and job performance. Costa 

and McCrae (1997) concluded, “We do not imagine that the FFM is the last word in personality 

structure, but we do believe that it will remain the basis of personality assessment for many 

years” (p. 87). 

Structure. The NEO-PI-R is a 240-item self-report questionnaire upon which 

respondents provide ratings to statements on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly 

agree). The five resulting factor scores range from very low to very high. Facet scores were also 

generated for each sample, as several researchers (e.g., Callister et al., 1997; Paunonen & 

Ashton, 2001), have suggested that facet-level analyses can increase the richness of findings and 

should be considered in predicting performance. 

Reliability. Costa and McCrae (1992) reported high test-retest and internal consistency 

reliability. For example, Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) found good internal consistency of the 

FFM factor domains on a sample of 1,800 employees, with coefficient alphas ranging from .86 to 

.92. Internal consistency for facet scales ranged from .56 to .81. 
8 

 Kurtz and Parrish (2001) examined the NEO-PI-R test-retest reliability among three 

groups of respondents categorized as low, moderate, or high in inconsistent responding (INC) 

during the initial administration. Test-retest interclass correlations for each group were found to 

be high across FFM domains based upon self-report and informant data. Low INC group 

correlations ranged from .92 to .95 on self-report data and from .75 to .93 on informant data. 

The moderate INC group correlations ranged from .85 to .95 on self-report data and informant 

data correlations ranged from .73 to .82. The high INC group correlations ranged from .71 to .94 

on self-report data and ranged from .66 to .92 on informant data. 

 Kurtz, Lee, and Sherker (1999) provided further support for the test-retest reliability of 

the NEO-PI-R by evaluating undergraduate students over a 6-month period. Initial domain 

coefficient alphas ranged from .89 to .96, with a median of .80 on the facet scales. Test-retest 

Pearson correlations exceeded .70 for each domain. 

 Validity. Although the NEO-PI-R has been criticized for not including validity scales 

(Ben-Porath & Waller, 1992; Bernard & Walsh, 2004; Butcher & Rouse, 1996; Schinka, Kinder, 

& Kremer, 1997), research generally supports its validity and reliability (McCrae & Allik, 2002; 

McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & 

Paunonen, 1996). Costa and McCrae (1992) contend that validity scales are not necessary 

because validity checks are in place, including (a) the proper administration of the instrument, 

(b) judicious interpretation of responses, and (c) three items asking respondents if they answered 

honestly, completely, and correctly. 

 Much of the concern expressed over a lack of validity scales focuses on test-faking and 

non-purposeful responding (Rosse, Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998; Scarpello, Ledvinka, & 

Bergmann, 1995), but current research indicates that test-faking is not a significant problem. 

While several researchers have suggested strategies to mitigate the threat of test-faking (Barrick 

& Mount, 1996; Ellingson, Smith, & Sackett, 2001; Holden & Hibbs, 1995; Hough, Eaton, 

Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1991), Hogan (2005) countered that test-faking should not be a 

concern because: (a) many respondents lack the capacity to “improve” test scores; (b) 

respondents do not typically know what the desired response should be; and (c) evaluations of 

personality scores usually only consider a small portion of the scores rather than the entire 

profile. 

 Validity has been supported by studies correlating NEO-PI-R scores with other validated 

personality instruments. Factor scores from the NEO-PI-R have been found to correlate 

significantly with similar or related personality constructs as measured by the Myers-Briggs 

Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCauley, 1985), the MMPI, and the Wechsler Adult 

Intelligence Scale – Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981). For example, Furnham, Moutafi, and 

Crump (2003) reported significant correlations between the NEO-PI-R factors of Extraversion, 

Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and the MBTI factors of ExtraversionIntroversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving respectively. Costa, 

Busch, Zonderman, and McCrae (1986) found significant correlations between NEO-PI-R factor 

scores and MMPI factors. Significant correlations were also reported between the factor of 

Openness and IQ scores on the WAIS-R (Holland, Dollinger, Holland, & MacDonald, 1995). 
9 

 The applicability of the FFM across cultures addresses concerns over cultural bias. The 

validity of the FFM has been supported in cross-cultural studies in which FFM-based 

instruments such as the NEO-PI-R have been translated into languages other than English. For 

instance, personality findings with Chinese (Trull & Geary, 1997), Greek (Tsaousis & Nikolaou, 

2001), and Filipino (Avdeyeva & Church, 2005) samples have supported the validity of the FFM 

factors across cultures. 

Procedures 

Survey packets were administered to the student aviator sample during testing as part of 

the SIFT research project. Career aviators were given the survey packets when they attended 

advanced leadership training at the Warrant Officer Career Center (WOCC). Data were gathered 

at Fort Rucker, Alabama. All materials were to be returned except for one copy of the informed 

consent form. A random number was assigned to the materials in each packet in order to match 

the demographic information with NEO-PI-R scores. 

Hand-scored answer sheets were used and scores were entered into a Statistical Package 

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) spreadsheet created for this investigation in order to mitigate the 

risk of calculation errors. A random sample (n = 50) of the hand-scored portion of the answer 

sheets was re-scored to mitigate risks of calculation errors. Statistical analyses were conducted 

using SPSS. 

Findings 

Demographics 

Student aviators. The sample (n = 217) of student aviators’ demographic information 

was aggregated by gender. Gender was an item on the demographic questionnaires because 

there are different scoring scales on the NEO-PI-R for each gender. The female data were 

eliminated from this research because the comparison with career aviators involves an all male 

sample. Female data will be explored in a future study. Ethnicity was not identified because the 

NEO-PI-R is not scored differentially based on ethnicity. 

The incoming male student aviators (n = 196) represented warrant officer (n = 114) and 

commissioned officer (n = 82) ranks. The mean age for the warrant officers was 26 years (SD = 

3.44) and 23 years (SD = 2.01) for commissioned officers. The mean years of current military 

service for the warrant officers was 5 years (SD = 1.73) and 3 years (SD = 1.45) for the 

commissioned officers. The mean years at the current rank for warrant officers was 2 years (SD

= 1.53) and 2 years (SD = .64) for commissioned officers. Seventy-three of the warrant officers 

and 23 of the commissioned officers reported prior military service. Twenty-six warrant officers 

and 14 commissioned officers reported prior aviation experience. The mean hours of prior 

experience flight time was 16 (SD = 46.27) for warrant officers and 15 (SD = 50.38) for 

commissioned officers. 
10 

Career aviators. Demographic findings revealed a mean age of 45 (SD = 6.11) for the 

career aviators in this sample. Respondents reported a mean of 24 years (SD = 6.42) of military 

service and a mean of 20 years (SD = 6.50) of aviation experience. The mean years at current 

rank was 6 years (SD = 4.32). 

Research Question #1 

The first research question (i.e., “What are the personality profiles of incoming student 

U.S. Army rotary-wing aviators?”), yielded the identification of a personality profile for the 

student aviators based upon the NEO-PI-R factor scores collected in this research. Table 3 

provides the descriptive statistics of the factor scores for the total sample of 196 incoming male 

aviation students. Overall, the students scored in the Average range on Neuroticism, Openness, 

and Conscientiousness. They scored High in Extraversion and Low in Agreeableness. This 

indicates that these students are outgoing, confident, excitement-oriented, and assertive, and are 

more concerned with individualism and improving individual competence than maintaining 

social relationships. 

Table 3 

Student Aviator NEO-PI-R Factor Scores 

 

N E O AG CO 

n 196 196 196 196 196

Mean 68 120 108 111 128

Median 68 121 107 112 128

Mode 56 127 103 98 125

Std. Dev. 19.03 16.84 17.43 16.67 18.53

Skewness -.175 .203 .183 -.178 -.050

Rank Average High Average Low Average

Note. Factor names: N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; AG = Agreeableness; 

CO = Conscientiousness. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): 

Neuroticism (65-86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); Agreeableness (112-128); 

Conscientiousness (115-133). 
11 

The factor scores of the 114 Warrant Officers and 82 Commissioned Officers are 

presented in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. Warrant Officers were in the Average range on 

every factor except Agreeableness, which was in the Low range. Commissioned Officers in the 

student sample were in the Average range on every factor except Extraversion, which was in the 

High range. 

Table 4 

Warrant Officer Student Aviator NEO-PI-R Factor Scores 

 

N E O AG CO 

n 114 114 114 114 114

Mean 66 116 105 111 128

Median 67 117 103 110 127

Mode 56 127 103 98 125

Std. Dev. 19.19 15.23 15.95 15.37 18.42

Skewness -.121 -.030 -.085 .034 -.018

Rank Average Average Average Low Average

Note. Factor names: N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; AG = Agreeableness; 

CO = Conscientiousness. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): 

Neuroticism (65-86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); Agreeableness (112-128); 

Conscientiousness (115-133). 

 

Table 5 

Commissioned Officer Student Aviator NEO-PI-R Factor Scores 

 

N E O AG CO 

n 82 82 82 82 82

Mean 71 124 113 113 129

Median 69 125 112 115 130

Mode 69 123 110 126 115

Std. Dev. 18.54 17.98 18.18 18.21 18.77

Skewness -.204 .183 .237 -.433 -.092

Rank Average High Average Average Average

Note. Factor names: N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; AG = Agreeableness; 

CO = Conscientiousness. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): 

Neuroticism (65-86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); Agreeableness (112-128); 

Conscientiousness (115-133). 
12 

 

 The facet scores for the incoming student aviators are presented in Table 6. Findings are 

presented for the sample as a whole, as well as for the sub-groups of Warrant Officers and 

Commissioned Officers within the student sample. The total sample scored in the Average range 

on all facets except for the Extraversion facets of Assertiveness, Activity, and Excitement 

Seeking, on which they scored in the High range. Differences between the WOs and 

Commissioned Officers were found on the facets of Gregariousness, Trust, Compliance, and 

Achievement Striving. Warrant Officers scored Average on Gregariousness, while 

Commissioned Officers scored High on this facet. Warrant Officers scored Low on Trust, while 

Commissioned Officers scored Average on this facet. Warrant Officers scored Average on 

Compliance, while Commissioned Officers scored Low on this facet. Warrant Officers scored 

High on Achievement Striving, while Commissioned Officers scored Average on this facet. 

Research Question #2 

 The second research question (i.e., “What similarities and differences exist between the 

personality profiles of student and career Army aviators?”) involved a comparison between the 

student aviators surveyed in this research and the NEO-PI-R scores of career aviators reported by 

Grice and Katz (2006). Table 7 contains the descriptive statistics of the NEO-PI-R factor scores 

for the career aviators. They scored in the Average range on the factors of Extraversion, 

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, when compared to a normative sample provided by Costa 

and McCrae (1992). They scored in the Low range on Neuroticism and Openness. 
13 

Table 6 

NEO-PI-R Facet Means for Student Aviators 

Facet Warrant Officers Officers Total Sample 

M 

(n = 114) 

SD Rank M 

(n = 82) 

SD Rank M 

(n = 196) 

SD Rank 

N1 (Anxiety) 12 4.60 A 12 4.11 A 12 4.41 A 

N2 (Angry Hostility) 12 4.63 A 11 4.28 A 12 4.94 A 

N3 (Depression) 10 5.01 A 12 5.73 A 11 5.40 A 

N4 (Self 

Consciousness) 12 4.64 A 13 3.59 A 13 4.23 A 

N5 (Impulsiveness) 14 4.28 A 15 5.41 A 14 4.81 A 

N6 (Vulnerability) 9 5.32 A 9 5.03 A 9 5.20 A 

E1 (Warmth) 21 10.09 A 22 5.15 A 22 4.80 A 

E2 (Gregariousness) * 18 4.82 A 19 4.54 H 18 4.80 A 

E3 (Assertiveness) 19 3.76 H 20 4.64 H 19 4.14 H 

E4 (Activity) 20 3.61 H 20 4.15 H 20 3.84 H 

E5 (Excitement 

Seeking) 20 3.88 H 22 4.63 H 21 4.26 H 

E6 (Positive Emotion) 19 4.07 A 21 4.32 A 20 4.25 A 

O1 (Fantasy) 16 4.44 A 18 4.99 A 17 4.73 A 

O2 (Aesthetics) 14 4.66 A 17 5.18 A 15 5.04 A 

O3 (Feelings) 18 3.62 A 20 3.69 A 19 3.78 A 

O4 (Actions) 17 3.95 A 17 4.18 A 17 4.07 A 

O5 (Ideas) 20 4.90 A 21 5.92 A 21 5.39 A 

O6 (Values) 19 4.28 A 20 4.62 A 19 4.47 A 

A1 (Trust) * 18 4.76 L 19 4.85 A 19 4.84 A 

A2 

(Straightforwardness) 18 4.26 A 19 4.45 A 19 4.35 A 

A3 (Altruism) 22 5.10 A 24 12.02 A 22 8.78 A 

A4 (Compliance) * 17 3.59 A 16 3.71 L 17 3.65 A 

A5 (Modesty) 17 4.01 A 17 4.66 A 17 4.28 A 

A6 (Tender 

Mindedness) 18 3.81 A 19 3.88 A 19 3.87 A 

C1 (Competence) 23 4.24 A 23 4.62 A 23 4.39 A 

C2 (Order) 19 3.48 A 20 3.51 A 19 3.51 A 

C3 (Dutifulness) 23 4.22 A 24 4.01 A 23 4.14 A 

C4 (Achievement 

Striving) * 22 4.19 H 21 4.99 A 21 4.54 A 

C5 (Self Discipline) 23 4.21 A 22 4.37 A 22 4.30 A 

C6 (Deliberation) 18 4.10 A 18 4.39 A 18 4.20 A 

Note. Rankings: L = Low; A = Average; H = High. Rankings based on the normative scales 

provided by Costa and McCrae (1992). N1 – N6 = Neuroticism Facets; E1 – E6 = Extraversion 

Facets; O1 – O6 = Openness Facets; A1 – A6 = Agreeableness Facets; C1 – C6 = 

Conscientiousness Facets. 

* = Difference in ranking between WOs and Officers. 
14 

Table 7 

Career Aviator NEO-PI-R Factor Scores 

 

N E O AG CO 

Number 75 75 75 75 75 

Mean 62.77 116.55 98.47 116.51 132.91 

Median 63.00 117.00 99.00 117.00 133.00 

Mode 65.00 105.00 82.00 121.00 133.00 

Std. Dev. 18.54 18.59 17.43 16.25 18.09 

Skewness .54 -.18 .080 -.24 -.11 

Rank Low Average Low Average Average 

Note. Factor names: N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; AG = Agreeableness; 

CO = Conscientiousness. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): 

Neuroticism (65-86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); Agreeableness (112-128); 

Conscientiousness (115-133). 

Table 8 presents the mean factor scores for both the incoming students and the career 

aviators, for ease of comparison. The students scored in the Average range on Neuroticism and 

Openness while the career aviators were Low on these factors. The students scored in the Low 

range on Agreeableness and the High range on Extraversion, while the career aviators were 

Average on these factors. 

Table 8 

Mean Factor Scores for Student and Career Aviators 

Student Aviators 

(n = 196) 

Career Aviators 

(n = 75) 

M SD Rank M SD Rank 

Neuroticism * 68 19.03 A 63 18.54 L 

Extraversion * 120 16.84 H 117 18.59 A 

Openness * 108 17.43 A 98 17.43 L 

Agreeableness * 111 16.67 L 117 16.25 A 

Conscientiousness 128 18.53 A 133 18.09 A 

Note. Rankings: L = Low; A = Average; H = High. The average range of scores is provided by 

Costa and McCrae (1992): Neuroticism (65-86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); 

Agreeableness (112-128); Conscientiousness (115-133). 

* = Difference in ranking between Student Aviators and Career Aviators. 

 As stated earlier, the incoming student sample can be divided into Warrant Officers and 

Commissioned Officers. The mean factor scores for these two sub-groups are presented along 

with the career aviator factor scores in Table 9, for ease of comparison. Across the three groups, 

differences were found on every factor except Conscientiousness, which was consistently in the 

Average range. 
15 

Table 9 

Mean Factor Scores for Warrant Officer Students, Officer Students, and Career Aviators 

 Warrant Officers 

(n = 114) 

Officers 

(n = 82) 

Career Aviators 

(n = 75) 

M SD Rank M SD Rank M SD Rank 

Neuroticism * 66 19.19 A 71 18.54 A 63 18.54 L 

Extraversion * 116 15.23 A 124 17.98 H 117 18.59 A 

Openness * 105 15.95 A 113 18.18 A 98 17.43 L 

Agreeableness * 111 15.37 L 113 18.21 A 117 16.25 A 

Conscientiousness 128 18.42 A 129 18.77 A 133 18.09 A 

Note. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): Neuroticism (65-

86); Extraversion (99-118); Openness (101-119); Agreeableness (112-128); Conscientiousness 

(115-133). 

* = Difference in ranking among student and career samples. 

 The mean facet scores for the total sample of incoming student aviators and the career 

aviators are presented in Table 10. Ranking differences between the Student Aviators and 

Career Aviators were found on the facets of Vulnerability, Excitement Seeking, Aesthetics, 

Compliance, Competence, and Achievement Striving. The Career Aviators scored in the Low 

range on Vulnerability, Aesthetics, and Compliance, while the Student Aviators scored in the 

Average range. The Career Aviators scored in the High range on Competence and Achievement 

Striving, while the Student Aviators scored in the Average range. The Student Aviators scored 

in the High range on Excitement Seeking, while the Career Aviators scored in the Average 

range. 

Facet scores for the two types of students (WO and Commissioned Officer) are presented 

with Career Aviators for ease of comparison in Table 11. Differences in ranking among the two 

student sub-samples and the Career Aviators were found on the facets of Vulnerability, 

Gregariousness, Excitement Seeking, Aesthetics, Trust, Compliance, Competence, and 

Achievement Striving. On the facets of Vulnerability and Aesthetics, the Career Aviators scored 

in the Low range, while both student sub-samples scored in the Average range. The Career 

Aviators scored in the High range on Competence, while both student sub-samples scored in the 

Average range. The Commissioned Officer Students scored in the High range on Gregariousness, 

while other two groups scored in the Average range. The WO Students scored in the Low range 

on Trust, while the other two groups scored in the Average range. On Excitement Seeking, the 

Career Aviators scored in the Average range while two Student groups scored in the High range. 

On Achievement Striving, the Officer Students scored in the Average range, while the other two 

groups scored in the High range. 
16 

Table 10 

NEO-PI-R Facet Means for Student Aviators and Career Aviators 

Facet Student Aviators Career Aviators 

M 

(n = 196) 

SD Rank M 

(n = 75) 

SD Rank 

N1 (Anxiety) 12 4.41 A 11 4.35 A

N2 (Angry Hostility) 12 4.94 A 11 4.32 A

N3 (Depression) 11 5.40 A 9 3.96 A

N4 (Self Consciousness) 13 4.23 A 12 4.39 A

N5 (Impulsiveness) 14 4.81 A 14 3.86 A

N6 (Vulnerability) * 9 5.20 A 6 3.55 L

E1 (Warmth) 22 4.80 A 22 4.58 A

E2 (Gregariousness) 18 4.80 A 17 5.22 A

E3 (Assertiveness) 19 4.14 H 20 4.36 H

E4 (Activity) 20 3.84 H 20 3.89 H

E5 (Excitement Seeking) * 21 4.26 H 19 3.79 A

E6 (Positive Emotion) 20 4.25 A 19 4.34 A

O1 (Fantasy) 17 4.73 A 15 4.32 A

O2 (Aesthetics) * 15 5.04 A 13 4.94 L

O3 (Feelings) 19 3.78 A 18 4.47 A

O4 (Actions) 17 4.07 A 15 3.53 A

O5 (Ideas) 21 5.39 A 18 5.05 A

O6 (Values) 19 4.47 A 19 4.29 A

A1 (Trust) 19 4.84 A 21 4.42 A

A2 (Straightforwardness) 19 4.35 A 19 4.32 A

A3 (Altruism) 22 8.78 A 23 3.88 A

A4 (Compliance) * 17 3.65 A 16 4.23 L

A5 (Modesty) 17 4.28 A 18 4.74 A

A6 (Tender Mindedness) 19 3.87 A 19 3.98 A

C1 (Competence) * 23 4.39 A 25 3.53 H

C2 (Order) 19 3.51 A 20 3.93 A

C3 (Dutifulness) 23 4.14 A 25 5.04 A

C4 (Achievement Striving) * 21 4.54 A 22 4.08 H

C5 (Self Discipline) 22 4.30 A 23 3.82 A

C6 (Deliberation) 18 4.20 A 18 4.32 A

Note. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): Rankings: L = 

Low; A = Average; H = High. Rankings based on the normative scales provided by Costa and 

McCrae (1992). N1 – N6 = Neuroticism Facets; E1 – E6 = Extraversion Facets; O1 – O6 = 

Openness Facets; A1 – A6 = Agreeableness Facets; C1 – C6 = Conscientiousness Facets. 

* = Difference in ranking between Student Aviators and Career Aviators. 
17 

Table 11 

Mean Facet Scores for Warrant Officer Students, Officer Students, and Career Aviators 

Facet Warrant Officers Officers Career Aviators 

M 

(n = 114) 

SD Rank M 

(n = 82) 

SD Rank M 

(n = 75) 

SD Rank 

N1 (Anxiety) 12 4.60 A 12 4.11 A 11 4.35 A 

N2 (Angry Hostility) 12 4.63 A 11 4.28 A 11 4.32 A 

N3 (Depression) 10 5.01 A 12 5.73 A 9 3.96 A 

N4 (Self 

Consciousness) 12 4.64 A 13 3.59 A 12 4.39 A 

N5 (Impulsiveness) 14 4.28 A 15 5.41 A 14 3.86 A 

N6 (Vulnerability) * 9 5.32 A 9 5.03 A 6 3.55 L 

E1 (Warmth) 21 10.09 A 22 5.15 A 22 4.58 A 

E2 (Gregariousness) * 18 4.82 A 19 4.54 H 17 5.22 A 

E3 (Assertiveness) 19 3.76 H 20 4.64 H 20 4.36 H 

E4 (Activity) 20 3.61 H 20 4.15 H 20 3.89 H 

E5 (Excitement 

Seeking) * 20 3.88 H 22 4.63 H 19 3.79 A 

E6 (Positive Emotion) 19 4.07 A 21 4.32 A 19 4.34 A 

O1 (Fantasy) 16 4.44 A 18 4.99 A 15 4.32 A 

O2 (Aesthetics) * 14 4.66 A 17 5.18 A 13 4.94 L 

O3 (Feelings) 18 3.62 A 20 3.69 A 18 4.47 A 

O4 (Actions) 17 3.95 A 17 4.18 A 15 3.53 A 

O5 (Ideas) 20 4.90 A 21 5.92 A 18 5.05 A 

O6 (Values) 19 4.28 A 20 4.62 A 19 4.29 A 

A1 (Trust) * 18 4.76 L 19 4.85 A 21 4.42 A 

A2 

(Straightforwardness) 18 4.26 A 19 4.45 A 19 4.32 A 

A3 (Altruism) 22 5.10 A 24 12.02 A 23 3.88 A 

A4 (Compliance) * 17 3.59 A 16 3.71 L 16 4.23 L 

A5 (Modesty) 17 4.01 A 17 4.66 A 18 4.74 A 

A6 (Tender 

Mindedness) 18 3.81 A 19 3.88 A 19 3.98 A 

C1 (Competence) * 23 4.24 A 23 4.62 A 25 3.53 H 

C2 (Order) 19 3.48 A 20 3.51 A 20 3.93 A 

C3 (Dutifulness) 23 4.22 A 24 4.01 A 25 5.04 A 

C4 (Achievement 

Striving) * 22 4.19 H 21 4.99 A 22 4.08 H 

C5 (Self Discipline) 23 4.21 A 22 4.37 A 23 3.82 A 

C6 (Deliberation) 18 4.10 A 18 4.39 A 18 4.32 A 

Note. The average range of scores is provided by Costa and McCrae (1992): Rankings: L = 

Low; A = Average; H = High. Rankings based on the normative scales provided by Costa and 

McCrae (1992). N1 – N6 = Neuroticism Facets; E1 – E6 = Extraversion Facets; O1 – O6 = 

Openness Facets; A1 – A6 = Agreeableness Facets; C1 – C6 = Conscientiousness Facets. 

* = Difference in ranking among student and career samples. 
18 

Discussion 

Student Personality Profiles 

 The findings related to the first research question produced a personality profile for a 

sample of male incoming student U.S. Army aviators waiting to begin Initial Entry Rotary-Wing 

training at Fort Rucker, Alabama. The total sample of student aviators scored in the average 

range on three of the five FFM factors. Agreeableness was in the low range, and Extraversion 

was in the high range. This profile suggests that these student aviators, although outgoing and 

assertive, are more concerned with individualism and improving individual competence than 

maintaining social relationships that consume their time and energy. However, dividing the 

sample by the two types of students suggested that there were actually two different personality 

profiles operating in this sample. 

Warrant Officers were in the average range on every factor except Agreeableness. 

Agreeableness scores were in the low range. Low Agreeableness suggests that these aviators 

might value developing individual competency rather than seeking to build collaborative 

relationships that promote teamwork. Low Agreeableness has been found in career aviators 

assigned to Attack rotary-wing aircraft such as the Apache series helicopters (Grice & Katz, 

2006). 

 Commissioned Officers in the student sample were in the average range on four of the 

five factors. Extraversion was the exception and scores were in the high range. The profile for 

these aviators indicates that they are not unlike people in the general public except in traits 

related to Extraversion. These aviators are likely outgoing, confident, excitement-oriented, and 

assertive. This profile would be consistent with the anecdotal descriptions of military aviators 

often found in movies such as Top Gun. 

 The facet scores for the total sample of student aviators indicated that they were average 

on all facets that comprise Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. 

Three of the Extraversion facets (i.e., Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotion) were in 

the average range, but the students scored high on Assertiveness, Activity, and Excitement 

Seeking. The facet findings for the total sample of student aviators indicated that they are similar 

to the general public in most of the FFM facets. However, the three Extraversion facets 

reporting in the high range indicates that these student aviators are active and goal driven. They 

likely enjoy risk and excitement. 

Comparison of Student Aviators to Career Aviators 

 The second research question involved a comparison of incoming Student Aviators to 

Career Aviators and revealed several differences. Factor differences were found in Neuroticism, 

Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness. Facet-level comparisons were conducted to more 

clearly understand the factor-level differences. 

Student Aviators were in the average range in Neuroticism while Career Aviators scored 

low in this factor. This finding suggests that Career Aviators are more emotionally stable and 
19 

more able to mitigate stress than the general public and the Student Aviators. Facet-level 

comparisons clarified that the difference on this component lies in the low ranking of Career 

Aviators in terms of Vulnerability. This indicates that the Career Aviators perceive themselves as 

more capable of handling themselves in difficult situations. It is possible that those who are more 

able to handle difficult situations are more likely to achieve longevity in the career of military 

aviation, but it is also possible that on-the-job experience over time has increased the Career 

Aviators’ perceptions of their ability to handle stress, relative to the incoming students. 

The Student Aviators scored high in Extraversion, compared to the Career Aviators’ 

average ranking, suggesting that the students are more outgoing, confident, excitement-oriented, 

and assertive than the Career Aviator sample. The facet-level comparison here found that the 

sole difference was in Excitement Seeking. Thus, the Student Aviators are more likely to crave 

excitement and stimulation, similar to sensation seeking, while the Career Aviators are more 

comfortable with a relaxed tempo. This finding is consistent with anecdotal reports and survey 

results from previous research addressing career longevity and aircraft transitions in Army 

aviation (Grice & Katz, 2006) indicating that incoming, younger, aviators are more likely to seek 

action-oriented missions, such as attack, while more experienced (and older) aviators are more 

likely to prefer a slower operational tempo. 

Student aviators were in the average range in Openness, while Career Aviators scored 

low in this factor. This finding would seem to suggest that Career Aviators are more committed 

to following standing operating procedures rather than engaging in novel problem-solving or 

attempting to deviate from Army aviation policies. However, facet-level comparisons indicated 

that the sole difference on this component lies in the low ranking of Career Aviators in terms of 

Aesthetics, meaning that they are relatively insensitive to and uninterested in art and beauty. 

Thus, while the factor-level difference would appear to have interesting implications for Army 

aviation, the facet-level comparison reveals its practical insignificance. 

 

Causes of Student Versus Career Aviator Differences 

 There are several plausible explanations for the differences found between the incoming 

student aviators of today and career aviators who entered military service two decades ago. 

First, differences could be due to a sorting effect over the years as aviators with personality traits 

that are not conducive to Army aviation have either chosen to attrite or were eliminated from 

military service. A sorting effect would suggest that there might be a link between personality 

and interest in maintaining a career in Army aviation (i.e., career satisfaction) as well as a 

possible link with performance as an aviator. Since career aviators are expected to become 

leaders at some level, leadership abilities might be the moderating factor in this hypothesized 

sorting effect. That is, those aviators who demonstrate a high degree of emotional stability (like 

the Career Aviator sample in this investigation) might be those individuals who are most capable 

of assuming the leadership roles expected of career Army aviators. 

 Second, the personality of incoming students today might be different than it was 20 

years ago, when our Career Aviator sample first entered the field. These differences might be 

due to a different type of applicant or to changes in Army aviation, or both. For instance, the 
20 

Army has traditionally not required a college education in order to be an aviator, but many of the 

student aviators in our research had obtained college credits or degrees. Changes have occurred 

in Army aviation with the development of new technologies and aircraft that require a high level 

of technical skill. The tasks of Army aviators have changed, with an ever-increasing need for 

situational awareness abilities, problem solving skills, and multi-tasking aptitudes. Because of 

the current international climate, many incoming Army aviators today will be called upon to fly 

in combat conditions. These changes may attract and/or require a different type of personality 

today than it did two decades ago. 

Third, differences may be due to an adaptation effect. The organizational environment of 

Army aviation may exert sufficient pressure to cause an adaptation in personality trait levels. 

For example, the student aviators were in the average range on Neuroticism while career aviators 

scored low on this factor. This difference suggests that career aviators are likely better able to 

remain emotionally stable and to mitigate stress than the student aviators. This might point to an 

adaptation effect in which the career aviators have developed the necessary skills that will lower 

Neuroticism. Similarly, the Neuroticism facet of Vulnerability was average for the students and 

low for career aviators. This might indicate that career aviators have developed a greater sense 

of self-confidence than the student aviators. Another example would be that student aviators 

scored high in the Extraversion facet of Excitement Seeking and career aviators were in the 

average range. Lower Excitement Seeking for career aviators suggests they are not as likely to 

take unnecessary risks in the cockpit, remaining compliant with the established limits and 

guidelines of Army aviation. Thus, like exercising a muscle repeatedly over time, it may be that 

career Army aviators gradually strengthen those parts of their personalities that are conducive to 

a career in Army aviation. 

Recommendations 

 

 Much research could be done in the future involving the personality profiles of Army 

aviators. Research could investigate possible correlations between personality factors and 

aviator performance. The identification of a relationship between personality and performance 

would support using personality constructs as criteria for consideration in aviator training 

selection. Links have been reported between FFM traits and performance among Navy and Air 

Force aviators (e.g., Anesgart & Callister, 2001; Vickers, 1995). While the research reported 

herein suggests those personality factors associated with longevity in Army aviation today, no 

empirical findings are currently available that identify a direct relationship between personality 

and performance in Army aviation. 

 

Research could examine whether personality should be included as a part of selection 

criteria for new applicants to flight training or in classifying aviators into aircraft. Personenvironment fit theory posits that when people perceive that their personal characteristics (e.g., 

interests, personality) match the demands of an environment (e.g., work) they will be more likely 

to exhibit high performance and seek retention. Research should investigate if personality traits 

can predict performance in flight training and if a relationship exists between particular 

personality profiles and the different Army rotary-wing aircraft and associated missions. The 

NEO-PI-R represents possibly the best instrument to use for this purpose because it is wellvalidated and designed to measure normal dimensions of personality rather than 
21 

psychopathology. The traits covered by the NEO-PI-R can be used in matching personality with 

vocational interests, and might be useful in matching student aviators with assigned missions. 

The personality differences revealed when comparing Warrant Officer students to 

Commissioned Officer students deserves further research. Warrant Officers are likely to vary 

widely in terms of age and maturity level, because they comprise those individuals choosing to 

pursue Army aviation immediately after completing High School as well as those older 

individuals already in the Army who decide to pursue a career in aviation. By contrast, 

Commissioned Officers typically enter Army aviation after completing a college education, so 

they tend to be in their early 20s, with similar educational backgrounds. Follow-up research 

might explore these differences in terms of recruiting strategies, aircraft/mission classification, 

and retention practices among the two populations. For example, if the finding that Warrant 

Officers value developing individual competency rather than seeking to build collaborative 

relationships is replicated with larger samples, the Army may benefit by emphasizing teamwork 

training and Crew Coordination principles with these students. If the finding that Commissioned 

Officers tend to value excitement-seeking, the Army may benefit by assigning these students to 

Attack aircraft and missions requiring a higher operational tempo, which would consequently 

optimize job satisfaction and career retention. 

Longitudinal research could investigate whether or not (and to what extent) the 

personality trait levels of Army aviators change over time. Part of the motivation for assessing 

the trait levels of career aviators was to identify the personality profile that seems to be 

associated with several years of military service. The shortcoming was that we did not have 

NEO-PI-R results from this sample at the beginning of their careers. A longitudinal design that 

follows Army aviators throughout their tenure could help us to sort out the dynamics associated 

with the differences found in the current investigation. That is, do those who exhibit less “fit” 

with Army aviation eventually attrite from this career path? Do aviators’ trait levels adapt to the 

organizational environment of Army aviation? Do personality traits remain stable, while the 

personalities of applicants and/or selected students have changed over the past 20 years? The 

answers to these questions could help us to identify the personality profiles of those most likely 

to make a career of Army aviation, and thus minimize the unnecessary expenditure of training 

resources. 

Finally, the personality profiles of female aviators could be the topic of future research. 

Females historically make up a relatively small portion of Army aviators. However, little is 

known about the personality traits of these aviators, and increasing our breadth of knowledge in 

this area might contribute to improved recruitment, selection, and retention of these personnel. 

Females will continue to serve as Army aviators and investigating possible links between their 

personality trait levels and aviation profession-related parameters (e.g., performance, career 

satisfaction, and tenure) appears to offer a potentially fruitful avenue for future research. 
22 
23 

References 

Anesgart, M. N., & Callister, J. D. (2001). Predicting training success with the NEO-PI- 

 R: The use of logistic regression to determine the odds of completing a pilot 

 screening program (AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2001-0074). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: 

 U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate. 

Avdeyeva, T. V., & Church, A. T. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability of 

 personality types: A Philippine study. European Journal of Personality, 19, 475- 

 499. 

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job 

 performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. 

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects on impression management and self- 

 deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied 

 Psychology, 81(3), 261-272. 

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the 

 beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? 

 Personality and Performance, 9(1/2), 9-30. 

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Waller, M. K. (1992). Five big issues in clinical personality 

 assessment: A rejoinder to Costa and McCrae. Psychological Assessment, 4, 23- 

 25. 

Bernard, L. C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Socially desirable and non-purposeful responding on 

 the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory-Revised. 

 Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1(1), 4-16.

Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. (1996). Personality: Individual differences and clinical 

 assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87-111. 

Caldwell, J. A., Jr., O’Hara, C., Caldwell, J. L., Stephens, R. L., & Krueger, G. P. (1993). 

 Personality profiles of U.S. Army helicopter pilots screened for special operations 

 duty. Military Psychology, 5(3), 187-209. 

Callister, J. D., King, R. E., Retzlaff, P. D., & Marsh, R. W. (1997). Using the NEO-PI-R 

 to assess the personality of U.S. Air Force pilots (AL/AO-TR-1997-0097). 

 Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Aerospace Medicine Directorate Clinical Sciences 

 Division Neuropsychiatry Branch. 

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. 

 Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 476-506. 
24 

Chidester, T., Helmreich, R., Gregorich, S., & Geis, C. (1991). Pilot personality and 

 crew coordination: Implications for training and selection. The International 

 Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 25-44.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Busch, C. M., Zonderman, A. B., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Correlations of 

 the MMPI factor scales with measures of the five factor model of personality. 

 Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 640-650.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. 

 Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual Revised NEO Personality 

 Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: 

 Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality 

 assessment: The revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of 

 Personality Assessment, 68(1), 86-94. 

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and 

 Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and 

 Individual Differences, 12, 887-898. 

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: 

 Career assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Career 

 Assessment, 3, 123-139. 

Department of the Army. (1994, November 1). Accident reporting and records (Army 

Regulation 385-40). Washington, DC: Author. 

Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. 

 Journal of Personality, 57, 195-214. 

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. 

 Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. 

Dockery, F. C., & Isaacs, S. (1921). Psychological research in aviation in Italy, France, 

 England, and the American Expeditionary Forces. Journal of Comparative 

 Psychology, 1, 115-148. 

Dolgin, D. L., Kay, G. G., Langelier, M. K., Wasel, B. D., & Hoffman, C. (2002). 

 Identification of the cognitive, psychomotor, and psychosocial skill demands of 

 uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV) operators. Space and Flight Equipment 

 Journal, 30, 219-225. 
25 

Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of 

 social desirability on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

 86, 122-133. 

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from 

 different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344. 

Fitzgibbons, A., Davis, D., & Schutte, P. C. (2004). Pilot personality profile using the 

 NEO-PI-R (NASA/TM-2004-213237). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and 

 Space Administration Langley Research Center. 

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the Revised 

 NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior 

 and Personality, 31(6), 577-584. 

Geist, C. R., & Boyd, S. T. (1980). Personality characteristics of Army helicopter pilots. 

 Perceptual & Motor Skills, 51, 253–254. 

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals 

 in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social 

 psychology (pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Grice, R. L., & Katz, L. C. (2006). Personality profiles of experienced U.S. Army aviators 

 across mission platforms (USARI Technical Report No. 1185). Arlington, VA: U.S. 

 Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Helton, K. T., & Street, D. R., Jr. (1993). The five-factor personality model and naval 

 aviation candidate (NAMRL-1379). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical 

 Research Laboratory. 

Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. 

 Human Performance, 18(4), 331-341. 

Holden, R. R., & Hibbs, R. (1995). Incremental validity of response latencies for 

 detecting fakers on a personality test. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(3), 

 362-372. 

Holland, D. C., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A. (1995). The 

 relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five-factor model of 

 personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(1), 79-88. 

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1991). 

 Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response 

 distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595. 
26 

Kanki, B. G., & Palmer, M. T. (1993). Communication and crew resource management. In E. 

L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 

99-136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Kanki, B. G., Palmer, M. T., & Veinott, E. (1991). Communication variations related to leader 

 personality. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology 

 (pp. 253-259). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 

King, R. E., McGlohn, S. E., & Retzlaff, P. D. (1997). Female United States Air Force 

 pilot personality: The new right stuff. Military Medicine, 162, 695-697. 

Kurtz, J. E., Lee, P. A., & Sherker, J. L. (1999). Internal and temporal reliability estimates 

 for informant ratings of personality using the NEO-PI-R and IAS. Assessment, 6(2), 103- 

 113. 

Kurtz, J. E., & Parrish, C. L. (2001). Semantic response consistency and protocol validity 

 in structured personality assessment: The case of the NEO-PI-R. Journal of 

 Personality Assessment, 76(2), 315-332. 

Lardent, C. L., Jr. (1991). Pilots who crash: Personality constructs underlying accident 

 prone behavior of fighter pilots. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 10(1), 

 1-25. 

McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (2002). The Five-Factor Model of Personality across 

 cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). 

 Cross-cultural assessment of the Five-Factor model: The Revised NEO Personality 

 Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188. 

McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). 

 Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: 

 Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and 

 Social Psychology, 70, 552-566. 

 

Millon, T. (1977). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, manual. Minneapolis: National 

 Computer Inventory and Computer Systems. 

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality 

 and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 

 11(2/3), 145-165. 

Murray, S. R. (1999). FACE: Fear of loss of face and the five hazardous attitudes 

 concept. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 403-411. 
27 

Myers, I. B., & McCauley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of 

 the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: 

 Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of 

 Abnormal and Social psychology, 66, 574-583. 

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five Factors and facets and the prediction 

 of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. 

Pedersen, L. A., Allan, K. E., Laue, F. J., Johnson, J. R., & Siem, F. M. (1992). Personality 

 theory for aircrew selection and classification (USAF Technical Report No. AL- 

 TR-1992-0021). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Armstrong Laboratory. 

 

Picano, J. J. (1991). Personality types among experienced military pilots. Aviation, 

 Space, and Environmental Medicine, 62, 517-520. 

Retzlaff, P. D., & Gibertini, M. (1987). Air Force pilot personality: Hard data on the 

 right stuff. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22(4), 383-389. 

Rippon, T. S., & Manuel, E. G. (1918). The essential characteristics of successful and 

 unsuccessful aviators. The Lancet, September, 411-415. 

Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response 

 distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of 

 Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644. 

Scarpello, V. G., Ledvinka, J., & Bergmann, T. J. (1995). Human resource management. 

 Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. 

Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO- 

 PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 

 127-138. 

Shinar, Y. (1995). Personality as the key factor in the competence of a pilot. In R.S. 

 Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation 

 Psychology (pp. 1137-1141). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. 

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job 

 performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517. 

Trull, T. J., & Geary, D. C. (1997). Comparison of the Big-Five Factor structure across 

 samples of Chinese and American adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(2), 

 324-341. 
28 

Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2001). The stability of the Five-Factor Model of 

 personality in personnel selection and assessment in Greece. International Journal of 

 Selection and Assessment, 9(4), 290-301. 

Tupes, E. C. (1957). Personality traits related to effectiveness of junior and senior Air 

 Force officers (USAF Personnel Training Research, No. 57-125). Lackland Air 

 Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory. 

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait 

 ratings (USAF ASD Tech Report No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: 

 Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory. 

Vickers, R. R., Jr. (1995). Using personality assessment for leadership selection (NHRC Report 

 No. 95-16). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center. 

Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Davidson, R. A. (2004). The role of individualism and 

 the five-factor model in the prediction of performance in a leaderless group 

 discussion. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 1-25. 

Wechsler D. (1981). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—revised. New York: Psychological 

 Corporation. 

Wesolek, M. L. (2007). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Flight School XXI (ARI Technical 

Report 1197). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

Student Demographic Form 

1. Age ______________ 2. Years of military service ___________ 

3. Gender (Circle): Male Female 4. Rank ________________ 

5. Prior Military Service? (Circle One) Yes or No 

A. If so, which branch ____________________________ 

6. Prior Aviation Experience? (Circle One) Yes or No 

A. If so, what 

7. Highest Level of Education 

A. high school graduate 

B. some college 

C. vocational/technical college 

D. college graduate 

8. Which type of mission would you prefer as your initial field assignment? 

A. Attack 

B. Reconnaissance/Scout 

C. Utility 

D. Cargo