The Benefits and Liabilities of Risk-Taking Propensity and Confidence at the U.S. Military Academy

Document

Cited in

Author	Hillary S. Schaefer,Cheveso L. Cook,Eliot S. Proctor,Richard M. Lerner,Dave I. Cotting,Andrew G. Farina
Date	01 April 2022
Published date	01 April 2022
DOI	10.1177/0095327X20973373
Subject Matter	Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20973373

Armed Forces & Society

2022, Vol. 48(2) 410 –439

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20973373

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Article

The Benefits and Liabilities

of Risk-Taking Propensity

and Confidence at the U.S.

Military Academy

Hillary S. Schaefer

, Andrew G. Farina

, Dave I. Cotting

Eliot S. Proctor

, Cheveso L. Cook

, and Richard M. Lerner

Abstract

The military environment presents an intersection between a setting featuring

unavoidable risk and indiv idual risk-taking propen sity; prior work suggests ris k-

takers have positive and negative outcomes here, and messaging about risk-taking

in the military is mixed. The current study used social identity theory to examine

how self-reported risk propensity related to three identities/outcomes among

cadets at the U.S. Military Academy: attributes of an archetypal “Model Soldier”

(physical and military excellence), “Model Student” (grade point average, service

positions, and behavior), and Military Values (bravery, duty, and resilience). Struc-

tural equation modeling demonstrated that risk-taking was positively related to our

Model Soldier and Military Values identities but negatively associated with being a

Model Student. Additionally, high-risk-taking cadets were viewed by peers and

instructors as confident but prone to judgment, self-discipline, and insight difficulties,

suggesting overconfidence among risk-takers. Quantified as a difference between

confidence and self-discipline, judgment, and insight, overconfidence mediated the

relationship between risk-taking and the three identities, suggesting overconfidence

Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA, USA

United States Army, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Hillary S. Schaefer, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development, Tufts University,

26 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155, USA.

Email: hillary.schaefer@tufts.edu

drives both positive and negative associations with risk-taking. Military and leader-

ship implications are presented.

Keywords

psychology, professionalism/leadership, military culture, discipline

Comfort with risk, or risk-taking propensity, is a relatively stable, cross-situational

characteristic that describes why otherwise safe individuals engage in behaviors with

the likelihood of negative physical, legal, and/or psychological outcomes

(e.g., Steinberg et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2019). In a military context, however,

physical, operational, and decisional risks are unavoidable aspects of environments

featuring life-endangering circumstances, fluctuating conditions, limited informa-

tion, time pressure, and/or unknowable variables (e.g., Momen et al., 2010; U.S.

Department of the Army, 2012). Confidence in navigating risky decisions with

effective judgment is heavily featured in doctrine and training in the United States

and other countries and may also be part of military identity (Lanir et al., 1988;

Trewin et al., 2010). This intersection, between (1) individual risk-taking propensity,

(2) an environment in which risk is unavoidable, and (3) where risk is addressed

through education and training, provides an opportunity to evaluate dispositional

risk-taking for both positive and negative outcomes (Sookermany et al., 2015).

The nexus between environment and pers onality is the key; individuals with

higher risk-taking propensity may have favorable outcomes in environments, such

as the military, that frequently feature risk (Firing & Laberg, 2012). However, the

dark side of such propensity may include unfavorable and unnecessary risk-taking

behaviors in those same contexts (Killgore et al., 2008). This constitutes a funda-

mental problem for organizations, like the military, that desire and incentivize

positive risk-taking or for whom risk is unavoidable. Will encouraging and recruit-

ing individuals comfortable with risks cultivate both excitement for opportunities

like airborne training and also rule-breaking behavior simultaneously, or can out-

comes be shaped? Further, late adolescence to early adulthood is a developmental

window in which some individuals might be especially prone to risky decisions

(Steinberg et al., 2008), which is relevant to the U.S. Military in that 45%of active

duty officers and 51%of enlisted serv ice members are within this window, for

example, under 25 (Department of Defense, 2017, p. 37). Together, this suggests

the military training environment is a particularly important context for investigating

the outcomes of individuals high and low on risk-taking propensity.

At the U.S. Military Academy (USMA), both the military context and early

adulthood period are important; evaluating how dispositional risk-taking operates

here shows the results of being high or low on risk-taking propensity for young

service members in training and suggests trajectories for their time in service. The

primary aim of the current study was thus to understand the strengths and liabilities

2Armed Forces & Society XX(X)

Schaefer et al. 411