Military psychologists often find themselves in situations having the potential to compromise their professional ethics. Although conflicts in confidentiality are frequently the issue, multiple relationship development is also a significant concern. Case examples involving multiple relationship issues are presented, and the American Psychological Association's (APA's; 1992) guidelines concerning multiple relationship expectancies are considered. Decision-making frameworks are reviewed, and an adaptation of M. C. Gottlieb's (1993) model for multiple relationship resolution is proposed. The authors suggest recommendations for training and supervision, and they encourage continued collaboration between the APA and Department of Defense so that these dilemmas may be more adequately addressed.The military environment presents several unique situations infrequently encountered in most traditional health care settings.One significant concern for the military psychologist is the inherent risk of multiple relationship development. According to Johnson (1995), military settings may be the most likely environments for these conflicts to occur. Such a state of affairs is particularly striking because of the military's increasing emphasis on avoiding fraternization. Adherence to what the military refers to as "good order and discipline" was recently expanded. In July of 1998, the Secretary of Defense announced that all of the Armed Services would be expected to follow consistent (and more restrictive) multiple relationship standards.Complicating this picture further for psychologists working within a military setting is the recognition that in many instances, the client is considered to be the government. Decision making for the military psychologist is often difficult given the potential conflict that arises when considering the needs of multiple clients simultaneously (the individual and the organization

No abstract

The study of pilot personality characteristics has a long and controversial history. Personality characteristics seem to be fairly poor predictors of training outcome; however, valid personality assessment is essential to clinical psychological evaluations. Therefore, the personality characteristics of pilots must be studied to ensure valid clinical assessment. This paper describes normative personality characteristics of U.S. Air Force pilots based on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory profiles of 1,301 U.S. Air Force student pilots. Compared with male adult norms, male student pilots had higher levels of extraversion and lower levels of agreeableness. Compared with female adult norms, female student pilots had higher levels of extraversion and openness and lower levels of agreeableness. Descriptive statistics and percentile tables for the five domain scores and 30 facet scores are provided for clinical use, and a case vignette is provided as an example of the clinical utility of these U.S. Air Force norms.

With increasing numbers of female military pilots, it is important to understand the psychological and psychiatric gender differences of pilots. Using the "big five" personality structure (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to new experiences, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), female United States Air Force pilots were compared with both male Air Force pilots and to a female comparison group. Female Air Force pilots were higher on the Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales than male pilots. Female pilots were also higher on these scales than the female comparison group and lower on the Neuroticism and Openness scales than that comparison group. It is suggested that these traits are highly adaptive for Air Force pilots, given the nature of modern military operational requirements.

No abstract