occupational stressors in military service.a review and framework

This article was downloaded by: [Universitara M Emineescu Iasi]On: 12 December 2011, At: 13:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Military PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmlp20

Occupational Stressors inMilitary Service: A Review andFrameworkDonald J. Campbell a & Orly Ben-Yoav Nobel aa U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York

Available online: 13 Oct 2009

To cite this article: Donald J. Campbell & Orly Ben-Yoav Nobel (2009): OccupationalStressors in Military Service: A Review and Framework, Military Psychology, 21:S2,S47-S67

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995600903249149

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmlp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995600903249149

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Occupational Stressors in MilitaryService: A Review and Framework

Donald J. Campbell and Orly Ben-Yoav NobelU.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York

The identification of stressors and the evaluation of their likely severity in the differ-ent settings and phases of military service are essential requirements for developing acomprehensive understanding of military occupation stress and for developingstress-reducing strategies useful for enhancing unit performance and for promotingsoldiers’ health. As an initial step in meeting these requirements, this article reviewsand compares the likely sources and severity of occupational stress across severalbroad types of military environments—i.e., garrison versus deployed and combatversus noncombat—and presents an integrating framework for systematically con-sidering military occupational stress in these subenvironments. Discussion focuseson the contributions the framework makes and on the kinds of military stress researchneeded in the future.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military’s traditional mission of warfight-ing has expanded to include multiple new tasks (e.g., assisting natural disaster vic-tims; delivering humanitarian aid; peacekeeping; nation-building, etc.); and thesenew military undertakings have substantially added to the likelihood that soldiersat all levels will experience stress during their service tours. Further, although re-searchers and health professionals currently know a great deal about the causesand effects of occupational stress on workers and work performance (e.g., Cooper,Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003; Lukey & Tepe, 2008),much of this information is fragmentary and not integrated into a cohesive whole,and it reflects a “context-free” orientation aimed at generating broad insights ap-plicable across numerous settings. Though such information is clearly essential, if

MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 21:(Suppl. 2)S47–S67, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0899-5605 print / 1532-7876 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08995600903249149

Correspondence should be addressed to Prof. Donald J. Campbell, Department of Behavioral Sci-ences & Leadership, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

investigators want their efforts to sustain unit performance and protect the healthof individual soldiers (e.g., Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002; Norwood,1997), it is crucial that they begin to examine military occupational stress in morecontextual and comprehensive ways.

In particular, researchers need a framework that offers a conceptual perspectiveon the military environment that captures the contextual diversity that soldiersnow encounter. Such a framework, with its capacity to highlight stressors espe-cially relevant to various military subenvironments, might better demonstrate theconnections military stressors share with more conventional occupations, as wellas underscore the distinctions that make military service unusual. As importantly,such a framework could also begin to clarify (as other research efforts have begunto do; e.g., Adler, Litz, & Bartone, 2003; Bliese & Castro, 2003) how the stressorsthemselves and their severity vary across different deployment subenvironments(i.e., in settings where the distinctive characteristics of military work is mostreadily apparent).

This article presents some initial efforts along these lines. The article first ex-amines prior classifications of occupational stressors, without systematically link-ing this research to the military context. Next, building on this work, the articleproposes an orienting framework based on deployment status and mission typeand offers a stress model specifically relevant to different military subenvi-ronments. In the final section, the article considers future research needs and hy-potheses worth pursuing.

PRIOR CLASSIFICATIONS OF OCCUPATIONALSTRESSORS

Prior classifications of occupation stressors generally reflect a context-free ap-proach (e.g., French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Karasek, 1979; Spielberger,Vagg, & Wasala, 2003), but a number of investigators have examined stress withinthe specific context of military work settings (e.g., Adler, Castro, & Britt, 2006;Britt, Castro, & Adler, 2006). Both context-free and context-specific orientationsprovide useful insights, and this review incorporates aspects of each.

Specific Stressors Approach

Many stressors in military environments heavily overlap with stressors found inmore traditional work settings; e.g., role-related stressors (e.g., Britt, Stetz, &Bliese, 2004; Dobreva-Martinova, Villeneuve, Strickland, & Matheson, 2002;Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001); time and workload stressors (e.g., Carbone& Cigrang, 2001; Gold & Friedman, 2000; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000); rela-tionship stressors (e.g., Bliese & Halverson, 1996; Jex & Thomas, 2003; MacDon-

S48 CAMPBELL AND NOBEL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

ald, Chamberlain, Long, Pereira-Laird, & Mirfin, 1998); change/transition stress-ors (e.g., Clemons, 1996; Williams, Hagerty, Yousha, Hoyle, & One, 2002);physical and environmental stressors (e.g., Bowles, Holger, & Picano, 2000); andorganizational culture stressors (e.g., Pflanz & Sonnek, 2002).

We also uncovered stressors that were distinctly linked to the military set-ting, particularly deployed environments; e.g., mission ambiguity stressors (e.g.,Ballone et al., 2000; Bartone, Vaitkus, & Adler, 1998; Hotopf et al., 2003;Shigemura & Nomura, 2002); engagement ambiguity stressors (e.g., Cameron,Ruck, & Anderson, 1994; Litz, Orsillo, Friedman, & Ehlich, 1997; Pearn, 2000);leadership climate stressors (e.g., Bliese & Halverson, 2002; Bliese et al., 2002;Yerks, 1993); cultural and situational ambiguity stressors (e.g., Downie, 2002);and combat stressors (e.g., Dekel, Solomon, Ginzburg, & Neria, 2003; Weertset al., 2002).

Broadly considered, these stressors reflect the “person-environment fit” ap-proach commonly found in the occupational stress literature. The work of Cooperand his colleagues (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997; Cooper et al., 2001) is notablehere. These researchers identified a number of primary categories of work-relatedstressors such as job factors; role factors; social and career development issues; or-ganizational factors; and home-work interface factors. Other researchers (e.g.,Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge, & Nijhuis, 2001; Janseen, de Jonge, & Bakkar, 1999)have used similar groupings, and still others (e.g., Sauter, Murphy, & Hurrell,1990) have simply distinguished between stressors from physical conditions andthose from psychosocial factors or strain related to changes in the work setting andto community or societal problems (e.g., Hartley, 1995; Kasl, 1991).

Overall, in comparing stressors found in military settings with occupationalstressors found generally, substantial overlap exists. However, some significantmilitary stressors are absent from traditional categories.

Global Dimensions Approach

In addition to clusterings of specific stressors, researchers have also generatedmore conceptually based approaches. Of several work-stress models reviewed bySpielberger et al. (2003), two emphasize more global dimensions: Karasek’s(1979) demand-control-support model, which uses “job demands,” “decision lati-tude,” and “social support” to capture work stress; and Spielberger’s state-traitprocess model (Spielberger et al., 2003; Vagg & Spielberger, 1998), which uses“job pressures” and “lack of support” to capture stressors. The job pressures cate-gory contains stressors related to a range of job duties, requirements, and workconditions, and the lack of support category includes stressors arising from inade-quate organizational rewards and lack of supervisor or coworker support. Adler etal. (2003), in their consideration of peacekeeping stressors, separated stressors intothose associated with the deployed environment and those associated with peace-

OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS IN MILITARY SERVICE S49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

keeping duty. Within each of these global categories, the researchers further iden-tified several important subcategories, such as potentially traumatic stressors ver-sus nontraumatic.

The global dimensions approaches provide useful overarching frameworks. Forexample, the demand-control-support model supplies the conceptual foundationfor the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1998). Nonetheless, these ap-proaches also place considerable emphasis on various distinct work stressors. Inthis respect, they overlap with the specific stressors approach.

Psychological Outcomes Approach

Another conceptual approach has viewed stress primarily from a psychological pro-cesses/outcomes approach, categorizing specific stressors based on the psychologicalprocess or outcome the stressor evokes in the individual. For instance, Bartone et al.(1998) grouped stressors according to the underlying psychological strains that thestressors create, such as feelings of isolation, confusion and ambiguity, powerlessness,boredom, and threat/danger. Shigemura and Nomura (2002) used this approach intheir review of the mental health issues afflicting peacekeeping workers. Other re-searchers (i.e., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) emphasize the role of cognitive appraisal inmediating the effects of stressful work environments on individuals, distinguishingbetween low-magnitude, daily hassle stressors and traumatic event stressors.

Some General Conclusions

This brief review allows several conclusions. First, significant overlap exists inthe various stressor categorizations used and in the specific stressors identified.Second, the most prominent occupational stressors are those associated with jobcontent; related temporal, physical, or quantitative work requirements; and rolestressors. Less prominent stressors include changes in the work setting or inthe community; societal pressures; and general economic forces and concerns.Finally, several stressors central to military service have received some attention.These include sudden changes in roles and responsibilities; confusion regardingrole identity; confusion regarding rules, restrictions, and mission goals; and feel-ings of physical or psychological threat.

The review also makes clear that little research has considered occupationalstressors comprehensively; i.e., systematically across the full spectrum of militarywork. Such a consideration would involve examining stressor severity (its form anddegree) within a conceptual framework that does justice to the primary characteris-tics that distinguish the military occupation from more conventional occupations:where the work takes place (e.g., locally or away) and the conditions under which ittakes place (e.g., benign or malignant). This type of conceptual framework (devel-oped in more detail below) highlights the theoretical importance of the deployment


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

cycle in attempting to understand military stress. As Adler et al. (2003) have notedfor peacekeeping work, if we want to understand why certain experiences are con-sidered stressful, and how similar stressor exposure may lead to dissimilar stress re-actions, we need to track how these two dimensions create different work environ-ments and how various threats to a soldier’s physical, psychological, and spiritualintegrity rise and fall both within and across the linked environments they create.Such a conceptual framework would then allow researchers to undertake more de-tailed comparative analyses of the basic situational elements (e.g., unpredictability,novelty, ambiguity, etc.) that actually generate strain.

STRESSORS IN MILITARY SERVICE: AN INTEGRATIONAND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

The nature of military work has undergone significant expansion in recent years,with the addition of multiple new responsibilities and tasks. In capturing this ex-panded environment, we used a 2 × 2 framework based on deployment status (i.e.,in garrison versus deployed) and mission type (i.e., combat versus noncombat) tocreate four military subsettings. In setting A, the noncombat, garrison environ-ments, we anticipate that soldiers encounter stressors typical of conventional worksettings and experience the strains characteristic of such conventional environ-ments. In noncombat, deployed environments such as overseas disaster-relief andhumanitarian missions, (i.e., setting B) we expect that, in addition to the “normal”occupational stressors of setting A, soldiers also encounter stressors typically as-sociated with expatriate work.

Setting C represents the deployed, combat environment that uniquely definesthe military occupation. Here soldiers encounter the distinct stressors associatedwith fighting and warfare. The additional strains that soldiers experience in thissubenvironment are mostly peculiar to the military profession. Finally, setting Dcaptures those environments in which the military has taken on extensive policingor peacekeeping activities and responsibilities. Although the framework placesthis type of police work in the garrison (i.e., domestic) setting, in actuality soldiersare more likely to encounter the stressors associated with this work in deployment.

The framework necessarily presents the four subenvironments statically; i.e., asrelatively independent of each other. Given the expanded demands placed on themilitary, soldiers are now likely to “cycle through” all four subenvironments duringtheir service tours, with various constellations of stressors increasing or diminishingin significance, depending on the point in the cycle (e.g., Bartone et al., 1998).

Stressor Categories and Deployment Phases

In capturing the dynamic aspect of military service, we returned to the literature re-viewed and identified seven areas where individuals typically encounter specific


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

stressors—work, social-interpersonal, family, self-identity, psychological environ-ment, cultural environment, and physical environment. We selected each category torepresent an area of particular psychological or emotional significance for the averageperson, and the seven categories appear generally similar to those used in earlier ap-proaches. Table 1 contains the seven categories and their associated specific stressors.

We then examined these seven categories across six designated deploymentphases; i.e., garrison, predeployment preparation, deployment (combat), deploy-ment (noncombat), disengagement preparation, and immediate return. Relative tothe military subenvironments discussed earlier, the deployment phases here collapsethe military- and police-work subenvironments into a single “combat deployment”phase. Given the differences in the likelihood and intensity of combat in these twosubenvironments, this merger is certainly an oversimplification. Nonetheless, itseemed defensible because the psychological-environment stressors (i.e., the stress-ors that most distinguish military work from other occupations) are similar whethercaused by traditional warfare or peacekeeping/policing work. Table 2 summarizeshypothesized stress types and stress severity in the different phases.

SPECIFIC STRESSORS IN EACH CATEGORY

Each of the seven categories encompasses a set of related, specific stressors. Weargue that any subset of these may be relevant and active in a given deploymentphase, with specific circumstances and individual characteristics determining this.Though the categories themselves are conceptually distinct, the classification of


TABLE 1Categorization of Potential Stressors Found in Literature Review

Category Specific Potential Stressors

Work Task, load, pace, ability, ambiguity, confusion, responsibility, restriction,supervision, group climate, work policies, work goals, advancement,work change, loss, no feedback, no resources, poor leadership

Social-interpersonal Acceptance, friendship, respect, status, conflict, change, lossFamily Separation, safety, missed milestone, guilt, usurpation,

communication restrictions, change, loss, worrySelf-identity Person-role conflict, role-role conflictPsychological environment Hostility, aggression, injury, death, maiming, fear, anxiety, responsibility

(self), responsibility (others), disapproval, repugnance, uncertainty,boredom, insignificance, isolation, abandonment

Cultural environment Unfamiliarity, value clash, discomfort, language, customs,misunderstanding

Physical environment Deprivation, discomfort, climate extreme, terrain extreme, privacyloss, exhaustion, noxious, unhealthy, isolation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

S53

TA

BLE

2H

ypot

hesi

zed

Str

ess

Sev

erity

byS

tres

sor

Cat

egor

yan

dby

Dep

loym

entP

hase

Dep

loym

entP

hase

Stre

ssor

Cat

egor

yH

ome/

Gar

riso

nP

rede

ploy

men

:P

repa

rati

on(C

omba

t)D

eplo

ymen

t(N

onco

mba

t)D

eplo

ymen

tD

isen

gage

men

t:P

repa

rati

onIm

med

iate

Ret

urn

Wor

kP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:m

axim

umP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:d

ecre

asin

gP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:pri

mar

ySo

cial

-int

erpe

rson

alP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:i

ncre

asin

gP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:d

ecre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lFa

mily

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:i

ncre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:m

axim

umP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:dec

reas

ing

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:per

iphe

ral

Self

-ide

ntity

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:max

imum

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:i

ncre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:d

ecre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lPs

ycho

logi

cale

nvir

onm

ent

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:m

axim

umP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:dec

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lC

ultu

rale

nvir

onm

ent

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:m

axim

umP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:inc

reas

ing

P2:p

rim

ary

P1:d

ecre

asin

gP2

:pri

mar

yP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:per

iphe

ral

Phys

ical

envi

ronm

ent

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

lP1

:bas

elin

eP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:i

ncre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:i

ncre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:d

ecre

asin

gP2

:per

iphe

ral

P1:b

asel

ine

P2:p

erip

hera

l

Not

e.St

ress

seve

rity

=Fr

eque

ncy

(P1)

:bas

elin

e;ap

pear

ing/

incr

easi

ng;m

axim

um;d

ecre

asin

g/di

sapp

eari

ng;p

lus=

Cen

tral

ity/f

ocus

(P2)

:pri

mar

y;pe

riph

eral

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

specific stressors into one category or another overlaps somewhat in practice.For analytic convenience, we have treated the categories as mutually exclusive,and we have sometimes placed specific stressors into one category or anothersubjectively.

Work

Job-content stressors include limited task variety and significance; skills under-utilization; low control and autonomy; and limited opportunities to participate indecisions. Stress due to time (e.g., long hours, short deadlines) and the physical as-pects of the job (e.g., heavy lifting and excessive demands) are also relevant here.Excessive demands can center on both quality (e.g., extreme precision) and onquantity. Many of these problems are a central cause of stress in civilian occupa-tions. Within the military, the strong hierarchical culture and the strict rules thatgovern operations may lower expectations of autonomy and work control.

Many job-content stressors appear to become less significant in deployed ver-sus garrison settings. In garrison, stressors typically involve work overload, physi-cal task demands, time pressures, long hours, and low autonomy and control. Indeployed settings, individuals report these stressors much less frequently, perhapsreflecting greater acceptance of increased workload and work hours in deploy-ment. The findings may also reflect the low levels of recreational activities avail-able, with restrictions on movement and prolonged idle times making work activ-ity more attractive (see Bartone et al., 1998).

More general work stressors include organizational constraints and barriers toeffective performance; e.g., inefficient communication, obsolete equipment, inad-equate coordination, insufficient logistical planning, etc. Organizational cultureand climate can also create strains; e.g., a strong emphasis on respect for authoritycan discourage initiative or constrain options when resolving ethical dilemmas.Because organizational functioning is especially critical in deployed environ-ments, these stressors take on great significance. Individuals report intense strainfrom problems such as insufficient supplies and inadequate information. In garri-son, stressors mostly reflect strains due to “organizational culture,” such as atoo-heavy emphasis on discipline.

Performance-support stressors surface when key players fail to help task ac-complishment. They are severe in environments where performance interdepen-dencies exist (e.g., combat team operations). Stress arises from both the leader’sand peers’ inadequate support. Though leader competence is a central concern ingarrison, this concern creates considerably more strain in deployment. Similarly,limited familiarity with peers is a concern among recruits and cadets in garrison,but it is an even greater stressor among recently deployed units because of the seri-ous consequences potentially associated with unfamiliarity (e.g., fear of failure toforward critical information). In deployed settings, stress may also arise from “ex-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

tra-organizational” units (e.g., civilian authorities, multinational forces) failing toprovide expected collaboration, etc.

Role issues are major work stressors, especially in deployment. Role ambiguitymay center on the person’s ambiguity regarding duties or authority relationshipsvis-à-vis multinational forces, local authorities, or international agencies; on mis-sion ambiguity, characterized by insufficient or changing information regardinggoals; or on engagement ambiguity connected to inconsistent directions concern-ing rules of engagement. Related is the associated problem of role restriction. Anuncommon stressor in the general literature, role restriction is a key stressor in de-ployed service. The stressor takes the form of restrictions on task behaviors (e.g.,strict rules limiting responses to attacks) or restrictions on off-duty activities.These stressors often arise with person-role stressors, because restrictions on ac-tions may inherently create person role conflict (e.g., restrictions that prevent amilitary doctor from doing what a humane person would do, such as providingtreatment to injured civilians).

Role responsibilities also create stress. Stress arises from both responsibility forpeople and responsibility for things (e.g., equipment). In deployed settings par-ticularly, soldiers can experience severe “people responsibility” stress, becausethey are accountable for the well-being of peers, subordinates, and civilians while -simultaneously being accountable for the successful execution of dangerousmissions.

Changes in role responsibilities represent another set of work role stressors.These stressors refer to the demands made on individuals to adapt to new responsi-bilities. In garrison environments, individuals usually experience this type ofstrain when entering into a new role (e.g., captains assuming first command). Indeployed settings, this type of strain arises from sudden changes in an individual’sresponsibilities (e.g., armored units called to perform unfamiliar infantry duties)and from the real or perceived absence of sufficient preparation for assuming newtasks and responsibilities. Related stressors are concerns about one’s ability tomaster required new skills and anxiety about succeeding.

Similar issues can center on a person’s fears regarding future tasks, duties, andperformance standards that are associated with the present role (e.g., worry beforedeployment about the nature of specific duties required after deployment). Indi-viduals may also experience stress from uncertainty regarding future work loca-tions. This kind of stress, though present in garrison settings, is intensified with de-ployment. Deployment also adds stress from uncertainty regarding the length ofseparation from home and family and from uncertainty regarding the end of a cur-rent assignment or the beginning of a new one (e.g., uncertainty about the end ofdeployment or discharge date).

Finally, though career stressors (e.g., advancement; career security, etc.) do notappear to be central stressors among military personnel (unlike general occupa-tions), retention—especially of officers completing mandatory service—is a chal-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

lenge for the Army. Thus, career concerns may operate as stressors at least in somemilitary settings.

Social-Interpersonal

These stressors center on the person’s concerns with social relationships at work,particularly with work colleagues and with the group leader. Relationships withwork colleagues are especially critical for military personnel, because soldiers of-ten share living quarters for significant periods during deployment. Similarly,given the great power a military leader has over subordinates’ daily lives andlong-term career prospects, soldiers often perceive establishing and maintainingan effective social relationship with this individual as crucial.

Some researchers (e.g., Karasek et al., 1998; Spector & Jex, 1998) note that so-cial relationships significantly influence the support and assistance available to anindividual. Thus, hostility with peers or with the leader creates enormous strain.Competition among peers may also be as a source of strain, and to the degree thatsexual innuendo characterizes social relationships, this too can serve as a stressor(i.e., harassment) relevant in both garrison and deployed settings. Finally, relation-ships with the community (both local and extended) may also create strains. Kasl(1991) and Hartley (1995) note that lack of public support and media recognitionof the military’s efforts (e.g., coverage just emphasizing difficulties and failures)creates stress in soldiers.

Family

Stressors associated with family attitudes and expectations form another set ofconcerns. These stressors typically center on temporal and behavioral conflicts atthe work-family interface. Time-based conflict highly relevant to military deploy-ment is simply separation from the family. This stressor involves a host of relatedstressors linked to prolonged leave (e.g., inability to help or care for sick familymembers). Strain also emerges as attitudes and behaviors that are useful for effec-tive adjustment during deployment (e.g., emotional distancing) contradict thoserelevant for positive family relationships upon return. Similarly, emotional reac-tions to deployment, especially anticipated combat deployment, seriously affectinteractions within the family.

Though family stressors are common even in garrison environments, de-ployed settings intensify their effects. The most important family stressors ingarrison are the intrusion of work activities into personal life and the family’s re-actions to one’s job. In deployed environments, individuals report stress stem-ming from family separation, return-date uncertainty, and absent or limited com-munications.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Self-Identity

Self-identity stressors are not typically major concerns in civilian occupations, butthese stressors are concerns in military service. Two types of self-identity stressorsoften appear during different phases of deployment. The first is person-role con-flict (a clash between the person’s own self-image and the conduct required in car-rying out the soldier role), and the second is interrole conflict (conflict created bythe mutually exclusive demands of different roles held by the same individual,such as dedicated soldier and nurturing parent). Role identity issues can also be-come a major stressor, especially during deployments. Strain arises from the in-congruent mindset experienced by combat soldiers trained to fight wars but thenrequired to mix warfighting (insurgency control) with peacekeeping and na-tion-building.

Psychological Environment

The stressors in this category typically delineate the military occupation from ci-vilian occupations and (within military service) deployment from garrison envi-ronments. The category contains specific stressors created by the overall contextsurrounding a military mission, with the context giving rise to soldiers’ “psycho-logical” environment. Stressors generally fall into three related subsets.

The first subset contains stressors associated with operating in hostile and un-stable settings (e.g., experiencing general anxiety and fear, concerns about “hold-ing up” under fire, actually suffering from a physical injury or illness, etc.). Com-bat exposure includes strains caused by active fighting (e.g., killing); findingoneself in situations where survival is uncertain (Dekel et al., 2003); coming underfire; experiencing an artillery, rocket, or mortar barrage; and suffering combat-re-lated injuries (Hotopf et al., 2003; Nisenbaum, Barett, Reyes, & Reeves, 2000).The intensity and length of combat influence the degree of strain experienced.These combat strains can occur not only during warfighting deployments but alsoduring some peacekeeping deployments.

A second subset contains stressors associated with the risk of injury or loss oflife. These stressors typically occur where the enemy is not always in uniform andin situations characterized by chronic breakdowns in peace, unexpected acts of vi-olence, and rejection of deployed forces by local groups (e.g., Bolton, Glenn,Orsillo, Roemer, & Litz, 2003; Downie, 2002). Fear for life and physical safety isespecially prevalent on missions requiring soldiers to be in close proximity to thelocal population, where combatants are indistinguishable from civilians. Thesesettings lack the usual emphasis on defense and protection typical of conventionalwar and for which soldiers receive combat training (Litz et al., 1997). Other spe-cific fears include terrorist attacks, snipers, landmines, underwater explosives(Yerks, 1993), chemical or biological weapons, missile attacks, fear of infection


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

from local disease, lack of trust in the capability of equipment, and the handling ofprisoners of war. Finally, own-army fallibilities (e.g., friendly fire) represent an-other fear that can accompany deployment.

The third subset of psychological-environment stressors centers on observingothers as targets of attack. Strains connected with observing fellow comrades (orenemy soldiers) become targets of aggression include seeing maimed, seriouslyinjured, or dead bodies; witnessing someone dying; and the personal loss offriends (Weerts et al., 2002). Exposure to civilian suffering is also a major stressor.This includes witnessing the outcome of atrocities; the handling of civilian casual-ties, especially children; observing death and extreme misery daily (Rosebush,1998); the handling of displaced refugees; and the retrieval and disposal of bodies(MacDonald et al., 1998).

Finally, the principles of impartiality and restraint governing nation-building,peacekeeping, and humanitarian deployments can exacerbate the impact of com-bat stressors. Strict rules of engagement often restrict soldiers’ options for protect-ing themselves from threat, and limited resources or political considerations canrestrict their ability to provide help to suffering locals. Impartiality rules may limitor prohibit interventions that could prevent atrocities and death among warringfactions and bystanders (e.g., Pearn, 2000). For noncombat deployments, otherstressors may include feelings of uncertainty or insignificance, boredom, isolation,and abandonment.

Cultural Environment

The cultural environment refers to the degree of similarity between the norms, atti-tudes, beliefs, and characteristics of the mission environment to the soldiers’ garri-son environment (i.e., the United States). Stressors in this category are primarilyrelevant for deployed troops. They center on the anxieties created by the culturalambiguities, value clashes, and exotic customs governing interactions with foreignlocals and with the unfamiliar norms and languages of the multinational forces of ajoint undertaking.

Although cultural environment stressors contribute to the psychological envi-ronment, they warrant distinct consideration. Even in the most benign of peace-keeping or humanitarian deployments, these stressors typically occur even if thecombat-related stressors of the psychological environment are absent.

Physical Environment

Stressors in military training and in other garrison activities typically involve ex-posure to severe physical environments (e.g., extremes of temperature and terrain)and to toxic agents and hazards. In deployed settings, individuals also report awide range of stressors related to climate conditions and exposure to toxic materi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

als as well as concerns about chronic crowding and loss of personal privacy, re-moteness and isolation, and other difficulties related to living conditions relative togarrison environments.

In spite of the intuitive expectation that the physical environment represents asignificant source of important stressors, our interpretation of the research re-viewed is that stressors from this category are generally less central and intensethan stressors from the other categories. Though physical environment stressorsare important, it is possible that soldiers’ realistic expectations regarding militaryservice conditions, and the intensive physical training they undergo, reduce some-what the impact of these hardships.

STRESS TYPE AND SEVERITY ACROSSDEPLOYMENT PHASES

As Table 1 shows, the range and form of potential specific stressors is immense.Further, because strain depends on both personality and situational factors, pre-dicting stress type and severity across various deployment phases is complicated.Nonetheless, based on the research reviewed, we have attempted to identify thestressor categories likely to be most active in different deployment phases, and wehave summarized our hypotheses in Table 2. These hypotheses ultimately requireempirical verification.

Table 2 uses two measures to anticipate the severity of stress across deploymentphases. The first measure is a likelihood judgment regarding whether specificstressors within each category are likely to be present (i.e., more or less active) inthat deployment phase. These estimations are subjective and represent an initial at-tempt to place the unsystematic and fragmentary results of many empirical studiesinto a broader conceptual frame. We have labeled this judgment P1, with four pos-sible values: absent/baseline, appearing/increasing, at maximum, decreasing/dis-appearing. The garrison environment provides the baseline for gauging the hy-pothesized activity of the potential stressors in deployed environments.

Additionally, Table 2 uses a second estimation of stress severity based onwhether a stress category is likely to be a primary or a peripheral concern for thesoldier. We have assumed that the seven stressor categories are not equally signifi-cant, with a category’s salience determined by an individual’s particular circum-stances. We hypothesize that, in the garrison environment, three of the seven cate-gories (i.e., work, social-interpersonal, and family) are likely to be the primarycategories producing various specific stressors. The logic here is that, under nor-mal circumstances, these categories are areas of core importance that individualsclosely monitor and on which they expend significant physical and cognitive en-ergy. Consequently, these are also the areas where individuals are quick to detectproblems and difficulties and to experience anxieties.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Individuals may also encounter specific stressors from the other four categoriesas well (i.e., self-identity, psychological, cultural, and physical environments), butwe hypothesize that these are peripheral areas that individuals (under normal cir-cumstances) have adapted to and have accepted. Consequently, they are areaswhere problems, difficulties, and anxieties are less likely to arise, and when theydo are more likely to be temporary; i.e., acute but less central. Thus, for garrisonenvironments these categories typically represent noncentral, less severe sourcesof stress. However, we hypothesize that stressor categories can move in and out ofa soldier’s focus—and thus vary in severity—depending on the individual’s par-ticular circumstances. This second estimation of stressor severity, a centralitymeasure (P2), takes two values: primary or peripheral.

Garrison/Home Phase

Using the garrison phase as the baseline setting for the seven categories, Table 2hypothesizes that work stressors are likely to be a primary focus for soldiers acrossall phases, whereas physical environment stressors are likely to remain a periph-eral focus regardless of phase. For the other five categories, salience increases ordecreases depending on deployment phase. We hypothesize that, in addition towork stressors, social-interpersonal and family are the primary stressor categoriesin garrison, with various stressors from these categories creating the most severestrain for soldiers. The rationale here is that, in this phase, these categories repre-sent life areas that saturate the soldier’s daily attention and cognitive processes.We hypothesize that in the garrison environment, the other four stressor categoriesare either taken for granted (self-identity and cultural environment) or are notespecially threatening (psychological environment and physical environment).Thus, specific stressors from these categories are less likely to create severe stressfor soldiers. The rationale is that, on “home” ground, these categories representtaken-for-granted areas that do not usually demand reflective attention or becomea central focus of ongoing, cognitive activity.

Predeployment Preparation Phase

As individuals transition into this phase they start considering the implications ofdeployment. Preparatory changes in work tasks and routines increasingly demandsoldiers’ attention and physical resources, and we hypothesize that these changesare likely to result in increasing strain from work stressors. Simultaneously,changed work demands increase the frequency of various family stressors, even asthis stressor category decreases in centrality and becomes a peripheral rather than aprimary concern for the soldier. We hypothesize that social-interpersonal stressorsbecome less important as they too become a peripheral rather than a primaryconcern.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Various psychological environment stressors become significant, as deploy-ment preparation increasingly brings the reality of future risk and uncertainty tothe soldier’s attention. We hypothesize that self-identity stressors largely remain aperipheral focus but begin to increase as individuals begin to reflect on theirchanging role. We also hypothesize that stressors from both the cultural and physi-cal environments are a peripheral focus and remain at baseline, but it is probablethat in some mobilizations, physical stressors begin to increase in this phase.

Deployment Phase

Combat. It is during this phase that soldiers are likely to experience the mostsevere stress. We hypothesize that six of the seven stressor categories are centraland in primary focus, with specific stressors in all seven category increasing or at amaximum. In particular, three stressor categories that were just a peripheral focusin garrison (psychological environment, self-identity, cultural environment) arenow in central focus and at maximum levels. Specific stressors in the self-identitycategory are likely to reach maximum severity. We also hypothesize that variousstressors from the psychological environment (revolving around fears and mortal-ity) that present significant strains for soldiers and are at a maximum. Specificstressors from the cultural environment also appear as a central focus, and physicalenvironment stressors (although just a peripheral focus) are also likely to increase.

Noncombat. Noncombat deployments are conceptually similar to expatriateassignments in civilian occupations. Because of the severely disruptive nature ofoverseas deployments, we hypothesize that stressors in all seven categories appearor increase relative to garrison levels. However, we anticipate that soldiers’ pri-mary focus will center on the work, social-interpersonal, and cultural environmentcategories. Stressors in the other categories will arise more frequently than base-line, but we hypothesize their frequency to be less than in combat deployments.

Disengagement Preparation Phase

In this phase, we hypothesize that soldiers experience decreasing levels of stress inall stressor categories as they anticipate their return home. Although decreasing,specific work-related stressors are likely to continue as a central focus for individ-uals. We expect that social-interpersonal and family stressors not only decreasebut also move out of focus as individuals anticipate a return to a familiar setting.Self-identity stressors (e.g., person-role conflicts) also move out of central focusand return to peripheral status. In contrast, specific stressors from the psychologi-cal and cultural environments, although decreasing in severity, remain a primaryfocus. We hypothesize that the stressors in this disengagement phase generallyform a mirror-image of the stressors in the predeployment preparation phase.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

However, we anticipate that different subsets of specific stressors in each categorymay characterize the two phases.

Immediate Return Phase

In this phase, we hypothesize that stress severity eventually returns to baselinelevels. However, for a short period, soldiers maintain the same stress focus of thedisengagement phase: work stressors as primary, with social-interpersonal andfamily as peripheral. The logic here is that in the early days of return, the re-establishment of work routines and procedures remains the central concern for theorganization and thus for the individual soldier. As normalcy is established, thisphase evolves into the garrison phase, and stressors from the social-interpersonaland family categories return to primary focus. Nonetheless, the possibility existsthat the deployment experience may sometimes alter baseline levels from theirgarrison levels prior to deployment. Thus, the baselines in the far right and far leftcolumns of Table 2 may not be equivalent.

DISCUSSION

With the expansion of the military environment over the past several decades hascome the need for a more comprehensive and integrated view of stress in this envi-ronment. Our analysis presents such a view and makes a contribution in severalways. First, the framework relates the complex military environment to more con-ventional occupational settings. By distinguishing between several arrangementsof mission types and deployment status, the framework highlights subenviron-ments where certain military stressors are likely to overlap with particular civilianstressors. Similarly, the framework also identifies environments where stressorsare likely to be highly distinctive of military service. Although we allude to this as-pect of the framework only briefly, the model provides a solid base on which tobuild future analyses.

Along related lines, the framework’s emphasis on distinguishing between typesof deployments in terms of military activities (e.g., combat/noncombat) rather thanin terms of ultimate goals (e.g., humanitarian aid) is also noteworthy. Deployedsettings are not functionally identical, and a framework that better captures bothoccupational content and context is more likely to help researchers understandthose environments. Similarly, stressors encountered in combat deployments mayseem comparable to stressors encountered in other extraordinary settings (e.g., cat-astrophic events and accidents). Such similarity may be misleading, however, inthat combat stressors are an integral part of the soldier’s work environment and anexpected occupational event. Thus, the proposed framework also makes judg-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

ments regarding the functional equivalence of specialized settings to military set-tings easier (see Bliese & Castro, 2003).

Third, the framework contributes by considering stressor severity across thewhole span of a soldier’s service tour. Instead of examining the impact of a spe-cific stressor in a single environment, the model attempts to understand the relativestrain associated with this stressor across the range of subenvironments in which asoldier encounters it. Thus, the framework highlights comprehensive understand-ing and the need for research examining a stressor’s relative intensity across situa-tions and not just its absolute intensity within situations. Based on past research,the model offers multiple hypotheses regarding stress severity, but these requirefurther empirical confirmation, and the hypotheses will likely undergo modifica-tion as more evidence accumulates.

Related to the issue of hypothesis testing is the need for dedicated stress assess-ment instruments specifically geared to conditions encountered in military envi-ronments. In comparing stressors operating in garrison and deployed settings, wefound differences in both the focus and range of such stressors. However, the re-ported research often used ad hoc measures or instruments developed for othercontexts. Thus, we had to rely on subjective judgment in drawing comparativeconclusions. Although the research was clear regarding broad sources of stress indifferent environments, weighing the relevance of specific stressors and theirlikely intensity involved a significant degree of reasoning and inference. Theavailability of stress assessment instruments specifically tailored to military per-sonnel serving in multiple environments would help to overcome this difficulty(see Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998, for a general discussion).

In terms of stress severity itself, the model proposes that a comprehensive un-derstanding of strain is likely to require more than a single measure. In the currentframework, severity is gauged in terms of both centrality and frequency. The as-sumption here is that severity is not only influenced by whether a stressor is fre-quently experienced but by whether a stressor centrally occupies the soldier’s cog-nitive and emotional attention. Other measures of severity are also possible. Theframework implicitly underscores the need for research examining the relation-ships and potential interactions between various ways for measuring the severityof strain; e.g., do frequently occurring but peripheral stressors create as muchstrain as infrequently occurring but central stressors, and do the relationshipsfound in one subenvironment generalize to other subenvironments? Similarly, be-cause the model assumes that the new stressors in deployment are in addition tostressors creating strain in garrison, does the mere number of stressors in an envi-ronment uniquely influence strain? The model does not answer these questions,but it does raise them for further consideration.

Perhaps the most important contribution of the framework is its implications re-garding the type of future military-stressor research that is required. Thoughstand-alone, single subenvironment studies remain essential, most progress will


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

come from systematic stress investigations that follow units longitudinally as theycycle through different subenvironments during their service tours. This longitudi-nal approach can provide the type of empirical data Table 2 calls for and thus allowresearchers to refine, modify, and elaborate the model as needed. Such compre-hensive research, in accelerating our conceptual understanding of military stress-ors, may also spur the development of new stress management techniques and in-terventions. Though military leaders have adapted civilian programs to militaryneeds, unique military subenvironments are likely to require programs specificallyfocused on the distinct stressors of those environments. Some efforts (e.g., NATOResearch and Technology Organisation, 2007) are already underway to help lead-ers minimize soldier stress across different phases of the deployment cycle, andother efforts have begun to examine useful stress protection techniques in extremeenvironments (e.g., Campbell, Campbell, & Ness, 2008). Efforts like these repre-sent a start, but substantial progress will only come from systematic, longitudinalinvestigations. The Army should make such research a priority.

REFERENCES

Adler, A., Castro, C., & Britt, T. (2006). Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat:Vol. 2. Operational stress. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Adler, A., Litz, B., & Bartone, P. (2003). The nature of peacekeeping stressors. In T. Britt & A. Adler(Eds.), The psychology of the peacekeeper: Lessons from the field (pp. 149–167). Westport, CT:Praeger.

Ballone, E., Valentino, M., Occhiolini, L., Di Mascio, C., Cannone, D., & Schioppa, F. S. (2000). Fac-tors influencing psychological stress levels of Italian peacekeepers in Bosnia. Military Medicine: AnInternational Journal, 165(12), 911–915.

Bartone, P., Vaitkus, M., & Adler, A. (1998). Dimensions of psychological stress in peacekeeping op-erations. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 163(9), 587–592.

Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. (2003). The Soldier Adaptation Model (SAM): Applications to peacekeep-ing research. In T. Britt & A. Adler (Eds.), The psychology of the peacekeeper: Lessons from the field(pp. 185–203). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An examinationof work hours, cohesion, and well being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(13), 1171–1189.

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. (2002). Using random group sampling in multilevel research: An exam-ple of the buffering effects of leadership climate. Leadership Quarterly, 13(1), 53.

Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel methods inleadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 3–14.

Bolton, E., Glenn, D., Orsillo, S., Roemer, E., & Litz, B. (2003). The relationship between self disclo-sure and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder in peacekeepers deployed to Somalia. Journal ofTraumatic Stress, 16(3), 203–210.

Bowles, S., Holger, U., & Picano, J. (2000). Aircrew perceived stress: Examining crew performance,crew position and captain personality. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71(11),1093–1097.

Britt, T., Castro, C., & Adler, A. (2006). Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat:Vol. 1. Military performance. Westport, CT: Praeger.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Britt, T., Stetz, M., & Bliese, P. (2004). Work-relevant values strengthen the stressor-strain relation inelite Army units. Military Psychology, 16, 1–17.

Cameron, R., Ruck, D., & Anderson, M. (1994). The 528th combat stress control unit in Somaliain support of Operation Restore Hope. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 159(5),372–376.

Campbell, D. J., Campbell, K. M., & Ness, J. (2008). Resilience through leadership. In B. Lukey & V.Tepe (Eds.), Biobehavioral resilience to stress (pp. 57–88). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis/CRCPress.

Carbone, E., & Cigrang, J. (2001). Job satisfaction, occupational stress, & personality characteristics ofAir Force military training instructors. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 166, 800–802.

Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1997). Managing workplace stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Clemons, E. (1996). Monitoring anxiety levels and coping skills among military recruits. Military Med-

icine: An International Journal, 161(1), 18–21.Cooper, C., Dewe, P., & O’Driscoll, M. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory,

research and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dekel, R., Solomon, Z., Ginzburg, K., & Neria, Y. (2003). Combat exposure, wartime performance,

and long-term adjustment among combatants. Military Psychology, 15(2), 117–131.Dobreva-Martinova, T., Villeneuve, M., Strickland, L., & Matheson, K. (2002). Occupational role

stress in the Canadian forces: Its association with individual and organizational well-being. Cana-dian Journal of Behavioral Science, 34(2), 111–121.

Downie, S. (2002). Peacekeepers and peace-builders under stress. In D. Yael (Ed.), Sharing the frontline and the back hills: International protectors and provincial peacekeepers, humanitarian aidworkers and the media in the midst of crisis (pp. 9–20). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.

Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Man-agerial Psychology, 18(1), 8–21.

French, J., Caplan, R., & Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. London: Wiley.Gold, M., & Friedman, S. (2000). Cadet basic training: An ethnographic study of stress and coping.

Military Medicine: An International Journal, 165(2), 147–152.Hartley, J. (1995). Challenge and change in the employment conditions: Issues for psychology,

trade unions and managers. In L. Tetrick & J. Barling (Eds.), Changing employment relations:Behavioral and social perspectives (pp. 3–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-ciation.

Hotopf, M., David, A., Hull, L., Ismail, K., Palmer, I., Unwin, C., et al. (2003). The health effects ofpeace-keeping in the UK armed forces: Bosnia 1992–1996: Predictors of psychological symptoms.Psychological Medicine, 33(1), 155–162.

Houkes, I., Janssen, P., de Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. (2001). Specific relationships between work charac-teristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention: A multi-sample analysis. Eu-ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 1–23.

Hurrell, J., Nelson, D., & Simmons, B. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains: Where we havebeen, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,368–389.

Janseen, P., de Jonge, J., & Bakkar, A. (1999). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motiva-tion, burnout and turnover intentions: A study among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29,1360–1369.

Jex, S., Bliese, P., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain rela-tions: Coping styles as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401–409.

Jex, S., & Thomas, J. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediatingeffects. Work & Stress, 17(2), 158–169.

Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Con-tent Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessment of psychologi-cal job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 322–355.

Kasl, S. (1991). Assessing health risks in the work setting. In H. Schroeder (Ed.), New directions inhealth psychology assessment (pp. 95–125). New York: Hemisphere.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Litz, B., Orsillo, S., Friedman, M., & Ehlich, P. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder associated with

peacekeeping duty in Somalia for U.S. military personnel. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(2),178–184.

Lukey, B., & Tepe, V. (2008). Biobehavioral resilience to stress. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Fran-cis/CRC Press.

MacDonald, C., Chamberlain, K., Long, N., Pereira-Laird, J., & Mirfin, K. (1998). Mental health,physical health, and stressors reported by New Zealand Defense Forces peacekeepers: A longitudi-nal study. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 163(7), 477–481.

NATO Research and Technology Organisation. (2007). A leader’s guide to psychological supportacross the deployment cycle (Rep. No. RTO-TR-HFM-081). Retrieved April 26, 2007, fromhttp://www.rta.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-TR-HFM-081

Nisenbaum, R., Barett, D., Reyes, M., & Reeves, W. (2000). Deployment stressors and a chronicmulti-symptom illness among Gulf War veterans. Journal of Nervous & Mental Diseases, 188(5),259–266.

Norwood, A. (1997). Joining forces: Psychiatry and readiness. Military Medicine: An InternationalJournal, 162(4), 225–228.

Pearn, J. (2000). Traumatic stress disorders: A classification with implications for prevention and man-agement. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 165(6), 434–440.

Pflanz, S., & Sonnek, S. (2002). Work stress in the military: Prevalence, causes, and relationship toemotional health. Military Medicine: An International Journal, 167(11), 877–882.

Rosebush, P. (1998). Psychological intervention with military personnel in Rwanda. Military Medi-cine: An International Journal, 163(8), 559–663.

Sauter, S., Murphy, L., & Hurrell, J. (1990). Prevention of work-related psychological disorders: A na-tional strategy proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).American Psychologist, 45, 1146–1158.

Shigemura, J., & Nomura, S. (2002). Mental health of peacekeeping workers. Psychiatry & ClinicalNeurosciences, 56(5), 483–491.

Spector, P., & Jex, S. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain:Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload in-ventory and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4),356–367.

Spielberger, C., Vagg, P., & Wasala, C. (2003). Occupational stress: Job pressures and lack of support.In J. Quick & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 185–200).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Turnipseed, D., & Murkison, G. (2000). Good soldiers and their syndrome: Organizational citizen-ship behavior (OCB) and the work environment. North American Journal of Psychology, 2,281–302.

Vagg, P., & Spielberger, C. (1998). Occupational stress: Measuring job pressures and or-ganizational support in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4),294–305.

Weerts, J., White, A., Adler, C., Castro, G., Algra, I., Bramsen, A., et al. (2002). Studies on militarypeacekeepers. In D. Yael (Ed.), Sharing the front line and the back hills: International protectorsand provincial peacekeepers, humanitarian aid workers and the media in the midst of crisis (pp.31–48). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Williams, R., Hagerty, B., Yousha, S., Hoyle, K., & One, H. (2002). Factors associated with depressionin Navy recruits. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(4), 323–337.

Yerks, S. (1993). The “uncomfortable”: Making sense of adaptation to war zone. Military Medicine,158(6), 421–423.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itara

M E

min

eesc

u Ia

si]

at 1

3:44

12

Dec

embe

r 20

11

occupational stressors in military service.a review and framework

Documents

military academy

military occupation

kinds of military stress

phases of military service

thesenew military undertakings

occupational stressors

article reviewsand

campbell orly benyoav