Personal resilience and coping Part II: Identifying resilience and coping among U.S. military service members and veterans with implications for work

2.1Self-assessment surveys

Information for this paper includes self-reported demographics and responses to the 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14) [1] and Brief COPE [2].

2.2Data analysis

Data analyses were conducted with the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 21, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp, Released 2012). Descriptive analyses included measures of frequency, percentage, range, mean and standard deviations for demographic information and the resilience and coping scores. Chi Square statistics were used to examine the differences in demographic distributions between military active service members and veterans. Statistical analyses, including independent-samples T-Test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), were used to examine the differences in mean values of demographic information between active service members and veterans, the differences in the resilience scores among demographic groups, and the use of the coping strategies among demographic groups. Post-hoc analyses using the Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test were conducted to further examine significant differences found in the ANOVA analyses. Pearson Product Moment correlations were used to examine the relationships between resilience scores and certain demographic features (e.g. age, and time-in-service), between coping scores and certain demographic features (e.g. age and time-in-service), and between resilience and coping scores. Linear regression analyses were used to describe demographics and coping strategies that predicted resilience. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine significance.

3.1Demographics

Table 1 shows the demographics of the participants (n = 191) grouped into active service members (n = 63, 33.0%) and military veterans (n = 128, 67.0%). Over half of the participants were male (52.9%), Caucasian (54.5%), and married (55.0%). Most had at least some college education (93.2%). Active service members and military veterans were not significantly different from one another in gender, ethnicity or marital status (p > 0.05). Differences in education level between groups (active vs. veteran) were not evaluated due to the small number of participants in the GED or high school diploma category for active service members. Participants’ age ranged from 24 to 74, with a mean and standard deviation of 48.42±12.23. Active service members were younger (38.87±7.98) than veterans (53.12±11.19) (t(189) = –10.10, p = 0.00).

Table 2 shows the military-specific demographics. Participants primarily served in the U.S. Army (66.6%) and had deployed (60.7%). More active service members had deployed (73.0%) compared with veterans (54.7%) (χ²(1, N = 191) = 5.95, p = 0.015), and more active service members (85.7%) than veterans (57.0%) served in the U.S. Army (χ²(2, N = 191) = 15.60, p = 0.000). Two veteran participants did not answer the question about time-in-service, but for the remaining participants (n = 189), time-in-service ranged from 1 to 34 years, with an average of 15.44 years (±8.6). There was no time-in-service difference between active service members (15.65 years±8.05) and veterans (15.34 years±8.89) (p > 0.05).

3.2Resilience

The resilience scores of all the participants ranged from 21 to 98 with a mean and standard deviation of 76.52±16.59. The distribution of the resilience scores was negatively skewed (see Fig. 1). Active service members (80.56±15.31) had higher resilience scores than veterans (74.54±16.88) (t(189) = 2.39, p = 0.018). Means and standard deviations of resilience scores among education levels are shown in Table 3. Higher education levels had greater mean resilience scores (F(4, 186) = 5.56, p = 0.000). Post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in resilience between GED/high school and bachelor’s degree, between GED/high school and master’s/doctoral degree, and between some college/associate degree and master/doctoral degree. Pearson Product Moment correlations between resilience scores and time-in-service and between resilience and age were investigated. The more time spent on active duty, the higher the resilience score (r = 0.24, N = 189, p = 0.001), however there was no significant correlation between resilience and age (p > 0.05). Gender, ethnicity, marital status, military branch, and deployment experience did not show significant differences in resilience scores (p > 0.05).

Because of the significant differences between active service members and veterans, the data from the two groups were analyzed independently in subsequent analyses. The distributions of the resilience scores for active service members and veterans were also negatively skewed (Fig. 2 and 3).For active service members, resilience scores were not different among the demographic groups (i.e. age, ethnicity, gender, education, marital status, military branch, deployment and time in service) (p > 0.05). For veterans, resilience scores varied with education level and time-in-service (p < 0.05), but not for the other demographic features (i.e. age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, military branch, and deployment) (p > 0.05). Resilience scores differed significantly among education levels (F(4, 123) = 4.598, p = 0.002), with post-hoc analysis indicating that veterans with GED/high school education had lower resilience scores than veterans with bachelors, or with master/doctoral degree (see Table 4). For veterans, the longer the time-in-service, the higher the resilience score (r = 0.354, n = 126, p = 0.000).

3.3Coping

The Brief COPE subscale scores were not significantly different between active service members and veterans (p > 0.05, see Table 5). The most frequently used (highest scoring) five coping strategies for both populations combined were: acceptance, positive reframing, religion, active coping and planning. The least used coping strategies were: denial, substance abuse, and behavioral disengagement.

The Brief COPE subscale scores were compared between groups separately for active service members and veterans. For active service members, the Brief COPE subscale scores varied with age, ethnicity, gender, and marital status (p < 0.05), but not with education level, military branch, deployment, or time-in-service (p > 0.05). Age was correlated with only one coping strategy, with younger service members using more emotional support than older service members (r = –0.249, n = 63, p = 0.049). Table 6 shows the coping scores that differed by ethnicity, gender, and marital status. Post-hoc analyses indicated that African Americans used religion-based coping more than Hispanic participants, females used positive reframing more than males, and divorced participants used acceptance more than married participants(p < 0.05).

For veterans, coping strategies varied with age, gender, education level, military branch, and time-in-service (p < 0.05), but not with ethnicity, marital status, or deployment (p > 0.05) (Table 7). Older age in veterans was associated with greater use of religion-based coping and decreased use of self-distraction, substance use, behavioral disengagement, and self-blame. More time spent in active military service was related to less use of self-distraction, substance use, and self-blame (p < 0.05). Table 8 shows the significant results for veterans’ coping scores with demographics. Female veterans used more positive reframing and more self-distraction than male veterans (p < 0.05). Those with a masters/doctoral degree used less self-blame than three other education levels - some college/associate, bachelors, and other professional degree (p < 0.05). Although the trend showed that veterans with a masters/doctoral degree used less self-blame than those with GED/high school diploma, the statistics did not show significant result in the post-hoc analysis. Army veterans used less instrumental support than Air Force veterans(p < 0.05).

3.4Coping and resilience

Correlations between coping and resilience were investigated for active service members and veterans separately. Higher resilience scores were associated with using more acceptance and positive reframing coping strategies, and less behavioral disengagement and self-blame strategies for both active service members and veterans (p < 0.05, see Table 9). Veterans’ higher resilience scores were also associated with greater usage of humor, religion, active coping, and planning, and less use of denial, substance abuse, and venting.

3.5Prediction of resilience

Regression analyses were conducted to further investigate the relationship between demographics, coping, and resilience. Demographics and coping strategies found to be associated with resilience (p < 0.05) were entered into the first set of regression analyses.

Table 10 shows the results of the regression analysis for active service members, with 56.5% of the variance being explained by the demographics and coping scores (R² = 0.565, F(8, 54) = 9.80, p = 0.000). However, only greater positive reframing and less self-blame contributed significantly to the prediction of higher resilience (p < 0.05), therefore they were entered into a separate regression to predict resilience, explaining 52.3% of the variance (F(2, 60) = 32.924, p < 0.000).

Table 11 shows the regression results for military veterans, with 60.1% of the variance being explained by the demographics and coping scores (R² = 0.601, F(16, 103) = 9.692, p = 0.000). However, only time-in-service and the coping strategies of humor and self-blame contributed significantly to the equation. Consequently, these variables were entered into a regression to predict resilience and were found to account for 44.8% of the variance (R² = 0.448, F(3, 116) = 31.408, p = 0.000).

4.1Demographic findings

Demographic findings of participants being primarily affiliated with the U.S. Army are expected, given our primary research site on Ft. Sam Houston, an Army post. The younger age of the active military population, compared with veterans is also expected for two reasons. First, active duty participants are unlikely to have reached an age or career status that would make them eligible for retirement, and most participating veterans were retirees. Although any military veteran eligible for medical benefits could participate in the research, more career veterans are likely to reside in the San Antonio area, than younger service-connected disability retirees, thus the veteran population would likely be older than the active service population. The greater number of deployments among the active service population may be indicative of the recent involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Data from 2011 indicated that 73% of active military soldiers had deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, with most of those who had not deployed being newer recruits who were not yet eligible to deploy [14]. According to the report, “the Army retains very little unutilized capacity to deploy additional active component soldiers ... ” (p. 1).

4.2Resilience

The distributions of resilience scores for all the participants, for active service members only and veterans only were negatively skewed. The results are very similar to the results based on a sample size of 1161 participants who answered the RS-14 online [1] (Mean = 76.17, Std = 13.9). Other research also showed a negative skew in the distribution of resilience [15].

While the average resilience score was higher for active service members than veterans, both scores fell within the moderate range [1]. Demographic differences in resilience occurred for veterans only, demonstrating higher resilience scores among those with a higher education and longer time-in-service. Higher education has long been associated with both psychological and physical health [16], possibly interrelated with socio-economic status [17, 18]. No other research was found that investigated whether this seeming protective effect of education on health was also shown in terms of resilience, and whether it is the educational level itself, the associated health status, or both that might positively impact resilience. The positive relationship between veterans’ time-in-service and resilience may indicate that veterans’ experiences in the military and after the military may have impacted resilience [5]. Since active service members are still in service, the effect of military experience on resilience is still an on-going process.

4.3Coping

Coping strategies were similar between active U.S. service members and veterans. The five highest scores for both groups were all action-based, and included three emotion-focused strategies – acceptance, positive reframing, and religion, and two problem-focused strategies – active coping and planning. These coping strategies likely tell the story of the participants’ experiences, as well as the strengths they may bring to a work setting. In Rice and Liu’s article on personal resilience, Part I of this series [5], they display coping strategies and an abbreviated description of how each strategy might impact a person within their work setting. Further exploration of each frequently used coping strategy is included below.

Previous research has noted that active service members relied on avoidance coping when they did not have much control over their environment, especially during deployment [19, 20]. Our research did not show frequent use of avoidance coping among either active service or veteran populations, perhaps in part, because our data was collected during non-deployment.

Emotion-focused coping aims to reduce the emotional distress caused by a stressor [12]. This type of coping is often selected when an individual assesses the stressful situation as something they cannot alter [12]. Acceptance, as an emotion-focused coping technique, requires an individual to first accept the reality of the stressor or situation as it is, and then to accept their inability to change their circumstances. Acceptance is a functional strategy in conditions that require adaptation or endurance. For individuals in the military, there are a number of circumstances that fall within this description. For example, most military service members have minimal input into their assignment locations, their job requirements at a particular assignment, the work hours or shifts, and the amount of time they will spend in an assignment. They cannot choose to leave their job or assignment at their own will, do not have a voice in who their supervisor(s) will be, and typically cannot select the service members who will work with or for them. Written Standard Operating Procedures dictate the parameters within which most work will be conducted, and centralized oversight determines the pay that will be received, the travel that will occur, and the types of behavior towards one another that is required. While that may sound rather dismal, it actually creates an atmosphere for immense growth in terms of one’s ability to adapt to new situations, people, places, and work demands. Accepting the reality of a relatively impenetrable work-related situation opens the door for examination of uncommon and imaginative solutions, without complaint. With acceptance also comes the realization that complaints are futile, but there are many roads to successful resolution (including rewriting regulations). In terms of one’s health, acceptance as a coping strategy can be helpful for chronic conditions, such as chronic pain. With acceptance, an individual can move from having their focus on how they feel, fighting the pain or working directly to change their pain, to focus instead on function and life activities [21].

Positive reframing is known as positive reinterpretation, positive reappraisal, benefit finding, and meaning making [12, 22]. Similarly, positive reframing is an emotion-focused coping strategy aimed at managing the emotional distress resulting from a stressor perceived to be outside of one’s control. An individual using this technique construes the stressor, the resulting stress, and/or the stress-related outcomes in positive terms, even though they previously viewed them negatively. Positive reframing is a proactive approach that permits an individual to have control over his reaction to a stressor by reframing it into a potential growth experience. Following Frederickson’s “broaden and build” theory, positive perceptions broaden an individual’s responses, encouraging personal resourcefulness in terms of ideas and actions [23]. Once again this type of coping is an effective measure when an individual does not believe she can directly change the stressful conditions, such as those that readily occur within a military environment. As an accommodative coping strategy, positive reframing works particularly well for those with perfectionistic strivings [24]. Although military individuals themselves may not be perfectionists, the military system is well-organized with a complex series of regulations and measures to guide and ensure high quality performance. Turning what might be perceived as a difficult and negative situation into a positive learning experience, with the broadening and building gains resulting both for the task at hand and for the individual would seem well-suited for the military population. Positive reframing can also serve as a mechanism to introduce gratitude and decrease symptoms of depression [25]. In a work setting, individuals who turn perceived insurmountable challenges into positive growth experiences are likely to be able to hear and relate to others’ points-of-view, encourage team members, bolster morale, and identify unique solutions to problems. Together, acceptance and positive reframing appear to be a powerful combination. Accepting the reality of a situation, defining it positively, and using the opportunity to develop novel in-roads to problem solving the challenges at-hand are desirable traits in any setting. In terms of health, acceptance and positive reframing predicted greater functional, emotional and physical well-being, as well as a higher quality of life, one year post gynecologic cancer diagnosis [26].

The final frequently used emotion-based coping method among active military and veterans is the use of religion as a coping strategy. Involvement with one’s religious faith is associated with physical and psychological well-being and with coping with adversity [27]. The U.S. military services have religious professionals, qualified as civilian pastors (ordained clergy) and commissioned as officers, among their ranks. In early 2013, there were approximately 3,000 Chaplains on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, representing 175 different denominations [28]. Their duties include providing religious ministry in their own, and in other, traditions to service members and their families. Thus, should a U.S. military service member choose to avail themselves of services, religious leadership and counsel are available. The business of the military is a serious one and questions of mortality and morality arise readily [28], and one’s religious beliefs can serve as a guide during such questioning. Sterner and Jackson-Cherry found that spiritual and religious beliefs prior to U.S. service members’ deployment was not a significant predictor of their coping during deployment, however Christian affiliation and the frequency of one’s engagement in spiritual and religious practices were significant predictors of coping, along with support and age [29]. While religion-based coping can help in a number of difficult personal situations, the relationship between one’s belief systems and their ability to cope with life is complex, and these beliefs can impact coping in either positive or negative ways. For example, positive religion-based coping following divorce has been shown to be predictive of post-traumatic growth, while negative religion-based coping was predictive of greater depressive symptoms under situations such as divorce [30, 31], as well as among those in high stress jobs, including clinical nursing [32].

The two problem-focused coping strategies with the highest scores for military service members and veterans were active coping and planning. Both coping mechanisms reflect direct action to alter the source of the stress, and enforce the belief that constructive change is possible [12]. Planning involves thinking about the methods and steps to ameliorate the stressor, while active coping activates the plan. While it would seem the two might always coexist, this is not necessarily the case. An individual who does not plan, but takes immediate action might be impulsive in their decision making or action, while someone who plans well might have difficulty with execution. Military work involves a great deal of planning, from recruiting and training operations, to the logistics of deploying personnel, equipment, and supplies. Once action plans are well in place, they are completed by military personnel, with each rank and military occupational specialty stepping in to accomplish their specific tasks. Sequential forecasting occurs years in advance for all aspects of military involvement, with such planning often bringing in subject matter experts from civilian and military sectors to build on current knowledge, project future needs, and take proactive action. In terms of work environments, active coping has been associated with ‘protean careers’, in which an individual drives their career based on their own mental success and decision making, rather than on a set of standards or structures of an organization, as well as with ‘boundaryless careers’, independent of typical organizational and social boundaries [33]. Active coping has also been associated with positive job search behavior, performance, career success, and psychological well-being [33, 34].

Thus, the findings in this paper regarding coping strategies appear to fit the participants’ work-related experiences. In addition, these findings, along with information found in the open literature, yield information as to the strengths that military service members and veterans may bring to a workplace.

Our results demonstrated that coping strategies differed according to demographics among active U.S. service members and veteran populations. For those engaged in active military service, the findings regarding ethnicity, gender, and marital status and coping strategies appear unique and may warrant further study. That younger service members used more emotional support than older service members appears to fit the situation, in which many young recruits enter the military from high school and may initially depend heavily on family and friends for emotional support. Older service members will have advanced in rank, and while emotional support may remain important, there is often less opportunity to turn to others for such support. This echoes the saying ‘it’s lonely at the top’ –meaning that individuals of higher rank often shoulder responsibilities without having an active support system of individuals who are even aware of the complexities of their work or their lives.

Overall, the veteran population was older than the active service population. Veterans used more religion and less self-destructive, dysfunctional coping strategies of self-distraction, substance abuse, behavioral disengagement, and self-blame than younger veterans, but this same finding did not occur among the active duty population. These findings support research identifying healthier coping occurring with age [35, 36], as well as aging being associated with more positive emotional well-being and stability [37]. While similar coping strategies can occur across age groups, older individuals tend to use less avoidance strategies [35] and more active problem solving until old age when dementia may begin [38].

Women used more positive reframing than men among both active service members and veterans, and female veterans used more self-distraction than male veterans. As previously mentioned, positive reframing is considered a form of emotion-focused coping, in which the aim of the coping strategy is to alleviate the associated emotional distress as the stressor is not believed to be within the individual’s control. Prior research shows women use more emotion-focused coping and avoidance than men [38], as well as more social support [39]. As positive reframing is a subcomponent of emotion-focused coping and self-distraction is method of avoidance, our findings support gender differentiations shown in earlier studies on coping.

Among veterans, our findings appear to demonstrate that those with a higher education use less self-blame than those with less education, however little could be found in the open literature associating education level with coping strategies. In addition, the findings regarding “other professional degree” must be handled with care, as it is uncertain how participants may have interpreted the term. Finally, we are unaware of any research comparing coping strategies across services to assist in explaining why Army veterans might be less inclined to ask for advice than Air Force veterans. Research on instrumental support at work showed that receiving imposed instrumental support elicited negative reactions, unless the problem was considered unsolvable by those receiving the advice [40]. Seeking instrumental support may be viewed differently in the various military service branches, based on the culture of each.

4.4Predicting resilience using coping strategies

4.5Resilience and work

Resilience has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction, work happiness and organizational commitment [61]. Resilience can contribute to employees’ commitment to change by engendering positive emotions during organizational change [62]. For a review of the components of resilience from the Resilience Scale [1] and their potential positive impact on the workplace, see Part I of this article series in this journal [5].

The influence of coping on resilience is considerable and it appears that coping strategies can be learned. Army soldiers who received brief coping skills intervention reported more helpful causal attributions that led to more realistic expectations of control, less self-blame and better psychological adjustments [41], demonstrating the beneficial effects of training in coping skills.

Ineffective coping can also be learned, potentially developing through repetition [63]. That is, if a person experiences an untoward event and responds in a protective, yet ineffective, manner a few times, then a conditioned response can begin to develop. In the future, a situational trigger is likely to yield similar results. This conditioned response may need to be deconditioned. Ledoux and Gorman [63] suggested those with PTSD have incurred such persistent emotional conditioning in the form of “memories that seize control of mental life and behavior” (p. 1955), but they submit these responses can be rerouted through the learning of adaptive coping. Organizations may need to train employees on how not to use dysfunctional coping with their difficult situations and how to engage more positive coping strategies [64]. Developing resilience does not happen in a vocational vacuum, as one’s family can influence their resilience building [65, 66]. Moreover, individual resilience is perhaps only one part of developing team and organizational resilience.

Studies have discussed the factors that promote resilience beyond the individual level, such as with families, organizations, or communities [67, 68]. In a team setting, leaders’ confidence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent award systems have been positively associated with subordinate resilience [69]. In a workplace, support from peers, team members, and managers, and company culture are all factors that contribute to employee resilience [70].

4.6Limitations

The data collected in this study were from a cross-section of a population at a particular point in time, thus causal relationships cannot be determined. Additional research is suggested to investigate the development of coping processes and resilience over time. Self-report measures used in this study made it possible for the participants to respond with a bias for social desirability, meaning the participants may have responded to the questionnaire items to make a better impression on other people. This limitation was countered by clearly removing identifiers from individual responses, and making research participants aware of this counter-measure. No supervisors or individuals that might have an impact on participants’ careers were permitted to be in attendance during testing or have access to participants’ responses. Finally, the results in this study are from military participants and veterans, under non-deployment conditions. Caution should be used in applying these results to other populations.