Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2011 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 16, No. 1, 18 37 1076-8998/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021006

Resilience to Traumatic Exposure Among Soldiers

Deployed in Combat
John M. Schaubroeck Laura T. Riolli
Michigan State University California State UniversitySacramento

Ann Chunyan Peng Everett S. Spain

Michigan State University United States Army, Schweinfurt, Germany

We examined the influence of positive psychological capital (PsyCap), a metaconstruct that

combines established psychological predispositions to be resilient to stress, on the well-being of
soldiers during combat deployment. Among U.S. Army personnel deployed in Iraq, cognitive
appraisal of stress mediated the effects of trait PsyCap on health symptoms. The indirect effects
through appraisal were moderated by levels of exposure to potentially traumatic stimuli. Trait
PsyCap covaried more strongly with cognitive appraisals, and had stronger indirect effects
through appraisal on health, among soldiers in units with higher levels of potentially traumatic
exposures. We discuss implications for research on resilience to trauma in the workplace and for
helping workers cope with potentially traumatic exposures.

Keywords: work demands, stress appraisal, health, trauma, personality

Persons in various occupations such as military
personnel, police officers, and firefighters are ex-
posed to extremely stressful situations as a part of
their everyday duties (Anshel, 2000; Day & Living-
stone, 2001). For military personnel specifically, long
periods of isolation, fears about physical safety dur-
ing combat, a heightened state of physiological
arousal, the burden of responsibilities for others
safety, and other military tasks can intensify per-
ceived stress. The recent service of American mili-
tary personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan provides a
case in point. More than 15% of service members
returning from Iraq and 11% of service members
returning from Afghanistan have met the screening
criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or
posttraumatic stress disorder (Hoge et al., 2004;
Hoge, Terhakopian, Castro, Messer, & Engel, 2007).
According to the positive psychology literature,
some individuals are unable to curb the psychological
John M. Schaubroeck, Department of Psychology and Eli
Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State Uni-
versity; Laura T. Riolli, California State University- Sacra-
mento; Ann Chunyan Peng, Michigan State University; and
Everett S. Spain, United States Army, Schweinfurt, Germany.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to John M. Schaubroeck, Michigan State Univer-
sity, Department of Psychology, Psychology Building, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1117. E-mail: Schaubro@msu.edu
impact of traumatic stressors and they suffer signif-
icant physical and psychological health symptoms
(see Agaibi & Wilson, 2005, for a review). Others
have the capacity to rebound and experience little or
no change in their functioning. These latter individ-
uals are suggested to demonstrate psychological re-
siliency; that is, effective adaptation and coping in
the face of adversity (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).
Resilient individuals are seen to appraise stressful
situations as being less threatening (Lazarus, 1993).
One important research question, then, concerns
identifying factors that distinguish those who cope
more effectively with stressful events. Previous re-
search has shown that individual differences in resil-
ient aspects of personality, such as dispositional op-
timism, are favorably associated with health in both
longitudinal studies of normal populations (e.g., Lai,
2009; Scheier & Carver, 1992) and cross-sectional
studies of different persons responses to a common
stressful situation such as bereavement or social up-
heaval (Riolli, Savicki, & Cepani, 2002; Rossi, Bis-
conti, & Bergeman, 2007). However, the mecha-
nisms behind these effects of resilient personality
traits (e.g., more adaptive cognitive appraisal) have
not been fully understood, nor have researchers tested
the strength of their influence on health symptoms
across different levels of independently assessed en-
vironmental exposures. This study examines the
cross-level interaction between combat-related expo-
sures and traits associated with a more stress-resilient

18
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
disposition. Individual differences in stress-resilient
personality traits are predicted to be more positively
associated with well-being among soldiers in units
that are exposed to higher levels of noxious events
such as participating in a firefight, anticipating a
violent confrontation, and witnessing deaths and in-
juries among comrades or civilians.
The current research studies soldiers who were
sampled during their deployment in a combat zone. It
addresses the need for research on the experience of
traumatic events, going beyond previous studies on
traumatic life crises such as widowhood, rape, job
loss, and other studies about the aftereffects of com-
bat (i.e., postdeployment; Green, 1996; Hoge et al.,
2007). Despite the fact that stress in military organi-
zations has been a growing concern for decades, very
little research has been published on stress among
military personnel when they are deployed in hostile
areas. During war, military personnel are exposed to
a wide variety of traumatic events. Whereas other
types of stressors such as heavy workload and long
hours are ongoing and long-lasting, potentially trau-
matic stressors such as terrorist attacks, natural di-
sasters, and combat can be more psychologically
devastating (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000). In
spite of their potential destructive effects, traumatic
stressors have been largely neglected in the organi-
zational literature (Jermier, Gaines, & McIntosh,
1989; see Bacharach & Bamberger, 2007; Bacharach,
Bamberger, & Doveh, 2008, for exceptions). Other
studies have investigated stress and coping of mili-
tary personnel during training and peacetime opera-
tions (e.g., Day & Livingstone, 2001) and the inci-
dence of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
among war veterans (Engel, Liu, McCarthy, Miller,
& Ursano, 2004; Lamberg, 2004). As reviewed by
Bonanno (2004), persons who later manifest PTSD
symptoms quite often exhibited symptoms of distress
very soon after exposure to the traumatizing event
(e.g., Farley & Catano, 2006; Hoge et al., 2007).
Therefore, studying how persons respond during the
period they are exposed to traumatic events becomes
important to finding ways to reduce stress-related
problems during this period as well as its aftermath
(see Farley & Catano, 2006, p. 302).
Traumatic Exposures and Psychological
Strain Among Military Personnel
Traumatic events involve actual or threatened
death or serious injury, or threat to physical integrity
of self and others (American Psychiatric Associa-
19
tion, 1994, p. 424). These events are extraordinary
because they may overwhelm the ordinary human
adaptations to life and produce profound and lasting
changes in physiological arousal, emotion, cognition,
and memory (Herman, 1992). Individuals exposed to
traumatic stressors report adverse physical health
outcomes, including poor self-reported health status,
a greater number of medical problems, and increased
mortality (Schnurr & Green, 2004). In addition, given
their intense nature, traumatic experiences can alter
individuals psychological, biological, and social
equilibrium (Fontana & Rosenheck, 1998; Hoge et
al., 2007; van der Kolk & McFarlane, 1996).
However, there has been little research examining
the impact of these traumatic work stressors on mil-
itary personnels psychological adjustment to over-
seas deployment in a war zone. A steady stream of
research concerning PTSD among soldiers returning
from war suggests that individuals may differ in their
levels of resilience to situational exposures in combat
zones (Engel et al., 2004; Farley & Catano, 2006;
Greiger et al., 2006; Hoge et al., 2007). Individual
differences in soldier psychological vulnerability to
traumatic exposures should be reflected in the well-
being of individual soldiers as they are confronting
such exposures in situ. To date, however, research
has focused on health symptoms after returning to
ones homeland and factors that predict these symp-
toms at that time. Moreover, where individual differ-
ences in traumatic exposures are examined, the stud-
ies rely on retrospective self-reports, and therefore
these studies cannot distinguish how personality in-
fluences health in the presence of various actual
exposure levels that are shared by members of a unit.
Adaptive/Resilient Personalities and
Traumatic Exposures
A majority of military personnel with experience
in war zones report having had symptoms of distress
during their postdeployment careers, including dis-
turbed sleep, demoralization, anger, physiological re-
activity, alienation, isolation, guilt, and feelings of
insanity (Bartone, 1999; Beaton, Murphy, Pike, &
Jarret, 1995; McFarlane, 1988; Murphy & Beaton,
1991). And yet, whereas many persons ultimately
suffer long-term psychological trauma as a result of
exposure to the in extremis conditions of life in a
combat zone, others apparently do not suffer from
PTSD after returning from deployment. What distin-
guishes those who adapt with only limited psycho-
logical and physical effects from those who suffer a
20 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN
great deal? One possible explanation may derive
from psychological traits that facilitate or hinder ad-
justment to such traumatic conditions during the pe-
riod of exposure.
The psychological literature has suggested the ba-
sic idea that there are persons with more stress-
resilient personalities who suffer substantially less
health degradation in response to the same exposures
as others. Such positive traits (e.g., optimism, pos-
itive emotionality, hardiness, hope, ego resilience)
correlate negatively with physical and psychological
health symptoms (Kobasa, 1979; Seligman, 1998;
Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). We focus on positive
psychological capital (PsyCap), a metaconcept that
incorporates various traits that are found to represent
psychological resilience. Luthans, Youssef, and
Avolio (2007, p. 3) defined PsyCap as an individu-
als positive psychological state of development and
is characterized by: (a) having confidence (self-
efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to
succeed at challenging tasks; (b) making a positive
attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in
the future; (c) persevering toward goals and, when
necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order
to succeed; and (d) when beset by problems and
adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even
beyond (ego resilience) to attain success.1 PsyCap
was positively associated with well being in a
longitudinal study conducted by Avey, Luthans,
Smith, and Palmer (2010). We followed Peterson,
Walumbwa, Byron, and Myrowitz (2009) in mea-
suring a trait form of PsyCap by combining the
personality traits of optimism, hope, and ego resil-
ience. A trait version of the PsyCap construct is
particularly promising for the study of stress resil-
ient personality and health because it combines
traits (i.e., hope, optimism, and ego resilience) that
have been established to predict different criteria
of well-being (Block & Kremen, 1996; Scheier &
Carver, 1985; Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991).
A higher score on trait PsyCap denotes one who
does not tend to dwell on dire implications of
traumatic exposures and who anticipates some pos-
itive resolution (optimism), perceives that the de-
mands inherent to the situation can be overcome
(hope), and has a self-concept that adapts to infor-
mation and experiences that can disrupt the ho-
meostatic view of oneself and the environment of
others (ego resilience). Given that these constructs
have been established by Peterson et al. (2009) to
together form a reliable higher-order factor of per-
sonality, their composite is a potentially robust
predictor of coping and health and it avoids the
interpretational issues associated with using mul-
tiple correlated traits as independent variables.
Trait PsyCap and Appraisal
The shocks, horrors, and sorrows of living in a
battle zone should lead most individuals to experi-
ence feelings of endangerment and despair. The cog-
nitive appraisal perspective suggests that although
different soldiers may witness the same horrific scene
of carnage, for example, such experience elicits dis-
tressing appraisals for some more than others (Laza-
rus & Folkman, 1984). Research indicates that the
effects of a resilient personality on health are medi-
ated by cognitive appraisals (e.g., Major, Richards,
Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998; Tomaka et al.,
1999; Tugade & Frederickson, 2004). As reviewed
by Southwick, Vythilingam, & Charney, (2005), pre-
vious research has shown that individual differences
associated with stress resilience and adaptation (e.g.,
optimism) enhance coping and health because they
capture a tendency to perceive stressful events in
less threatening terms. (p. 270)
We predicted that persons who maintain higher lev-
els of optimism, hope, and resilience will appraise the
environment associated with their combat deployment
as being less distressing. Specifically, persons with
higher levels of trait PsyCap should perceive the life
circumstances associated with their deployment as be-
ing less threatening to their safety and less replete with
elements that engender feelings of loss. For example,
despite a very dangerous environment, an optimistic,
hopeful, and ego resilient person is likely to believe he
or she has sufficient resources to prevent being harmed.
Likewise, such a person will recognize that a loss, such
as the departure of a wounded or dead comrade, is
saddening, but he or she need not experience the same
levels of debilitating distress as do his or her cohorts
with a less resilient disposition toward traumatic events.
We also anticipate that persons scoring high on
trait PsyCap will appraise the environment as main-
taining more challenging aspects, with the potential
for benefits such as learning and personal growth.
People tend to be optimally challenged when they are
confronted with significant demands and feel they
have ample resources to meet these demands (Selye,
1976). Both laboratory and field research suggests
1
In a conceptual paper, Stajkovic (2006) developed es-
sentially the same metaconstruct using these four dimen-
sions and labeled it core confidence. For convenience we
hereafter refer to this construct as state PsyCap.
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
that people can be particularly adaptive to demands
they find challenging (for reviews, see Dienstbier,
1989, and Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005). Chal-
lenge is a form of stress, but it can engender rapid
recovery. More optimistic personalities tend to see
the positive aspects associated with new demands
and encounters. This includes appraising situations
and events as containing elements of positive stimu-
lation. Likewise, hope is associated with having sa-
lient personal goals (hope-path) and with confidence
that goal accomplishment will enable ones life to
improve (hope-agency). Together, these factors sug-
gest that persons high in trait PsyCap will more
readily make challenge appraisals.
More limited loss and threat appraisals and higher
challenge appraisals presage the coping that main-
tains physical and psychological well-being in the
face of traumatic events. As noted above, these types
of appraisals have been found to mediate the effects
of stress resilient/adaptive personality differences on
well-being. Thus, if trait PsyCap actually enhances
adaptation to traumatic stressors, we should expect to
find that among persons who are exposed to the same
traumatic circumstances, those with higher trait Psy-
Cap will exhibit more healthful appraisals (lower
threat and loss, higher challenge) and this will, in
turn, lead to better health. This suggests the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Individuals trait PsyCap will be
significantly related to cognitive appraisals and re-
ports of physical and mental ill health (i.e., anxiety,
somatic complaints, and depression). The cognitive
appraisals will mediate the effects of trait PsyCap on
health symptoms. Specifically:
H1A. Trait PsyCap will be negatively related to
distress appraisals (threat and loss) and health symp-
toms.
H1B. Trait PsyCap will be positively related to
challenge appraisals.
H1C. Distress appraisals (threat and loss) will
be positively associated with health symptoms.
H1D. Challenge appraisals will be negatively
associated with health symptoms.
H1E. Controlling for the effects of appraisal
variables on health symptoms (H1C and H1D), the
effects of trait PsyCap on health symptoms (H1A and
H1B) will substantially decrease in magnitude.
Interaction of Unit Traumatic Exposures
and Trait PsyCap
The positive psychology literature suggests that
the adaptive capabilities of a more resilient person-
21
ality are increasingly pronounced as situational ex-
posures to traumatic stimuli (e.g., proximity to deaths
and injuries of others) increase in magnitude or prev-
alence. There is suggestive evidence that persons
perceptions of particular traumatic stressors interact
with such personality traits in predicting health out-
comes (e.g., Bartone, 1999). The theory is that
whereas resiliency traits are helpful in normal life
because they aid persons in coping with day-to-day
hassles and other stressors, they are particularly valu-
able in the face of traumatic events because they
enable persons to encounter those events without
becoming psychologically overwhelmed (see Agaibi
& Wilson, 2005; Richardson, 2002).
Testing this differential vulnerability hypothesis to
traumatic exposures has been limited by the lack of
objective indices of exposure. A limitation of most
stress research that seeks to identify individual dif-
ferences in coping effectiveness is the lack of a
common, objective index of exposure to trauma or
other demands that vary within the sample, such that
some individuals are subjected to higher stressor lev-
els than others. In the traumatic stress literatures there
is only limited evidence that personality factors make
people more or less vulnerable to stressors. For ex-
ample, Bartone (1999) sampled soldiers from six
U.S. Army National Guard and reserve medical units
nearly a year after they had returned from the first
Gulf War in 1991. These soldiers reported about
psychiatric symptoms and combat-related exposures
such as threat of enemy missile attack, exposure
to dead or dying, and caring for traumatically in-
jured patients (p. 74). Bartone found that combat-
related exposures reported by individual soldiers
were less strongly related to psychiatric symptoms
among those with higher scores on the personality
trait of hardiness. However, because of the self-
report, retrospective nature of the exposure variable,
one cannot infer that during the deployment persons
with lower hardiness were actually more vulnerable
to combat stress exposures, especially to those expo-
sures that were common to all members of their units.
Similarly, Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, and Lar-
kin (2003) found that more ego resilient individuals
responded with more positive emotions and less de-
pression following personal crises that emerged after
the September 11, 2001 tragedy in New York City.
However, there was only one major crisis that was
shared by all participants (the terrorism event itself)
and the personal crises were unique to each individ-
ual and, thus, subject to self-selection and other com-
plications that prevent a strong inference of differen-
tial vulnerability (see also Hobfoll et al., 2009).
22 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN
Similar interpretive difficulties arise from studies of
dispositional optimism and hope, where the norm has
been to use self-reported stressors or single events
such as having returned from war (Kubzansky, Spar-
row, Vokonas, & Kawachi, 2001) or undergone cor-
onary bypass surgery (Carver & Scheier, 1993).
We sought to distinguish individual dispositional
differences from situational exposures by using a
cross-level approach. Within this approach, exposure
is a unit-level variable representing the potentially
traumatic events and other exposures that are shared
by an entire unit of soldiers in a combat zone (unit
traumatic exposures, hereafter). Recent research in-
dicates that individuals in work units share stressors.
Common exposures often determine the overall
stressfulness of the work situation to a greater extent
than exposures that are idiosyncratic to individuals or
to specific job types (Tucker, Sinclair, & Thomas,
2005; Van Yperen & Snijders, 2000).
Previous studies that examined trait interactions
with self-reported stressors have predicted that the
individual stressors are more strongly related to
health symptoms among those with lower scores on
the resiliency trait (e.g., Bartone, 1999; Hirsch, Wol-
ford, Lalonde, Brunk, & Parker-Morris, 2009; Lai,
2009). We examine the unit-level exposure variable
as the moderator to determine whether trait PsyCap is
more negatively related to health symptoms as the
independently assessed level of exposures increases.
The logic of this hypothesis is much the same as the
differential responsivity to demand hypothesis ad-
vanced by Bartone (1999) and other researchers. Fol-
lowing the theorizing of Richardson (2002) and An-
tonovsky (1979), the salutary effect of a resilient
personality on physical and mental health is most
pronounced under higher levels of traumatic expo-
sure. In these situations individual ego defenses are
most overwhelmed, and only persons with more re-
silient personalities are able to return to a comfort-
able psychological homeostasis and, thus, maintain a
state of well-being.
We predicted that there will be a stronger effect of
trait PsyCap on health symptoms in environments
characterized by higher exposure to potentially trau-
matic events, and further, we anticipated that this
stronger effect is explained by correspondingly more
favorable cognitive appraisals (i.e., lower loss and
threat, higher challenge). Previous research using
manipulations of demands in laboratory experiments
suggests that traits more strongly influence appraisal
as aversive demands increase in magnitude. Seery,
Blascovich, Weisbuch, and Vick (2004) found that
persons with lower self-esteem appraised the more
challenging tasks the experimenter had administered
as more threatening than did persons with higher
self-esteem. No difference was observed between
levels of self-esteem for the less challenging tasks.
Although self-esteem is not a dimension of trait Psy-
Cap, this finding indicates that as objective stress
exposures increase, persons who maintain more fa-
vorable self-concepts tend to provide more salutary
appraisals relative to those with more unfavorable
self-concepts. Tugade and Frederickson (2004) ob-
served that individuals high on ego resilience, which
is a component of trait PsyCap, returned to baseline
arousal levels following exposure to stressors more
quickly than low ego resilience participants, and their
recollections of the experience were linked to more
positive emotions. They suggested that this differen-
tial recovery associated with ego resilience was
linked to cognitive appraisals.
In the present study we do not examine persons
immediate arousal and appraisal responses to any
specific traumatic encounter, but rather we measured
their responses after sufficient time has passed to
permit recovery from arousal states needed to re-
spond immediately to the exposure (e.g., to defend
oneself or others from attack). When living in an
environment with more prevalent exposures to poten-
tially traumatic events, there is more variance in
cognitive appraisals and this variance may potentially
be attributed to trait PsyCap. We anticipate that high
and low trait PsyCap persons differ in coping effec-
tiveness more dramatically in these more potentially
traumatic environments because they appraise the
environment as being more challenging, less threat-
ening, and less replete with loss. We do not anticipate
that the effects of the appraisal variables on health
symptoms will be any weaker or stronger depending
on the level of unit traumatic exposures. Instead we
predict that trait PsyCap interacts with traumatic ex-
posures to influence cognitive appraisals, that the
interaction also is associated with health outcomes,
and that the indirect effects through cognitive ap-
praisals are moderated by traumatic exposures.
Hypothesis 2. Individuals trait PsyCap is more
negatively related to their cognitive appraisals of
threat and loss, and more positively related to cogni-
tive appraisals of challenge, as the traumatic expo-
sures of their unit increase.
Hypothesis 3. Individuals trait PsyCap is more
negatively related to their reports of physical and
mental ill health (i.e., anxiety, somatic complaints,
and depression) as the traumatic exposures of their
unit increase.
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
Hypothesis 4. The indirect effect of trait Psy-
Cap on health symptoms through cognitive appraisals
will be stronger as potentially traumatic expo-
sures increase.
Method
Participants
Soldiers in nine combat units (eight companies and
one small battalion) of the U.S. Army participated in
the study while stationed in Iraq. The sample size was
648 with a mean age of 27.7 years; 99% of the
participants were male. By rank the sample was 56%
Junior Enlisted (i.e., privates, specialists, corporals),
33% Mid-Grade Noncommissioned Officers (i.e.,
sergeants, staff sergeants), 5% Senior Noncommis-
sioned Officers (i.e., platoon master sergeants, com-
pany master sergeants, warrant officers), and 5%
Company Grade Officers (i.e., first and second lieu-
tenants, captains). All units had been deployed to Iraq
for two or more months at the time of data collection
and had been actively involved in dealing with the
Iraqi insurgency. A majority of the participants re-
ported being of Caucasian, Non-Hispanic race
(70.4%); African Americans (11.9%), and Hispanics
(10.2%) comprised the next-largest subsamples. The
analysis is based on a sample of 633 complete re-
sponses.
Procedures
The current study examines the psychological im-
pact of exposure to traumatic stimuli among U.S.
infantry personnel participating in the U.S.-led inter-
vention in Iraq. Data were collected over a 1-month
period in the summer of 2004, approximately 15
months after the end of major combat operations
against the Iraqi army had been declared, but during
a period of heavy fighting against insurgents in par-
ticular areas.
Voluntary military personnel filled out anonymous
questionnaires distributed in Iraq through their com-
manding officers. The fourth author briefed unit
members in groups and obtained the informed con-
sent of each person who consented to participate
prior to administering the questionnaire to him or her.
Based on the total number of personnel in the units,
the effective response rate was 44.1%; the remainder
includes persons who declined to participate and sol-
diers who were unavailable for the questionnaire
administration. To measure unit differences in the
kinds of combat-related exposures that have been
23
found to be very stressful in prior research (Leblanc
& Kelloway, 2002; Mental Health Advisory Report,
2007; Warner et al., 2007), we queried commanders
about the volume and frequency of stressors that
existed during the tour of duty of soldiers in their
units up to that time. The stressful stimuli we exam-
ined included combat operations, comrades killed in
action, comrades injured, witnessing carnage and
other trauma, and pressure to perform in dangerous
situations.
Measures
Unit traumatic exposures. Combat-related
traumatic exposures was measured by adapting indi-
vidual combat exposure instruments used by Bartone
(1999) and Hoge et al. (2004) to the level of entire
field units. Four senior field grade officers (majors
and lieutenant colonels) who served in the brigade at
the time evaluated each units exposures to combat-
related events with reference to the average soldier
in the unit, not the units size. These commanders
had frequent contact with all the units in our sam-
pling frame and were aware of their complete histo-
ries while deployed in country. Using an ordinal scale
ranging from 1 (none/lowest among the nine
units) to 5 (a great extent/highest among the nine
units) the commanders rated each unit on (a)
threats of violence and other danger, (b) frequen-
cy/intensity of engagement in combat activity, (c)
deaths or major injuries in the unit by combat or
other sources, (d) exposure to death and injury
among civilians or Iraqi police, (e) exposure to
death and injury among other U.S. Army units (e.g.,
Were they in a battalion task force in which other
companies were getting hit a lot?), and (f) other
emotionally challenging hardship (explain if used).
With four raters evaluating nine units (represented by
columns on a spreadsheet), the single-measure intra-
class correlation was .76 and the average measure
intraclass correlation, which is equivalent to coeffi-
cient alpha (), was .93.
In addition, for each of the nine units, archival data
was collected concerning each units numbers of
servicemen and servicewomen killed in action (KIA)
and wounded in action (WIA) throughout the deploy-
ment up to July 31, 2004, which was the date shortly
preceding the questionnaire administrations. The
rank-order of these indexes approximated the rank
order of the indexes of unit traumatic exposures, thus
providing independent support for the reliability of
the shared observations of the commanders that were
used in the analyses.
24 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN
Appraisal of stress. The Appraisal of Life
Events Scale (Ferguson, Matthews, & Cox, 1999)
assesses cognitive appraisals of stressful situations
across three dimensions: Participants were asked to
appraise 16 adjectives and to indicate the extent to
which each of the adjectives describes your current
opinions about your current military deployment,
using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at
all), to 5 (Very much). Challenge (six items. e.g.,
stimulating), the degree to which the environment
is perceived as one that allows for personal growth
and development through potential mastery of stres-
sors; Threat (six items; e.g., fearful), the degree to
which the environment is perceived as hostile, apt to
generate anxiety, and potentially harmful; and Loss
(four items, e.g., painful), the potential for suffer-
ing and sadness. Alphas for the current sample were
Challenge, .87; Threat, .92, and Loss, .83.
Health symptoms. Physical and mental ill health
was measured using the Brief Symptom Checklist (BSI;
Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). This 53-item measure
has nine symptom cluster scales, four of which were
included in this study; they are (a) Anxiety (six-items,
.84): nervousness, panic attacks, apprehension,
dread; (b) Phobic anxiety (five-items, .80): irratio-
nal fear of specific people, places, or situations; (c)
Somatization (seven-items, .87): distress arising
from perceptions of bodily dysfunction; and (d) Depres-
sion (five-items, .88): dysphoria and lack of moti-
vation and energy. The suicidal thoughts item was de-
leted from the Depression scale for analysis purposes
because it had a near-zero mean and reduced the coef-
ficient alpha considerably. Anxiety and phobic anxiety
were judged to have very similar item content and
construct conceptualization, and the scales were highly
correlated (r .75). Therefore we averaged these scales
to form a composite 11-item scale hereafter la-
beled Anxiety.
Trait psychological capital (PsyCap). We
sought to study resilient personality traits, rather than
the states that have characterized most of the extant
research on PsyCap (e.g., Luthans, Avolio, Avery, &
Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li,
2005). This is because states are more likely to be
affected by traumatic exposures, thus diminishing the
ability to distinguish the effects of situational and
dispositional factors. Following Peterson et al. (2009)
we combined personality trait measures of optimism,
hope, and ego resilience to measure trait PsyCap. The
three underlying trait constructs (optimism, hope, and
ego resilience) tend to be highly correlated, and yet
there are meaningful conceptual differences between
them. Therefore, the grand mean of multiple con-
struct scales can provide a more parsimonious ac-
count of the additive influence of the individual con-
stituent constructs on other variables.
We combined established trait measures of hope
(Snyder, Cheavens, & Sympson, 1997), optimism
(Scheier & Carver, 1985), and ego resilience (Block &
Kremen, 1996) to measure trait PsyCap. Sample items
include: (a) Hope (eight-items, .85): I can think of
many ways to get the things in my life that are important
to me (Hope-Path) and My past experiences have
prepared me well for my future (Hope-Agency); (b)
Ego resiliency (six items, .79): I quickly get over
and recover from being startled (c) Optimism (eight-
items, .85): I always look on the bright side of
things and If something can go wrong for me, it
will (reverse-scored).
Control variables. Age, education level, gender,
rank, and tenure in the army were correlated at very low
levels with the focal variables, and including these vari-
ables in supplementary HLM analyses did not influence
the findings. Therefore, these variables were not in-
cluded in the analyses reported in the paper. We also
conducted supplementary analyses including state neg-
ative affect (NA) and state positive affect (PA). NA and
PA were measured using the Positive Affect-Negative
Affect Schedule developed by Watson, Clark, and Tel-
legen (1988).2 Participants rated 20 descriptors (e.g.,
attentive, proud, determined for positive affect, and
scared, distressed, and irritable for negative affect) on a
5-point scale to indicate their tendencies to experience
positive or negative moods during the previous
few weeks.
2
Several positive and negative affect items overlapped
considerably with the dependent variables of threat ap-
praisal, anxiety, and challenge appraisal [NA (scared,
afraid)/threat (fearful, frightening, terrifying,
threatening)]; [NA (hostile)/threat (NA (nervous,
jittery)/threat (worrying)]; [NA (nervous, jittery)/
anxiety (nervousness or shakiness inside)]; [NA (afraid,
scared)/anxiety (feeling afraid in open spaces, sud-
denly scared for no reason, feeling fearful); (PA (ex-
cited, inspired)/challenge (stimulating, exhilarat-
ing)]. Random error covariances across these measures
created estimation problems in LISREL analyses. We there-
fore do not report them in the paper. However, we con-
ducted supplementary analyses by including NA and PA in
the HLM models. The main effects of PsyCap on appraisals
and the health symptoms were still significant as predicted,
though the effect sizes were weaker in general. Moreover,
the interactions of PsyCap and unit traumatic exposures
reported in Table 3 remained significant after controlling for
NA and PA.
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and
Descriptive Analysis
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to
test the higher-order factor of trait PsyCap. In this
model, the first order indicator variables were the
scale items. The secondary-factor model showed
good model fit (2 483.22, df 197, p .01;
Normed Fit Index (NFI) .96; Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI) .94; Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
98; Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) .05). The standardized factor loadings
for the higher-order factor of trait PsyCap are .62
(optimism), .85 (hope), and .83 (ego resilience), and
the standardized factor loadings for the three first-
order factors ranged from .48 to .76. On the basis of
this support for the higher-order trait PsyCap model,
we aggregated the means of the three facets to index
trait PsyCap in the subsequent analyses. In addition,
a series of CFAs examined the appraisal and well-
being measures, specifically, to determine the dis-
criminant validity of loss appraisal and depression
and, separately, threat appraisal and anxiety. A four-
factor congeneric measurement model fit the data
quite well (2 1317.96, df 289, p .01; NFI model (Mp) is better supported than the fully medi-
.96; GFI .86; CFI 97; RMSEA .075). Alter-
native models that specified that loss and depression
and threat appraisal and anxiety loaded onto the same
latent factors produced substantial decrements in
model fit. These analyses therefore provide evidence
of acceptable discriminant validity.
Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations and
descriptive statistics for the studied variables. Con-
sistent with our hypotheses, trait PsyCap is nega-
tively correlated with threat appraisal, loss appraisal,
and the three types of health symptoms (anxiety,
somatic complaints, and depression), and it is posi-
tively associated with challenge appraisal.
Structural Equations Modeling Results
The structural equations modeling program LIS-
REL 8.80 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006) was used to
test the hypotheses. First, we tested the hypothesized
mediating role of appraisal as per Hypothesis 1. We
compared the fully mediated model (Mf, where trait
PsyCap is linked to appraisals and appraisals linked
to health symptoms), the nonmediated model (Mn,
where trait PsyCap is linked to appraisals and health
symptoms), and the partially mediated model (Mp,
where trait PsyCap is linked to appraisals and health
25
symptoms, and appraisals are linked to health symp-
toms). Results indicate that omitting either the direct
paths from trait PsyCap to health symptoms or the
paths from appraisals to health symptoms signifi-
cantly reduces the model fit, 2(Mf-Mp) 94.63,
df 3, p .01; 2(Mn-Mp) 220.14, df 9, p
.01. The goodness-of-fit statistics also indicate that
the partially mediated model (Mp) fits the data well,
2 413.71, df 168, p .01; RMSEA .05;
CFI .98; GFI .94. Trimming of nonsignificant
structural paths yielded a more parsimonious model
(see Figure 1) that also had acceptable model fit,
2 428.97, df 172, p .01; RMSEA .05;
CFI .98; GFI .94. We then examined each path
coefficient in the reduced model to test Hypothesis 3.
As shown in Figure 1, trait PsyCap is negatively
associated with loss appraisal (11 .42, p .01)
and threat appraisal (21 .13, p .01), but
positively related to challenge appraisal (31 .31,
p .01). In addition, trait PsyCap is significantly
(negatively) related to anxiety (41 .32, p .01),
somatic complaints (51 .34, p .01), and
depression (61 .43, p .01). Given that (a)
these individual coefficients are significant and in the
predicted directions, and (b) the partial mediation
ated model (Mf), there is strong support for the partial
mediation model. This supports Hypothesis 1.
We tested Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 by conducting
multiple group comparisons to examine whether as-
sociations among these constructs significantly differ
between groups that were rated high and low in unit
traumatic exposures. The multiple group comparison
approach enables us to examine all mediators to-
gether in the same model and also to test the differ-
ences in the direct and indirect effects between the
high and low unit traumatic exposures subsamples.
The three units with the highest levels of unit
traumatic exposures and the three units with the
lowest unit traumatic exposures were selected to
form two subsamples we labeled as the high trau-
matic exposures group and the low traumatic ex-
posures group.3 We conducted a series of nested
3
Two of the four judges stated that they were not familiar
with one of the companies rated by the other two. This
company was rated by the two as being fairly low on unit
traumatic exposures. In this unit the number of casualties
(killed and wounded) was third highest among the units
overall. As we included only unambiguously high and low
combat exposure groups in the LISREL multisample anal-
yses, we did not include this company in either of the
subsamples.
26 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN

model comparison to determine whether the factor

Note. Listwise n 633; for unit traumatic exposures, individuals within a unit were assigned the same value. Values in paraphrases on the diagonal are alpha reliabilities. For
(.84)
13
structures and associations among the factors were
equivalent between high and low unit traumatic ex-

.15
(.90)
posures groups. As shown in Table 2, we first freely
12

estimated all the parameters in the model (M0), and

then systematically constrained certain parameters to

.21
be equivalent across groups. Comparing M1 to M0,

.05
11

results indicate that constraining the measurement

model (i.e., factor loading matrices x and y, and

.36
residual matrices ) to be equivalent between the two

.09
.05
10

groups produces significant deterioration in the

model fit, 2(M1-M0) 128.64, df 41, p .01.
.12
.41
.12
.08
The model fit also suffers by placing invariance con-
9

straints on covariance among the latent factors (i.e.,

factor covariance matrices and ), 2(M2-M0)
.18
.39
.59

44.88, df 13, p .01. Therefore, we placed no

(.88)
.06
.05
8

equivalence constraint on the measurement model or

factor covariances when comparing the paths in the
.65

.14
.25
.49
(.87)

structure model in the following analyses.

.06
.05
7

A multigroup comparison model without invari-

ance constraints (M0, Table 3) exhibits a good model
.75
.69

.10
.21
.65

fit, 2 532.92, df 332, p .01; RMSEA .05;

(.90)

.05
.06
6

CFI .97. We examined the total and indirect ef-

fects of trait PsyCap on appraisals and health symp-
.49
.40
.54

.27
.49

toms between the high and low unit traumatic expo-

.10
(.83)

.04
.05
5

sures groups. The results are presented in Table 3.

The Fishers z tests indicate that the total effects of
.30

.20

.11
.11
.49
.11

trait PsyCap on cognitive appraisals and health symp-

.09
(.87)

.06

.03
4

toms are significantly stronger in the high unit trau-

matic exposures group. This supports Hypothesis 2
.50
.53
.30
.27

.54

and 3. In addition, the indirect effects of trait PsyCap

.10
(.92)

.02
.01
.04
.06

trait PsyCap, a composite reliability for the three components is reported.

3

on health symptoms variables (i.e., the effects of

PsyCap on health symptoms that are mediated by
.14
.29
.31
.41
.38
.51
.15
.14
.29
.60
.38

appraisals) are also stronger among individuals in the

(.77)
2

high unit traumatic exposures group for depression

and anxiety (p .01). The difference in the indirect
.36

.23

.11

.27

effects for somatic complaints was not significant

.09

.08
(.93)
.05

.06

.05
.02

.07
.04

(p .058). The overall pattern provides substantial

1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

support for moderated mediation in the expected di-

rections, however, thus supporting Hypothesis 4.
1.21
.56
1.42
1.24
1.44
.79
.79
1.06
7.05
3.49
1.76
.84
.78
SD

Supplementary Analyses Using HLM

Mean
2.88
3.60
1.96
1.85
1.98
.69
.58
1.02
26.74
3.16
4.79
3.22
2.31

Because of the nested structure of our data and

Unit traumatic exposures

the cross-level interactions involved in the hypoth-

eses, we conducted supplementary analyses using
p .05. p .01.
Somatic complaints

HLM (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) to

Negative affect

again test Hypothesis 2 and 3. As shown in Table

Positive affect
Trait PsyCap

4, results were consistent with findings reported

Depression
Challenge

Education

above. Unit traumatic exposures and trait PsyCap

Anxiety
Threat

Rank

interactively predicted threat and challenge ap-

Table 1

Loss

Age

praisals, but this interaction was not significant for

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

loss appraisal (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, there

 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE 27

-.34**

-.32**

Loss .22** Anxiety

Appraisal
.25**
-.42** .51** .48**
.41**
-.29**
.43** Somatic
Trait Threat
PsyCap Complaints
-.13** Appraisal .15**
.34**
.11* .35**
.31**
Challenge Depression
Appraisal

-.43**

Figure 1. Structural model of relations among studied variables. Note. N 633; Indicators
for each variable in the model were centered by unit means. Dashed lines indicate residual
covariance between factors. p .05, p .01; Model fit indices are 2 428.97, df
172, p .01; RMSEA .05; CFI .98; NFI .96; GFI .94.

were significant interaction effects in predicting
health symptoms (Hypothesis 3) except for the
dependent variable of depression.
To determine the patterns of the interactions, we
plotted the four significant interactions following the
procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991). Be-
cause the interactions predicting cognitive appraisals
(Hypothesis 2) and those predicting health symptoms
(Hypothesis 3) exhibited very similar patterns, we
present the plots for anxiety (see Figure 2) and so-
matic complaints (see Figure 3) only. Overall, the
interactions indicate that the relationships between
trait PsyCap and appraisals and health symptoms are
stronger with higher levels of unit traumatic expo-
sures compared to lower levels of unit traumatic
exposures.
Discussion
To investigate the effects of individual differences
in resilience to potentially traumatic exposures under
in extremis conditions, we examined a trait version
of an individual difference metaconstruct that has
been labeled positive psychological capital
(Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). This trait was signif-
icantly associated with indexes of psychological and
physical health, and these associations were found to
be mediated by cognitive appraisals. In addition, the
relationships between trait PsyCap and health symp-
toms were stronger in units with higher rated expo-
sures to more potentially traumatic events, and the
indirect influence on symptoms through cognitive
appraisals was also stronger among soldiers assigned
to these units. We discuss these findings below in
terms of the contributions that trait PsyCap can make
to the literature on stress and health, the general
question of whether personality traits promote genu-
ine resilience, and the implications for organizations
that must manage employees who operate in in
extremis conditions or who are exposed to poten-
tially traumatic events on a less regular basis.
Trait PsyCap Contributions
We found strong support for the higher-order mea-
surement model of trait PsyCap. Trait PsyCap ap-
pears to be a viable metaconstruct for predicting
health and performance-related variables. The Psy-
28 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN

Table 2
Multigroup Comparisons Results
Model comparison
Two-group comparison models 2 df CFI NFI RMSEA Comparison 2 df p
M0: all parameters to be freely estimated
across groups 532.92 332 .97 .93 .054
M1: measurement model equivalent
across groups 661.56 373 .95 .90 .062 M1M0 128.64 41 0.00
M2: factor covariance equivalent across
groups 577.80 345 .96 .92 .058 M2M0 44.88 13 0.00
M3: structural model equivalent across
groups 567.01 343 .96 .92 .057 M3M0 34.09 11 0.00
M4: all parameters equivalent across
groups 711.12 397 .95 .90 .062 M4M0 178.2 65 0.00
Note. n 208 for low unit traumatic exposures group and n 202 for the high unit traumatic exposures group. Indicators
for each variable in the SEM models were centered by unit means to preclude confounding group-level influence in
detecting individual-level relationships in the multi-level mediation models (Zhang, Zyphur, & Preacher, 2009).

Cap construct (both state and trait) is in its infancy
and derives from the relatively nascent positive psy-
chology literature. That literature, in turn, is based on
solid scientific evidence of traits and states such as
dispositional optimism, ego resilience, and hope,
which became prominent in the 1990s. Each individ-
ual construct is imperfect in representing general
resilience to stress, and thus their common factor
should provide a more complete index of the domain
of psychological resiliency. It is advantageous to
examine multiple constructs, but in this case con-
structs such as hope, ego resilience, and optimism are
very highly correlated. Their common factor is there-
fore a robust index of stress resilience without the
interpretive problems that come with highly corre-
lated independent variables. Whereas the PsyCap
construct is based on literature from positive psychol-
ogy, we should note that we took a more conven-
tional approach rather than a positive (i.e., based on
tenets of positive psychology) one in that we exam-
ined indexes of relatively poor health rather than
indexes of exemplary adaptability. Nevertheless, we
believe certain among our effects on somatic com-
plaints and other outcomes show evidence that per-
sons with higher trait PsyCap were more resilient
than persons with lower scores on this variable. There
are other constructs and metaconstructs that are pos-
tulated to reflect resilience, such as hardiness. What
distinguishes trait PsyCap is that it combines multiple
positive psychological traits. For many persons, ex-
periencing the kinds of events and stimuli included in
our measure of unit traumatic exposures may elicit
fearful and heart-rending visions of the future. More
optimistic persons are not delusional; rather, they are
able to recognize that dire circumstances are not
permanent and that change for the better is very
likely (Peterson, 2000). Trait optimism is part of the
trait PsyCap measure and this partially explains why
trait PsyCap was negatively correlated with threat
and loss appraisals and positively correlated with
challenge appraisals. The hope dimension reflects the
extent to which people perceive that the demands of
a situation can be overcome. This not only circum-
vents anxious or depressive reactions to traumatic
exposures, it also facilitates the challenge appraisals
that can lead to problem solving and other forms of
adaptive behavior. Finally, ego resilience is critical
because some traumatic exposures are so overwhelm-
ing that they can lead to questioning not only about
ones beliefs in a safe and just world but also even
more basic beliefs about the content and integrity of
ones self-concept. This dissonance in self-concept
can presage psychological trauma. Ego resilience
represents flexibility in the self-concept that enables
such exposures to be integrated into a stable and
favorable self-concept.
Although the question requires further research, it
is plausible based on their high covariations that
these traits are mutually supportive. For example, an
optimistic personality is more likely to develop the
kinds of solution-finding strategies associated with
the hope-path construct. Along the same lines as
Antonovskys (1979) sense of coherence (SOC) con-
struct, these particular traits reflect robust ego-
defensive processes. A review of the SOC literature
by Eriksson and Lindstrom (2005) found that stan-
dard measures of SOC exhibit quite high correlations
with positive psychological traits including disposi-
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE 29

tional optimism, self-esteem, hope, ego resilience,

High TE denotes high unit traumatic exposures group (n 202), and Low TE denotes low unit traumatic exposures group (n 208); indicators for each variable in the model
.24
.45
.73



p
emotional stability, and generalized efficacy. Other

Difference
Fishers z-test
trait constructs associated with resiliency refer to an
ability to maintain concerted focus on resolving prob-

1.17
.76
.35



lems and moving forward in the face of demands
Direct effect

(e.g., hardiness, core self-evaluation), and maintain-

Analyses on Total, Indirect, and Direct Effects From Trait PsyCap to Appraisals and Health for High and Low Traumatic Exposure Groups

ing positive emotionality. It is noteworthy that trait

Low TE

PsyCap was positively related to a state measure of

.19
.17
.22
Beta coefficient

positive affect (r .60) and, thus, it may partially

measure the broaden and build tendency of posi-
tively emotionality that Frederickson and her col-
High TE

.10
.14
.25
leagues have investigated as a resiliency trait

(Fredrickson et al., 2003; Tugade & Fredrickson,

2004). As research on PsyCap is at its nascent stage,
.01
.06
.01

we encourage researchers to examine its discriminant

p

validity with respect to other individual differences

Difference
Fishers z-test

such as SOC, hardiness, and core self-evaluation.

2.74
1.85
2.65



Indirect effect

Validity of Inferences Concerning

Trait Resilience
Low TE

.07
.05
.09
Beta coefficient

Unit-level measures of independently assessed

traumatic exposures enabled us to examine individual
differential vulnerability to common environmental
High TE

.33
.23
.34

conditions. This approach avoids the ecological fal-

lacy associated with the single event studies and it

anchors differences in traumatic exposure to the com-
.00
.00
.00
.06
.00
.00
p

mon experience of many people, thus extending work

that has relied on individual subjective perceptions of
Difference
Fishers z-test

demands. The cross-level interaction between com-

6.17
2.84
3.26
1.87
3.07
4.38

bat-related exposures and trait PsyCap provides a

fairly strong test of the hypothesis that the level of
Total effect

trait PsyCap not only determines responses to the

same environmental exposures, but also that this pos-
Low TE

itive psychological metaconstruct facilitates coping

.16
.06
.26
.36
.29
.44
Beta coefficient

to a greater extent when exposures increase in mag-

a

nitude. The difference in vulnerability associated

with trait PsyCap levels was more pronounced in
High TE
.65
.33
.53
.51
.54
.72

those units in which soldiers were exposed to more

traumatic events. Thus, as predicted by theoretical
a

perspectives about resilience (see Agaibi & Wilson,

Somatic complaints

2005; Richardson, 2002), high levels of trait PsyCap

appear to be more critical for coping when demands
were centered by unit means.

are most potentially overwhelming.

To

Depression
Challenge
Estimated Path

Because studies of work-related stress frequently

Anxiety
Threat

concentrate on psychological effects that are limited

Loss

by reliance on survey data, the causal inferences

linking subjective reports of stressors to symptom-
PsyCap
PsyCap
PsyCap
PsyCap
PsyCap
PsyCap

atology in many of these studies have been called

From

into question (Ganster, 2008). Unit traumatic expo-

Table 3

sures was measured by aggregating the independent

Trait
Trait
Trait
Trait
Trait
Trait

evaluations of commanders who were very knowl-

a
30 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN

Table 4
HLM Results in Testing the Interaction of Trait PsyCap and Unit Traumatic Exposures in Predicting
Appraisals and Health Symptoms
Loss appraisal Threat appraisal Challenge appraisal
Variables Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Intercept (00) 1.93 (.10) 1.92 (.09) 1.97 (.13) 1.97 (.12) 1.87 (.07) 1.87 (.07)
Unit traumatic exposures (01) .01 (.05) .09 (.06) .29 (.07) .46 (.07) .13 (.04) .07 (.04)
Trait PsyCap (10) .70 (.15) .71 (.13) .28 (.11) .31 (.05) .63 (.13) .64 (.11)
Trait PsyCap Unit
traumatic exposures (11) .18 (.08) .22 (.03) .14 (.05)
Anxiety Somatic complaints Depression
Variables Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Intercept (00) .67 (.05) .68 (.04) .57 (.04) .57 (.04) .98 (.06) .98 (.06)
Unit traumatic exposures (01) .07 (.02) .13 (.03) .00 (.03) .02 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.04)
Trait PsyCap (10) .52 (.07) .55 (.04) .51 (.05) .53 (.02) .92 (.06) .91 (.06)
Trait PsyCap Unit
traumatic exposures (11) .13 (.03) .09 (.01) .03 (.03)
Note. Listwise, n 633 (Level 1), n 9 (Level 2); values in parentheses are standard errors for the coefficient estimates.

p .05. p .01.

edgeable about the relative exposures of different
units, and it was based on their observations concern-
ing variables endemic to combat environments and
that have been found to be traumatic based on pre-
vious research. Conversely, appraisal variables are
abstract and subjective reports of individual emo-
tional experience. They aided our examination of
how soldiers coped more or less effectively with
these exposures in their personal lives during their
deployment. We were able to examine how persons
with higher levels of trait PsyCap in the same unit
reported lower levels of threat and loss and higher
levels of challenge, and how this tendency was sig-
nificantly more pronounced as unit-level combat-
related exposures increased. Given that stronger be-
tween-person correlations of trait PsyCap with
appraisals were observed as independently measured
unit traumatic exposures increased in level, there is
some empirical basis to infer that trait PsyCap un-
derlies stress resilience to a greater extent as expo-
sure levels increase.
Importance of Appraisal to
Differential Vulnerability
A considerable portion of the overall covariation
between trait PsyCap and psychological and physical
health symptoms was mediated by individual ap-
praisals of the deployment experience, and appraisals
more fully explained this covariation with well-being
among the units with higher levels of potentially
traumatic exposures. Our findings show that the dif-
ference between persons with more and less resilient
personalities lies not in how they cope with feelings
associated with stress, but rather it is because they
appraise the exposures as being less or more stressful.
Persons scoring high on trait PsyCap may often feel
threatened and have feelings of loss when exposed to
traumatic conditions, yet their perceptions may tend
to differ from persons with lower trait PsyCap as the
exposure level increases. It seems likely that, given
an opportunity to recover from any particular im-
mediate exposures (e.g., a deadly firefight), the
more potentially traumatic environments enabled
the differences in adaptive capability between dif-
ferent levels of trait PsyCap to emerge. It may be
that trait PsyCap in particular, or resiliency traits in
general, demonstrate their fullest value in facilitat-
ing coping only when encounters are very trau-
matic. It will be valuable to determine if such
evidence of moderated mediation holds when unit-
level exposures vary in other contexts that are less
potentially traumatic, such as the job stressors
(e.g., quantitative workload) that are commonly
studied in work stress research.
Among the three types of cognitive appraisals, loss
appraisal exhibited the strongest relationships with
health symptoms. Threat appraisal was more strongly
related to anxiety than was loss appraisal, but for all
other outcomes, loss appraisal had appreciably stron-
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE 31

2.2

1.8

1.6
Anxiety

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
Low Trait PsyCap High Trait PsyCap

Low Level of Unit Traumatic Exposures

High Level of Unit Traumatic Exposures

Figure 2. Interaction of trait PsyCap and unit traumatic exposures predicting anxiety.

ger relationships than threat appraisal and challenge
appraisal. Thus, the extent to which soldiers ap-
praised their deployment as being replete with loss
(e.g., pitiful, painful) influenced all three of the health
symptoms outcomes to a considerable extent. Al-
though challenge appraisal was significantly influ-
enced by unit traumatic exposures and trait PsyCap,
both independently and interactively, in the presence
of other appraisal variables it had no appreciable
relationship with health outcomes. We consider the
nature of the findings concerning loss and threat
appraisal below in drawing practical implications for
supporting soldiers in these types of conditions.
Practical Implications
Exposure to traumatic stress is very prevalent
among military personnel who are deployed in war
zones; therefore it becomes important to understand
soldiers psychological reactions to such traumatic
situations as violence, dead and wounded persons,
and periods of extreme danger. However, such trau-
matic exposures are also endemic to a wider range of
occupations, particularly first-responders to medi-
cal emergencies, fires, and accidents. Efforts to train
persons to develop more optimistic explanatory
styles, lower levels of catastrophic thinking, and con-
structive envisioning of the future, which are the
kinds of behaviors that persons scoring high on trait
PsyCap engage naturally, may help less psychologi-
cally resilient persons who are exposed to such dan-
gerous and emotionally draining work to cope more
effectively when traumatic stress is at its worst. Mar-
tin Seligman and his colleagues have undertaken to
lead a training program in which all U.S. Army
32 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN

0.8

0.7
Somatic Complaints

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Low Trait PsyCap High Trait PsyCap

Low Level of Unit Traumatic Exposures

High Level of Unit Traumatic Exposures

Figure 3. Interaction of trait PsyCap and unit traumatic exposures predicting somatic
complaints.

soldiers will be taught to develop more optimistic
appraisals and to use other strategies that foster re-
silience (New York Times, August 18, 2009). If this
program proves successful in terms of reducing long-
term health outcomes and their associated costs, it
would suggest to other institutions and organizations
the benefits of promoting a more positive psycho-
logical outlook as part of general training that can be
administered in the classroom, emphasizing elements
of PsyCap such as developing an optimistic explan-
atory style and avoiding catastrophic thinking.
Our findings have some implications for how best
to manage persons such as first-responders, who may
be exposed quite regularly to potentially traumatizing
events such as violence, dead and wounded persons,
and periods of extreme danger. As reviewed by Bo-
nanno (2004), Cognitive behavioral treatments that
aim to help traumatized individuals understand and
manage the anxiety and fear associated with trauma-
related stimuli have proved the most effective. (p.
22) Most of these treatments have been administered
by clinical professionals. However, leaders have a
great influence on how soldiers and other workers
frame their experiences in the field (Bartone, 2006).
Leaders can aid soldiers in developing realistically
optimistic explanatory styles by emphasizing the col-
lective responsibilities of different personnel for the
safety and well-being of others, and convincingly
articulating the connections between the proper uti-
lization of their resources and specific outcomes. For
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
example, when safety incidents arise, workers need
to be informed about what produced these incidents
so they can be confident that they can avoid them
with proper understanding and behavior. Leaders
also encourage hope (hope-path and hope-agency) by
developing a sense of collective purpose and, at the
operational level, very specific goals. To the extent
that soldiers are confident in each other (collective
efficacy) and in other resources at their disposal
(means efficacy), they can approach potentially dan-
gerous situations without a prevailing sense of fore-
boding and fear. Such framing is an essential part of
the transformational leadership model, wherein lead-
ers model ideal behavior, emphasize a collective
sense of purpose, and stimulate followers to think
about various ways they can improve group perfor-
mance. They also exhibit individualized consider-
ation, which in this context pertains to understanding
which followers may not be responding in a resilient
manner to traumatic exposures, and helping them
reframe traumatizing incidents by emphasizing to the
individual that he or she is not alone in his or her
suffering (to lower loss appraisal), that coworkers are
aiding him or her in maintaining a safe environment,
and stimulating his or her thinking about duties in
terms of challenge and potential for both individual
and collective benefits (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
The clinical literature also suggests that inocula-
tion therapy in advance of expected traumatic expo-
sures and prolonged exposure therapy can be bene-
ficial for reducing the potential for PTSD (Foa et al.,
1999). Exposing soldiers to simulations of the
stresses of combat may enable soldiers to gain per-
spective about the environment they will encounter
during deployment without the high levels of danger
and other stressors that tend to make challenging
situations more traumatic. We encourage continued
research on the benefits of such realistic previews for
adjustment to very novel and stressful environments.
Leaders can also engage in a form of inoculation by
practicing repeated drills that address response strat-
egies for potentially traumatic situations such as mass
casualties that may confront soldiers and other first
responders. This has the added advantage of promot-
ing confidence in collective and personal response
strategies, thus facilitating states of optimism and
hope. Finally, leaders of workers who confront nox-
ious circumstances repeatedly should be mindful of
the need to attend to the reactions of individuals who
are exposed to them for the first time. Properly fram-
ing these exposures at the outset of a first deployment
or a new position as a first-responder may reduce
33
individuals vulnerability to subsequent similar ex-
posures.
Limitations
The findings from our study have applications
within work environments that require exposures to
traumatic events, such as trauma care physicians,
morticians, forensic detectives, and first-responder
professions such as paramedics, firefighters, military,
and police. One potential limitation of this study
nevertheless concerns the potential generalizability
of the findings. The extent to which the current re-
sults extend to other organizational settings in which
danger and hardship are a continual aspect of the
work role remains to be seen. The combat context of
this study was very unique and we have emphasized
these aspects because we believe this is the kind of
context that can be particularly useful for testing the
hypotheses associated with our research questions
(see Griffin, 2007). Similar research examining such
occupations as firefighters, police officers, and emer-
gency workers is needed. We anticipate that these
phenomena concerning trait PsyCap can be studied
quite effectively by differentiating first-responder
units by degree of exposure. Traumatic stress in
military settings may be more intense than the
stresses typically encountered by first-responders, al-
though it remains to be seen whether lower mean
levels of such stressors are associated with weaker
covariation with trait PsyCap.
Future research should seek to develop other inde-
pendent measures of traumatic stressors which may
evoke the primary appraisal reports of loss, threat, or
challenge. This would help to determine how specific
events, such as work crises and change, translate into
risks for emotional and physical distress. It would
also be useful to obtain objective individual measures
of exposure. This would permit a finer-grained as-
sessment of the individual differences and more re-
liable tests of the moderating effect of traumatic
exposure because some persons may be more or less
directly confronted by a given exposure in their unit.
Although we expect that the influence of traumatic
exposure ramifies across units and thus produces
shared stressors (Tucker et al., 2005; Van Yperen &
Snijders, 2000), it seems likely that the differences
between high and low exposures are underestimated
by relying solely upon company level measures of
traumatic exposure. Future studies would ideally ob-
tain measures at the squad or platoon level, sampling
a substantially greater number of units than were
sampled in the present study, to determine the gran-
34 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN
ularity of effects. It would also be useful to examine
differences among units in terms climate variables
such as justice climate and general morale, as they
may alter appraisals of traumatic events and how
people respond to those appraisals (see Innes &
Barling, 2006).
It is also important to recognize that the types of
operations in which the soldiers in this study were
engaged also have characteristics that can make them
potentially even more stressful than conventional
military operations against a nation state. These op-
erations could be characterized at least partially as
peacekeeping in the midst of intrastate civilian com-
bat. As reviewed by Innes and Barling (2006), such
environments add unique dimensions of stress to
warfare because the soldiers are not only encounter-
ing and engaging in violence and all its traumatic
secondary exposures, there are unique problems as-
sociated with distinguishing combatants from non-
combatants, encountering and interacting diplomati-
cally with often hostile native noncombatants, being
more uncertain about appropriate responses to en-
counters, operating under more complex rules of
engagement, and frequently transitioning between of-
fensive operations and peacekeeping work. Thus the
areas that must be addressed to support soldier well
being in deployments of this nature go well beyond
the variables that were examined in this study. In
addition, given the cross-sectional nature of this
study, we cannot confidently state that these relation-
ships represent causal effects nor can we very spe-
cifically determine which particular exposures were
the most influential for each individual. Future stud-
ies could provide more robust inferences of cause and
effect by measure trait PsyCap in advance of deploy-
ment and separating the appraisal and health outcome
measures in time.
Although trait PsyCap exhibited significant indi-
rect relationships through appraisal variables, there
were also significant direct relationships indicating
that appraisal did not fully account for the influence
of trait PsyCap. Future studies could profitably ex-
amine a broader model that seeks to identify other
mediating processes. For example, it may be that trait
PsyCap influences behavioral and psychological cop-
ing strategies independent of the influence of cogni-
tive appraisals. We look to future research to more
fully account for the processes mediating the rela-
tionship between trait PsyCap on health. Measuring
soldiers appraisals and coping strategies before, dur-
ing, and after deployment would also aid in sorting
out cause and effect. It would be valuable to include
physiological measures in appraisal-based studies be-
cause of their prominent role in theory and research
with regard to the consequences of stressors (Son-
nentag & Frese, 2003) and their relative effectiveness
in predicting specific health outcomes such as car-
diovascular disease (Landsbergis et al., 2002).
Conclusions
There is a continuing need to investigate how
individuals who experience traumatic stress over a
prolonged period of time either adapt to it or fail to
cope with it effectively (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
Our study suggests that the metaconstruct of positive
psychological capital may serve a substantial role in
differentiating those who prove to be more or less
adaptive to extremely stressful environments. The
content of trait PsyCap is also represented in state-
like constructs (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007), and
thus what we have learned about the common influ-
ences of optimism, hope, and ego resilience suggests
that strategies can be developed to better shape these
dispositions among employees and thus facilitate
their coping with traumatic stress exposures.
References
Agaibi, C. E., & Wilson, J. P. (2005). Trauma, PTSD, and
resilience. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6, 195216.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Anshel, M. H. (2000). A conceptual model and implications
for coping with stressful events in police work. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 27, 375 400.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F.
(2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on em-
ployee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15, 1728.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. A. (2007). 9/11 and New
York City firefighters post hoc unit support and control
climates: A context theory of the consequences of in-
volvement in traumatic work-related events. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 849 868.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. (2008).
Firefighters critical incidents and drinking to cope: The
adequacy of unit-level performance as a source of vul-
nerability and protection. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 155169.
Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-
related stress in army reserve forces. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 72 82.
Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE
stress: Can leaders influence hardiness? Military Psy-
chology, 18, 131148.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organiza-
tional effectiveness through transformational leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beaton, R., Murphy, S., Pike, K., & Jarret, M. (1995).
Stress-symptoms factors in firefighters and paramedics.
In S. L., Sauter & L. R., Murphy (Eds.), Organizational
risk factors for job stress (pp. 227246). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A.
(2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predic-
tors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 391 405.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego resiliency:
Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349
361.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience:
Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive
after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist,
59, 20 28.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1993). Vigilant and
avoidant coping in two patient samples. In H. W. Krohne
(Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with
aversiveness (pp. 295319). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe &
Huber Publishers.
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2001). Chronic and acute
stressors among military personnel: Do coping styles
buffer their negative impact on health? Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 6, 348 360.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symp-
tom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological
Medicine, 13, 595 605.
Dienstbier, R. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness:
Implications for mental and physical health. Psycholog-
ical Review, 96, 84 100.
Engel, C. C., Liu, X., McCarthy, B. D., Miller, R. F., &
Ursano, R. J. (2004). Relationship of physical symptoms
to posttraumatic stress disorder among veterans seeking
care for Gulf War-related health concerns. Psychomatic
Medicine, 62, 739 745.
Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Validity of An-
tonovskys sense of coherence scale: A systematic re-
view. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
59, 460 466.
Farley, K. M. J., & Catano, V. M. (2006). The battlefield as
workplace: Violence in warfighting, pp. 281308. In
Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J. & Hurrell, J. (Eds.). Hand-
book of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferguson, E., Matthews, G., & Cox, T. (1999). The ap-
praisal of life events (ALE) scale: Reliability and valid-
ity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 97116.
Foa, E. B., Dancu, C. V., Hembree, E. A., Jaycox, L. H.,
Meadows, E. A., & Street, G. P. (1999). A comparison of
exposure therapy, stress inoculation training, and their
combination for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder in
female assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 67, 194 200.
Fontana, A., & Rosenheck, R. (1998). Psychological bene-
fits and liabilities of traumatic exposure in a war zone.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3, 485503.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin,
G. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises?
35
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365
376.
Ganster, D. C. (2008). Measurement challenges for studying
work-related stressors and strains. Human Resource
Management Review, 18, 259 270.
Green, B. L. (1996). Traumatic stress and disaster: Mental
health effects and factors influencing adaptation. In F. L.
Mak & C. C. Nadelson (Eds.), International review of
psychiatry (Vol. 2, pp. 177210). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Greiger, T. A., Cozza, S. J., Ursano, R. J., Hoge, C.,
Martinez, P. E., Engel, C. C., & Wain, H. J. (2006).
Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle-
injured soldiers. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
163, 17771783.
Griffin, M. (2007). Specifying organizational contexts: Sys-
tematic links between contexts and processes in organi-
zational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
28, 859 863.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York:
Basic Books.
Hirsch, J. K., Wolford, K., Lalonde, S. M., Brunk, L., &
Parker-Morris, A. (2009). Optimistic explanatory style as
a moderator of the association between negative life
events and suicide ideation. Crisis, 30, 48 53.
Hobfoll, S. E., Palmieri, P. A., Johnson, R. J., Canetti-
Nisim, D., Hall, B. J., & Galea, S. (2009). Trajectories of
resilience, resistance, and distress during ongoing terror-
ism: The case of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 138 148.
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D.,
Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in
Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and bar-
riers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351,
1322.
Hoge, C. W., Terhakopian, A., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C.,
& Engel, C. C. (2007). Association of posttraumatic
stress disorder with somatic symptoms, health care visits,
and absenteeism among lraq War veterans. American
Journal of Psychiatry, l64, 150 153.
Innes, M., & Barling, J. (2006). Violence in peacekeeping,
pp. 309 329. In Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J. & Hurrell,
J. (Eds.). Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jermier, J. M., Gaines, J., & McIntosh, N. J. (1989). Reac-
tions to physically dangerous work: A conceptual and
empirical analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
10, 1533.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for
Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scien-
tific Software International.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and
health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 111.
Kubzansky, L. D., Sparrow, D., Vokonas, P., & Kawachi, I.
(2001). Is the glass half empty or half full? A prospective
study of optimism and coronary heart disease in the
normative aging study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63,
910 916.
Lai, J. C. L. (2009). Dispositional optimism buffers the
impact of daily hassles on mental health in Chinese
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
247249.
36 SCHAUBROECK, RIOLLI, PENG, AND SPAIN
Lamberg, L. (2004). Reclaiming child soldiers lost lives.
JAMA, 292, 553554.
Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., Belkic, K. L., Baker, D.,
Schwartz, J. E., & Pickering, T. G. (2002). Workplace
cardiovascular disease: Relevance and potential role for
occupational health psychology. In J. Quick & L. Tetrick
(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp.
265287). Washington DC: American Psychological As-
sociation.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the
emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 44, 121.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York: Springer.
Leblanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and
outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 444 453.
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A
meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance
stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent re-
lationships among stressors and performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 764 775.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avery, J. B., & Norman, S. M.
(2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and
relationship with performance and satisfaction. Person-
nel Psychology, 60, 541572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W.
(2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers:
Exploring the relationship with performance. Manage-
ment and Organization Review, 1, 247269.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psy-
chological capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., &
Zubek, J. (1998). Personal resilience, cognitive apprais-
als, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to
abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 735752.
McFarlane, A. C. (1988). The longitudinal course of post-
traumatic morbidity. The range of outcomes and their
predictors. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
176, 30 39.
Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT-IV) Operation Iraq
Freedom 05 07. Office of the Surgeon General Multi-
National Forces-Iraq and Office of the Surgeon General
United States Army Medical Command, November 17,
2006, available at http://www.armymedicine.army.mil
Murphy, S. A., & Beaton, R. (1991, October). Counteract-
ing effects of trauma in everyday life: Leisure patterns
among firefighters. Paper presented at the seventh annual
meeting of the Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,
Washington, DC.
New York Times. (2009). Army gets $117 million for
emotional training. Published online August, 18, 2009.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American
Psychologist, 55, 44 55.
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz,
J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transforma-
tional leadership, and firm performance in high technol-
ogy start-up and established firms. Journal of Manage-
ment, 35, 348 368.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6:
Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincoln-
wood IL: Scientific Software International.
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The meta-theory of resilience and
resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307321.
Riolli, L., Savicki, V., & Cepani, A. (2002). Resilience in
the face of catastrophe: Optimism, personality, and cop-
ing in the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 32, 1604 1627.
Rossi, N. E., Bisconti, T. L., & Bergeman, C. S. (2007). The
role of dispositional resilience in regaining life satisfac-
tion after the loss of a spouse. Death Studies, 31, 863
883.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping,
and health: Assessment and implications of generalized
outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219 247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism
on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical
overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 16, 201228.
Schnurr, P. P., & Green, B. L. (2004). Understanding rela-
tionships among trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder,
and health outcomes. Advances in Mind Body Medicine,
20, 18 29.
Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., Weisbuch, M., & Vick, S. B.
(2004). The relationship between self-esteem level, self-
esteem stability, and cardiovascular reactions to perfor-
mance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 87, 133145.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York:
Pocket Books.
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., & Sympson, S. C. (1997).
Hope: An individual motive for social competence.
Group Dynamics Theory, Research, and Practice, 1,
107118.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). Hope
and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C. R.
Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and
clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285
305). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations.
In: W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 453 491). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Southwick, S. M., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. S.
(2005). The psychobiology of depression and resilience
to stress: Implications for prevention and treatment. An-
nual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 255291.
Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence
higher order construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
1208 1224.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttrau-
matic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy
of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455 471.
Tomaka, J., Palacios, R., Schneider, K. T., Colotla, M.,
Concha, J. B., & Herrald, M. M. (1999). Assertiveness
predicts threat and challenge reactions to potential stress
among women. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76, 1008 1021.
Tucker, J. S., Sinclair, R. R., & Thomas, J. L. (2005). The
multilevel effects of occupational stressors on soldiers
well-being, organizational attachment, and readiness. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 276 299.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient
individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from
 TRAUMA AND RESILIENCE 37

negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86, 320 333.
van der Kolk, B. A., & McFarlane, A. C. (1996). The black
hole of trauma. In B. A. van der Kolk & A. C. McFarlane
(Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming
experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 323). New
York: Guilford Press.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multi-
level analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at
work determined by factors at the group level or the
individual level? Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 5, 182190.
Warner, C. H., Breitbach, J. E., Appenzeller, G. N., Yates,
V. D., Greiger, T., & Webster, W. G. (2007). Division
mental health: Its role in the new brigade combat team
structure part I: Pre-deployment and deployment. Mili-
tary Medicine, 172, 9071011.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Develop-
ment and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing
multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models:
Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 12, 695719.
Received February 3, 2010
Revision received July 7, 2010
Accepted July 13, 2010 y

New Editor Appointed for Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology, 20122016
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, along with Division 47 (Exercise and Sport Psychology) of the APA are pleased to
announce the appointment of an editor for Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology
for a 5-year term beginning in 2012. As of January 1, 2011, all manuscripts should be
directed to:
Jeffrey J. Martin, PhD
Wayne State University
265 Matthaei Building
Detroit, MI 48202
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2011, manuscripts should be
submitted electronically via the journals Manuscript Submission Portal: http://
www.apa.org/pubs/journals/spy, under the Instructions to Authors.
Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology will begin publication in spring 2012.