Keywords
combatants
psychological structure of personality
empirical operationalization
combat service
coping strategies
psychological adaptation
social support
How to Cite
Abstract
Background. The psychological functioning of military personnel under combat conditions encompasses interrelated cognitive, emotional-regulatory, motivational-value, behavioral, and social characteristics. However, presenting psychodiagnostic findings as a collection of separate test scores limits the possibilities for a systemic analysis of personality and makes it difficult to determine which specific psychological characteristics are represented by the empirical data obtained. This highlights the need for a theoretically grounded operationalization of the psychological structure of personality in combatants.
Objective. To substantiate a system of empirical indicators of the psychological structure of personality in combatants and to assess its analytical utility by identifying between-group differences and examining patterns of cross-domain organization of psychological characteristics according to current military service conditions.
Methods. A cross-sectional comparative design was employed. The sample comprised 252 male service members with experience in performing military and combat-related duties: 126 serving in combat positions and 126 in rear-service positions. The theoretical model was operationalized across five interrelated domains: cognitive-analytical, emotional-regulatory, motivational-value, behavioral, and social-integrative. Quantitative variables were analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, Mann–Whitney U test, and rank-biserial correlation as an effect-size measure; categorical data were analyzed using Pearson’s χ² test and Cramér’s V. Cross-domain correlations were calculated separately for the combat and rear-service groups, and between-group differences in correlations were examined using Fisher’s z transformation.
Results. Between-group differences were identified across all five functional domains. Service members in combat positions demonstrated higher intellectual productivity (rrb = .302), intrinsic motivation (rrb = .408), and extrinsic positive motivation (rrb = .461), as well as more frequent use of emotional social support (rrb = .294) and behavioral disengagement (rrb = .383). They also showed higher levels of social expectations and vigilance. Active coping was more pronounced in the rear-service group (rrb = −.192). Of the 78 theoretically specified cross-domain pairs, 27 showed statistically significant between-group differences in correlations. The largest differences concerned associations between internality and social support, as well as between emotional characteristics and behavioral strategies. The findings indicate that current service conditions are associated not only with the levels of individual psychological characteristics but also with the configuration of relationships among them.
Conclusions. The proposed operationalization enables a transition from a fragmented analysis of psychodiagnostic indicators to a systemic examination of the psychological structure of military personnel. A specific psychological characteristic situated within a theoretically grounded functional domain should serve as the unit of empirical analysis, whereas a psychodiagnostic measure functions as the instrument for its assessment. The scientific value of the proposed approach lies in combining the analysis of individual psychological characteristics with an assessment of the configuration of cross-domain relationships, thereby providing a basis for differentiated psychological support tailored to current military service conditions.
Keywords: military personnel; combatants; psychological structure of personality; empirical operationalization; combat service; coping strategies; psychological adaptation; social support.
References
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20
Bonanno, G. A., & Diminich, E. D. (2013). Annual Research Review: Positive adjustment to adversity-Trajectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 378–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12021
Borysova, O. O. (2023). Psykhoedukatsiini modeli v protsesi psykhoreabilitatsii uchasnykiv boiovykh dii: Poniattia ta funktsii, pryklad [Psychoeducational models in the psychological rehabilitation of combatants: Concept, functions, and an example]. Naukovyi Visnyk Uzhhorodskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu. Seriia: Psykholohiia, 3, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.32782/psy-visnyk/2023.3.1 [in Ukrainian].
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(4), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046900
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). 16PF fifth edition questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton.
Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.
Khokhlina, O. P. (2016). Problema struktury osobystosti u psykholohii [The problem of personality structure in psychology]. Yurydychna Psykholohiia, 2(19), 20–31 [in Ukrainian].
Kokun, O. M., Pishko, I. O., Lozinska, N. S., Oliinyk, V. O., Khoruzhyi, S. M., Larionov, S. O., & Syrytsia, M. V. (2023). Osoblyvosti nadannia psykholohichnoi dopomohy viiskovosluzhbovtsiam, veteranam ta chlenam yikhnikh simei tsyvilnymy psykholohamy [Features of psychological assistance provided by civilian psychologists to service members, veterans, and their families] [Methodological guide]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Kolesnichenko, O. S. (2018). Zasady boiovoi psykholohichnoi travmatyzatsii viiskovosluzhbovtsiv [Foundations of combat-related psychological traumatization of service members]. FOP Brovin O. V. [in Ukrainian].
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
Maddi, S. R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167804266101
Maksymenko, S. D., & Mul, S. A. (2009). Struktura osobystosti: Teoretyko-metodolohichnyi aspekt [Personality structure: A theoretical and methodological perspective]. Problemy Suchasnoi Psykholohii, 6(1), 3–13 [in Ukrainian].
Prokofieva, L. O. (2024). Vplyv boiovoho stresu na psykholohichnyi stan uchasnykiv boiovykh dii [The impact of combat stress on the psychological state of combatants]. Habitus, 58, 239–243. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5208.2024.58.40 [in Ukrainian].
Prykhodko, I. (2018). Systema profilaktyky ta kontroliu boiovoho stresu u viiskovosluzhbovtsiv [A system for the prevention and control of combat stress among service members]. Visnyk Natsionalnoi Akademii Derzhavnoi Prykordonnoi Sluzhby Ukrainy, 1, 2–18 [in Ukrainian].
Pyroh, H. V., Shmyhliuk, O. H., & Horbachuk, Yu. O. (2019). Osoblyvosti psykholohichnykh staniv uchasnykiv antyterorystychnoi operatsii / operatsii obiednanykh syl [Psychological states of participants in the Anti-Terrorist Operation / Joint Forces Operation]. Teoriia i Praktyka Suchasnoi Psykholohii, 3(2), 130–134 [in Ukrainian].
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
Rybalka, V. V. (2000). Psykholohichna struktura osobystosti [Psychological structure of personality]. In Yu. L. Trofimov (Ed.), Psykholohiia [Psychology] (pp. 116–122). Lybid [in Ukrainian].
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02103658
Usyk, D. B. (2024). Psykholohichni osoblyvosti dezadaptatsii viiskovosluzhbovtsiv − uchasnykiv boiovykh dii [Psychological features of maladjustment among service members who participated in combat]. Slobozhanskyi Naukovyi Visnyk, 1, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.32782/psyspu/2024.1.32 [in Ukrainian].
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Stanislav Khomenko