H ;~.: . . -..:-. .--*e......-;-.-....
. J - (
.-

   

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Desire for Control and the Effifzfr}: of
Stress Management in Basic Tra g

presented by

Mat thew Paul Novak

t
has been accepted towards fulfillmen
of the requirements for

PH- D. #degree in W

    

ajor professor

. . . 0-]
MSU . Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 277'
'3 an Affirmative

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
L University ‘

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before da te due. (1
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date If requeste .

 

 

DAT DUE DATE DUE ' DATE DUE

 

 

 

OCT 3 0 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65.p_15

 

DESIRE FOR CONTROL AND THE EFFICACY OF
STRESS MANAGEMENT IN BASIC TRAINING

BY

Matthew Paul. Novek

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillInent of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2002

ABSTRACT

DESIRE FOR CONTROL AND THE EFFICACY OF
STRESS MANAGEMENT IN BASIC TRAINING

By
Matthew Paul Novak

. , _ . ohmteered to
Four hundred and nine recruits entering Anny basrc tralnlng V

' ' - - mana ement
Pamelpate in a study that exammed the effects of a two-sessmn stress g

intervention on anxiety. Desire for control was also examined a5 a predictor 0f change in
anxiety and as a possible moderator variable on the relationship between stress
management and anxiety. Results indicated that the stress management intervention was
ineffective, that desire for control was not related to changes in anxiety, and that desire
for control did not moderate the relationship between stress management and anxiety.

Possible reasons for these findings were discussed, as were suggestions for fiiture

research.

This work is dedicated to my best friend, my partrler, my love, Nadine,
who has supported me more than she could know,

who proved to me that God cares for me, and each and every One of us.

Thank you, My Love.

I look forward to along and happy life With you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

. . . at
A professor here at Michigan State Umvershy once pomted out to me th

. . CS 35
although we celebrate successes such as dissertations and doctoral degr6
uld be unable to

achievements that we have attained individually, in actuality we wo
many people. Were l to
y,

accomplish them without the assistance and support of man
this journey, thls

aCkHOWIGdge all who have supported and helped me in completing
y blessed that I am able to

section would be nearly as long as the Work itself. I feel trul
e to acknowledge some Who stand out as 1

make such a statement. This said, IWould lik

look back on the road that has brought me here.
To Bob Caldwell, thank you for your sage advice, patience, and encouragement

over these many years.
To my parents, Kata and Richard, thank you for the love and Sl-lpport you have

provided me over the years.
To my other family members, especially my brothers, Jeff and Shawn and II)
’ y

Aunt Angela, thank you for letting me bend your ears and for the advice you have

pr eVided over the years.
To Karen, thank you for helping me to grow and for being there while I was.

To Aaron, Dave, Derek, and Dan, thanks for hanging out with me, letting me

gripe, and kicking me in the rear when I needed it. I value the friendship I share with

63°11 Of you.

iv

TO my many other fi'iendS, 00116281163, and coworkers, who aflowgg'me to but?

. . d
myself 111 my work When I needed to, who picked up the slack while I was domg 50’ an

who encouraged me when I most needed it.

To my clients, who show me every day why the journey was worth 1

and Who
And, finally, to God, who has been With me throughout all of my travels,

' test
reveals hIS presence through people like those listed above_ To you goes my giea

gratitude. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

....... viii
List of Figures ............................................................................. ix
List of Tables ................................................................... '

........ \
Introduction .........................................................................

.. 2
A New Conceptualization of Stress .................................................

.-°"A

Coping....... ,,,,...........,-. A

Instmmcentalcontrol....-.................-...................-,.,,......,.....-----' ”"6

Informationalcontrol..-..................-...................-,,,.........-o--°"'"" ,...---8
Cognitive Conn-01...”.........,...........- -.-

,,9
StressManagememInterventions...........
CopingIsNotAlwaysEffective-............“mummmm--“Humm- \3
Simafionalvariables ........................................................ * ~ .
Individual variables . . .

Personality and Coping ........................................................
Desire for control ..........................................................

Matching Style to Coping Technique .................................. , ' . . . .

.00....
cocooooooonooooooooo
.0000... -
' o
o
.OICODOIUOIDOII...0......‘009.0...O D

.‘ ‘~.'...30
easures ..........................................................................

on
............................
.................
o
................................
o . y a
.....

Vi

, ,,,,, 68

AppendiceS........................------- - . - - --..- --"""':: ..... 69
Appendix A Infonned Consent ...... . ..................................... .. """"""""
Appendix B Pro-intervention Quesuonnaire Including: Demograpmc

questions, Desirability fer Control Scale, and S.Anxiety ............. 73

from the State-Trait AnXiety Inventory© ...................................... 7(6)

Appendix C Outline of Stress Management Protocol .................................... 7 4
Appendix D ANOVAs and Post-Hoe Analyses ........................... 8

Appendix E Crosstabs - - .........................................................

Vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figi_1_re 1. Graphic representation of the 6Xpected results of Hypothesis}, ............ 29
with anxiety as a function of Desire for C Ontrol and eXpez-imental condlflon' "

vm

LIST OF TABLES

Pearson correlations between Continuous Variables .....................

Table 1.
Table 2. AN OVA of Desire for Control X Race .................................
Table 3. Post hoc comparison of Desire for Control X Race using ...............
Student-Newman—Keuls procedure .............................. 39
Table 4. AN OVA of Desire for Control X Race less “other” categmY ..........
Table 5. Post hoc comparison of Desire for Control X Race (less 40
“other” category) using Student-Newman-Keuls procedure """"""""
.42
Table 6. Multiple regression results for Hypothesis 1.. . , . - .
43
Table'l. Multiple regression results for Hypothesis 2. , , - . . _ . _ - _ "
_ 5
Table 8. Multiple regressron results for Hypothesis 3, , - _ .. . . "4
T able Dl. Results of ANOVAS investigating connection between S
and continuous variables ................................. ex “p.79
T able D2. Results of ANOV As investigating connection between R
and continuous variables ..................................... . ac
“ ....,...80
Table D3. Results of Student—Newman—Keuls test of Race X Age. - .
Table D4. Results of Student-Newman‘Keuls of Race X Desire fOr C o l ‘ r . 8)
1211-01- -.
Table D5. Results of ANOVAS investigating connection between Marita] ‘ ' 8
, . ' I
Stat-us and contlnuOuS varlablCS . .........................................
Table D6. Results of ANOVAs investigating connection between . 82
Experimental Condition and continuous variables .......................
" .... 83
Table E 1. Results of Chi-Squal- 6 Test on Crosstab of Sex X
Expenmental Condition . ........................................................... 84
1‘3le E2. Results of Chi-Square Tests for CIOSSIab Of Race X
Experimental Condition ............................................................ 84
Table E3. Results of chi-Square Tests for Crosstab of Marital X
Experimental Condition ............................................................ 84

ix

 

lr
(l 984) re
(0 an en
potentia
characte
demand:
rssearch
SUppon
“QNm:

Percepu

 

 

96mm
mtludi
Supp“
sum:
desk

Dis

Introduction
11011011"m

In their landmark work, Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Lazarus and

tion
t a 1‘ 630
as no

(1984) revolutionized human stress research by suggesting that stress W

individual and me

to an event or the event itself, but rather an interaction between the
was influenced by

. . - , tion 0‘ me
characteristics of the stressful event (the stressor), the 1ndIV1dual S payee?

potentially stressful situation. They argued that this interaction

. 0 date.
demands of the event, and the resources avallable to cope With that eVCm- T

. . also
research has produced significant evrdence to support this model. Researchhas

'iive
. . . , . . 0
supported that interventions such as traimng 1n relaxation, prOblem-solvmg, and 0 gm

. . . - . it
restructuring techniques can decrease stress by assrstmg 1nd1 Viduals in Chanel“? the
perceptions either of the demands of the stressor or of the resources avaj 1 ble
3 .
Lazarus and Folkman’s 1984 model further su gested that - ,
perception of events is affected by persistent characteristics inherent to . . .
- . . the mdiVldual,
including personality factors. Again, research has provlded Significant eVid
enCe in
SUPPOrt of this supposition. To date, however, few studies have exalnined the in;

Such intrinsic factors on the efficacy of stress management interventions. This Stu Ct or

. , ' variable on . was
deslgrned, therefore, to examine the effects Of a personality the effectlvea
638

ofsuch an intervention,

A NBW conceptualization of Stress
, . 'fied stress as
Earlier in the last century, the most pOpular conceptualizations Mien“

, 1 e 1956) or the

either a non-Specific reaction to “stressful ’ events (Cannon, 1932; Se Y ’

e
certain 6" ants wer
at

“stressful” events themselves. Both conceptualizations assumed th
stressful to all individuals experiencing them, while the former 3.15

met of these

Organisms respond to stress in the same way. Research did not supPOfi 6‘
‘ ” tress’iul, and that
concepts; it seemed that so—called “stressful events were not always 5
individuals differed greatly in their reaction to events that they deemed stressful-
d a
in an effort to address these problems, Lazarus and Folkrnan (1 984) propose
model of stress that was based on the interaction between the. individual and melt
' u - l.
envrromnent. They defined stress as a relationship between the pagon and envirowm
that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resoul.
06% and

endangering his or her well being” (p. 21). This new model suggested th
at there are

individual and group differences in the degree and kind 0f feaCtion ‘0 sh.e
. 3301's-

first time, stress was identified as relative. 1' (176
Research has supported this conceptualization of stress. In revierng the
literature, Thompson (1981) reported that events appear to become stressfuI ifthe

beIieVes that the harm or cost inVQ1ved will overtax the person s abilities to 00p e With

such an eVent, or if the outcome is not desirable enough to outweigh these costs. One’s

Perceptions of the demands of the situation and of their ability to cope With that Situation

are ‘11 erefOre paramount in determining Whether an event is str€SSfi11-
Lazarus and Folkrnan (1984) suggested that individuals engage in a two—part

process of analysis, or “appraisal,” to determine ifan event is stressful. The first part of

the process, primary appraisal, is a fairly automatic process during which an Individual

decides if an event is: 1) irrelevant, 2) meaningful, but benign or positive, or 3)
' - . ' ation for
meaningful and threatening. Events that are deemed in'elevant have no unphc
- but
a . am'flgfifi"
the person 5 Well-being, and are therefore not stressfiil. Events that 31' 6 me

‘ . . — ofiefi
bemgn, tend to preserve or enhance well-belng, even though the 'md.i\l'1d‘m

ents mg)“ be seen as

Ev entS

experiences some apprehension in response to the stressor. Such 3"
mildly stressful, but do not threaten to overwhelm the individual’ 5 ability to COPB'
that are deemed meaningful and threatening may damage the person’s physical OI
psychological self, that is, they may cause harm or 1055. Alternately, such events may
present the potential for gain and growth, and are thus seen as Challenges. L 81mg and

Folklnan pointed out that threat and challenge are not mutually exclusiv (1 often
e an

coexist.

The second part of the process, secondary appraisal, occurs if th
. . . ' event is
Perceived as meamngful and threatenmg. In this part of the process, the -
lhdivj
. _ . d
ldennfies if they have the capacity to manage the perceived discrepancy bet“, Hal
eel)

the

demands of the situation and the resources available to meet the situation. That .
IS,

Indrvi dual must decide what can b e done to cope with the stressor, which of th0se e

. Ho
1 . , . . ,1
5 available, and which strategy is 1 ost likely to accomplish the desned Ontcome s

Corning

, “ nstanfly
Coping, as defined by Lazarus and Folkman ( 1984), is a person 5 0°
d/or internal

’ (p. U8)-

changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage Specific external an

on”
. . 6 pets
demands that are appraised as taxmg or exceeding the resources of th

. cased. Pt
They diVided coping into “”0 WPeS, problem-focused and emotion—{0

the situation

oblem'

or ‘mcrease
focused coping is intended to concretely reduce the demands of

. ate
the resources available to deal with it. Examples of problem—focused (30ng

316
‘ - . . mode!
111‘ strumental and informational control. Emotion-focused coping is intended '10 l

the individual’ 3 affective reSponse to the stressor. Examples of emotion-foo“Sad

are acceptance and cognitive reappraisal. Following is evidence supporting the
usefulness of several coping strategies: instrumental control, informational control, an
co gnitive control. -
lnstrumental control
Miller (1979a) defined instrumental control as an active or PaSSive attempt
escape or avoid an aversive event, or to mitigate its imPaCt by decreaSing its inteq to
its PTObability. When people have dircc’i control over an aversive event, they tend & ‘9’ o,

. to
Show lower levels of stress-related Variables 5‘10“ as mlety (see M1116? , 1981 and

Selihan, 1975 for reviews).

“In some situations, [h OWeVerJ- . increasing the amount of control the individual}

has QVer traumatic events may be impractical or even imPOSSlble (Burger & Arkin,
1980 s p- 490). In such situations, individuals may use 3 “Mb“ 0f Strategies t0 maintain

a sen Se 0f control, Sneh as ameliorating, aVOiding, 01' adjusting to the consequences of a

 

threatening event (Thompson, SObOlCW‘ShUbiH, Galbraith, SChWankovsK y, & CIZJZBH,

1993).

Thompson and her colleagues ( 1 993) found evidence to support this supposition

. ' with a higher
in their study of control in cancer patients. They fOund that cancer patients

' t. Of
level of perceived control adjusted more Successfully than those Who (1161 no
‘ ' 't W as “Qt as ‘ t the tients controlled
Particular interest, they also found that 1 Important tha pa
the central outcome (i .e., whether they recovered from cancer), but rather that they could

influence consequences oftbc event (e.g-, daily emotions arld physical Smpmms) The
authors came to several conchzsiof‘S: 1) Insmemal con‘31‘<>1 of circurn
Stemces related to

the primary stressor (rather £118.11 the stressor itself) appears to help one

- 111 'n ' a sense
of control when faced With a mainly uncontrollable event, 2) Perc epti al tam
0

be adaptive even when mindividual is unable to exert entirely $110088 § ofcontr01 may
s

responses, and 3i o3¥0h0\°%\©a1 adjustInent to stressful events is “p la 1 coping
y§§
of routine events oi everyday life” (Thompson, et a1., 1993, p. 301 ). Out at the level
Langer and Rodin 0976) provided support for the benefits on

Qi
instrumental control 1n their study of nursmg home residents ReSideIlt 1Q]

ts Who We?

offered choices and reSponsibility demonstrated increased alertness an d c
more ac

ape

Participation 1n available activities, and expressed a better general sense 0fWe1Lb
Compared to those who were not. These positive changes occurred even thongh ”:11,
increase 1n control had no direct 1mm“ on the” 1“" "“3 situation or the illness the t ca:
them to reside in the nursing home. sed

Research into the relative effects of life events versus daily hassles has also 1
cut

Support to the idea that adjustment ‘0 stressful eVthS may take place on the level of daily

 

 

routine events. This body of research has Straneg suggested that the few e1- thenwzzber
and intensity of changes in routine events Secondary t0 major life stressor'S, the less
impact on one’s level of stress those events have (Cox et al., 1984; DeLorlgis, Coyne,
DakOf, F olkman, & Lazarus, 1982; Gannon, BankS, Shelton, & Luchetta, 1989; Gannon,

& Pardie, 1989; Holahan, Holahan, & Belka 1984; WBinberget, Hiner, &Tiemey,198’7).

Informational control

 

Another means of coping with StreSSful events is informational connoi.
Information about a stressor usually takes one OfIWO f0"1'18 : Information about the onset
. h .
Of the stressor and infinmatzon abOutt e nature 0f the SUBS 801' (Miller, 1 981)

Research with both obj e ctiVe and SUbJCCtIVC measures of Stress

11 t
. as suggested tha
providing predictability reduce S stress“ P eer (1963) found that provi

. - - - in ‘tability
of the onset of c\ectx\c shock w as assoc1ated wrth a Slgnlficantly lower g pr edic
. §VCI .
than unpredxeta‘otnty oi the SBInQ. Seligman (1975) exan‘uned the effeQ ofanxlety
- % 0f .
shock and tonne that itwas re\ated to conditioned emotional responSe unpredictable
. and Siren
galvanic skin responses. Finally, Glass and Singer (1972) found that g

tonolnjc
reactivity to uncontrollable or unpredictable noxious stimuli (nmse) to

than to controllable or predictable noise.

Information about the nature of a stressor also appears to be Stress redu '
Cm

Leventhal, Brown, Shacham, and Engquist (1979) iflVeStigated the effects ofprOV,
1

ins
Subj cats with information about the sensations they would experience dufing a cold

preSsor test. Subjects who were so informed reported lower levels of distress than tho
SC
Who were uninformed or who were told about symptoms of general bodily arousal

Similar results were found by providing subjects experiencing experimentally induced

 

 

 

ischemic pain with a description of the sensations ofien eXpen'enced (Jot—1118011, 1973).

The informed subjects also had more aCCUTate expectations about the pain fill experience

than those who received only a description 0f the Procedure.

' ° - - ' t limited to
Evidence supporting the stress-reducmg Impact of mformation 18 no

' ' ' ‘ duals
laboratory conditions. Miller’s (1981) rewew of literature found that 1‘19“"

generally demonstrate less anticipatory 31’ ousal When stressful events are predictable

Versus unpredictabje, Ludwick and Neufeld (1988) found similar results in reviewing the
Ilterature on the effects 0 f p rov1 c1111?» m ormation to patients undergomg noxious medical

procedures. They found that information about such events generally res “s in lower
it

behavioral measures ofdiscom 1:?)1’t and adjustment,

Several explanations have been presented 35 to Why info m a fig

reducing. The mosuogxcal is. that providing an individual With 1- n £01111 ls stress

. . i
impact oi astressor‘oecanse \t makes escape or avoidance of the Stress on lessens the
b
Po -
& Singer, \9’12‘,M\\\er, \9‘2fi) - When information does not allow diFeQ Ssz ble (Glass

Contr
. . O
stressor, however, information about the onset of a stressor may rech1Q 1 of the

stress bee
individual who knows what to eXpect can attend less to the danger than 3
the indivj e ”16
. . (I
Who does not (Miller, 1 981; Sellgman, 1975)- Similarly, Leventhal and CO“ Q31
Bagues
(1 979) suggested that information about the onset of a stressor may reduce Stre
83 by
minimizing uncertainty, surprise, and startle.
Information about the nature of a stressor may also be usefiil in forming a
CCUJ‘ate
expectations about stressful events (Ludwick & Neufeld, 1988), thereby increasing 0
He’s

sense ofcontrol. Additionally, information may encourage the individual to fOQuS on th
e

informational properties of a noxious stimulus, Which results in a decreased emOtional

 

 

 

 

EL,

 

 

response to the stressor (Leventhal et al- , 1 979) Finally, information “In 22y allow the
subject to exert some degree of cognitive ControI over the threatenin g stimulus ”(A ven‘ll,
O’Brien & DeWitt 1977 p. 414). This appears to be especially true if the Stress” ’5
complex or ambiguous.

Cognitive control

Cognitive control is the ability to use thought Processes and strategies to mth

the impact ofa stressor (Sarafino, 19949- 1‘ can involve diversion of attention,
redefinition of an event, restructul'mg one S thoughts about an event, emotional
, - - lf-talk. Co 't'
detachment, and 0211122111 or OSItIVe 56 gm 1ve Control can .
g p . . 3189 involve
focusing on “accepting the situat iOn’ espeCially 1f actively Working to
éff h 6 does
. '&L . 1994 ectc ang
not seem feasxble” (Thompson, Nannl, evme, ’ p. 545)-

As with instrmethl md informational control, cognitive ‘3on

. . . . J
efiective innelp‘ing \ndwioua\s cope with stressful Situations. For inst appears to be

. - CC,
HOUStO“ K\9'i A\ {QMQ “\3‘. $“b3 cots exposed to a threat (palnfill electh Holmes and

_ . . . - shock.) sh
smaller increases in stress when they used the cognitive strategies of re owed

. . efinjtiOH
emotional detachment than when they did not. These coping techniques

WOrke d [)0
during anticipation of the shock and during the event itself. (‘1:

Cognitive strategies also seem to be effective means of coping With real-life
Stl‘essors. For instance, in coping With early-stage breast cancer, Carver et 31- (1993)
f(“Ind that lower distress was prediCted by use ofthe cognitive control teehm'ques of
acceptance and humor. A review of the literature by Thompson (1981) indicated that

co g n itive control appears to have a universally positive effect on the experience of an

aversive event: lessening anticipatory anxiety, reducing the impact 0f the aversive event

 

 

 

 

and iinproving post-event effects. The studies reviewed included research areas”

. _ e .
diverse as pain, final exams, and post Op ratzve stress.

' ‘ ' that
Cognitive control appears to work by Changlng the way an event 15 percelved,

‘ ' ' ion
If no Changes are made in me objectlve Sltuat

They

is, through reappraisal of the event, even
. ‘ ' n
(Lazarus & F olkman, 1984). Individuals may change the meamng of a snuam

may focus on the positive aspects of a stressor or make comparisons to other simationS-
Altemately, peOpIe may engage in Self—deception Strategies such as denial and avoidance.
. . . . eduCing e o inv l .
Other cognitive strategies Include f g 0 vement, deveIOpu—lg new (and
perhaps more reaIistic) standards of behavior, and finding alternative c
hannels of

gr atification. Abrams and Elli S ( 1 994) made a similar argum'ent. The

- - Sn ested th'clt
cognitive control impacts stres S by changing the nature of an indiVidu 33

§
. ' u’t or
expectations oi an ev em. S beliefs abo

Stress Management Interventions
One oi the most important outcomes of Lazarus and Folkrnarl ,
conceptualization of human stress was that one’s stress level could be
Owe-ed by

providing an individual with the means to change their perception of th

e 1' 680111.068
available to cope with the stressful event. Thus, the idea that one 901.11 (1 1e

to reduce or manage stress (i.e., stress management) was finally grounded in th (Ines
60o.
As described by Lazarus and F olkman (1984), the ftmction of Stress man
a core
. . . . . nt
fits Baron and Kenny’s (1986) definition of a mediator. An 1nd1V1duaI’S Use ofStr
ess

management techniques varies with an increase in potential stressors, and acts to 1
ower

the impact of these potential stressors on one’s perceived level of stress. Funheim ore

 

 

 

effective use of such stress managm'flfirlt techniques decreases the direct impact oft/73
potential stressors on one’s perceived 16V 61 of stress.
Research has demonstrated the effectiveness 0f stress management interventlons
- - 93, for a review),
as diverse as progressive muscle relaxation (see Bemstein & Carlson, 19
. . . - toblem solving,
autogenic training (Linden, 1993, for a reVlew)’ COgmtive resmlcturmg, P
. ‘ . - . r
time management, assertiveness trainlnga exercise (see Fillingim & Blmm‘h'dh X993» {0
TEViGWS), and enhancing social support (For a cOmPH-‘sherlsive review 0 5 many stress
. , A coc .
management techniques: 566’ Mathew y 1" Pugh’ cutleme, & Silva~Cannella, 1986.)
One stress management technique that has been Ofi Cited in the 1 - _
. . 1terature lS
Meichenbaum’s (1985) Stress Inoculation Training (SIT).

Accordin

g t .

. _ - _ .1 d . Q MelchenbauIn
( 1993), “SIT IS a flexible, 1nd1v1 <jually tat ore , multlfaceted forum ofc

therapy” \9-3733,W\i\c\\ \S‘Oased on the Lazarus and Folkrnan’s (1984) §m°tive-behzw'lom1
concept oi mess. \t \s deswbned to facilitate adaptive appraisals, Cuban bmsactjonal

of coping responses, and “We Confidence in and utilization of the i one ’s repertoire

responses (Meiohenbaum & Cameron, 1983). SIT fosters changes in t “’1' d ual ’s

cc do
the client’s behavror, 2) self-regulatory activity (i.e., self statements, i £1138:
“ages

that interfere with adaptive functioning), and 3) cognitive structures (i-e , and
and beliefs that give rise to habitual ways of perCCiVing oneself and the WorId)
(Mejchenbaum, & CaIneron)-
SIT consists of three overlapping phases (Meichenbaum, 1993). In Phase 1
conceptualization, subjects learn to better understand the nature 0f stress and its efgects

on them and to appreciate the role their appraisal of stressful events and their Own c0 .
plng

abilities plays in the stress they experience. They also receive information that

10

 

 

normalizes their stress reactions, and means to reframe these reactions. 9112,9362 51a ”5
Acquisition and Rehearsal, focuses on vaLIin'ng coping Skills and rehears ing these $10,115
During this phase, subjects are provided With training in stress management 510715 (5-3"
relaxation techniques and cognitive restruemring) Altematdy, subj ects receive
' °bit
assistance in identifying skills they already have and removing factors that may min
the use of these skills. In Phase 3, Application and Follow _Through, subiects are assisted
in finding Opportunities to apply the coping skills and encouraged to apply the skills as
practiced in Phase 2.
SIT has been used to succeSSfuuy treat a wide variety of situatio
blic s eaki 11 spec1f1c
stressors, including test anx1',ety p11 P ng anxiety, 1i fe tranSition%

conditions, and dental procedures (Meichenbaurn, 1993) It has also b s med1cal
Q
certam ngS K9 g @3993“ police officers, and Marine COIPS dn'II 1 $11 used to promdc
11§
stress management ski\\s. Tteatment via SIT has ranged from 20 min“ §‘bmctoI-S) with
t

§s
sessions andhas been e‘iiect'we PT0phylact1cally(See Meichenbaum 1 g Sto several
33.

& Cameron, 1983, and Saunders, Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 1996 f0 elchenba
Hm,

. . rehew
Cepmg Is Not Always Effectlve S)

Although coping skills often appear to assist people 1n reducing str
ess, this]

31 Ways the case. Lazarus and F olkman ( 1984) suggested that, at times “ iSIIOt

’ an appraisal
Controllability can. . .heighten threat” (p. 80). Indeed, some research h of

increasing the coping mechanisms available has no impact on stress CXpeI—jenc do
e

a(“finally increases stress.

Strentz and Auerbach (1986) subjected individuals to a simulated Captlvlty (
l e 3

Simulated hostage situation). Subjects who Were provided training in problem f0 d
‘ (31186

11

 

 

 

coping reported significantly higher anxiety levels and showed more beh. zit/10m,
disturbance than those trained in emotion~focused coping. The authors 11 Oted, however,
that this was a relatively short-term stressor and that using such avoidant te’elml'clues ‘0
cope with long-term stressors is usually counter‘PI‘Oductive. This argulr‘em has been
supported elsewhere (see Suls & Fletcher , 1985 e for a meta-anaiYSiS)
Averill (1973) reviewed the literature and identified no consistent relationship
between information about the onset Of a StresSOf and reactivity to that stressor. For
example, Pen/in (1963) faund that subjects who were warned about m impending

aversive event demonstrated an iflcrease 1n amnety,

although to a lesser degree than those
subjects who received no warrlirlg‘ Johnson (1973) found that, While D
1‘

- . - . ovidin
Information to subjects about to experience a laboratory-1nduCe d i8ch g
fi
. . . . . ' ed
self-reported d1sness, such \nforrnatlon dld not systematlc ally affect me event reduc

danger of the event or the\ev e1 of reported fear, Similarly, Mil 1 er (19 i‘ception of the
. 3
persons who chose to monitor information regarding the onset ofa pg b) found that
. . . . . . qlhg 816 .
reported higher S\lb)€Ct1Ve arousa1, and demonstrated h1gher ob} ecan c

C
Who distracted themselves. , than
[12036,

Information about the nature of the stressor likewise does not al
ways have
Positive effect. Langer, Janis, and Wolfer(1975) found that preparatoly inf a
onnatio
Presented alone did not reduce post-Operative stress, and actually increased p 11
1' C—op
. . . erat'
allxiety- Similarly, mformatlon glven to women undergoing colp0scopy led to - Ive
IncreaSed
Self-reports of anxiety (Miller & Mangan, 1983). In their revieW, Ludwiok and N
eufeld

Q1 988) reported that information about noxiOUS medical procedures positivel}l aff t d
ec e

behavioral measures of discomfort and adjustlnent, while self-reported levels of anxiety

12

 

 

 

 

were not significantly affeCted’ In further casting dOUbt 0n the beneficial effects of
information, they Suggested that the behavioral Changes may have resulted from

contamination of the informatlon about the Procedure by information about how the

patients should behave during the Procedure,

use
55 beca
h ve suo e - . . seS stre

S everal researchers a tag sted that Increasmg contfel Increa

sted that
it draws attention to the stressor. Burger, MeWar d, and LaTofle (1989le‘1gge
. ts of 3
increasing control causes a person ’0 f‘OCLIS more attention on the averswe aspec
. e915
situation- Rothbart and Mellmger (1972) stated that attending to danger 5.1993“ 3799
to raise awareness of the threat, makes the signal and the accompanying threat mote
salient, and, thus, increases anx116W. Miller and Mangan ( 1 983 ) 8 Vi '“g
. _ uggested that 9”
information increases arousal because it forces the person Into 6
e my 56110
Qhological Pre
of danger that often cannot be avoided.
The research cited above provides support for F01kman ,S (198

' ) Stat
“believing that an event is controllable does not always lead to a re d ement thatt

tion in Sires
' ' ' ' ’ uncontrollable d S or t0
a posmve outcome, and behevmg that an event is 0%

“Ct always 1%
ad to

an increase in stress or to a negative outcome” (p. 839). In part, this appears to 13%

He t0
the nature 0 f the stressor.

Situational Variables
W

As noted earlier, Lazarus and F olkman (1984) Suggested that Situationa1 Variables
. . . - . In 0
have an 1111 t on the relationship between COplng and stress he s
P ac tudy (1:0 ii an &

Lazarus, 198 0), they found that people tended to use both PT 0b16m~ an d

61); -
f . _ Ot’C’II~1“ocused
coping Strategies for almost all stressors. HOWever, the type 0 Sltuatron

3P
. peared to haVe
an effect on the strategy that was predominantly used. When people believ

ey COUId

13

——+

 

instrumentally affect a situation, or When they believed they would benefit fi-om more

information, they tended ‘0 use p"("91Bun-focused coping. In contrast, when they believed

tron-focused

that they could not instrmnentany affect the situation, they tended to use emo

coping.

- . _ _ She
Nille‘(1979a)1”°p°sed a Slum” Idea With her Minimax Hypomes‘s'
. ‘ o . o controx ‘0
predicted that some situatlons favor reImq HIShin g Control such as when gwlng

“nd
6 'on Of fUEUI‘ ' W {0
8.110me reduces th perceptl C danger, W111 13 0th ; do not. Bet {CV13

evidence to support this.
Burger and his colleagues (1989) have also provided evidence suppofi-mgtklls

. - ome subjects were led to believe that .
idea. In their study, 5 3881 Smut more
was no

competent in drawing b1°°d than they were. Ihese SUbj ec: '3 repel-t (1 hell
e
W

. . - é '
they were informed that they had the option to self-admmlster this 85 anxret)’
av
Research investigating the impact of information on Stress I: 81 ve event-

. - - 11 b1 - 811mm similar
dIChOtomles. Miller (1981) proposed that uncontro a e events Ilkel

Support CQD -
111g

strategies such as distraction better than controllable events, becaus§ exercising
Q

necessitates one to direct attention to the aversive Situation which, in the case of

uncontrollable events, unnecessarily raises one’s stress level. Revi QWS by Suls aha Wan
(1989) and Thompson (1981) have supported this hypotheSis‘ Both reviews rationed that
avoidant approaches appear to have benefits for decreasing stress in situations in Which
no behaVioral response is available, while vigilant strategicS reduce Stress if .

there IS a
behavioral response available.

Additionally, the type of information provided about the event appe

l4

   

 

only about the “655ml event does nOt reduce Stress while describ' g what

’ m Sensations to
expect does (see Suls & Wan, 1989, and Thompson 1981 f ' )

’ , or reViews .

Individual variables

 

In addition to situational variables, Lazarus and F (1984) also suggCSted
01kman
that factors intrinsic to the individual impact the Use ofco . techniques' To date, the
ping
research supports this hypothesis.
Research has indicated that peOp 1e tend to prefer direct control ovet guessiui
events (see Miller, 1981 for a revieW) and to prefer to have inform ation abm“ SUCSSfifi
events (see Averill, 1 973; Lanzetta & Driscol], 1966; Mille , erviha
1” 1979b; Milierfl‘fi"?

1963; Seligman; 1975 for reVieWS). This is “Qt surprising given
6 gen 655
erally S“

man
UScli
studies have suggested, however, that persons often decline Oppo bt- Sever 31
. iti
even when having control is guaranteed to stop, or prevent the expert. §s for control,
e

Lanzetta and Driscol (1966) found that, while subjects genera11 Qe ofa stressor.
or

reducing nature of the coping mechanisms cited earlier in this

inf . _ prefered t
ormation about a pending stressor, no matter what the nature of 111% Q have

outcome or

. . . . . . . t1.) .
ability to affect it, a Significant minority of subjects preferred to han no iIlfOI'I-‘nati 611‘

9n.

This is true even when such information would allow them to avoid Qt. terminate the
stressor.
Aveli 11 and Rosenn (1972) presented subjects with the mearlg oftenm'nat °
mg a
stressor(e1ectric shock), and found that a significant minority 0f subj eats I)
c .
055‘ to avaid

warning Info rmation that would allow them to exercise such CODtroI- 1:

e
"Dore, even
Ck

With an increase in the cost of not exercising Control (i.e., an increase in 811
o

intensities), 23% of subjects still chose to ignore warning signals.

15

_+

 

100% avoidance of a stressor (CROWN: shock), 200/ .
o of sub] ects still preferred to have no

warning - In contrast, they found that eVen when .
an aVOldance response was completely

ineffective, 35% preferred to receive a Warnin .
g 51811211.

Perhaps, then, some People aVOid Opportunities r0 trol because “Ch

avoidance reduces stress. Research has su ggeste d how th t this is not always the
’ ever, a
case. Averill et al. (1 977) found that When a Warning allow (1 1000/ avoidance of a
e 0

stressor those subjects who chose to have no wamjn ' nsthan
’ g ShOWed high 68090
er stresst

those who chose to attend to the warning Similar] - h
- Y: Avenii (19 more
73) found that, ‘3:

many studies supported the “Otion that control reduces Stress-
' ' ’ many 0f dies 3m
rePorted a considerable minority (typically 10-20%) that Show these Stu
ed an .
1

with control. Perhaps at times, therefore, “providing subjects wi t1: Ql‘ease in Stress
an

Will not necessarily lead to reduced stress, and. . .may actually b e Q‘\’0idance response

. . an
conflict for some” (Averill & Rosenn, 1972, p. 139). tied Source of

Personality and Coping
Research has suggested that personality factors related to 00p ing such as

preference for control, are relatively stable (S tone & Neale, 1984)- S everal resear h
C ers

have identified personality variables that appear to be related to this prefere
. ”CB and to

differing leVels of anxiety when provided with means 0f control. T1103
6 With

dITfEI'Ihg

preferences for control have carried several labels, including sensi “.2613
V

61-8118 .
(Delong, 1 9‘70; as cited in Averill, 1973), and blunters versus monitors 3V01ders

1 er
Research has shown that these variables are Often related to the styles ofc ’ 1981)‘
g

16

W

 

individuals tend to use (Anders 3 ’ ‘, i ll BI, 1919b 198 7 ‘ Strentz & A"
’ a erbach,

Desire for control

 

Burger and Cooper (1979) Proposed that Some individuals prefer both information

actor 9651“:

about stressful events and control over them. They termed personalily f

this
‘ ive,

for Control. According to the authors, persons high in Desire for Control are assert

geousa

decisive, and active. They seek to influence others when Such influence is advanla
and attempt to manipulate events to ensure desired outcomes in an attempt to avoid
un leasant situation or failures. In contrast, persons low i .
p n DeSIre for Contt0\ 3‘6
nonassertive, passive, and indecisive. They are less likely to atte 0 Gig
Inpt to - e
. . . . uenC
and may prefer to abdlGate decISion-making to others. lnfl
Research has SUPPOYWCI the validity of this construct. Bur
ge
. . . r 1 9 . . d
that persons high in Desu'e for Control were more likely to 1'er 0n a 92) 1dent1 fie
Ct ~

. . . . . . e
oriented COping strategies, such as trying harder, obtaining inform a tic , problem-

. . . . a 311d seekih
adv1ce. They often engaged in collecting information and considering th - g
811' many.
thions
lino]

will choose to exercise control, even if it means inflicting pain on memsdves. F0;-

for dealing with the situation. When given a choice, persons high in desire for CO

example, Burger et a1. (1989) gave subjects the choice to self-admini ster a blood draw Or
to let a lab assistant do 50. Those subjects high in Desire for Control Were 1655 11k 1
e y to
relinquish COntrol than those low on this dimension, unless relinquj $11ng c
0”” 01 would

undoubtedly result in less risk than keeping control, well as when the la a
t was

ObViOUSlY more proficient at drawing blood than the subject-

 

 

 

earchers have identified trend ‘ -
Other res s Slmilar to those of Burger and 11st
ford and Black (199 6) found . _ . .
colleagues. Ash that mlelduals high in Desire for Contra!
sought more information, SOClahZCd more, netWOrked more with interdepartmental
colleagues, negotiated more j 0b Charlges, and Were more likely to put a positive frame

' ' ' ' lot
around their situations than mlelduals low in Desire for C ntrol Asp’mwall and Tay
o .

e
(1992) found that Desire for Control affected Coping styl es in college students. Thos
. . . . . d
With a high DeSIre for Control were less 111(er to use aVOidant coping suaieg‘es’ an
more likely to use active coping strategies and to seek Out social Support ““3 me Of
coping strate used affected adjustment to college, With . -
gy those “5mg more acme
strategies and those seeking social support adjusting better.
Similar to the findings related to preference for coma-01
. . ’ thOSe hi . ire {Ct
Control tend to have higher levels of stress and to express more gh 1n D65
’5‘} o
prefer to avoid such control, especially when the situation threatens than those Wh
e -
1999). These higher levels of anxiety, however, appear to be shoI-t‘l , 1r control (Burger,
1"ed.
Burger (1992) found that people high in Desire for Control 3
how greater
PhySiOIOgical reactivity and become more upset when under stress - The.“ tenderle
3' to Us
. 6:
active, prob lam-focused coping techniqu€S, however, ofien resulted in an eventual
lowering of anxiety. In general, therefore, high Desire for Control individuals report
lower level 8 of distress and higher levels of Well-being than their 10 '
W Deszre for Contra]

counterparts (Burger, 1999). Burger (1992) found that Desire for Comm]

. egatively
correlated with both trait anxiety (r = -.37) and state ’1”wa (r = "22 to 3
" 8) I}:
. . ' U
those Individuals “who actively search for the danger [may be]...w1‘11ingt S,
o
erate shon

18

 

tel—II] increases in anxiety or fear for the POSSlble benefit Ofbeing able to avoi d I)
aim and

reduce fear in the long run” (Rothbart & Mellinger, 1972, p. 138).

This proactive approach to life appears to have Other benefits as well. Persons
' . (1
high in Desire for Control generally report higher levels of psychological adjustment an
higher levels of psychological W611-being(Cooper, Okamma 8L McNeiL 1995)-

' . ' for
However, these trends appear to be In Part relate d to the ability of the mghDeSfie

Control person to use their preferred coping ster,

Matching sale to coging technigue

Given that individuals tend to have preferences reg arding exe - . g cc (1’63“
' 1' C 1 $111

coping strategies, what effeCt d0 es encouraging one to use their non pr d ”Ella“
. - 6fine 5
on their stress level? Folkman ( 1 984) suggested that this ufistnatch

”1Q ’stIeSS'
Similarly, Wallace and Bergeman (1997) proposed a “gOOdness on; 3’ lead to d1
1‘”
model suggests that the match between personal characteristics an d ch 1170(161. This
a}. . .
situation is important in determining outcomes. Research has 5‘1pr acrensncs Ofthe

Wallace and Bergeman (1997) studied elderly men and Won-1Q11 d f0
an 11nd

that a
mismatch between one’s perception of control and Desire for COHtI‘QI was related to

depression- Likewise, Wilkinson and Chamove (1992) studied De sire for Control an d
perceived control in psychiatric outpatients, and found that higher leviels Of anxiety Were
associated w ith large discrepancies between these two dimenSiODS-

Auerbach, Martelli, and Mercuri (1983) studied the effects or

s ' .
. pew?" Infomation
about dental extraction surgery versus general information about the

e
ma] clinic and a
list of dental instruments. They found that the mo“ important factor in dete
”h

. , _ inino
adjustment to surgery was the match between Specificity 0f information Prov D
lded

and

19

M

 

' ' ' ’ eference for information, Sub” . .
2::1 :L:::;:: to surgery when they received:: v-vuh a hlgh preference f 01‘ infomatjon
eific Versus general infonnation, while
those With low preference for information adjusted Slightly better when they received
general versus specific information. This finding, however, was significant only for the
high preference sub j ects.
Nartelli, Auerbach, Alexander, and Mercun‘ (1 9 8 .7) examined the effects of
providing problem-focused or emoti On-foCused Coping Ski 118 to patients about ‘0 undergo
oral surgery. They found that state anXiety levels were hi 3 her for subj ects who hadalow

preference for information and who Were placed in the pro b1 m '09
mtet‘l

significant, differences in a: iEty W will“
emotion-focused intervention, Wlth high preference for “1me-13 re found

condition. Similar, although non-

. , . ~ . a
higher anxiety levels. Patients who were provided with an inter-V bJ ects Show 111::
eflti

. ' ° .r
preference for information also demonstrated better ad] ustment to th 11 that matched thel
e

. . as
reported less pain, than those who were provided w1th non-match}1 urg 613’ ’ and
. g l‘Ilterventioll
Ludwick-Rosenthal and Neufeld (1993) studied patients unq§ - g ‘
IgOIng
catheterizati on. They found that when desire for information was 1'11 atched to prg

arato
. a 0 13’
information level, patients showed less behavioral anxiety, engaged in more Problem
focused c013 in g, and engaged in less emotion-focused coping than patients WhOSe dc -
Sire
for inforrnatjon was unmatched with i f tion. F
preparatory in orma “1111 e
. ' r, they [band that
for information avoiders, problem-focused Coping W33 negatlvely affected '
Iftbe
. § . . . . y were
prOVIded W1 th too much information, while the OPPOSlte was true fol‘ inf
o

. . 317.011
. . - - se
Similar patterns have been noted in much of the literature in this area (See ekers.

Herb
1989', Auerbach & Kilmann, 1977; and Ludwick & Neufeld, 1988 fOr reVie ach,
. W8).

 

Findings similar to those reported above have been found when examiu -
g

specific personality dimensions, SUCh as locus Of Control (Auerbach, Kendal], Cattle-r, 6‘?

Levitt, l 976; Strentz & Auerbach, 1986) and blullting (Miller & M angafl, 1933). Some

. . n
research has suggested that those Who prefer mfonnation have higher fear and “”1510

when
than those Who do 110‘” even

. . . . . cleaI,
provided with the information they deSII'e (M11181; 1979b; 1 980', 1987) it lsun

scores, and higher levels of phySiOIOgicaI arousal],

d to
though, if their stress levels would have been even higher if they were not movie

engage in their preferred style.

Desire for Control ShOWS similar patterns. If one’ S DeSire for ConU0\ l5 “0‘

matched with the associated coping style, an increase in smess appear Logan 3‘
S t ,

. . . 0 ensue
al. (199 1) found that dental Patients with a high Desne for C011 I 01

and

Perceived control reported hlgher levels of distress than other p atient a 10w 16V
3

\

and Hoppe (1993) replicated this research and expanded on it- They Bar 011, Logan’

r -

. . . - ‘ ‘ t f Ovlded dent 1
patients awaiting root canal procedures wrth instructions 0 oeus 0n a
$118013, Vets}

a high Desibe
Control and a low perception of control in dental situations reported 16 58 pain Whfih

emotional stimuli. Only those patients who were classified as having

fol-

instructed to focus on sensory stimuli. In contrast, patients With a 19W Desire for Contra]

and a 10W perception of control who received sensory-focus instructions reported mOre
pain than those who received emotion-focus instructions.

Fu11:]:tier evidence comes from a study by Law, Logan, and Baron (1994) T11
. 6y

categorized dental patients on Desire for Control and perceived Control, and

then
randomly assigned them to a 20-minute Stress InOCIllation Training (MeiChe
11

. . allm,
1985) or a filler condition- They found that SIT was effective in reducing aim

and

Zl

 

___—P‘

distress, and increasing control, only in those patients who had a high Desire for Control
and a low level of perceived control.
Wallston and his colleagues (1 991) found an interesting twist related to these
results. They offered choice of anti-emetic agent (one of two medications or relaxation
therapy) to cancer patients awaiting the start of chemotherapy, Choice, when combined
with a moderate Desire for Control, had a statistically Significant impact on both anxiety
and negative mood. Similar, although non-statistically Significant, results were found
with regard to reported nausea. There was no statistically significant effect for this
intervention among those with either a high or low Desire forControl, The authors
speculated that those patients high in Desire for Control may not have been offered
enough choice, and those patients 10W in Desire for Control may have been offered too
much or the choice may have been irrelevant to them.

This research strongly suggests that “consideration of (control-related) patient
Characteristics is crucial in predicting how they will react to therapeutic interventions”
(Baron & Logan, 1993, p. 196). Such personality variables serve as moderator Variables
as described by Baron and Kenny (1986), in that they are Variables that may affect the
relationship between the Use of stress management techniques and one’s perceived stress
level. Stress management interventions, therefore, may be more effective if one takes
into account an individual’s Desire for Control (Wallace & Bergeman, 1997). Law and
his colleagues (1994) have even suggested that the use of stress management
interventions as a pretreatrnent for all persons facing a stressor is ill advised.

Research such as that cited in this section may explain the lack of efficacy cited in

the stress management literature. Research into the efficacy of stress management in

22

adjusting to significant life changes is not well developed. The research that has been
done is rife with methodological problems and has shown equivocal results. One such

life transition is entering military baSic tralnjng_

Military Basic Training

Military basic training is an extremely stressful time for most individuals. It is an
introduction to a very foreign environment with tasks and ways of performing those tasks
that are quite unique to the military. It is desig116C1t0 Prepare recruits for combat by
intentionally taxing their resources and assisting them to adapt to stressful environments
in which they have little or no control (Rosebush, 1998)-

Although new recruits often expect difficult physical training, they ofien do not
expect the psychological stress of adjusting to a foreign environment and the concomitant
anxiety and worry (Novaco, Cook, & Sarason; 1983). Few recruits have been in an
organization that requires immediate and unquestioning obedience, uses equipment and
procedures whose primary purpose is to intentionally inflict lethal harm on other human
beings, and will potentially expose them to situations that will threaten their well-being
(Novaco et al.). Thus, “the new recruit is immediately taxed with the difficult demands
of social, psychological, and physical adjustment inextricably entailed in basic training”
(Novaco et al., p. 379).

Their first encounter with this psychological stress is typically at the hands of the
drill instructors, and their appraisals of basic training are often based on their reactions to
these d11.11 instructors (Novaco et al., 1983). Drill instructors are tasked with reforming

recruits from individuals with little or no knowledge of military methods or culture into

23

members of a team who will unquestioningly Obey orders without hesitation. As a result,
recruits are often forced to take a PaSSiVe role with little or no opportunity to request
additional information or clarification, and with little Opportunity to gain much in the way
of feedback concerning coping styles and problem-solving strategies (Novaco et al.).
What feedback the trainees do get is frequently in the form of negative reinforcement and
punishment, which is experienced as aversive by many-

Given the novelty and intensity of the change mOSt recruits experience on entering
the armed forces, the initial phase of basic training iS Ofien "quite traumatic" and may be
the "point of maximum stress for most recruitS" (Novaco et 31-, 1983)- This period is
marked by many disbalancing and unfamiliar events and Surroundings,

Subjective reports from recruits have supported that the early portion of basic
training is the most stressful (Clemons, 1996). Objective evidence has paralleled these
reports. Magyar, Lukacs, Mod, Alfoldi, and Arato (1986) reported that 24% of trainees
had abnormal dexarnethasone suppression tests (DSTS), a physiological measure related
to stress, within 2 days of the beginning of training. One month later, however, only 4%
of trainees showed abnormal DST 5. Similarly, Vickers, Hervig, Poth, and Hackney
(1995) found COIfiSOl levels, another physiological measure related to subjective reports
of stress, were highest in the early part of basic training. This finding corresponded to
subjective reports from the trainees.

Basic training is intended, however, not only to intentionally tax the c0ping
resources of the recruit, but also to “facilitate personal adjustment to the military way of
life and to provide those skills necessary for adequate coping with future demands”

(Novaco et al., 1983), Recruits are provided, however, with little information about what

24

to expect from basic training, as well as little formal education in how to COpe With the
new circumstances they encounter- AS noted earlier, providing information and coping
skills often assists persons to more effectively cope with such situations.

Several authors have suggested that the military mUSt provide military personnel
with realistic expectations and anticipatory guidance regarding stress reactions, in
addition to good training and strong leadership (Armfield, 1994; Clemons, 1996; Novaco
et al., 1983; Rosebush, 1998). Novaco and his colleagues (1983) suggested that briefings
designed to meet these criteria should include informing the individuals that they will
likely experience fear, assisting them in preparing for the fear, and encouraging them to
concentrate on the tasks at hand. Research investigating the effects of such interventions
in other situations has supported their efficacy (e.g., Milroy, 1991).

Although there has been a siren call for interventions such as those described
above, few studies have examined the use of stress management techniques in basic
training. Of the studies done, none of the studies has directly measured the impact of
such interventions on dimensions of stress, but rather have looked at adaptation and
graduation rates. Although these outcomes may be related to stress responses, they may
also be affected by several other factors. Additionally, the research done to date has
several methodological flaws that prevent drawing solid conclusions.

Georgoulakis, Bank, and Jenkins (198 1) identified trainees who were “Vulnerable
to attrition” from basic training based on their scores on a screening measure. Of this
group, those who were provided preventive counseling (either by assignment of the
mental health clinic, by referral by command, or by self-referral) showed a higher

graduation rate than those who did not (83.5% v 60.0%; x“’=22.3 (1 df), p < .001)_ There

25

are significant methodological problems with this study, however. First, this intervention
was administered to a subset of trainees. Therefore, any effects cannot be generalized to
the trainee population as a whole. Second, the intervention was provided individually
and was not standardized. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the potential cause of the
increased graduation rate.

A study conducted by Gerwell and F iedler (1990) addressed the latter of these
problems. They applied a stress management intervention based on Meichenbaum’s
(1985) Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) ‘0 a group Oer Force t1”ainees. These recruits
had been evaluated by the mental health clinic at the request of the recruits’ military
commanders and deemed to have no disqualifying pSyChiatric conditions but “some
degree of coping problem.” Thus, they were deemed capable of returning to duty. All
recruits were offered the group intervention, but participation was determined by
approval of the recruits’ commanders. Most group participants attended two to four
sessions. Almost twice as many group participants graduated versus those who did not
attend group (71.1% versus 36.4%, p < 005)-

As with the study cited previously, this investigation had significant
methodological flaws. First, the effects of the intervention may have been inflated due to
potential selection biases. For exmple, the Comanders may not have allowed recruits
who they had decided to discharge to attend the grouv- Alternately, Commanders who did
not allow recruits to attend may also have created a training atmosphere that was related
to a higher discharge rate. Second, as with the Georgoulakis et a1. (1981) study, the

sample was a subset of all trainees, and, therefore, generalization to the trainee population

as a WhOIe is impossible.

26

Even though the two studies cited above support the idea that stress management
interventions have a positive effect on trainees, there is some evidence to suggest that
such interventions are not always effective, Cigrang, Todd, and Carbone (2000) provided
a two-session stress management intervention to Air Force recruits similar to that of
Gerwell and Fiedler (1990)- A5 With Gerw ell and Fiedler, they looked to reduce attrition
in trainees deemed at risk. Contrary to Gerwell and Fiedler, however, they found no
significant difference in attrition rates between treatment and control groups, As with the
previous two studies, this study focused on a sample 0f trainees who Were identifiably
different from the general basic training population.

Novaco and his colleagues (1933) performed an investigation that addressed this
latter issue. They administered a one—session stress management intervention (again
based on Meichenbaum’s SIT model) to Marine Corps recruits. They introduced the
recruits to the stressors they would face and PTOVided means 0f COping With these
stressors. Instruction included acknowledging and normalizing the distress typically
experienced by trainees, providing detailed information about basic training (including
the role of training personnel, expectations of trainees, and ingredients for success fu 1
performance), promoting an adaptive cognitive orientation, and offering adaptive and
effective coping teChniques. Contrary to the previously cited studies, this study did not
assess attrition rate. The authors found an increase in efficacy expectations across
training tasks, less trouble adjusting to the demands of the drill instructors, and an
increase in perceptions of control.

All but the study by Novaco et a1 (1 983) used outcome measures that are at best

indirectly related to stress (i.e., attrition from basic training). Thus, it remains unclear if

27

these brief stress management interventions iInpacted stress in addition to attrition,

Additionally, none of these studies accounted for personality variables that might

moderate the effectiveness of stress management interventions. As noted earlier,
matching such interventions to the indi Vidual’s preferred coping style is important in
maximizing the effects of such interventions. This study, therefore, was designed to test
whether a brief stress management intervention had a differential impact on reducing the
stress in those with a high versus a low desire for control. Explicitly stated, the
hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The research cited above suggested that Pe0ple high in Desire
for Control often demonstrate a higher level Of anxiety than those low in Desire
for Control when faced with a novel situation, which is then followed by a rapid
reduction in this anxiety once they have begun to exert control. Hypothesis 1,
therefore, proposed that among untreated recruits, those high in Desire for Control
would show higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of basic training, and lower
levels two weeks later, than those low in Desire for Control.

Hypothesis 2; A brief stress management intervention would have no
significant direct effect on anxiety at Time 2 compared to those who were not so
treated.

Hypothesis 3: Level of Desire for Control would moderate the impact of the
Stress management intervention. That is, those recruits high in Desire for Control
Would show lower levels of anxiety tWo weeks after a stress management
intervention when compared to untreated recruits who were also high in Desire for

Central. In contrast, those recruits low in Desire for Control would show higher

28

levels of anxiety two weeks after treatment with stress management than those

recruits low in Desire for Control who were not so treated. (See Figure 1 for a

graphic representation of Hypothesis 3.)

 

High Desire for Control - control

.......................

High Desire for Control - experimental

 

High ————— Low Desire for Control - control
— ----- — Low Desire for Control - experimental /,
b
.2
X
C
<
Low

 

Time 1 . Time 2
Time
F igge 1. Graphic representation of the expected results of Hypothesis 3, with anxiety as
a function of Desire for Control and experimental condition.

29

Method
Subjects
Subjects for this study were SOliCited from trainees processing through the 43rd

Adjutant General Battalion Reception Station, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The study
was presented to prospective participants in an auditorium holding between 1 50 and 400
trainees. Participation in this study was voluntary Partieipants were offered no
compensation nor coerced in any manner to participate. The informed consent form used
for this study was approved by the Brooke Army Medical Center/Wilford Hall (Air
Force) Institutional Review Board, and made it very clear that Partieipation was voluntary
and had no impact on any aSpect of a recruit’s training 01' career (see Appendix A for this
document). At the time recruits were initially presented with the study, they were given
an Opportunity to ask questions. The author answered all such questions, as long as the
answers to such questions would not have, in the opinion of the author, interfered with
the validity of the results. To decrease the probability that trainees might feel coerced, the
author then lefi the auditorium and another military officer, dressed at the time in Civilian
clothes, presented the informed consent form. This individual answered further
questions, again as long as they would not interfere with the outcome, and reiterated that
participation was voluntary and that their decisions about participation would have no
impact on their training. Since a sizable minority (sometimes approaching half of those

to whom the project was presented) chose nor to participate, it appears that many of the
recruits accepted that participation was voluntary.

Of the trainees approached, the maj on'ty agreed to participate. An exact

percentage is impossible to compute since data on the number of persons the study was

30

presented to are not aVaiIabIe, Only those trainees who later went to basic training with
infantry units, specifically, those of the 3RD Training Brigade were accepted for

particip ation in this study. This limitation was imposed in order to minimize the effects
of different training environments. (S everal units at Fort Leonard Wood Combine basic
training with training in the soldiers, specific occupational specialty. These units often

provide training in a different manner due to this difference in their missions.)

Additionally, only trainees Who had been at the Reception Station for less than one week

were included in this study. AnCCdOtal eVIdenCC suggeSted that the longer atrainee stays

at the Reception Station awaiting transfer to their training unit, the more likely they will

experience increased anxiety and decreased morale. Including trainees with staYS longer
than one week might have created a confound that would have been difli 1 ntrol
on t to 00 °
Not all of those who agreed to participate, and who met the CI‘it
Bria above,
completed the study- There were various reasons for this attrition fi‘om
. .de the volunteer
pool. The reasons included, but Were not 11min. to, the following: First
, due to

administrative or medical reasons, some participants Were “Qt transf

erred fi‘om t1:
. . , . . _ e
Reception Station to their “mg units in the week followmg the uliti a1 ass

6881],)
- - . eat.
Second, even though personnel at the Reception Station were insthted to p

To
those recruits bound me for the 3rd Training Brigade, many IBCI'LIitS Who W ere b

Wde on 1y
mind for

other training units were included in the groups to which the project was pres ented

Third, some participants drOPPCd out Of’ or were released from, baSiC training. Trainees

do not complete basic training for a variety of reasons, including behavioral problems

motivational problems, emotional distress, injury, and recurrence of pre-eijh-n g physi c a

or psychiatn'c conditions. Fourth, some participants were started anew in 1

basic training

31

 

due to mees or behavror a1 issues, Including these individuals might have introduced a

confound as anecdotal ev1dence suggested that such CVents tends to affect the affective
state and motivation of such individuals Finally

some PartiCipantS were routed to
rd ' '
comparlles 1n the 3 Traimng Brigade that were not ineluded 1n the study The data fiom

these “lost” participants were unrecoverable. By the time 1t. was discovered that they had
been assigned to a different company, the group they be] 011g ed to had completed the

study and the time frame for the second part 0fthe intervention (ti applicable) and post-

intervention data collection had passed.

Given the importance of sample size to the sensitiVity of
an experiment in

detecting treatment differences, an attempt to identify an appropn ate 8 as
alnple Size W

warranted A power analysis was not possible, however, due to the
urn.que nature 0f both

the situational stress 0 e a relatively lengthy and pervasive 311-63500
and the outcome

measure proposed (i. e., a measure of perceived stress). Research T613
1 ted to this study has
either investigated short-term stressors (e-g-, denta Surgery) or used
utcome
me
that are probably less sensitive than the anxiety mmsure prOPOSCdin asul'CS

mulls study (eg
attrition from basic training) Given that this study used an outcome the eas
uIe th

at
ostensibly more sensitive than that used in Prior studies on basic tr ng Was

It Séelhs
reasonable to conclude that a sample size similar to those studies WCNiki proVi
deg

Suffic
power to realize a treatment effect. That research reported treatmen t effects 1811:
Withs

Sampl
sizes ranging from 269 to 530 (M = 412), and cell sizes ranging from 119- e

265.
Therefore, a sample of 400, with a cell SiZe 09-00, Was selected as a target Wh
en the

study began.

32

   

The final saniple 00115“th 0f 4 O9 r601111.13. The treatment grouP consisted of224
tl’ainees from wee companies The cox-1301 group had 185 trainees, again from three
Companies. While the number in the comm] group was somewhat less than the goal, the
shortfall was deemed to be less significant than extending the study and adding a possible

confound related to seasonal variations in the reoruit P0pulations.
The sample had a mean age of 19. 72 with a standard deviation of 3.40. The
modal age was 18. The sample was almost equally Split along gender lines; males
comprised 46.2% of the sample, while females comprised 53.8%. In this sample, 19.6%
identified themselves as African-American, 3.7% as ASian/Pacific Islander, 11.2% as
HiSpaIIiC, 1.0% as Native American, 62 - 1% as White, and 2.4% as “other.” The sample
was predomantly single (905%), with 7.1% married, 2 - 2% divorced3 and 0.2%
separated. The mean education rate was 12.56 years With a standard deviation 011.19.
The mode for years of education was 12. At the time this manuscript was written, no
demogapbic data regarding the trainee POPUIation at Fort Leonard WOOd or in the US
Army were available, so comparisons were not possible.
Procedure
After choosing to participate, volunteers signed the informed Consent (See
Appendix A). They then completed a questionnaire consisting of basic demographic
information (name, social security number, age, sex, race, marital status, and edUCation),
the Desirability for Control Scale, and the State ponion of the State-Trait AnXiety
Inventory (STAI) (see Appendix B)-
Upon C(,mplietion of this questionnaire, participants were assigned to either the

treamient 0r control Condition based on the company they were to train with P attiCipants

33

 

were blind to their assignment in Efithfil' the eXperimental or control condition until a fier
they completed the initial questionnaire. Although this means of assigning participants
introduced the risk of confounding vari ables related to personalities and approaches taken
by the training personnel in these units, that risk was considered smaller than the risk of

participants in the experimental condition cross-training participants in the control

condition.

Four Weeks after completing the initial questionnaire, participants completed the
state portion of the STAI once again. After completing this survey, they were debriefed

about the nature of the experiment, given a chance to ask questions, and thanked for that

p articipation ,

Measures

The S-Anxiety (or Y-l) scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAL
Spielberger, 1983) is a 20-item self—report measure designed to measure feelings 0f
apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry in the present moment. Subjects rate each
item on a four-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”, 4 = “very much so”). Half of the items
are worded to reflect positive valence, while the other half reflect negative vale-nee. The
negative valence items are reverse scored before summing the responses.
The STAI has been normed on college students, adults, and military recruits. For
this study, lyre-intervention mean scores for the STAI were 44.02 (SD = 12.68) for males,
and 46.10 (SD = 13.22) for females. At post-intervention, the mean scores Were 45_44
(SD = 1 1 .88) for males, and 45.21 (SD = 13.11) for females. These values are similar to

those reported by the measure’s author for military recruits (M = 44.05, SD § 12.18 for

males; M = 47,01, SD = 14.42 for females).

34

 

Test-retest reliability for the S-Anxiety scale among college students was 10w (r =
.33, range = .l6-.62) (Spielberger, 1 98 3 )- A low level. of test-retest reliability, hOWever,

iS expected in an instrument that is designed to reflect the effects of situational factors on
anxiety. Test-retest reliability for this sample (r = .38) was comparable to that reported

by the author. As reported by the author, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) among
military r eeruits was very good (a== .93 for males; at: .95 for females). For this sample,
internal COHSiStency was comparable to that reported by the author (a = .93 for males; a

= 94 for fenudes). Operational validity for this scale also appears to be very good.

Research has suggested that perceptions of psychological stress and relaxation training

cause statistically significant changes in the expected direction on S-Anxiety scale scores.

The Desirability for Control scale (Burger & C00per, 1979) is a 20—item self'
item

report measure designed to measure a general desire for control. Subjects rate each

on a seVen-point Likert scale (1 = “This statement doesn’t apply to me at all”, 7 = “Thls

statement always applies to me”). Fifteen items are written with a positive valence (Le,

the direction of higher desire for control), while five items have a negative valence and

are reverse scored before summing the responses.

The mean score for Desire for Control for this sample (M = 102.23, SD = 1 2. 69)
was similar to that reported by the authors of the measure (M = 99.1, SD = 11.80). The
scale has an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) 0f -80- This value was Comparable
to that found in this study (a = .73). It has a reported test—retest reliability of .75 (Burger
& Cooper, 197 9). Research has indicated that it is minimally correlated with the Rotter

Internal-EXtemal Scale (r = -,19) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (r =

-11) (Burger & Cooper)-

35

Ireatment Protocol
Treatment consisted of two 45 - t0 60-minute group interventions (see Appendix C
for outlines of these sessions). The interventions were based on those used previously by
researchers examining stress management in military recruits (Cigrang et al., 2000;
Gerwell & F iedler, 1990; Meichenbaum & Cameron, 1983). The instructor (the author of
this study) used the Socratic method to provide recruits in the experimental condition
With information about the purpose and nature of basic training, the role of the drill
inSthtOTS, common experiences in basic training (i.e., typical activities), and reactions
typically experienced by recruits. The classes also provided training in how to recognize
signs of Stress, cognitive and behavioral c0ping skills, and information regarding the -
impcrtance of social support and spirituality. One session was conduCted imrnediateiy
after completing the questionnaires, prior to the participants shipping to their traitfihg
units. The second session was conducted two weeks later, approximately nine days after

they arrived at their training units.

36

Results

Initial examination of the raw data revealed several missing data. No one
participant was missing more than four items, nor more than two items per measure.
Missing data were also infrequent listvvise (less than four or 0.7% per item) in all cases

but one. The eitception was item 20 on the pre-intervention STAI. Slightly more than
five percent (5- 1%) of the participants did not respond to this item. These missing data
appeared to be due to the format of the answer sheet rather than an issue related to the
item itself, since all participants responded to this item at post—intervention. Given that
this item was only one of 20 in the measure, it seemed that the impact of replacing these
missing data with the mean for this item would be small. All missing data except marital
status and race were therefore replaced with their respective means. Replacing maritst1
status and race with their mean was illogical since these were categorical variables- since
the iInpact of these missing data on the following analysis would have been negligible
(only one case, 0.2%, was missing for each), they were left blank.

Once the issue of missing data was addressed, relationships between vari ables
were analyzed to identify possible confounds To begin this P1" OCCSS, continuous
variables were entered into a correlation matrix (See Table 1). Of concern for this
investigation, age and education were negatively correlated with pre-intervention ST AI,

and education was positively associated with Desire for Control scores.

37

Table 1.

W (Two-tailed significance is notedin
parentheses. N = 409_)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age EdUCation Desire for Pre- [ Post- 4
Control intervention intervention
STAI STAI
ge 1.000 .609** .058 -.118*
. x (.000) (.245) (.017)
Education 1.000 .104* -.114*
. 1 (.035) (.021)
\Desne for Control 1.000 -.179**
Pr ' t (.000)
6-111 CI'VCIltion 1 .
S_TAJ 000
ost-intervennon
STAI
* P E 05; **p 3.01

Relationships between continuous variables (age, education, Desire for ContfoL
and pre- and post-intervention STAI) and categorical variables (sex, marital status: tace’
experimental condition) were evaluated via AN OVAs (see Appendix D), The only
significant connection of concern for this study was between Desire for Control and race

(see Table 2). This relationship was analyzed using a Student-Neuman-Kuels POSt-hoc
comparison (see Table 3), This teSt resulted in two overlapping subsets. The “other”
group appeared to be a significant outlier. Since it contained only 10 participants, this
group was deleted from the analysis, and another AN OVA with a Student-NeumameflS

post-hog comparison was performed. Again, the ANOVA identified Significant

differences (see Table 4), but the post-hoe comparison was non-significant and resulted .
In

only one subset (see Table 5).

38

Table 2.
ANOVA OfDesire for Control X Race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T Sumof df Mean F Sig
Squares e_ Square
Between Groups 4507.483 5 901.49 5.939 .000
Within Groups 61173984 403 151.796
Total 65681.467l 408
Table 3.

 

IicfitJfleAnpjrison of Desire for Control X Race using Student-Newman-Keuls
mocedure a’b- (Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.)

 

      
  

   

    

N Subset for

    
     
  
   
     
    
 

ha = .05

 

  
  
   
 
 
   

    

    
  

   

 

1
93.
98. 98.0
i c Islander 101.1 101.1
te

    

101. 101.5

107.9
109.

.15

can-American
ative American

 

 
    
       

 

.32 '
a Uses Harmonic Mean Sarnple Size = 13.191.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Typ6 ‘
error levels are not guaranteed.

Table 4.

 

ANOVA of Desire for Control X Race 1688 “other” categom

 

 

v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F—V Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Eetween Groups 3707.399 *4 926.850 5.993 .000
Within Groups 60937 .5 84 394 1 54.664
otal ' 64644.982\ 398

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

Table 5.
Wafison of Desire for Control Xeacei’less “Other” category) 1151212 Student-

Wocedmea’b. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

 

       

      
    
   
   
 

= .05

98.0
101.1
101.5
107.9
109.
.1

Subset for

  

N

   

' c
acific Islander

   
    
   
   

 
  
  

'te

   
 
 

American
ative American
i

3 Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.091. _ .
b The group Sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group Sizes is used. Type I

error levels are not guaranteed.

  
  

     

Further review of the data, however, suggested two racial subgroups based on
Desire for Control mean scores; the first group consisted of African-Americans and
Native Americans, and the second group Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific
islanders. Although there was no significant difference between these two groups based
on the post-hoe comparison, this finding was likely the result of the higher standard of the
po Stchoc test, combined with the relatively small samples of several of the racial groups.
To assure, therefore, that race would not confound the data analysis, this variable was
Col'ltroHed for in all successive analyses in which Desire for Control was a variable. In
these instances, race was transformed into a dichotomous variable and participants were
assigned to each group passed on the split identified above. The “other” group was
dropped fiom any analysis in which Desire for Control was a factor.
Finally, categorical variables were compared to one another via chi-square
analysis using spss’ crosstab function (see Appendix B). These analyses revealed no

Slgnificant relationships of concern for this investigation.

 

Atter having identified possible confounding factors, the dependent variable was
computed. Since all of the hypotheses in this study were concerned with change in
anxiety from pre- to post-intervention, post-intervention STAI scores were subtracted
from the Dre-intervention STAI scores. This difference score was used as the dependent
Variable in the succeeding analyses.

Hypothesis 1 purported that among untreated participants, Desire for Control
would be negatively related to changes in STAI scores from pre- to post-intervention.
The data set was culled, therefore, of those in the treatment condition before conducting
the following analysis. Given that education and age were correlated with STAI scores,

:1th race related to Desire for Control, these variables were entered first into a multiple
re gression to control for their possible confounding influence. Then Desire for Control
SQOres were entered as the independent variable. Results are posted in Table 6.
Results from the multiple regression were consistent with some of the results
rcported earlier in this manuscript. Age was a significant predictor of the STAI‘
difference scores (,6: -.275, p < .01, Adjusted R2 = .020), as was education (,6: .221, p <
.05, A Adjusted R3 = .024). Race was not a predictor of the dependent variable (,6: -

.119, p = .11, A Adjusted R3 = .004). Contrary to Hypothesis 1, Desire for Control was

not predictive of the STAI difference score (,6= -.109, p = .14, A Adjusted R2 = .006).
(Given that race was not a significant predictor of the STAI difference score, another
analysis was conducted with this variable dropped from the equation. This new analysis

aid not lead to Desire for Control becoming a significant factor).

41

Table 6.

M\‘mlDlEEEEssion results for Hypothesis 1. (Dependent Variable: STAI Difference

Score)

Constant
e
Constant

’on
Constant

'on
Constant

e
'on

for Control

Unstandardized
Coefficients
c
12.63
-.591
-9.40
-1.08
2.5
-6.73
-1.041
2.
-3.3
4.3
-1.02
2.58
-3.9

—.12‘

Std. Error
5.56
.27
10.
.34
1.0
11.

1.08
2.
13.3
.34
l.
2.
.0

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

-.15

-.29
.21

-.28
-.09
-.27

.22

-.11
-.1

-3.

-1.351
.32
-2.
2.3
-1.
-1.

Sig.

.02
.03
.3

.02
.54
.00
.02
.7

.OO
.11
.1

 

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the stress management intervention would have no

\hipact on the change in anxiety versus those who were not so treated. Analysis for this

hypothesis was conducted through multiple regression with the entire sample. Age and

education were entered first to control for their possible confounding influence. Then,

pre-intervention STAI scores were entered to control for the influence of initial anxiety

on the results. Finally, experimental condition (treatment versus none) was entered.

Results are posted in Table 7.

Again, age was a significant predictor of STAI difference scores (,6: -.155, p <

- 01 , Adjusted R3 = .023), although education was not (,6: .098, p = .05, A Adjusted R3 =

.000). Pre-intervention STAI scores was a significant predictor of STAI difference scores

42

V3: 568,1) < -01, A Adjusted R3 = .320). As predicted, experimental condition had no

Slgnificant impact on change in anxiety (,6: -.047, p = .24; A Adjusted R" = .000)-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.
Wssion results for Hypothesis 2. (Dependent Variable: STAI Difference
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
Ode} B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 12.883 4.088 3.152 .002
2\ Age -.663 .204 -.159 —3.243 .001
\ (Constanj 7.008 7.397 .947 .344
\ Age -.812 .258 -.195 -3.152 .002
g ducation .702 .737 .059 .953 .341
(Constant) -30.488 6.622 4.6041 .000
\ lAge -.630 .212 -.151 -2.975 .003
\ Education 1.161 .605 .097 1.919 .056
‘\ TISTAI .623 .044 .571 14.102 .000
4\ (Constant) -29.448 6.679 .4409 .000
\ Age -.648 .212 -.155 -3.053 .002
\ Education 1.176 .605 .098 1.943 .053
TISTAI .620 .044 .568 14.018 .000
Y Treatment -1.344 1.147 -.047 -1.171 .24

 

 

Hypothesis 3 suggested that Desire for Control would moderate the irnpact of the
stress management intervention. That is, recruits high in Desire for Control would show
lower levels of anxiety two weeks afier a stress management intervention when compared
to untreated recruits who were also high in Desire for Control, while recruits low in
Desire for Control would show higher levels of anxiety two weeks after treatment with
stress management than recruits low in Desire for Control who were not so treated.

The sample for this analysis was the entire sample, less those participants self-
identified as “other” on the race dimension. Analysis was conducted via multiple

regression with age, education, and race entered first to control for their potential

43

Coulomdmg effects. Pre-intervention STAI was then entered to control for the effects of
Imtial state anxiety on the dependent variable. Next, experimental condition was entered,
followed by Desire for Control. Finally, an interaction term (Treatment X Desire for

Conn-o1) Was entered into the regression analysis. Results of this analysis are posted in

Table 8.

Age was again a significant predictor of changes in state anxiety (STAI difference
scores) (,6: -.157, p < .01; Adjusted R’ = .024). Education and race were once again not
Dre(lictors of STAI difference scores (,6: .100, p = .05; A Adjusted R3 = .000; B = -.016, p
\\‘ - 71; A Adjusted R3 = -.003). (A second analysis of the data was completed less the
a‘bove non-significant covariants. This analysis revealed no significant differences in the
predictive ability of the independent and moderator variables. The data reported below
are, therefore, based on the original analysis.) Pro-intervention STAI scores were again a
significant predictor of the dependent variable (,6: .580, p < .01; A Adjusted R3 = .329).

As found in the analysis for Hypothesis 2, treatment was not a significant predictor of the
outcome variable (,6: .110, p = .74; A Adjusted R3 = .000). Contrary to prediction,
neither Desire for Control nor the interaction term (treatment X Desire for Control) was

found to contribute to the predictive ability of this multiple regression model (fl= .044, p

= .47; A Adjusted R" = -.001; fl= -.148,p = .65; A Adjusted R" = -.002).

44

Table ‘8.

Millolfijfilgt£ssion results for Hypothesis 3. (Dependent Variable: STAI Difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score)
Unstandardized Standardized t Si g7
Odel Coefficients Coefficients
1 B Std. Error Beta
Constant) 13.083 4.129 3.168 .002
A e -.672 .206 -.161 -3.255 .001
Constant) 6.533 7.480 .873 .383
Age -.835 .258 -.200 -3.233 .001
3 Ed .777 .740 .065 1.050 .294
\ (Constanp 6.583 7.610 .865 .388
\ Age -.83 .259 -.200 -3.220 .001
\ [Ed .776 .742 .065 1.047 .296
4\ ace -6.354E-02 1.725 -.002 -.037 .971
‘K (Constant) -30.624 6.73 -4.547 .000
\ ge -.636 .212 -.153 -3.00 .003
\ d 1.211 .605 .101 2.001 .046
\ Race -.833 1.407 -.024 -.592 .554
\ TlSTAI .628 .044 .578 14.167 .000
5\ (Constant) -29.802 6.795 -4.386 .000
\ Age -.651 .212 -.156 -3.067 .002
Ed 1.218 .605 .102 2.013 .045
Race -.716 1.413 -.021 -.507 .613
TlSTAI .625 .044 .575 14.067 .000
Treatment -l.069 1.159 -.038 -.922 .357
6 (Constant) -32.639 8.392 6.889 .000
ge -.650 .212 -.156 -3.060 .002
Ed 1.191 .608 .100 1.961 .051
Race -.533 1.449 -.015 -.368 .713
TlSTAI .630 . .045 .579 13.933 .000
Treatment -1.043 1.161 -.037 -.898 .370
Desire for Control 2.723E-02 .047 .024 .577 .564
7 (Constant) -34.840 9.731 -3.580 .000
Age -.654 .213 -.157 ~3.073 .002
Ed 1.191 .608 .100 1.958 .051
Race -.547 1.451 -.016 —.377 .706
A TlSTAI .630 .045 .580 13.926 .000
Y Treatment 3.128 9.373 .110 .334 .739
esire for Control 4.933E—02 .068 ' .044 .722 .470
[Interaction Term —4.067E—02 .091 -. 148 —.448 .654

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Discussion
Similar to Burger (1992), this study found that Desire for Control was negatively
correlated with state anxiety at both pre- and post-intervention. Contrary to other data
reported by Burger (1992, 1999), however, the results of this study indicated that higher
levels 0f desire for control were unrelated to decreases in anxiety over time among
mints“)! recruits undergoing basic training.

Why might those high in Desire for Control have shown lower state anxiety at
both assessments, and no reduction in anxiety over time? Burger (1999) reported that the
hi Sh initial levels of anxiety among high Desire for Control individuals typically occur

when they feel threatened. Perhaps basic training did not threaten the sense of control of
these who desired it.

There are several possible reasons why-high Desire for Control recruits may not
11ave felt threatened during the initial phases of basic training. First, high Desire for

Control individuals tend to actively seek control (Burger and Cooper, 1979). Perhaps
high Desire for Control recruits were more active in their decision to join the military, as
opposed to recruits low in Desire for Control who may have been swayed by recruiters or
others to join. This active and thoughtful choice may have given the high Desire for
Control recruits a greater sense of felt control and, thus, a lower sense of threat.

Second, people high in Desire for Control tend to use better coping strategies
(Burger, 1992) and take control during stressful situations (Burger et al., 1989). Those
‘nigh in Desire for Control may have prepared better for their basic training experience,

perhaps through gathering information about basic training experiences and coping

resources prior to arriving at the reception station. Altemately, high Desire for Control

46

returns mall have more quickly adapted to the stresses of basic training by gathering
infomadon about pending stressors and how to cope with them shortly after arriVing at
the Reception Station. Finally, high Desire for Control recruits may have used cognitive
restruch-mg strategies that made potentially threatening events seem less so.
Future research would do well to examine the relationship between Desire for
Contrfil and state anxiety prior to leaving for basic training, to ascertain if their anxiety is
higher before traveling to basic training. Future research might also examine how Desire
for Control is related to the droughts and perceptions that recruits have about basic
training and their decision to join the military. Finally, future research might collect
illformation regarding the varying coping mechanisms used by recruits and examine their
re lationships to Desire for Control.
Similar to the findings of Cigrang et a1. (2000) in their study of Air Force trainees,
the stress management intervention used in this study had no statistically significant
impact on state anxiety. Although this finding ran contrary to the results of several other
studies (Georgoulakis et al., 1981; Gerwell & Fieldler, 1990; Novaco et al., 1983), it was
predicted. Based on the robust findings of researchers at the University of Iowa (Baron &
Logan, 1993; Baron etal., 1993; Law et al., 1994; Logan et al., 1991), Desire for Control
was hypothesized to moderate the effect of stress management training on anxiety.
Unexpectedly, this hypothesis was also not supported.
Perhaps the simplest explanation for these results is that brief stress management
interventions are not effective in reducing stress among basic trainees, even when taking
into account possible moderating factors such as Desire for Control. Before accepting

such a conclusion, however, one should consider other explanations.

47

 

Fits): me intervention used in this study was provided in a significantly different
manner than in most of the studies examining the effects of stress management on
military lIail‘tees. This study applied the intervention in large groups ranging in size from
approxiInately 50 to 250. One study provided stress management in individual sessions
(GeorgOulakis et al., 1981). Others have used groups as small as six on average (Cigrang

etal., 2000) to groups averaging 15 (Gerwell & Fielder, 1990). One could argue that the
psychological distance created by larger groups might dilute the effects of the
intervention. The results of the study conducted by Novaco and his colleagues (1983)
itgue against this explanation. They presented their stress management intervention via
Videotape and in groups averaging 70 (a Marine Corps platoon). Both the size of these
grcups and the means of presenting the instruction would likely make the psychological
qi stance similar to that of this study. Certainly no firm conclusions can be made from
1illese facts. Further research is needed to identify which facets of the delivery of stress
management interventions to military trainees affects their efficacy.
Second, Lefcourt (1982) (as cited in Baron & Logan, 1993) and Thompson et al.
(1993) suggested that individuals interested in investigating Desire for Control should use
situation-specific measures of this construct. The aforementioned research that supported
Desire for Control as a moderating variable (Baron & Logan, 1993; Baron etal., 1993;
Law et al., 1994; Logan et al., 1991) used such a situation-specific measure of Desire for
Control, the Iowa Dental Control Index, rather than a broad measure, such as the
Desirability for Control Scale. The use of such situation-specific measures was further
supported when Logan et al. (1991) conducted a side-by-side comparison of these two

measures. They found that only the situation-specific measure supported the moderating

48

lm‘

 

eff . -
ect bf Desrre for Control. If a de51re for control measure specific to military basic
tr - .
“lug had been used in this research, perhaps the results would have supported the
h .
ypotheSIS. Future research is needed to develop and investigate the usefulness of such a

meafilhe.

Third, as noted earlier, research has suggested that matching the provided
i bI‘rnation and coping skills training to the situation is important in reducing an
Infiividual’s level of stress (e.g., Auerbach, 1989; Martelli etal., 1987; Wallace &
R §rgenian, 1997; Wilkinson & Charnove, 1992). While the stress management
‘eehni . . . . . .
tee Cllres and information presented 1n this study had face validity, and were based on
hmmles used in previous research with military recruits, other techniques and
infirm ati on may have been more appropriate to, and useful in, this situation. Future
research Inight examine the effectiveness of other interventions, perhaps through side-by-
Side c()Iilparisons. Future research might also use manipulation checks to determine if the
ifltervetltions used are perceived as useful and if the techniques taught are used.
For the fourth possible explanation, one must again turn to the research of the
Qfix‘lfirsity of Iowa. group (Baron et al., 1993; Law et al., 1994; Logan et al., 1991). Their
1«csi’tlts iIndicated that stress management decreased stress only for those participants with
a high Desire for Control and a low level of perceived control. Research has suggested
that pe0])le often find a sense of control by exercising control in areas only peripherally
related to the situation (Thompson et a1, 1993). Although one could successfirlly argue
that the basic training environment severely limits one’s control, perceived control was

not assessed in this study. Perhaps trainees with a high Desire for Control found means

of eXerting control in areas that were unrelated directly to the stress of basic training.

49

 

 

 

 

 

Such activities may have included tending more closely to their uniforms or per 301121]
Space (Wall lockers), or volunteering for tasks. Future research should examine perceived
Contro], COping mechanisms used, and the relationship of the use of these coping
meghaflisms to dimensions such as Desire for Control.
Before closing this portion of the discussion section, one other issue needs to be
acixiressed. While this study was being conducted, Krueger (2001) raised the specter of a

1Q
thtanding phiIOSOphy of science debate, that is, the logic of the null hypothesis

Signiflcance test. Participants of this debate argue largely one of two sides. The first
Vamp holds that testing of the null hypothesis remains a usefiil tool, promotes scientific
57120th . . . . . . . .

ge 1n psychology, and IS necessarybecause it limits capitalization on chance
Occlerences (Brand, 2002; Guenther, 2002). The second camp rejects the use of null
hypomes is testing and advocates use of effect sizes and confidence intervals. They argue
that such testing allows identification of smaller effect sizes, and easier and more

1713M 1'1 gful compiling of data across studies that investigate similar phenomena, thereby

decl'eas ihg the possibility that meaningful results will not be overlooked (Hofrnann, 2002;

%c\\$&xdt & Hunter, 2002). This debate is certainly well beyond the scope and purpose of
{[135 Study. This issue, however, is pertinent since one of this study’s hypotheses, namely
I’IYP"the sis 2, predicted no effect. One could successfully argue that the statistical deck is
staCked in favor of such a finding, and that support for this finding, therefore, was
meaningless.

The purpose of putting forth such a hypothesis, though, was as a stepping stone to

Hypolllesis 3, which suggested that the lack of support for the effects of the stress

management intervention was because of a third, moderating variable, namely Desire for

 

 

 

CQ‘WIQL Although not stated explicitly, the prediction of no effect was thought to be (be
resuh 0f a collapsing of groups across conditions. Stated more directly, if data from
palficipfints high and low in Desire for Control were collapsed into one group, then their

1? 1’0" 039d Opposite effects would cancel each other. Ultimately, there was no support for
\‘tx‘xs latter hypothesis (Hypothesis 3), and so a re-examination of the data from the second

hyFOthesis may be in order. And, this is one point on which the opposing camps of the

al§0I‘ementioned debate seem to agree, science, especially in areas such as psychology,
finefit greatly from replication of studies and aggregation of such evidence.

1‘ In the interest of furthering science, it seems logical to discuss briefly some

IntereSting relationships that were found to exist between experimental and demographic

{431156163 . Someof these relationships have been described in the literature, while others
have not -
Age was negatively associated with anxiety. In the normative data regarding the

State" Trait Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger (1983) reported that there was a drop in mean

statt6 a‘17|~>~:iety scores with age. This drop was small and Spielberger did not report whether

$5195 Statistically significant. A search of the literature revealed no other research
reporting this connection.

A decrease of anxiety with age makes intuitive sense. Anxiety is typically a
concert; about possible misfortunes. As an individual gathers years, and therefore
experience, it seems that they would have a more secure sense of their ability to avoid or

(30136 With these misfortunes. This may be particularly true when examining samples such

as that used in this study. The majority of the sample was 18 years old, and, one might

335mm, had little Opportunity to experience life beyond the relatively safe confines of

51

 

 

hgme' and high school. Perhaps living outside of this “safety zone,” as many OfthOSc
even a year or two older likely have, creates a greater sense of self-efficacy and,
therefore, security.
Education was negatively associated with state anxiety. A search of the literature
wgnlg the keywords “education” and “state anxiety” revealed no research to explain this
CQ hnection. Several explanations for this correlation seem reasonable. First, education
Nay provide an individual with greater coping skills. While this seems to make sense on
he lfitvel, there is no evidence to suggest that one or two more years of education would
erVid . . . . .
‘ e greater experience than the same amount of time spent working and livmg
1
JadePelldently. Perhaps the older, less educated military recruit is less likely to have
lived independently than the more educated ones. While the stereotype of the older, less
educated recruit tends to be that of an underachieving individual who still lives with their
par cuts 3 there is currently no evidence available to support this idea.
Altemately, this correlation may be spurious. Research has demonstrated a
significant positive relationship between education and intelligence (cf. Kaufinan, 1990).
Q‘efi'ca‘bch has also indicated a negative correlation between intelligence and anxiety
(cab/111, Koons, Bingham, & Fink, 1955; Taylor, 1955). Perhaps, therefore, it is
intelligence that predicts anxiety, and education is merely a covariant of intelligence.
This Sevams to make sense since persons with greater intelligence are likely to have
greater coping skills available to them, given that intelligence is related to a greater
abilit)’ to adapt to new circumstances.

On the other hand, the connection between education and anxiety may reflect the

aforementioned correlation of age and anxiety. The US Army attempts to recruit more

52

 

 

 

 

educated individuals with the lure of money to pay off college loans. Perhaps gears, age
mong military recruits is associated with greater education even more so than With the
population at large. This explanation, however, assumes that one or more of the
12m otheSized explanations of the correlations between age and anxiety are due.
Education was also positively associated with Desire for Control. Smith and her
CQHeagues (Smith, Wallston, Wallston, F orsberg, & King, 1984) found similar although
Skmewhat higher correlations than the one found in this study (.22-.29 versus .10). The
lEight-‘1‘ correlations they found are likely related to the greater range and variability of
:ducmion in their sample (Study 1 X= 13.92, SD = 2.63; Study 2 X= 16.41, SD = 2.53).
“ch col‘relations make intuitive sense, as people higher in Desire for Control would be
more likely to seek opportunities for control, such as gaining more education. A search
of the Desire for Control literature revealed no research that has directly investigated this
Comecti on, or proposed any explanations for the connection.
Although of questionable statistical significance in this research, Desire for
C0ntbg 1 was statistically related to race. The ANOVA used to investigate the connection
.0664 fie!) these variables indicated a significant connection, but the post-hoc comparison
did not ~ Several of the racial groups reported in this study had small numbers when
Comp aJi‘ed to the numbers representing other racial groups. Although there were no data
availab le when this manuscript was written, the study’s sample appeared to be different in
f 39131 I‘nake-up from the trainee population, with more Whites and fewer African-
Ameficans and Hispanics. The non-significant post-hoc comparison therefore may have

been the result of attenuation. Perhaps if the sample size had been larger, or if the racial

53

g0“? S Were proportional to population numbers, the relationship between r306 and
esire for Control would have remained significant in the post-hoc comparison.
If there is a difference in Desire for Control among different racial groups, it is
unclear Why African-Americans and Native Americans would score higher on this
munlension than Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. One possible
e\Planation is that this finding is an artifact related to the population from which the
S §lllple was drawn. Perhaps those individuals from these two racial groups who join the

\1

gr . . . .
Oups have other, more access1ble and desnable options to mcrease control, such as
at:

llltEll'y use it as a means of increasing their sense of personal control, while other racial

e1“ling college. Explanations such these are certainly speculative. None of the studies
(évg'ewed for this manuscript reported any connection between race and Desire for
Contro 1 - Perhaps there were no reportable differences in those studies, or perhaps their
samp 168 were too homogeneous to warrant a comparison. Further research is needed to
Clmg’ this issue.
Before closing, it seems prudent to discuss possible confounds that went
Qfioohh‘olled in this study. First, the nature of this study certainly gives rise to the
(111653011 that participants may have self-selected on pertinent dimensions. Those that
volunteered may have had a greater Desire for Control and therefore availed themselves
Of the Opportunity to gain more control via the stress management instruction.
Vomllteers may have had greater anxiety, and volunteered on the chance that they would
learn techniques to decrease it. Altemately, they may have self-selected based on other,

untCSted dimensions that were related to the experimental variables. Although the

Similarity of scores between this sample and the normative samples of the measures used

 

 

 

 

 

31 u . . . . . . . .
g es anmst these explanat1ons, they remain possrbrllties. Second, as With 311 1‘ escarcb,
an
3; of ‘he findings reported in this manuscript may have been the result of sampling
error, . , _ _
It IS 1mposs1ble to make statements about the representatlve nature of the sample
5 ' . . .
11166 deInograph1cs of the population from Wthh the sample was drawn were not
3V “ . . . . . . .
mlable. Replicatlon would certainly be useful 1n addressrng this issue.
In summary, the predicted outcomes of this research were not supported. The
Ta §
ults suggested that desire for control has no impact on change in anxiety for military
I‘ .
‘ QruiliS. The results also suggested that brief stress management interventions are
lheff . . . . . . . .
ectlve 1n reducmg anxrety levels among military recruits, and that Des1re for Control,
mafia
l‘u‘ed generally, has neither a direct, nor a moderating, influence on anxiety. The
0% 51' gtlificant predictors of decreases in anxiety identified by this study were age,
education, and anxiety at the outset of basic training.
As with most research, this study raised many more questions than it provided
answers - While several explanations for the unexpected findings were presented, the data

collected did not allow empirical tests of these hypotheses. Replication and extension of

®$§§S earch would prove valuable in answering the questions raised herein.

55

REFERENCES

56

References
Abrams, M. & Ellis, A. (1994). Rational emotive behaviour therapy in the
treatment of stress. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(1), 39-50.
Anderson, CR. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a
stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psthology, 62(4), 446-451.
Armfield, F. (1994). Preventing post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from
military operations. Military Medicine, 159( 12), 739-746.
Ashford, S.J. & Black, J .S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The
role 0 f desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214.

Aspinwall, L.G. & Taylor, SE. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A
longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college
adjuS':11‘lent and performance. Joml of Personfltv and Social Psychology. 63(6), 989-
1003-

Auerbach, SM. (1989). Stress management and coping research in the health
care Se‘t‘lfing: An overview and methodological commentary. Journal of Consulting and
91% Psychology, 57(3), 388-395.

Auerbach, S.M., Kendall, P.C., Cuttler, H.R., & Levitt, NR. (1976). Anxiety,
locus Q f control, type of preparatory information, and adjustment to dental surgery.
Womonsultingand Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 809-818.
Auerbach, S.M. & Kilrnann, PR. (1977). Crisis intervention: A review of

onlcol’ne research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1189-1217.

57

Auerbach, S.M., Martelli, M.F., & Mercuri, LG. (1983). Anxiety, InfOHnatjon,
interpersonal impacts, and adjustment to a stressful health care situation. Journal of
w and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1284—1296.

Averill, J .R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to

stress. Bychological Bulletin. 80(4), 286-303.
Averill, J .R., O’Brien, L., & DeWitt, G.W. (1977). The influence of response
effectiveness on the preference for warning and on psychophysiological stress reactions.
m of Persona_lit_y, 45(3), 395-418.

Averill, J .R. & Rosenn, M. (1972). Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies
and psychophysiological stress reactions during the anticipation of electric shock.
lourrl\r-flof Personality and Social Psycholggy, 23(1), 128-141.

Baron, R.M. & Kenney, DA. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
disfinetion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
consid erations. Journal of Personaliiand Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Baron, R.S. & Logan, H. (1993). Desired control, felt control, and dental pain:
Recent findings and remaining issues. Motivation & Emotion, 17(3), 181-204.

Baron, R.S., Logan, H., & HOppe, S. (1993). Emotional and sensory focus as
medi 8tors of dental pain among patients differing in desired and felt dental control.
WPsvchology, 12(5), 381-389.

Bernstein, D.A. & Carlson, CR. (1993). Progressive relaxation: Abbreviated

methods. In P.M. Lehrer & R.L. Woolfolk (Eds), Pfinciplflnd Priactice of Stress

Mfia-nagement, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.

58

 

Brand, J .L. (2002). Why chance is a good theory. Arnerican Psychologist, 57(1),

66-67.

 

BUrger, J .M. (1992). Desire for control: Personarlity, social and clinical
W New York: Plenum
Burger, J .M. (1999). Personality and control. In Derlega, V.J., Winstead, RA, et
31- (Eds) Personality: Contemporary theory; and reseaicji (2nd ed.) (pp. 282-306).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Burger, J .M. & Arkin, RM. (1980). Prediction, control, and learned helplessness.
W1 of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 482-491.

Burger, J .M. & Cooper, HM. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivgion and

W, 3(4), 381-393.

Burger, J .M., McWard, J ., & LaTorre, D. (1989). Boundaries of self-control:
Relinq 1.1i Shing control over aversive events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
8(2), 2 09-221.

Calvin, A.D., Koons, P.B., Jr., Bingham, J.L., & Fink, H.H. (1955). A further
investi gation of the relationship between manifest anxiety and intelligence. J_o_urn_a_l_o_f_

992% Psychology, 19, 280-282.
Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodil chan es in ain hun er fear andra e(2nd Ed.).

New York: Appleton.
Carver, C.S., Pozo, C., Harris, S.D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M.W., Robinson, D.S.,
Ketcham, A.S., Moffat, F.L., & Clark, KC. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of

Optitnism on distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of

Why and Sociafl’sychology, 65, 375-390.

59

 

 

Ci grang, J .A., Todd, S.L., & Carbone, EC. (2000). Stress management tram'ng
for military trainees returned to duty after a mental health evaluation: Effect on
graduation rates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 48-55.

Clemons, ER (1996). Monitoring anxiety levels and coping Skills among
military recruits. MilitatryfiMedicine, 161, 18-21.

Cooper, H., Okarnura, L., & McNeil, P. (1995). Situation and personality
correlates of psychological well-being, social activity, and personal control. LEM
Mb in Personality, 29(4), 395-417.

Cox, D.J., Taylor, A.G., Nowacek, G., Holley-Wilcox, P., Pohl, S.L., & Guthrow,

15' (1 9 84). The relationship between psychological stress and insulin-dependent diabetic
blood glucose control: Preliminary investigations. Health Psychology, 3(1), 63-75.
Delong, DR. (1970). As cited in Averill (1973). Individual differences in
pattems of anxietyiarousal, stress-relevant information, and recovery from surgery.
Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
DeLongis, A., Coyne, J .C., Dakof, G., Folkrnan, S., & Lazarus, RS. (1982).
Relati Qnship of daily hassles, uplifls, and major life events to health status. M
Ma, 1(2), 119-136.
F illingim, R.B. & Blumenthal, J .A. (1993). The use of aerobic exercise as a
ruched of stress management. In P.M. Lehrer & R.L. Woolfolk (Eds), Principles and
We of Stress Maflgement, 2“d ed. New York: Guilford Press.
F olkrnan, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A

theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839-852.

60

 

 

 

Folkrnan, S. & Lazarus, RS. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middleuaged

community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Gannon, L., Banks, J ., Shelton, D., & Luchetta, T. (1989). The mediating effects

0f Psychophysiological reactivity and recovery on the relationship between
enVil'Ol‘lmental stress and illness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 33(2), 167-175.

Gannon, L. & Pardie, L. (1989). The importance of chronicity and controllability

0f Stress in the context of stress-illness relationships. Journal of Behaviorad Medicine.

12(4), 357-372.
Georgoulakis, J M Bank, R.L., & Jenkins, J .A. (1981). Counseling intervention

in basic combat training. Military Medicine, 146(7), 513-515.

Gerwell, E.L. & Fiedler, ER. (1990). Brief cognitive oriented group intervention

f()rtr\eé1ting basic trainee adaptation problems. Twelfth Symposium of Psychology in the

Department ofDefense, April 18-20, 1990.
Glass, D.C. & Singer, J .E. (1972). Urbap Stress: Experimenta on Noise anA

W. Academic Press: New York.
Guenther, R.K. (2002). How probable is the null hypothesis? American

Wat, 57(1). 67-68.

Hofrnann, SO. (2002). Fisher’s fallacy and NHST’s flawed logic. American

W, 57(1), 69-70.

Holahan, C.K., Holahan, C.J., & Belk, 8.8. (1984). Adjustment in aging: The

Ides of life stress, hassles, and self-efficacy. Health Psychology, 3(4), 315-328.

61

 

 

 

 

l

 

Holmes, D.S. & Houston, B.K. (1974). Effectiveness of situation I'Cdefihjtjon and
affective isolation in coping with stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
29, 212-21 8.

Johnson, J .E. (1973). Effects of accurate expectations about sensations on the
5311501337 and distress components of pain. J our-gal of Personafityand Social Psychology,
27, 26 1275.
Kaufman, AS. (1990). Assessillg Adult and Adolescent Intelligence. Boston:
Allm and Bacon
Krueger, J. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a

flaWed method. American Psychologist, 56(1), 16-26.

 

Krueger, J. (2002). Bayes rules. American Psychologist, 57(1), 70-71.

Langer, E.J., Janis, E.L., & Wolfer, J .A. (1975). Reduction of psychological
Stress in surgical patients. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 155-165.

Langer, E.J. & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal
I"espotlsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of
WW and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191-198.

Lanzetta, J .T. & Driscoll, J .M. (1966). Preference for information about an

uncel‘tain but unavoidable outcome. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 3(1),
96-1 ()2.
Law, A., Logan, H., & Baron, RS. (1994). Desire for control, felt control, and

Stress inoculation training during dental treatment. Journg of Personality and Social

 

M21297, 67(5), 926-936.

62

Lazarus, R. & Follonan, S. (1984). Stressbappraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer Publishing Co.

Lefcourt (1982).

Leventhal, H., Brown, D., Shacham, S., & Engquist, G. (1979). Effects of
Preparatory information about sensations, threat of pain, and attention in cold pressor
distress, Joungal of PersonalitLand Social Psychology, 37(5), 688-714.

Linden, W. (1993). The autogenic training method of J .H. Schultz. In P.M.

Lehrer & R.L. Woolfolk (Eds), Principles and Practice of Stress Management, 2“d ed.
New York: Guilford Press.

Logan, H., Baron, R.S., Keeley, K., Law, A., Moreland, M., & Stein, S. (1991).
Desired and felt control as mediators of stress in a dental setting. _I;I__e_a1th Psychology,
10(5), 352-359.

Ludwick, R.R. & Neufeld, R.W. (1988). Stress management during noxious
medic a] procedures: An evaluative review of outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin,
104(3 ) , 326-342.

Ludwick—Rosenthal, R. & Neufeld, R.W. (1993). Preparation for undergoing an
invasiVe medical procedure: Interacting effects of information and coping style. Jo_um_a_l_

Md leting Psychology, 61(1), 156-164.
Magyar, I., Lukacs, H., Mod, L., Alfoldi, A., & Arato, M. (1986). Military
inducrion, stress, and DST. Biological Psychm, 21(11), 1102-1103.

Martelli, M.F., Auerbach, S.M., Alexander, J ., & Mercuri, LG. (1987). Stress

management in the health care setting: Matching interventions with patient coping styles.

1 oumal of Consultin and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 201-207.

63

 

 

Pr-gth‘

Matheny, K.B., Aycock, D.W., Pugh, J .L., Curlette, W.L., & Silva-CanheIIa, K24.

(1986)- Stress coping: A qualitative and quantitative synthesis with implications for

treatment. Counseling Psychologist, 14, 499-549.

Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress Inoculation Training. New York: Pergamon

 

Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (1993). Stress inoculation training: A 20-year update. In P.M.

Lehrer & R.L. Woolfolk (Eds), Principles and Practice of Stress Management, 2“‘1 ed.

N ew York: Guilford Press.
Meichenbaum, D. & Cameron (1983). Stress inoculation training: Toward a

 

genera] paradigm for training coping skills. In D. Meichenbaum & M.E. J aremko (Eds),

StreSS Reduction and Prevention. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Miller, S.M. (1979a). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence, and

theory- Behafiviour Research and Therapy, 17, 287-304.
Miller, S.M. (1979b). C0ping with impending stress: Psychophysiological and

cogni tiye correlates of choice. Psychophysiology, 16(6), 572-581.
Miller, SM. (1980). When is a little information a dangerous thing? Coping with

stress furl events by monitoring versus blunting. In Levine, S. & Ursin, H. (Eds), Mg

W. Plenum Press: New York, pp. 145-169.
Miller, SM. (1981). Predictability and human stress: Towards a clarification of

 

e"'idénce and theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(V01. 14, 203-256). New York: Academic Press.

64

 

Miller, SM. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to
assess Styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(2), 345-353.

Miller, S.M. & Mangan, CE. (1983). Interacting effects of information and
COping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all? lgu_rn_algf_

Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 223-236.

 

Milroy, R. (1991). Observations on stress reactions as seen in Naval Reserve
Fleet Hospital training evolutions. Military Medicine, 156(4),166-168.

Novaco, R.W., Cook, T.M., & Sarason, LG. (1983). Military recruit training: An
arena for stress-coping skills. In D. Meichenbaum & M.E. J aremko (Eds) M
Mon and prevention. New York: Plenum Press.

Pervin, LA. (1963). The need to predict and control under conditions of threat.
“4% ofPersonaLity, 31, 570-587.

Rosebush, RA. (1998). Psychological intervention with military personnel in

Rwatlda. Military Medicine, 163(8), 559-563.

Rothbart, M. & Mellinger, M. (1972). Attention and responsivity to remote
dang, ers: A laboratory simulation for assessing reactions to threatening events. Journal of
Pee—\“SQnality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 132—142.

Sarafino, ER (1994). Health Psycholggy: Biopsychosocial Interthions (2nd Ed).

New York: John Wiley & Sons
Saunders, T., Driskell, J .E., Johnston, J .H., & Salas, E. (1996). The effect of

5dress inoculation training on anxiety and performance. Journal of Occupational Health

P\Sychology, 1(2), 170-186.

65

 

 

 

Schmidt, F- & Hunter: J: (2002). Are there benefits from NHST? W
Waist, 57(1), 65-66-
Seligrnan, M-E-P- (1975). He] lessness: On De rtessiOIL Dewelopmem

Death. Freeman and Company: San Francisco, CA_

Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Li‘fe New York: McGtaW “I‘lill,

Smith, R.A-, Wallston, B.S., Wallston, K.A_, Forsberg’RK- , & .

K1
. fl, ng’ J-E- (1984).
Measuring C1651” for Control of health care process - Jour'na1 o 6‘80!)an

W

Psychology, 47(2), 415-426.

Spielberger (1983). State-Trait Anxie Invento for Adluts (Manual) Mind
Garden: RedWOOd City, CA.

Stone, A.A. & Neale, J.M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Develogrment
, . . ‘ ()6.
and preliminary results. Journal of Personah and S 001a] PSVchQI 46, 897‘ 9
Ad. 0 “V3366
Strentz, T 8L Anerbach, S.M. (1986). JUStI‘IIent t0 the stress of 5,11“
rages

captiVityi Effects Of emotion—focused vs. problem-focused Prep 3110115 on hos
difffiring in locus of control,

' and nonavoidaflt
Suls, J. & Fletcher, B. (1985} The “lame efficacy of ave-ma!“

. 8-
caprng strategies: A meta-analysis. Health PS Ch°1° , 4(3): 249’28
Suls, J. & Wan, CK. (1989). Effects Of sensory and proceduraI meITHatjoH 011

coping with stressful medical procedures and pain: A meta-analysis. W
consular, and Clinical Ps cholo , 57(3), 372-3 79.
lor, J.A. (195 5), The Taylor Manifest Aniriety ScaIe . .

0f Abnormal 8‘ SOCial Ps cholo , 51, 347.

66

 

 

 

Thompson, 30 (1981} Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to

a simple question- Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 90(1), 89-101.

Thompson, S.C., Nanni, C . & Levine, A, (1994)_ Primary versus secondary and

central versus consequence—related control in HIV -positiVe men: k—N L; utmr‘smm
l

and Social PS cholggy, 67(3), 540-547,
Thompson, S.C., Sobolew-shubin, A, Galbraith,M-W ., SCthan-kOVsky L
> . &

Cruzen, D. (1993). Maintaining perCeptionS of control: Finding perQ eiVed Co
n"'01 in low-

control circumstances. Loumal of Personalit and S ocial PS 911010 64
’ (2), 293—304.

Vickers,R.R. Jr., Hervig, L.H-, POth, M., 8" Hackney, A'C‘ (1995) Cortisol

 

 

 

 

secretion under stress: Test of a stress reactivity mOdel in young adult males (Tech Rep.

No. 95—17). San Diego, C A; Naval Health ReseaI'Ch Center,

. ’0‘,
997 . Contr ‘, 069635
Wallace, K.A. & Bergeman, (3.8. (l ) 01 and the elderly: C10

99 ‘ - ' D .
fit. International Joumal of A in and Human evelo Inem 45 (4), 323—399 T G-

. - “sh, '
Wallston,K.A,, Smith, R.A.P., King, 1E, Smith, M. 3., Rye PO, seat)“

. . m therapy:
(199 1). Desire for control and choice of antlernetrc treatment for “meet one: 0
Western Journal of Nursin Research, 1 3(1), 12-29.

Weinberger M., Hiner, S.L., & Tierney, W-M- (1987) - In
’ - 1 Med' -
measure of stress in predicting health Outcomes. Journal of Behavrol‘a 101116, 10(1),

19~3 1
Wilkinson, E. J. & Chamove, A.S . (1992). Anxiety and desire fbrCOflH’OI. New

Zealand JournalofPs cholo .2102), 71-73.

67

 

68

 

Appendix A

W

BROOKE ARMY MEDICAL CENTER/WILFORD HALL MEDICAL CE
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ! 1 “3R
(Revised: 19 Aug 99)

Desire for Control and the Efficacy of Stress Management in BaSiC 2il'Clining

    

You are bein asked to consider artiCi ation in this researct} stud
stud is to investi ate the effects of ersonah' Ctivenéss

. on the effe n ofa Stl‘es Ose ofthjs
management momsmned to reduce the anxie - S

often ex 6 enced

 

This study will euro 1] 400 participants at Fort Leonard W00d3 MISS .
two (2) months. If you chose to participate, you Wil 1 be requ1r€d tQ pan; 9V6? a period of
minimum of two assessment sessions. You have been selected to , .Clpate 1n a

' . . 31110 - .
because you are entering basic training and W111 be assxgned to the 3m, r2331}: 1111321538;de
for basic training. g g

This study may also require you to participate in a 15V"0-session Stress management class,
depending on the group to which you are assignf3d- Stress managEment interventions 0
such as those used in this study have been used in many Smdies Si .1 to mis indies
negative effects have been noted in previous stuches - Slde effects m1 ad in o 611:6“668
have included a mild increase in anxiety for some partlcipan note _ «t

t8 a d
management class. filer atten
ARTICIPANTS u oil“ ‘06
-° 0 t
RANDOMIZATION OF STUDY P magemem c1 AS a p mp t, y agemefi
aSSlgrled to one of two (2) groups (stress m . ass Ell-t allman

. . 0r n “ess :ai fling.
013.83) based on the training unit to meh You Wm be ass‘ ed fgxsbasic eoided randomly'
traming units that will receive the 53955 manugcmgnt Class have bee“ (:6 an equal chancé
Randomization is a {00655 like flippmg a Com an means you wifi “3
Ofbelng assigned to either Of the tWO groups"

- 005d .
PROCEDURES - anicipant, yOu will undergo the followmg Pr - in” I}
M AS 3p . .11 b , rOVI e 1111b .
g the first asSessment sesswn (today) you W1 e requlred to P 're 117180011
about your age, Sex and marital status, and to complete two questionnzl 8. One
questionnaire will ir’rquirc about Sympbms Ofanx’et-V Y°u may be currently BXPCH'encm
The Other unSfiOnnairC W111 inquire abOUt your preference for COHIT 01. 2) Approximat 1 '
three (3) weeks from today, you will be asked to agam complete the questj aire .ey
about .ety Syrnptoms. Although you are fi'CC t0 deCIine t0 alls 0m , aSklflg
find awn . - . - r th - Werany estlons
Qbjecnonable, It IS Importaflt f0 e P1193053 “this Stud-V thatyou on you
questions as pOSSible. answer as many

if 011 are assi ed to the stress mEma em(int condition on will 3130 b
artici ate in two stress mafia ement classes. One session W111 OCCur toe Fe aired to
da immediate]

69

 

‘

—*

 

 

         

afier on have com leted the nestionn - . 0
week later. Darin this “Itch/6111:1911 on will be tau t methods and means tha

assist ouinco in Wlth baSIC tralnm and that ma reduce our level of streSS
WW

Afier com letin the anxie Destionnaire the second time 01.1 Wi 1 1 be briefed abo
details of this stud and will be allowed tW “t
RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS: There are no known risks assc’ma‘ied With the
procedures used in this study. Some who have

gone mough 511mg} Stress man
training, however, have noted an increase in their “miety navel; 8: er ly th agement
have experienced this increase in anxiety have TepOrted that it IS Qn‘liveé Ose Who
iIltCflSlty. and mll d m

w This study is intended to benefit you. and those WhQ OIIow ' b -
training. At this time, StI‘ess management training i S not comtno y Used “5,; :11: 31211113882:
When such training has been used in the past, it has shown rmxed I'esu Its. The
investigator has designed this study to learn if factors that have nOt been accounted for in
past research may impact the effectiveness of SW3h Stress managehmnt training

There is no guarantee or promise that. you.Wlll ECCCIVe any b CDC fit fi-om this Stud)“ .
However, as a result of participating 111 this stu y, you In

non
anxiety during basic training compared to those Who (10 611311 .

96658 .10
. . a 5
management class. This may morease the ease Wlth thCb You 11:16ch itum Gag“
training.

0
. 1 . . n (paymcn
PAYMENT COMPENSATION : You wfl “0t receive an eqmpe sano
for participating in this study.

ON = Records 0f
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS 0F STUDY PARTIQIY 53m fademl law,
including the Peder 1 Privacy Act, 5 U.S .C. 5523, and Its unplemnetihe PflVaCJ’Act ~
Pom] 2005 Privac aAct Statement—Health Care Records, contalns eImiSS'
Statem thf the ry rdS. By Signing this document, you gIVe yoqr pd]. 10]] [bl-
ipfomlaegon gainedefc'rim your participation in this StUdy to be p ubIIShe I1 medical
literature discuSSed for educational Purposes, and used genera] 1 3, to fizztbel- medic a1
.Sclence ’You will not be personally identified m such publications 0, d’SCUSSions; a”
mfolhlation will be presented as anOIIYInous data.

Com nfd ' - t be pI’OIl‘u'sed articularly for - -

c0 1 entIallty canno . : P 12111,
r6811 1:21:15 may regujre that informatlon. regarding your health b er lg Personnel, because
medics“ or command authorities. In addition, your records ma
POD

6 .
0th y be ,6 ‘.’”ed to 3PP1'0Pnate
C1 & Drug Administration (FDA), er government ag
ln

encies, and revved by the US
Stitutjonal Review Boards. 1)

'5 BAMC/WIfl/IC

7O

 

 

 

 

 

T T0 CARE 3 I:Cderal laws and regulations govern your entitlCme
. If you haVe qUeEtt'to
1011 S

ENTITLEMEN
medlCal and dental care and/or Compensation in the event of injul'Y'
as a research 81113160: or if you believe you have rec eived a research

abOUt your rights
rolated injury, you may contact the

Medical Center Protocol Coordi
6-2031. nators, 210

-916'259 8 or BAMC J
udge

Brooke Army
Advocate, 210—91

Or
CPT Bartee, Fort Leonard Wood Judge Advocate General, 573’596‘0630
n in this Study does not alter your ongoing medial} beufifit
eded medlcal he s as a military
atment should you

Participatio
beneficiary, and you Will continue to receive any :16
experience illness or injury as a result of this study - 1n the event of - .
a1 procedures, the extent of medic al care provided .111], “’3’ T 681111?ng fiom
’5 hmJted and will be

the investigation
thorized for DOD health care beneficiaries.

within the scope au
STATEMENT OF GOOD FAITH: The investigator Cmot gum. I
1 receive benefits from this study; however, the invesfigato anteekoreg .
mat may result fi°m your pgilipiaoomw

you wil
informed of any serious complications

study.

ornise that

56 PerfoI med dlm'ng this study -
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: By signing below Md
. . . - - ’ You 1 g6 on Y
the fellowmg: 1) The decision to partialpate 1? this 59“? is 00:1(11233’ quurl‘agou are
part. No one has coerced or intimidated you Into p‘i‘mclpating - p16 . prOBCCt' and all
Patti ' - . 2 CPT Novakh m W5 squeted any

11 élpatmg because you so choose. ) . . . as adequatehl a9 es involved. 3)
q estlons you have about this study , 3’9111‘ partmpation, and the «pieced trace“ in En 1° h a

ation and discussions about this smdy “a"? 6“ to y g ls ’
fihls £011“ has been 1" on.

1:111 Oral and written inform
guage in which you are fluent. 4) A COPY °
ember of Behavioral MedICIIIe DI'VI'SI'OII
' g Procfidures

CPT Novak, the principal investigator, Or a m
vailable to answer any (1115930115 001106
. 8
You Will be mfomm mdy

t
S at? (5 96—0522). Will be a
new findings develop during the

tha?ughOUt thIS Study, If51gnlficant -
may relate to your decision to cofltlnue participation,

You will not be informed of results of the te

cut at any time and discontinue fiu'th .
erpaITIci ' ' o
patron m thls

eligibility for care or any other ben efits to I}
W .
1611 you are

anding 1n the military. Should you c 12005
e (O Withdraw, you

:3: a withdraw this cons

enti 3’ Without affecting your

m tled, or impacting your st
“St inform CPT Novak.

71

 

 

CPT Novak, the principal investigator of this Study, may terminate your participation in

this study at any time if he feels this to be in your best interest-

Your consent to participate in this Study is given on a voluntary basis.

iz'SSSN W

 

/ -
VéLUNTEER'S SIGNATURE FMP /V(EUNfi;;

 

 

 

VELUNTEER'S PRINTED NAME

 

 

 

r k ‘ / \"-
ADVISING INVESTIGATOR'S SIGNATURE DATE PHONE\#‘\

 

Matthew P. Novak, MA CPT, MS
PRINTED NAME OF ADVISING INVESTIGATOR

DATE °

 

WITNESS' SIGNATURE
(Must witness ALL Signatures)

 

 

PRINTED NAME OF WITNESS

72

 

, . Appendix B
PFC-19“?! Vennon ueStionnaire Includin 3
Demo a 1110

uestions DCSirabili for Control Scale

and S-Anxie scale from the State-Trait Anxie Invento ©

Thank you for choosing to participate in this study. To be

gin, we need to Co
information. Please carefully follow the instructions provide

please ask the person giving you this survey.

¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d below. If You i123 some

6 an
y queStions,
On this sheet, please provide the fOHOWing informationfi Pgififi Ote at .
information (that is, name and social security number) 15 “W 00 ecte d any Identifyin
match your scores from this survey with the scores of the 5 $3! you W' Only to allow us to
approximately four weeks. "I take in
Last Name, First Nanie: #\
Social Security Number; 1
Age:
Number of Years of Education: wk) 5e
0 36 Q“. a\\Y9 " “I

On the answer sheet provided, please ii“ In Your ma e. The 'n the sbfibe‘. €36“ sect“)
signature area on the answer sheet, P193“ “T“? y 0hr Sada] m’ lurity n 6 m? of e
the answer sheet to answer the following qu:Stlons "sing thesecale at ‘1’
Please do not write any further on this surV y. sc

1- Sex: Mark “A” for Male, or “B” for Female.

93 . grated, or “D” for
2- Marital Status: Mark “A” for Single, “8 f“Mammal, “C” for 6"

Divorced.

- u 99 ' " and“; “ ” ' o
3. Race: Mark “A” for Afi'ican-Amerlcan, B for ASlan/PaClfiC 151 C 1??!stme ,

“1).. for Native Alfierican, “E” for White, or “F” for Other.

Phage continue on the next page.

73

 

 

 

 

Below you will find a series of statements, Please read each Statement carefull
respond to it by expressmg the extent to which you believe the statement appli

sheet.

The Desirability for Control Seal 6

y and
. - . that best 1- es to 3'0
For all Items, 3 response from 1 to 718 reqmred. Use the number efle s U.
belief using the scale below. Mark your Choices in the appropriate Spaces 011 an)?!"
Wet.

15.

1 9.
20.

21.
22

23

§

1 = The statement doesn’t apply to me at all.

2 = The statement usually does not apply to me.

3 = Most ofien, the statement does not apply - 1-

4 = I am unsure about whether or not the statement app leg to me

5 = This Statement applies more often than not.
6 = This Statement usually applies to me.

7 = This statement always applies to me.

9‘?

“00°99“

11. I enjoy making my
12.
13.
project.

14. I consider myself to

orders.

else’s mistake.

I prefer ajob Where I have a lot of control over what I do and When I do it

I enjoy political Participation because I want to have as mush ofa say in n-mning
government as possible.

I try to avoid Situations where someone else tells me What to do

I would prefer to be a leader rather than a follower_ -

I enjoy being able to influence the actions 0f Otl’fers.

. I am careful to Check everything on an automoblle before I l e for a

10- Others usually 1Chow what is best for me. eav

101$ “iv? .

own decisions.

' ' . group
I enjoy havmg Control over my own desktlmy-
I would rather Someone else take over t

6 leadership role W}; 1’ m mv
CD

S
an 0th“
be generally more Capable of handling situa - ops m

. - - llaboutb f elb gar» it

t dIdeaofwhataJOblsa _ 301: 6 ans b . .
Wire: tlosi: a: ggblem, I prefer to do someilnng about 1t rather 1111 6111. y and 161 It man
When it camel; to orders, I would rather give them than rec 61V 6
I wish I could push many of

life’s daily aeCISlons off on 501113011e 6.

- ' ' ‘ ' OOH
Men driving, I try to word puttlng myself In a SItuation where I Id 176111111 by 5012130116

I prefer to avoid situations where someone else has to te11 n 16 whatit
There are many Situations in Whlch I Would prefer only 0n e 01101.6 6 [a

make a decision.
I like to wait and see i
bothered Wlth it.

is I shouId be doing

f someone e1Se is going to solve a pro b 1
ms“ that I don ’t have t
0 be

Please continue on the next Page

74

3
t1 ' sten to Someon6 6188 S
I ’d rather run my own business and make my own mistakes marl 1‘

16. .
17. Ihk

18. U6.

 

 

 

Self-Evaluation OuestionnaireQ
(S-Anxiety Scale fiom ST A1)

A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below.
Read each statement and then choose the appropriate number to indicate how you feel
fight now, that is, at this moment, using the following scale. There are no right 01;” 1:21:13
allswers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer

. . ' te 5 aces
seems to describe your present feelings best. Mark your chOIces In the aPPr OP' :2: p
on the answer Sheet.

1 = not at all

2 = somewhat

3 = moderately so
4 = very much so

Q4. I feel calm.
:25. Ifeel secure.
26. Iam tense.
Q7. I feel strained-
28. I feel at ease.
29. I feel upset.
30. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes.
3 1 , I feel satisfied.
32, I feel frightened.
33 . I feel comfortable.
34. I feel self—confident.
35 _ I feel nervous.
’36. 1 am jitter)”.
3'7 . I feel indemsive.
38. I am relaxed.
39. I feel content.
40. I am worried.
41. I feel confused.
42. I feel steady.
43. Ifeel pleasant.

© 1963, 1977 Charles D. Spielberger. All rights reserved.

You have completed this survey. Please wait for further instructions.

 

75

Appendix C
Outline of Stress Management Protocol

Session 1

Orientation to the course - This is a two-session course designed to give you -
information about basic training, and help you to identify coping skills to 335$ you in
coping With the stresses associated with basic training. This course is interactive and
requires your participation. As with all such classes, you will get more benefit from
the course if you participate and use the skills we will discuss.

11- Ground rules

A- Pay attention
B. No sleeping
C. Stay on task

HI ~ Define Stress

A.

What is stress — What comes to mind?
B.

What Stresses do you expect in BT? Drill Sergeants, getting yelled at, PT, bemg

away fr om home, being expected to do everything perfectly, etc. .

Redefine Stress — Stress is interaction between individual and envrronment:

Discrepancy between the perceived demands of the situation and the perceived

resources available. .

. What resomces do you have available to cope with stress ofBT? Battle Buddies,
"or taking it too seriously, good physical health, self-confidence, motivatiOH,
knowing that many others have been through the same and done fin e, doing the
best you can, etc.

. Summarize - Stress is possible outcome of balance between demands and
resources available.
1 . Lots of demands and few resources results in. . .? overwhelm, anxiety, S” es s
2. Few demands and lots of resources results in. . .7 boredom, no Challenge
3 . Lots of demands and a 800d amount ofresources results in. ' '27 fir‘elz’ng

challenged, good stress .
F. Purpose of class — provide you With means to help Increase your resources to cope
with the stresses you will encounter in BT-

C.

IV. Symptoms of stress _ Ask for signs of stress. Categorize into the following;
A. PhYSical

B. ETIIOtional

C . Behavioral

D. COgnitive

E. Gon news/B ad news - Symptoms are connected to each other. If experience
symptoms in one area, probably will in others. If decrease SYUIptoms in one, will
Probably decrease symptoms in others.

76

 

V. Deep Breathing
A. Fight or Flight
1. Why does your body get geared up?
2. Problems
a. stress reaction is same for non-life threatening events as life threatening
b. interferes will ability to perform
0. over time can cause physical damage
B. Focus on breathing
I. Want to shut down fight/flight response
2. Key is to change breathing
3. Breathing exercise
4. Practice is important - When in training might you find time to practice?

VI. Cognitive Restructuring - ETFR Model- What other part of the stress response might
you change to reduce stress? Thinking
A. Ask for something someone likes to do that others might not
B. Fit into ETFR model
1. Want to shut down fight/ flight response

2. Event
3. Thought
4. Feeling

5. Response

Changing thought changes experience

Example of stress already experienced in BT

Example of new challenge which may be encountered in BT

Smnmarize - While may have no control over demands of BT, do have control
OVer how we think about these events.

“W90

VII. Briefly Present Utility and Importance of Social Support and Spirituality
A. Ask for something someone likes to do that others might not
B. Both may help provide sense of support
C. Both may alleviate loneliness/ sense of isolation
D. Both may provide source of info to assist with coping

VIII. Present Expectation of Graduation

IX. Review and Homework
A. Presented with breathing exercise, means of changing thinking, and importance of
social support/spirituality.
B. Need to practice/use these to make them more effective. Change happens by

Small steps, not big leaps. May not seem like much, but benefits will be greater
OVer time.

77

 

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

Session 2

Ask about the challenges they thought they would face in BT and the challenges they
are actually facing.

Review coping techniques presented in Session 1.
A. Ask how they have worked — Discuss successes and challenges

B. Problem solve to assist soldiers with using technique

Discuss Importance of Continued Use and Practice of Stress Management Techniques

Reinforce Expectation of Graduation

Questions?

Remind Group of Follow-Up Testing

78

 

Table D1.

Appendix D
AN OVAs and Post-Hoc Angggses

Results of ANOVAs investigating connection between Sex and continuous variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of (If Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
A 6 Between Group 15.850 1 15.850 1.372 .242
Within Groups 4700.815 407 11.550
Total 4716.665 408
ucation Between Groups 5.470E-03 1 5.470E-03 .004 950
Within Groups 576.528 407 1.417
Total 576.533 408
Desire for Control Between Groups 266.624 1 266.624 1.659 .198
Within Groups 65414.843 407 160.72
Total 65681.467 408
Pre-Int STAI Between Groups 437.422 1 437.422 2.5991 .108
Within Groups 68486.91 1 407 1 68.273
otal 68924.333 408
Post-Int STAI etween Groups 5.170 1 5.170 .033 .856
Within Grcgps 64193.50 407 1 57.724 I _
otal 64198.680 408
STAI Di§EEnce etween Groups 537.705 1 537.705 2.680 .102
L 7 Within Groups 81654.906 407 200.626 r
_: otal 82192.611 408
79

 

 

 

 

 

Table D2.

Results of AN OVAs investigating connection between Race and continuous variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
A 6 Between Gropps 151.849 5 30.370 2.681] .021
Within Groups 4564.816 403 1 1.327
Total 4716.665 408
Education Between Groups 4.440 5 .888 .626 .680
Within Groups 572.093 403 1.420
Total 576.533 408
esire for Control Between Groups 4507.483 5 901.497 5.939 -000
Within Groups 61 173.984 403 151.796
Total 65681 .467 408
Pre-Int STAI etween Groups 820.956 5 1 64.191 .972 .435
Within Groups 68103.376 403 1 68.991 #
Total 68924.333 408 I
Post-Int STAI Between Groups 715.352 5 1 43.070 .908 47.6
Within Groups. 63483.328 403 1 57.527 4,...
Total 64198680 408 4......
STAI Difference Between Groups 24.419 5 4.884 .024. 1000
Within Groups 82168.192 403 203.891 i
1* otal 82192.611 408 3’,-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D3.
Results of Student-Newman-Keuls test of Race X Age."b

N Subset for = .05
1
ac Islander 1 18.
American 8 19. 1
'c 19.7

19.

19.
ative American 24.
1' .61 1.
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 13. 191. .
b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes IS used. Type 1

error levels are not guaranteed.

 

Table D4.
Results of Student-Newman-Keuls of Race X Desire for Control .3"

N Subset for = .05
1
1 93.
98. 98.

Islander 101.1 101.1
101.5 101.5

American 107.9
ative Arnerican 109.
i .32 .15
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
3 Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 13.191. .
b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes 1S used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.

 

81

 

 

 

Table D5.

Results of AN OVAs investigating connection between Marital Status and continuous

variables.

for Control

Int STAI

ost-lnt STAI

TAI Difference

een
1thin
otal
Gro
1thin Gro
otal

1thin
otal

1thin
otal
Gro
1thin
otal
Gro
1thin
otal

Sum of

2305.001
2411.66
4716.66
50.98
525.
576.53
109.
65572.42]
65681.46
212.47
68711.85
68924.33
526.36
63672.31
64198.68
441.91
81750.
821931611

82

df

Mean Sig.

768.33
5.95

16.
1.2

 

Table D6.

Results of ANOVAs investigating connection between ExperimentaL Condition and
continuous_v_ariables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

 

Sum of (if Mean I F Siil
Squares Square
Age etween Grows 21.818 1 21.818! 1.891 .170
Within Groups 4694.847 407 11.535r
Total 4716.665 408 m
Education Between Groups .300 1 .300 .212 .646
Within Groups 576.233 407 1.416
Total 576.533 408
esire for Control Between Groups 176.103 1 176.103 1.094 .296
Within Groups 65505.364 407 160.947
Total 65681.467 408
Pre-Int STAI Between Groups 173.719 1 173.719 1.028 .311
Within Groups 68750.613 407 168.920 t
Total 68924.333 408
Post-Int STAI Between Groups 37.697 1 37.697 .23 .625
Within Groups 64160.983 407 157.644 ________
Total 64198.680 408 -
TAI Difference Between Groups 373.265 1 373.265 11.857 .174
Within Groups 81819.346 407 201.030 r
‘: otal 82192.611 408 r

 

Table E1.

Results of Chi-Square Test on Crosstab of Sex X Ex erimental Condition”.

Appendix E
Cr0+stabs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) 2-sided1 (l-sided

earson Chi-Square 246 1 .620
ontinuity Correction -157 1 .692
Likelihood Ratio .246 1 .620

isher's Exact Test .690
Rear-beinear Association .245 I .620

[KI—of Valid Cases 409

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a Computed only for a 2x2 table

b 0 06115 (0%) have eXpected count less than 5. The

Table E2.

minimum expected c3011”t is 8

Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

.34

5.49.

e X Ex Cfimentgd Conditiona-

Results of Chi-Sguare Tests for Crosstab of Rac 2... ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value df AsyInp. Sigi
Q-sided
earson Chi—Square 6.852 5 .232
Likelihood $91.10 7 .027 5 .219
Linear-by-L'gear Association! .520 1\ .471
N of Valid Cases 409 .1

 

 

 

a 3 cells (2500/6) have eXpected count

less than 5 . The minimum expected count is 1.81.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E3.
Results of Chi-S uare Tests for Crosstab of Marital X Experimental Conditi ,
\OIL
1 Value df lAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided
‘Eearson Chi-Square 6. 144 3 .105
! :ikelihood Ratio 6.648 3 .084
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.412 1 .036
JN of Valid Cases 409

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count

84

less than 5. The minimum eXpected Count i
S .45.