Abstract
This article describes an experimental study that investigates the status- and stigma-related consequences of military service and of experiences in war resulting in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the study, participants interacted with fictitious partners whom they believed were real in four conditions: a control condition, a condition in which the “partner” was in the military, a condition in which the “partner” was a war veteran who had been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and a condition in which the partner was a military veteran with PTSD who had been deployed. Results support predictions that military experience would advantage partners with respect to influence over participants, but that PTSD would be disadvantaging. Previous contact with veterans moderated this relationship, mitigating the loss of influence associated with PTSD. A prediction that PTSD would significantly increase social distance was not supported.
Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly those who served in combat, face difficulties in transitioning back to civilian society. Over half of post-9/11 veterans who served in combat report trouble adjusting to civilian life and significant stressors such as frequent anger or family strains. 1 Additionally, service in war has been linked to numerous negative mental health outcomes. For example, as many as 20 percent of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a 2012 Department of Defense report recommended annual PTSD screening for all service members and veterans. 2
The difficulties that veterans face in adjusting to civilian life occur against a backdrop of cultural norms that accord veterans high levels of respect and esteem for their service to the country. 3 How these cultural norms translate into treatment of veterans in interpersonal interactions is an important question. To date, little if any research has examined the consequences of service in Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) for veterans’ interpersonal interactions. Instead, research on the cohort tends to take an epidemiological or etiological approach to understanding the problems veterans face, such as PTSD and traumatic brain injury. 4 This research provides valuable knowledge on the causes and consequences of war-related conditions, yet noticeably absent is a focus on how social interactions may play a key role in shaping the adjustment process for returning veterans. On one hand, veterans are conferred respect for their service. On the other hand, should the public view veterans as mentally damaged or otherwise traumatized by their service, they may socially exclude them or view them as having diminished competence.
We investigate the consequences of service in the military, service that includes a war deployment, and service in war resulting in PTSD, on behavioral stigma- and status-related outcomes in interpersonal interactions. In an experimental study, participants interacted with fictitious partners whom they believed were real. The partners were college students like themselves, military personnel, military personnel who were war veterans, or war veterans who had been diagnosed with PTSD. The study included measures of influence (a behavioral measure of the consequences of status) and social distance (the principal behavioral measure of stigmatization). We also measured participants’ previous contact with veterans to determine how it affected responses to various partners, as well as how characteristics of partners influenced the likelihood of participants donating to a veterans’ charity.
Theoretical Development
Social responses to war veterans affect the adjustments of thousands of men and women who have returned from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Although veterans occupy positions of respect in US society, there is also reason to believe they could be targets of stigma due to stereotypes that they are “damaged” from their service. The stereotypes that may come with assumed or explicit physical or mental injuries might lead to lower status for the group. Thus, rather than being privileged in interactions, veterans may in fact face social rejection and loss of influence due to assumed or explicit mental health problems. We draw from research on status and stigma processes to attempt to untangle the complex social positions of OIF/OEF veterans and to anticipate how such veterans may be treated in social interactions.
“Support the Troops” as an Ordering Schema
Ordering schemas dictate culturally appropriate ways of interacting with individuals based on their social characteristics. They provide a link between culture—which provides normative information about individuals with certain characteristics—and interpersonal interactions, through which norms are either reinforced or altered. 5 “Support the troops” (STT) is an example of an ordering schema that dictates treatment toward veterans both individually and as a collective. An individual who may know little about military veterans will likely understand that they are to be treated with respect in interactions. For example, STT dictates that people shake hands with soldiers and thank them for their service or that politicians continue to pass legislation providing generous benefits to military personnel that are not given to other social groups. Thus, the STT ordering schema provides information on how military personnel and veterans as a privileged group are situated in society relative to other social groups. Individuals may use STT to guide their interactions with military personnel and veterans, which may then “give rise to an observable social structure among the actors involved” (p. 6).
What STT does not provide, we argue, is information on how veterans should be treated in meaningful interactions, such as group decision-making contexts. To answer a question such as “are veterans competent?” requires a pooling of cultural information on the part of the nonveteran group member that is not provided by STT. If, for instance, it is known that a veteran has been deployed, people may believe him or her to suffer from any number of problems about which the media frequently reports. 6 Or, should a veteran have a label of PTSD, the public may respond based on stereotypes of individuals with PTSD, for instance, by feeling sympathy for him or her, while also perceiving the person as dangerous. 7 Subsequently, we discuss the literature on status processes in groups before turning to work on the stigma of mental illness.
Status in Groups
Status is a position in a group based on esteem or respect. Status characteristics theory (SCT) explains how personal attributes alter perceptions of competence, and subsequently affect influence, in group interactions. Research in the SCT tradition has shown how a person’s characteristics—such as their age or race—affect their position in a status hierarchy based on group members’ expectations for performance. 8 The theory holds that status characteristics help group members form expectations of each group member, thus privileging certain individuals’ contributions over others.
SCT specifies two types of status characteristics. 9 Diffuse status characteristics lead to expectations for performance in a broad range of situations. Race and gender are examples of diffuse characteristics. Specific status characteristics create expectations in a more narrow range of settings. Computer programming skill is an example of a specific characteristic, as it provides competence in specific settings but is irrelevant in other settings. According to SCT, group members use both diffuse and specific status characteristics to develop expectations for self and others. The process reflects larger cultural beliefs that attach more or less competency to different states of the attributes. Individuals in categories of characteristics that are accorded higher expectations for performance tend to occupy higher status positions in groups. These group members then tend to be more active in groups, to have their opinions solicited more often, to receive more positive evaluations for their performances, and to have more influence over group decisions. 10 High status, then, brings with it substantial advantages.
Cultural norms have historically dictated high levels of respect for military veterans, indicating that military service might be a status characteristic that advantages veterans. During the recent wars, calls to “STTs” have been widely used by conservatives and liberals alike, even when support for the wars is contested. 11 A recent survey of public attitudes toward military personnel showed that 91 percent of the public expressed pride in US soldiers, and 76 percent said they had personally thanked someone in the military. 12 Another indicator of the respect the public holds for military personnel and veterans is trust in the military as an institution. A recent Gallup survey found the military to be the most trusted institution in the United States, with 78 percent of respondents expressing a “great deal of confidence” in the military. 13
Although little research has examined how people treat veterans in interpersonal interactions, it appears that there may be status advantages to being a veteran in US society. Additionally, however, high rates of mental illness among recent veterans, along with ubiquitous media coverage of the issue, might lead Americans to conclude that veterans of recent conflicts are damaged. Mental illness acts as a status characteristic that disadvantages persons with mental illnesses, and the status-related consequences of military service thus might be complex and determined by the nature of service. 14 In addition to any status-related consequences, veterans might experience stigmatization because of perceptions that they experience mental illness.
The Stigma of Mental Illness
Military service, especially since 9/11, has been associated with negative mental health outcomes for veterans, such as depression and PTSD. 15 The media often reports on veterans’ victimization, with 73 percent of all articles in the New York Times and Washington Post from 2003 to 2011 about OIF/OEF veterans mentioning a mental or physical injury. 16 Not surprisingly then, the public associates deployment to Iraq—compared to domestic military service in the United States—with mental health problems, substance abuse, and violence. 17
Mental illness engenders strong levels of stigmatization. Stigma refers to the association of a label with negative stereotypes, which then lead to negative outcomes such as discrimination. 18 Research finds that mental illness labels are associated with numerous negative stereotypes, such as being dangerous, unpredictable, dirty, worthless, weak, and ignorant. 19 Also, mental illness labels lead to adverse treatment in social interactions, including avoidance by others and discrimination in housing, employment, and health care. 20
The most common behavioral measure of stigmatization is social distance, or social rejection, which we define as deliberate efforts to avoid another or exclude that other from social interaction. Research finds that persons tend to seek social distance from those with mental illness labels. 21 Additionally, this social rejection is at least in part due to beliefs that people with a mental illness are dangerous. 22
Research on social responses to PTSD labels has typically been carried out from an attribution theory perspective. This research shows how public reactions to individuals identified as mentally ill are based on perceptions of the cause of the illness and the degree of controllability of the illness. These perceptions in turn affect emotional responses (such as either pity or anger) and behaviors (such as desire to help or not) toward individuals with mental illness labels. 23 For example, if the public sees individuals as personally accountable for their mental disorders, they are more likely to ascribe responsibility and blame, which may lead to a response of anger and no desire to help. If, on the other hand, the individual is seen as not accountable for his or her condition, the public may respond with pity rather than anger. 24 Studies of the effects of mental illness labels indicate that PTSD labels will evoke pity. 25 Weiner et al. found that Vietnam War syndrome, an earlier condition similar to what is now called PTSD, differed significantly from other conditions in that respondents saw the condition as less controllable and pitied individuals more who had Vietnam War syndrome than other mental illness labels. 26
More recent research on PTSD as a justification for crimes has also shown that PTSD labels elicit pity. Wilson et al. examined prosecutors’ behavior toward criminal offenders based on whether the offenders were veterans and whether they had been diagnosed with PTSD. They found that prosecutors were significantly more lenient toward veterans than nonveterans, and most lenient toward veterans with PTSD. Furthermore, the prosecutors viewed veterans as less at fault for their crimes and empathized more with them compared to nonveterans. 27 Heath et al. examined the use of PTSD as a factor contributing to committing a crime, finding that participants viewed criminals with PTSD as less in control of their illness and less culpable for the crime. 28 These studies suggest that PTSD emanating from military service may elicit pity from the public rather than anger, resulting in helping behavior as opposed to punishment.
Findings on social reactions to veterans with PTSD further complicate the picture on how veterans of recent wars might expect to be treated in interpersonal interactions. Our society appears to strongly prescribe to a viewpoint that veterans should be accorded respect. Further, veterans with PTSD are largely seen as not responsible for their illnesses and as deserving of pity. However, pitying an individual, while perhaps less harmful than anger, might still imply devaluation and stigmatization. Also, the pity might be associated with, or even because of, diminished perceptions of a person’s competence.
We develop a set of predictions subsequently for how military service and combat experience resulting in PTSD will affect reactions to veterans. First, we subsequently discuss how these relationships might be affected by previous contact with veterans.
The Moderating Role of Contact
The contact hypothesis proposes that increased contact with members of a social group will be associated with reduced bias toward that group. For example, research finds a negative relationship between contact with individuals with a mental illness and stereotyping, such that individuals who report higher contact with persons with mental illness perceive them to be less dangerous than do individuals with no past contact. 29
Veterans are a social group for which contact may be especially important in reducing bias, as veterans are becoming increasingly isolated in the United States. The increasing civil–military gap suggests that fewer US citizens personally interact with today’s veterans compared to past generations. The number of currently serving military personnel as a percentage of the population has decreased significantly since the institution of an all-volunteer force (AVF). In 1973, the year US military involvement in Vietnam ended and the AVF was instituted, 1.07 percent of the US population was serving in the military. In 2010, only .46 percent of the population was serving. 30 Rather than basing judgments of veterans on interactions, many may base their views of the group on what they see in the media, whose coverage may exaggerate veterans’ victimization. 31 Individuals who have previous contact with veterans, however, may rely less on stereotypes, as their own experiences with veterans might reduce bias toward the group. Thus, contact may reduce stereotyping, thereby moderating the effect of stereotypes on any social distance or loss of status for veterans with PTSD.
Hypotheses
Perceptions of recent veterans of the US military are difficult to ascertain. Based on widespread narratives, which dictate that veterans are to be respected, we expect that service in the US military will accord an influence advantage. At the same time, the public appears to link service in war with both mental illnesses and dangerousness, with one study demonstrating the public views veterans of Iraq—compared to personnel who served in the United States—as more likely to suffer mental health problems and behave violently (MacLean and Kleykamp, 2012). Furthermore, because mental illness acts as a diffuse status characteristic, we expect that war service—especially if resulting in PTSD—will be disadvantaging from an influence standpoint. We predict:
Based upon the body of work indicating stigma toward persons with mental illness, we expect that participants will be especially likely to seek social distance from war veterans diagnosed with PTSD:
Interpersonal contact has been found to reduce stereotyping, and we expect that higher previous contact with veterans will mitigate against status loss resulting from PTSD. We measure contact as the number of the participant’s close friends and family members who are military veterans. We predict:
Method
We designed an experimental study in which participants interacted with fictitious partners whom they believed were real in four conditions. Conditions were identical in terms of the age of the partner (eighteen—twenty-five), the sex (male) and his education level (some college). We intentionally did not specify whether the partner is currently attending college, and we told participants that some people completing the study are not college students. In one condition, the partner was not in the US military. In a second condition, the partner was in the US military. In the third condition, the partner was in the US military and had been deployed. Finally, the fourth type of partner was in the US military, had been deployed in combat, and had been hospitalized for PTSD. In each condition, we collected demographic information and measured influence of partners over participants, likelihood of participants to socially reject partners, prior contact with military veterans, and willingness to donate to a veterans’ charity.
One hundred sixty-four undergraduate students at a large public university participated in the study. We recruited participants by making announcements in large undergraduate classes, offering students payment for their participation. Fifty-nine percent of participants were women, 67 percent were freshmen or sophomores, and 60 percent identified as white. We randomly assigned participants to conditions, stopping when we had run approximately forty participants through each condition. Data from nineteen participants were excluded due to computer failure, because the participants violated the scope of SCT (e.g., indicated that they did not try hard on the group task) or did not notice or believe key manipulations such as their partner’s characteristics (e.g., did not notice their partner was in the military).
Why an Experiment?
Experiments test theories of basic social processes. 32 The link from the findings of social science experiments to natural settings occurs through theory. Because experimental studies simplify natural settings, their results cannot be generalized directly to such settings. Rather, experimental results demonstrate whether a theorized process occurs in a controlled, artificial setting designed for purposes of testing theorized relationships. Experimental support for theoretical predictions can suggest research using other methods to determine how the theorized processes play out in natural settings.
Our goal is not to demonstrate effects of military service or PTSD labels in the population at large, at least not directly. Instead, we seek to determine whether our predictions, developed from studies of experiences of veterans in natural settings, are supported in a controlled laboratory setting. An advantage to testing theoretical explanations with experiments is that experiments control for extraneous variables found in natural settings that can mask underlying processes. 33 For example, military service and PTSD systematically vary with a number of other attributes in society at large, such as age, sex, and level of education. Our goal, however, is to measure reactions only to military service, deployment to war, and PTSD. Our experimental design allows us to create identical conditions for all participants except for the type of partner with whom they interact, controlling for other factors that might influence participants’ reactions to their partner. We can further give participants within conditions identical partners, controlling for all other characteristics that might influence participants’ reactions.
Support for our predictions would suggest that, controlling for other factors, military personnel are advantaged, veterans of war are disadvantaged, and veterans with PTSD are most disadvantaged, with respect to status and stigma processes. Support for our predictions, however, cannot attend to features of populations and natural settings that exacerbate or mitigate against these processes, such as other attributes that tend to vary with military service and PTSD. The insights we gain from our experimental setting can suggest research using other methods that can assess reactions to military service in more representative populations and natural settings.
Procedure
We designed a laboratory experiment examining influence and social rejection in a task-oriented group setting. Participants arrived at the laboratory and were immediately seated alone at a computer terminal. Research assistants told participants they were completing a study on group interaction and task completion and that they would be working with a partner via computers. In reality, participants completed a “contrast sensitivity” task with a fictitious partner in which they determined whether a rectangle had more black or white area. 34 Participants saw their partner’s answers and, if they disagreed, could keep their original answers or change to align with the partner. This task, widely used in research in SCT, is designed with ambiguous answers (each square actually has about 50 percent black and 50 percent white area) such that it does not represent a test of actual skill, but rather a test of willingness to accept influence from a partner. A computer program provided the partner’s answers, ensuring disagreement with the participant on twenty of the twenty-five trials. We told participants their group score would determine their pay to ensure they took their partner’s answers into consideration.
This experiment builds on the typical status characteristics setting by adding in a measure of social distance adopted by Lucas and Phelan. 35 To measure social distance (our stigma measure), we told participants after the group task that they would meet with a partner face-to-face in one week to discuss a social issue. After completing the group task, subjects signed up for one of the two topics (Education or The Environment) to discuss the following week. On the sign-up sheet, participants were able to see that their partner for the current phase had signed up for The Environment, and the topic Education had an unknown partner. By signing up with the unknown partner, participants had the opportunity to socially reject their partner in a scenario unlikely to lead to social desirability bias. Topic choices were consistent across all conditions, and for all study participants.
Independent Variables
We provided partner information to participants through a “disclosure form” that was filled out at the beginning of the study and was purportedly required by the university for research participation. To provide information on the partner’s military service details in a believable way, we told participants that the form was designed to gauge study eligibility, and we included citizenship and criminal record as items on the disclosure form.
Before participants began the group task, instructions informed them that groups working remotely usually have a little bit of information about each other, and for this reason, research assistants would collect information from participants and partners to share with each other. Research assistants then entered the room with the “partner’s” disclosure form, with the name and signature section cropped off. Participants saw the partner’s disclosure form information immediately before they worked with the partner on the collective task, and we checked in the debriefing that subjects saw and retained their partner’s details.
Experimental conditions were as follows (all partners were presented as men, whose age was in the eighteen—twenty-five range, and US citizens who had not been convicted of a felony):
In order to test Hypothesis 3 that contact with veterans will moderate the negative effects of a PTSD label on influence, we measured participants’ level of contact with military veterans. We asked participants how many of their close friends and family members are military veterans. The mean for this continuous variable was 2.22, with 30 percent of participants knowing no veterans and the majority knowing only one or two.
Dependent Variables
We measured influence as the number of times in twenty disagreement trials that participants changed their answers to correspond to answer provided by their partners. We measured social distance by whether the participant signed up with the same or a new partner for the second phase of the study. We also collected information on several demographic characteristics, including age, gender, year in college, and ethnic background. 36
Results
Table 1 displays results by condition on our dependent variables of interest. Hypothesis 1 predicted that status would be ordered in the following descending fashion: military service, service with a war deployment, and service with a war deployment and PTSD. The “Influence” column shows the number of times in twenty opportunities that participants on average switched to the initial answer provided by the partner. For example, participants in the control condition on average switched to the initial answers provided by the partner 8.70 times in twenty opportunities. Mean differences on influence across conditions are consistent with Hypothesis 1.
Status Results.
Note: PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.
χ2 = 0.000179; p > .250; G2 = 0.95247.
We used the formal graph-theoretic version of SCT to calculate expected influence scores across conditions according to our predictions. 37 Observed p scores are the proportion of times that participants stayed with their own answers and resisted the influence of their partners, calculated as (20 − mean influence)/20. Expected p scores result from our modeling of our predictions (calculations available upon request). A χ2 test of differences between expected and observed mean p scores is not statistically significant (χ2 = 0.0000643; p = .99), meaning the values we predicted from the models do not differ significantly from the observed values. The G 2 value represents the reduction in χ2 in using our model to obtain predicted p values across conditions versus using the overall mean of all observed p values. The large G 2 value of 98 percent indicates a strong improvement in fit using our expected p values. Thus, results indicate strong support for our modeling of the status processes involved in our experimental conditions and support Hypothesis 1.
With support for our overall model, we performed t-tests on influence differences across conditions. Mean influence in the condition in which the partner is in the military without a PTSD diagnosis was 9.54 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.85). This is in the predicted direction but not significantly different from the control (t = 1.384, one-tailed p = .091). Influence for the condition in which the partner was a war veteran who had been deployed to OIF/OEF was 8.68, nearly identical to the influence scores of the control condition. Although not statistically significant, these results might suggest that military service privileges individuals somewhat in interactions compared to civilians, but a war deployment dampens the positive effects of military service on status.
Mean influence in the condition in which the partner was a veteran with PTSD was 8.23 (SD = 2.91), significantly different from the military-only condition (t = 2.07, one-tailed p = .021). The difference score we find between the control condition and the condition in which the partner had PTSD is exactly the same (a mean influence difference of 1.3 on twenty opportunities) as Lucas and Phelan found on the same contrast sensitivity task between partners in a control condition and partners diagnosed with mental illness. Additionally, the influence differences we find across conditions are comparable in magnitude to those found in prior status research using the same contrast sensitivity setting. 38
We measured social distance by whether participants chose a new partner for the second phase of the study. As shown in Table 2, participants in the control condition chose a new partner 62 percent of the time, whereas participants with the military-only partner selected a new partner 54 percent of the time, participants with the deployed partner chose a new partner 56 percent of the time, and participants with a partner with PTSD selected a new partner 68 percent of the time. Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants would seek increased social distance from partners with PTSD. A χ2 test of the difference between social distance in the military-only condition and the PTSD condition is not significant (χ2 = 1.794, one-tailed p = .090). Thus, we did not find that a PTSD label significantly increased social distance, and Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The size of our sample, however, along with the single dichotomous dependent variable and test that approached significance leave us hesitant to conclude that PTSD was not stigmatizing in our sample.
Variable Descriptives by Condition.
Note: PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder. N = 164.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that previous contact with veterans would moderate negative effects of PTSD on influence. To test the hypothesis, we estimated a regression model of influence on the experimental conditions, contact, and other control variables, including in the model interaction effects of the conditions multiplied by the contact variable. Table 3 presents two models. The first model estimates an ordinary least squares regression of influence based on the conditions and contact with veterans, with gender, age, education, and political affiliation as control variables. The second adds the interaction of the experimental condition and contact with veterans. We measured contact as a continuous variable representing the number of military veterans participants had as close friends or family members.
OLS Regression Models of Influence on Conditions, Contact, and Control Variables.
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05 (one-tailed test); **p < .01 (one-tailed test).
Results of the first model show a main effect of contact on influence, controlling for experimental condition. The coefficient of .26 means that for every close friend or family member of the participant who is a veteran, the participant accepted the partner’s influence .26 more times, holding other variables constant. Model 2 shows how the effect of contact differs across experimental conditions. In this model, the effect of contact with veterans is positive and significant only for veterans with PTSD (one-tailed p < .05), indicating that contact with veterans reduces the status loss associated with PTSD. 39
Results on the contact variable were highly skewed, with only fifteen participants knowing more than five veterans. It is unclear whether these participants knew recent veterans or veterans of past wars, or were in the military themselves and/or associated with military families. Perhaps these individuals were more fully aware and resistant toward the harmful stereotypes about veterans with PTSD. Regardless, for our sample, having contact with many veterans did appear to change perceptions about the status implications of war deployments resulting in PTSD.
Study Limitations
The research reported here represents a first, not final, step in addressing how veteran status and PTSD labels affect influence and social distance in interpersonal interactions. Support for our predictions would provide an instance of support for the theory we develop, using undergraduate study participants. We believe undergraduate students are a relevant reference group for military personnel as they leave the service. Many veterans use G.I. Bill benefits to attend colleges and universities, putting them in direct contact with the undergraduate population. Also, many social psychological studies use undergraduate student participants to test theoretical mechanisms. Of course, no test of a theory can include every possible setting to which it might apply, but support for our predictions would pave the way for future research to address our predictions in other settings and populations.
Our findings support the notion that military personnel hold positions of respect in US society. At the same time, however, despite calls to “STTs” war veterans with PTSD may still face loss of influence in group interactions compared to nondeployed military personnel. Our findings are not clear on social rejection. It may be the case that veterans lose influence but do not face social rejection, which would be consistent with recent evidence showing that the public believes veterans—compared to civilian contractors—may suffer from mental health problems, but nevertheless does not socially reject the group. 40 It also may be that our design did not allow us to capture social distance effects across our experimental conditions.
Our results also indicate that previous contact with veterans reduces the status loss associated with a PTSD label. Perhaps those in close contact with veterans have had positive interactions with veterans with PTSD, and the PTSD label thus does not signal to them diminished competence on tasks. Or, participants who know many veterans may be military personnel or veterans themselves, or come from military families, both of which our demographic measures did not assess. Another possible limitation is that we indicated the partner had PTSD by saying that he had been hospitalized for the condition. We might expect reactions to the partner to be different had we not indicated that his PTSD was severe enough to require hospitalization. Further research manipulating these characteristics could be useful in assessing the impact of a PTSD label apart from hospitalization.
The nature of our social distance measure (either signing up again with the partner or not), combined with our relatively small sample size, limited the statistical power to detect social distance effects. Our other main dependent variable had a larger range, so we do not believe sample size should have an effect on our findings. Also, although our design allowed us to analyze whether there were behavioral differences in influence and social distance across conditions, it did not allow us to address the specific mechanisms leading to these differences. Further research would be valuable in examining specific stereotypes associated with being a war veteran or veteran with PTSD that might disadvantage these individuals in interactions. Finally, the treatment of veterans with certain characteristics—such as women, racial/ethnic minorities, and individuals with low levels of education—remain underresearched populations which we did not address. These populations may face unique challenges to their adjustments, especially if they suffer from postcombat mental health conditions.
Conclusion
We predicted military personnel with no deployment history would be privileged in their interactions relative to civilians. Following from recent research demonstrating how stigmatized attributes may act as status characteristics, we expected that a deployment and hospitalization for PTSD would lead to status loss for veterans. 41 Furthermore, we predicted social exclusion for war veterans with disclosed PTSD. Results of our status characteristics modeling provide strong support for our overall model that predicted a status advantage of being in the military but status disadvantage associated with having been deployed and being afflicted with PTSD. However, basic t-tests comparing conditions only yield statistical significance when testing for the difference between the military partner and the military partner with a past deployment and PTSD hospitalization. We did not find support for predicted differences in social rejection.
If military service in war, and particularly PTSD, lead to status loss, we might expect a number of adverse outcomes. Research has found lower status to be associated with lower likelihoods of gaining employment, more negative emotions in group interactions, and lower levels of cooperation from others. 42 Furthermore, the processes examined by SCT researchers that have demonstrated inequality based on attributes such as gender or mental illness are reflected in more macro studies demonstrating factors such as the gender wage gap or mental illness hiring discrimination. 43 However, our study does not account for other factors that may impact interactions in real-world settings. For example, it might be the case that the public associates veterans with characteristics we did not or could not address in our experimental design. Future research should assess the role of the “STTs” schema in eliciting stereotypes and affecting individuals’ cognitive responses to military/veteran interactions. Given the limited nature of our experimental design, it is important that our results be viewed as reflective of key social processes in one highly controlled setting.
Social interactions may influence the adjustment process for war veterans, potentially affecting the development of postdeployment illnesses. This research contributes a needed social component to the study of war trauma by focusing on interpersonal interactions. Previous research on the experience of veterans largely comes from a medical perspective, focusing on the causes and prevalence of PTSD and other war related. Our findings support predictions that, holding actual performance constant, participants would not see recent war veterans with PTSD as competent as military personnel who had not been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
The status loss associated with a PTSD diagnosis may be indicative of diminished life chances for military veterans as they attempt to reintegrate into their communities. Instead of recovering from wartime trauma, a poor social response may actually exacerbate the symptoms of PTSD, leading to further social rejection and isolation. 44 However, as our results demonstrate, contact with military veterans in one’s social network may diminish the loss of influence associated with PTSD, suggesting the value of a reduced civil–military gap as one potential solution to negative effects of living with PTSD. As countless policy makers and researchers seek to ease transitions for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, they should consider both the damaging status effects deployment experiences may entail and the potential benefits of civilian–veteran interactions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.