Introduction to Armed Forces & Society

Abstract

This Armed Forces & Society issue is on women in the contemporary armed forces in the United States and other nations to include the South African National Defense Force and the Australian Defense Force. This issue contains a collection of nine papers, each reviewing a current aspect of women serving in the military since the post–Vietnam War Era. There are also two review essays of Megan Mackenzie’s book, Beyond the Band of Brothers: The US Military and the Myth That Women Can’t Fight. An overview of changing laws and the expanding role of women in the military is provided in this introduction, as well as summaries of the nine articles, and comments on the two book reviews mentioned above.

Keywords

military women U.S. military South African Defense Force Australian Defense Force

Women are an integral part of the contemporary armed services. In previous years, women’s service in the U.S. military was restricted to noncombatant positions. Since the mid-70s, American women have served in greater numbers and in a variety of military occupations. The purpose of this special issue is to identify changes that have taken place within the armed services, since the 1990s, allowing for greater representation of women, and to discuss many of the consequences associated with this change. Attention is also given to challenges impeding full integration of women in the U.S. armed services as well as militaries in other parts of the world. The issue is comprised of nine articles and two book reviews.

In the United States, opportunities for women to serve in the contemporary military were enhanced partly by the advent of the all-volunteer force, requiring the services to compete with organizations in the civilian sector for qualified personnel. Perhaps even more fundamental in explaining the expanding role of women in the military are the broad societal changes that have taken place over the last five decades. Changes in the technology, laws leading to greater acceptance of women working outside the home, the end of the Cold War (or bipolar world), and an increase in military peacekeeping operations have all helped to alter the demographic composition of the American armed forces resulting in an increasing number of women.

Following the end of the military draft in 1973, women were admitted to major service academies (1975 and 1976). The 80s saw the passage of the Defense Officer Manpower Personnel Management Act (DOPMA, Pub. L. No. 96-513, 1980), which abolished laws that required women officers to be appointed, promoted, or separated from service differently from that of men. Before DOPMA, women were generally not promoted to grades of O5 and above; civilian husbands of female Nurse Corps officers were not considered legal dependents and were not authorized benefits (see Rostker, Thie, Lacy, Kawata, & Purnell, 1993). Within the next few years, aviation duty on noncombat aircrafts and permanent assignments to noncombatant ships opened to women. In the 1990s, U.S. women participated in war even though they were officially barred from serving on combat duty or collocating with combat units. Still some 40,000 women deployed to the Persian Gulf, 15 of whom were killed and 2 were taken prisoner of war. The ban on women serving on combat aircraft was repealed in 1992. Women participated in military operations in Somalia, deployed for peacekeeping duties in Haiti, and participated as combat aviators during the war in Kosovo.¹

During the first decade of the 21st century, U.S. women continued to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen and to serve in combat. In 2004, U.S. Army women assigned to the 101st Forward Support Battalion, known as Lioness, were attached to Marine Corps ground combat units in Ramadi to assist with raids in which Iraqi women and children were present (Eager, 2014; Solaro, 2006). Reportedly, three of the Lionesses were among the casualties and several more were wounded by a suicide bomber in Fallujah on June 23, 2005 (Eager, 2014; Moss, 2005). Five years later, the Lioness program morphed into the Female Engagement Team as female marines were deployed to Afghanistan to “meet with Pashtun women over tea in their homes, assess their need for aid, gather intelligence, and help open schools and clinics” (Eager, 2014, p. 58).

By 2010, fleet ballistic missile submarines and guided-missile attack submarines were opened to women. The following year, the army and the marines began deploying two women cultural support teams (CSTs) with special forces units for specified missions, depending upon the local situation. Among their activities, CSTs provide medical support, humanitarian assistance, and perform searches on the female population (Katt, 2014). More recently, in 2013, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that all military units and occupations would be open to women including combat roles. This new policy was to be completed in 3 years, however, nearly 4 years have gone by and the policy has not yet been fully implemented.

Still, the United States is moving toward greater integration of men and women in the armed forces. Currently, 15% of the U.S. active armed force are comprised of women and they are deployed in increasing numbers to combat zones. It is becoming common to read in local and national newspapers about women completing military training that was once closed to them. In August 2016, for the first time, two women graduated U.S. Army Ranger School, a combat leadership course. A couple of months later, 10 female lieutenants graduated the first gender-integrated class of Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course, the first stage to becoming U.S. Army infantry platoon leaders.

The expansion of military roles to women is occurring in other countries, albeit at varying speed, as pressure from the broader society has led to new opportunities for women to serve (Correiras, 2006; Segal, 1995). Moskos, Williams, and Segal (2000) explained this trend in terms of a postmodern military, one that is based less on institutional norms and more on an occupational model (Moskos, 1977, 1986). As mass militaries declined morphing into the smaller, technical, professional forces we observe today, military recruitment of women intensified. The movement toward integrating women into the armed services around the world (Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, as well as the United States and Canada) has also been encouraged by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. This resolution passed in 2000, established frameworks to integrate women in decision-making about military operations and provides an impetus for doing so.

The escalation in the number of women in the military, particularly in combat roles, is not without challenges at all levels. The question of military women serving in combat roles remains a contentious issue as the activities associated with combat are still viewed to be masculine. Another concern that service organizations are grappling with is the need to discover ways of enticing young men and women to select military service as a career. Many questions continue to surface as more women serve. How does the presence of women in male-dominated units affect cohesion? How are some military women successfully navigating a male-dominated terrain? What are the dangers to military organizations when gender conflicts are not adequately addressed? How can we account for differences in vulnerability, among service members, to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? What effect does the military experience have on female veterans? These are some of the questions that are addressed in this special issue on women in the military.

Summary and Order of Topics

A Persistent Culture of Masculinity

Perhaps the most challenging issue impeding full integration of women into the services, particularly in combat units, is the intractable belief that national defense is a male activity. This theme echoes in most of the articles published in this special issue. As previous studies have shown, an increase in the number of women serving in the military challenges this prototypical masculine institution (Segal, 1995; Woodward & Winter, 2004). Brownson (2014, 2016) asserts that women are not physiologically equal to men and those who succeed in the Marine Corps do not strive to be biologically equal to their male counterparts. Instead, they aspire to a “kinship-reciprocity ideal of equivalency…maximization of the contributing qualities an individual brings to the exchange” (Brownson, 2014, p. 767). King (2015) disputes Brownson’s concept of equivalency, arguing instead that women assigned to combat must be equal to men if they are to be respected. For King (2015), women must pass the same tests and perform in the same roles as their male counterparts and therefore the honorary man category is a more accurate concept in portraying the successful servicewoman. In response to King, Brownson (2016) claimed that the honorary man designator perpetuates negative stereotypes. She maintains that in order for women to advance in the combat arms, the concept of equivalency and kinship must be embraced. The question of integrating women into predominantly male units is also addressed in this publication.

In the first article of this issue, “Conceptualizing the Tensions Evoked by Gender Integration in the Military: The South African Case,” Heinecken (2017) addresses the debates over gender equality and the integration of women in the military. Like Brownson (2014), Heinecken acknowledges the existence of biological differences between men and women. She argues further that attempts to integrate women into the military based on a gender–neutral perspective is inherently unfair and results in resistance to the authority of servicewomen and their ability to function as equals. Heinecken examines tensions resulting from societal demands for greater participation of women in the contemporary military by referencing her study of the South African National Defense Force.

The next article, “Just a Girl in the Army: U.S. Iraq War Veteran Negotiating Femininity in a Culture of Masculinity,” examines the effects serving in combat units have on the identity of women. Authors, Crowley and Sandhoff (2017), analyze the experiences of 12 female army combat veterans. The women in their study served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and were interviewed during 2008–2009. These women negotiate the military’s masculine landscape by using family metaphors, such as tomboy, sister, and mom, in an effort to fit in. In this article, the authors discuss the many ways that gender has shaped the experiences of women serving in combat units. Although women are enrolling in today’s military in unprecedented numbers, Crowley and Sandhoff question whether the military’s masculinized culture will change.

Recruiting and Retaining Good Women and Men

Recruiting and retention are major concern of militaries around the world. As militaries open their doors wider to women enrollees, questions about the propensity of young women to serve arise. In the third article titled, “Australian School Student Aspirations for Military Careers: Traditional Perceptions in Shifting Contexts,” Gore, Fray, Wallington, Holmes, and Smith (2017) examine student aspirations for military service. Their data consist of 6,492 Australian students in years 3–12. One of their major findings is that students lack an understanding of the variety of operations performed by the military. Based on this data, Gore et al. make numerous recommendations as to how the Australian Defense Forces may appeal to potential female recruits.

Smith and Rosenstein (2017) observe female attrition rates in “Gender and the Military Profession: Early Career Influences, Attitudes and Intentions,” the fourth article in this issue. Analyzing data from the U.S. Navy, these authors show that 40% of male officers assigned to combat specialties opt to remain in the Navy past their minimum service commitment compared to less than 20% of women in those assignments. Previous studies have shown the military and the family are two demanding institutions which create greater conflict for service women compared to service men (Segal, 1986). Smith and Rosenstein assert that women and men of today’s generation are more egalitarian and gender roles are more fluid. Studying students at the U.S. Naval Academy, Smith and Rosenstein illustrate how expectations of work and family roles are changing. They recommend that the military reassess some of their structured career paths and institute new initiatives if they expect to retain women in today’s armed services.

Effects of More Women in the Military Work Space

The expanded use of women to fill a variety of military occupations, many of which are male dominated, has raised questions about the consequences of their presence on unit effectiveness. In their article entitled, “Gender and Deployment Effects on Pro-Organizational Behaviors of U.S. Soldiers,” Woodruff and Kelty (2017) study the effects of deployment on attitudes and behavior of male and female service members. Analyzing surveys of 1,091 army enlisted men and women, through structural equation models, Woodruff and Kelty examined effects of gender on the relationship between deployment and pro-organizational behavior (sacrificing, retention, positive word of mouth, discretionary participation, and use of services). Among their findings, gender does not moderate the relationship between combat deployment and pro-organizational behaviors. What little gender difference that they did find is negligible.

Concomitant with greater numbers of women serving in the military is an increase in the number of gender conflicts, particularly those of a sexual nature. Habiba’s (2017) study of the Australian Defense Force shows the importance of military organizations addressing gender conflicts in the workplace rather than containing them in an effort to minimize the dispute. In her article titled, “The Australian Defense Force Academy Skype Sex Scandal: Understanding the Implications of Containment,” Habiba shows how a confrontation can escalate into the public domain quickly and have serious consequences for the service organization. In this article, the author reviews workplace literature from the 1930s to the present to show how containment strategies emerged. She then assesses the 2011 Australian Defense Force Academy Skype sex scandal (and similar scandals in the United States, like the 1991 Tailhook, 1996 Abeedeen Proving Ground, and the 2012 Petraeus scandals) as an example of a conflict that escalated and caused containment issues for the military organization. Some of the consequences of containment failure discussed by Habibia include depersonalizing the dispute thereby increasing the risk of additional claims with even greater penalties to the organization.

More U.S. servicewomen have been deployed to war zones during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom than any other conflict. Consequently, a greater number of service women are returning from deployment with psychological and cognitive injuries. A leading cause of PTSD among today’s service women (and men) is exposure to combat (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs [DVA], National Center on PTSD, 2016). Mustillo and Kysar-Moon (2017) examine PTSD in active-duty service women who returned to the United States from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2008 and 2009. In their article titled, “Race, Gender, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the U.S. Military: Differential Vulnerability?” Mustillo and Kysar-Moon (2017) test for risk factors that may predispose individuals or groups to developing PTSD. Specifically, they examine race, gender, and the intersection of race and gender to determine whether or not being male or female, or female and African American is associated with increased or decreased vulnerability to combat-related trauma. Although they did not find variability between Black and White women, they did find women to be at greater risk than men. The gender difference in vulnerability to PTSD found in this study is similar to that found in previous studies (see Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995; Zlotnick et al., 2006).

Effects of Military Service on Female Veterans

The number of women in the veteran population is multiplying as the representation of women in the military increases. As a greater number of women are serving in war zones, more are returning home with physical and mental disabilities. Although U.S. official policy prohibited women from serving in combat during OIF and OEF, in reality, they have long served in war zones. Women have been awarded Bronze Stars, Army Commendation Medals, and Purple Hearts for combat service. There are a host of issues related to women’s transition back to civilian life after completing their term of service including eating disorders (Bartlett & Mitchell, 2015; Forman-Hoffman, Mengeling, Booth, Torner, & Sadler, 2012), homelessness (Gamache, Rosenheck, & Tessler, 2003), gender-specific prosthetic devices, and finding employment. In the article titled, “Women Military Veterans, Disability, and Employment,” Prokos and Cabage (2017) investigate how veteran status and disability are related to women’s ability to work. Among their findings is that women who served since 2001 are more likely to have a disability as compared with women who never served and are more likely to be unemployed.

Pedavic and Prokos (2017) find veteran status to have a positive effect on the earnings of female veterans. In their article, “Aiming High: Explaining the Earnings Advantage for Women Veterans,” these authors examined effects of veteran status on men and women controlling for race and ethnicity. Using a pooled sample from the 2008, 2009, and 2010 American Community Surveys, Pedavic and Prokos found that veterans earn more than nonveterans. The authors find this earning advantage to be particularly the case for non-White women, more so than White women.

Brief Commentary on Book Reviews

This issue ends with two reviews of Beyond the Band of Brothers: The US Military and the Myth That Women Can’t Fight by Megan MacKenzie (2015), Cambridge. The author of the book provides an historical analysis of the role the U.S. combat exclusion policy has played, not only in aggrandizing men but also in romanticizing and legitimizing war. The book was reviewed by two scholars, both providing very thoughtful yet different assessments.

In her exegesis, Christine Fair illustrates how MacKenzie uses the combat exclusion policy as a means of analyzing the construction of U.S. military identity. Although the Band of Brothers myth has been used in association of positive attributes, such as unit cohesion and combat efficacy, Fair lauds MacKenzie for revealing the negative realities linked to the myth, such as various acts of violence which have been substantiated by Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) data. In addition, Fair views MacKenzie's use of online debates as a strength of the book.

In his detailed analysis, Clayton Fordahl argues that the author’s main objective is to analyze America’s postwar discourse on the role of women in combat. He praises the author for illustrating how the exigencies of war contradicted and exacerbated the ambiguities associated with policies excluding women from combat. However, Fordahl critiques the author’s reliance on popular discourse for her analysis rather than examining the formal discussions of policy makers. Unlike Fair, who views MacKenzie's use of online debates as a strength of the study, Fordahl considers these data to be a weakness of the book. Fordahl argues further that the book would have benefited from an examination of masculinity and homosociality. Still, Fordahl acknowledges that the information MacKenzie discusses in the book is both complex and is presented with great clarity.

Concluding Remarks

The topics discussed in this issue address problems associated with women in the contemporary military. One subject that has not been addressed, but warrants mentioning, is the increase in the complaints of sexual assault, particularly among service members stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. government has made great strides in addressing the problem of sexual misconduct in the military. Since the 90s, the U.S. DVA and the U.S. DoD have implemented legislation addressing this problem (see Moore, 2013). Congress passed Pub. L. No. 102-585 authorizing DVA to extend health-care services to all women veterans who had allegedly been sexually traumatized while on active duty (benefits were extended to men through Pub. L. No. 103-452, the “Veterans Health Programs Extension Act of 1994” in 1994). Sexual trauma services became a permanent benefit for veterans as a result of Pub. L. No. 108-422 in 2004. Since then, veterans who are physically or mentally impaired because of in-service sexual trauma are eligible to receive veterans disability benefits. In an effort to mitigate sexual misconduct in the military, DoD established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) in October 2005 (see U.S. DoD, 2007, 2015). The SAPRO is charged with developing prevention policies and publishing annual reports on complaint resolutions.

Current studies on military sexual misconduct address a wide range of issues including, but not limited to, health consequences, prevalence of assault, and antecedents associated with women’s risk of being raped in the military (Brubaker, 2009; Pershing, 2003; Sadler, Booth, Cook, & Doebbeling, 2003; Titunik, 2000). Still there is much more to be done on this topic, especially in the area of prevention.

As we advance into the 21st century, we witness growing support for women to be fully integrated into the armed services. Since August 2016, Norway has compulsory conscription for women as well as men. In December 2016, U.S. President Obama endorsed the country’s universal draft registration, supporting the notion that American women should register for selective service when they turn 18 years of age. These initiatives, and others like them, raise additional questions about the service of women. For sure, the subject of women in the military will be part of the scholarly research agenda for years to come.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

My thanks to the authors who contributed to this issue as well as to all of the scholars who took time to review and evaluate papers. I would also like to extend a warm thanks to the senior editor in chief, Dr. Patricia Shields, for her insightful suggestions and support throughout this project and to Chad Kunsman, editorial assistant, for all of his help.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

An accompanying podcast for this article is available at .

Note

References

Bartlett

B. A.

Mitchell

K. S.

(2015). Eating disorders in military and veteran men and women: A systematic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48, 1057–1069.

Brownson

(2014). The battle for equivalency: Female US marines discuss sexuality, physical fitness, and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 765–788.

Brownson

(2016). Rejecting patriarchy for equivalence in the US military: A response to Anthony King’s “Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat.” Armed Forces & Society, 42, 235–242.

Brubaker

S. J.

(2009). Sexual assault prevalence, reporting and policies: Comparing college and university campuses and military service academies. Security Journal, 22, 56–72.

Burrelli

(1998, 11 18). Women in the armed forces. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; Congressional Research Services.

Correiras

. (2006). Gender and the Military: Women in the Armed Forces of Western Democracies. London: Routledge.

Crowley

Sandhoff

(2017). Just a girl in the army: U.S. Iraq war veteran negotiating femininity in a culture of masculinity. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 221–237.

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. (2001). Women’s history month 2001: Inspiring stories of vision and courage. Patrick Air Force Base, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

Defense Officer Manpower Personnel Management Act, Pub. L. No. 46-513-Dec. 12. (1980). Retrieved January 13, 2017, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE94-Pg2835.pdf

10.

Eager

P. W.

(2014). Waging gendered wars: U.S. military women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

11.

Forman-Hoffman

V. L.

Mengeling

Booth

B. M.

Torner

Sadler

A. G.

(2012). Eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sexual trauma in women veterans. Military Medicine, 177, 1161–1168.

12.

Gamache

Rosenheck

Tessler

(2003). Overrepresentation of women veterans among homeless women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1132–1136.

13.

Gore

Fray

Wallington

Holmes

Smith

(2017). Australian school student aspirations for military careers: Traditional perceptions in shifting contexts. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 238–259.

14.

Habiba

(2017). The Australian Defense Force Academy Skype sex scandal: Understanding the implications and containment. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 300–321.

15.

Heinecken

(2017). Conceptualizing the tensions evoked by gender integration in the military: South African case. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 202–220.

16.

Katt

(2014). Blurred lines: Cultural support teams in Afghanistan. Joint Force Quarterly, 75, 106–113.

17.

Kessler

R. C.

Sonnega

Bromet

Hughes

Nelson

C. B.

(1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048–1060.

18.

King

(2015). Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces & Society, 41, 379–387.

19.

MacKenzie

(2015). Beyond the band of brothers: The US military and the myth that women can’t fight. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Moore

B. L.

(2013). Military sexual trauma. In Kurt Piehler

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of military science (Vol. 4, pp. 1469–1472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Moskos

(1977). From institution to occupation: Trends in military organization. Armed Forces & Society, 4, 41–50.

22.

Moskos

(1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces & Society, 12, 377–382.

23.

Moskos

Williams

J. A.

Segal

(2000). The postmodern military: Armed forces after the cold war. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Moss

(2005). A mission that ended in inferno for 3 women. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/world/middleeast/a-mission-that-ended-ininferno-for-3-women.html?_r=0

25.

Mustillo

S. A.

Kysar-Moon

(2017). Race, gender and post-traumatic stress disorder in the U.S. military: Differential vulnerability? Armed Forces & Society, 43, 322–345.

26.

Pedavic

Prokos

(2017). Aiming high: Explaining the earnings advantage for female veterans. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 368–386.

27.

Pershing

J. L.

(2003). Why women don’t report sexual harassment: A case study of an elite military institution. Gender Issues, 21, 3–30.

28.

President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Force. (1970, 2). Report to the president. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

29.

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. (1992, 11 15). Report to the president. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

30.

Prokos

Cabage

L. N.

(2017). Women military veterans, disability, and employment. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 346–367.

31.

Rostker

Thie

Lacy

Kawata

Purnell

(1993). The defense officer personnel management act of 1980: A retrospective assessment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/1993/R4246.pdf

32.

Sadler

A. G.

Booth

Cook

Doebbeling

(2003). Factors associated with women’s risk of rape in the military environment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 43, 262–273.

33.

Segal

M. W.

(1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces & Society, 13, 9–38.

34.

Segal

M. W.

(1995). Women’s military roles cross-nationally: Past, present and future. Gender & Society, 9, 757–775.

35.

Smith

Rosenstein

(2017). Gender and the military profession: Early career influences, attitudes and intentions. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 260–279.

36.

Solaro

(2006). Women in the line of fire: What you should know about women in the military. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

37.

Titunik

R. F.

(2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture. Armed Forces & Society, 26, 229–257.

38.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2007). Department of defense annual report on sexual assault in the military. Washington, DC: Sexual Assault and Response Office. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/2007-annual-report.pdf

39.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2015). Department of defense annual report on sexual assault in the military. Washington, DC: Sexual Assault and Response Office. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY15_Annual/FY15_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military.pdf

40.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center on PTSD. (2016). Traumatic stress in female veterans. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/war/traumatic_stress_in_female_veterans.ap

41.

Women’s Research and Education Institute. (2008). Women in the military, sixth edition. Arlington, VA: Women’s Research and Education Institute.

42.

Woodruff

Kelty

(2017). Gender and deployment effects on pro-organizational behaviors of U.S. soldiers. Forces & Society, 43, 280–299.

43.

Woodward

Winter

(2004). Discourses of gender in the contemporary British army. Armed Forces & Society, 30, 279–301.

44.

Zlotnick

Johnson

Kohn

Vincente

Rioseco

Saldivia

(2006). Epidemiology of trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and co-morbid disorders in Chile. Psychological Medicine, 36, 1523–1533.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB