Influence of Work and Life Stressors on Marital Quality among Dual and Nondual Military Couples

Abstract

Maintaining a healthy marriage may be challenging for military couples as they attempt to balance the demands of work and family; for dual-military couples, this can be even more challenging. Using data from the Millennium Cohort Family Study, we examined whether military stress experiences negatively impact marital quality through the mediation of work–family conflict. Spouse gender and dual-military status were included as moderators. Spouses reported on marital quality, work–family conflict, military stress experiences, and personal military experience. Spouse and service member demographics were also included. Results demonstrated that experiencing more military stress experiences was related to lower marital quality, which was mediated by work–family conflict. Additionally, female dual spouses reported lower marital quality than male dual spouses and civilian spouses. Findings from this study highlight the importance of providing support to military spouses for stressful military events and potentially tailoring support services for female dual spouses to improve marital quality.

Keywords

marital quality work–family spillover U.S. military couples dual military

Having a healthy marriage can improve overall health and well-being, as well as job satisfaction, all of which contribute to mission readiness among service members (Robles et al., 2014). However, maintaining a healthy marriage may be challenging for military couples as they face a range of stressors from deployment- and training-related separations to frequent moves and unpredictable work hours (Anderson et al., 2011; Karney & Crown, 2007; Lacks et al., 2015; Pflieger, LeardMann, McMaster, Donoho, & Riviere, 2018; Riviere et al., 2012; Smith, 2010). These military life stressors may be a big contributor to the overall divorce rate among military personnel, with service women impacted the most as they had a divorce rate of 6.3% compared with service men at 2.6% (Bushatz, 2019). For general comparison, the overall divorce rate in the United States was 3.2% in 2016 (Bushatz, 2019).

It is likely that subgroups of military couples are more vulnerable than others in dealing with the challenges of military life. In particular, the consequences of military stress experiences may be moderated by both gender and dual-military marital status. Unfortunately, research on subpopulations like dual-military couples has been sparse and primarily focused on Air Force service members due to the larger representation of dual-military couples in this service branch (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016). However, available evidence, spanning decades of work into the present, does suggest that dual-military status presents challenges and potential disadvantages. For example, although dual-military couples may generally be satisfied with military life, they report lower job satisfaction than nondual military couples and a greater difficulty balancing work and family life (Farkas & Durning, 1982; Huffman et al., 2018; Lakhani & Gade, 1992; Schumm et al., 1996; Smith & Segal, 2013). In addition, the impact of being in a dual-military marriage is not consistent for men and women. Initial quantitative evidence indicates that women in dual-military relationships are more impacted by their partners than men are; women’s physiological stress levels were significantly predicted by their husbands’ deployments and the husbands’ own reported marital quality, whereas men’s physiological stress levels were not related to their wives’ deployments or reported marital quality (Lacks et al., 2015). Dual-military couples also have an elevated risk for poor marital quality and greater relationship instability; wives are less satisfied with their marriages than husbands, although husbands still express dissatisfaction with the level of companionship and intimacy in their relationships, and, overall, couples appear less satisfied with available family time (Anderson et al., 2011; Freniere, 1988; Huffman & Payne, 2005; Huffman et al., 2016; Orthner & Bowen, 1982; Schumm et al., 1996; Smith & Segal, 2013).

The three qualitative studies to our knowledge that focused on dual-military relationships further highlight the unique hardships faced by dual-military couples. The most salient of these include difficulty meeting professional goals, finding time for family, and getting collocated duty assignments (Huffman et al., 2018; Smith & Segal, 2013). Other qualitative studies noted ways that female versus male service members’ experiences may be more challenging. For instance, it may be particularly difficult for women to balance work and family obligations in this context. Indeed, when faced with family concerns, wives were more likely to leave their military careers compared with husbands (Stander et al., 1998).

Conceptual Framework

Simultaneous pressures from work and family roles create work–family conflict and interfere with spouses’ ability to meet important family requirements or expectations (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kahn et al., 1964). From an ecological systems theory perspective, the interactions between work and family microsystems may become more difficult when one or both have inflexible boundaries (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Voyandoff, 2004). This conceptual framework is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that a more rigid work environment leads to more negative spillover between the demands of work and family, degrading both professional and relationship adjustment (Barnett, 1994; Hill et al., 2003; Huffman & Payne, 2005; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Zedeck, 1992). Prior research among civilian dual-earner couples has noted that work–family conflict negatively impacts quality of both work life and family life (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Higgins et al., 1992; Michel et al., 2009). The military is a more rigid and demanding institution compared with most civilian work contexts, and therefore military employment might be expected to lead to greater work–family conflict, particularly for dual-military couples where both spouses are serving. The military also likely represents a more rigid environment in terms of gender expectations such that spouses who are not conforming to social stereotypes, either at home or at work, may experience increased pressure to conform across environments (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Higgins et al., 1992; Triana, 2011). In this context, female service members may experience increased work–family conflict as they attempt to juggle both work and family demands in a male-dominated profession.

Current Study

Few studies have examined which aspects of military life may contribute most to the conflict between work and family life. Additionally, existing research suffers from small sample sizes, limited generalizability, and limited representation across gender and dual-military status. The current study analyzed data from a large sample of military spouses enrolled in the Millennium Cohort Research Program. The Millennium Cohort Research Program launched in 2001 in response to DoD and Institute of Medicine’s initiative to better understand the impact of military service on the long-term mental, physical, and behavioral health of service members through their life cycle (Gray et al., 2002; Ryan et al., 2007). There are currently over 200,000 participants enrolled in the study representing all branches of the service including the Reserve and National Guard who are surveyed approximately every 3 years and will be followed at least through 2068. Beginning in 2011, the spouses of personnel newly enrolling in Millennium Cohort were enrolled in the Millennium Cohort Family Study (Family Study) (Corry et al., 2017; McMaster et al., 2017, 2018). The Family Study is currently the only ongoing longitudinal population-based cohort of military spouses and was designed to further understand the impact of military life on the health and well-being of the entire military family, including the service member, spouse, and children. The Family Study includes considerable subsamples of male partners of female service members and dual-military couples, making it a novel dataset for secondary analysis assessing these important subgroups.

To build on past research this study tested the possible mediating role of work–family conflict in the association between military stress experiences and marital quality; see conceptual model in Figure 1. Lastly, gender and dual-military status were investigated as moderators of these associations, such that military stress experiences may be particularly deleterious for female dual-military spouses. The hypotheses specifically tested include:

Higher levels of military stress experiences and work–family conflict will relate to lower marital quality.

Work–family conflict will mediate the associations between military stress experiences and marital quality.

There will be a stronger association between military stress experiences and marital quality for women and dual military couples versus men and nondual military couples.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model used in the current study. Each path (A, B, and C) explored three-way interactions by the spouse’s gender and dual-military status.

Method

Sample and Procedures

Between 2011 and 2013, a representative sample of married service members with 2–5 years of service from all branches and components of the U.S. military were invited to participate in the Millennium Cohort Study, a large ongoing longitudinal research program dedicated to studying the impact of military service on the long-term health outcomes of service members and follow them after transitioning out of the military (Gray et al., 2002; Ryan et al., 2007). Spouses married to these newly enrolled participants (N = 28,603) were then invited to join the Millennium Cohort Family Study (Family Study), resulting in 9,872 dyads who enrolled and completed baseline surveys within the same study recruitment period. Further explanation of the methodology of the Family Study has been described elsewhere in detail (Corry et al., 2017; McMaster et al., 2017, 2018). This study was approved by an institutional review board, and the research was conducted in agreement with all applicable federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. All participants provided their informed consent.

In the current study, the term “spouse” was used to delineate the military spouse who completed the Family Study survey, and “service member” was used to delineate the service member who completed the Millennium Cohort Study survey. A considerable number of “spouses” completing the Family Study survey were dual-military personnel or veterans who had previously separated from military service. Of the 9,872 respondents to the baseline survey, spouses were excluded from the current sample based on the following criteria: the service member (Millennium Cohort participant) was no longer in the military as of the spouse’s (Family Study participant) baseline survey date (n = 961), the spouse self-reported they were no longer married to their service member at baseline (n = 114), or the spouse had incomplete outcome data (n = 94) for marital quality. To preserve as many participants as possible, mean item scores were imputed for participants with at least 75% of the items assessing marital quality completed.

Measures

Marital quality

Four items from the Quality of Marriage Index (Norton, 1983) were used to operationalize our outcome. Participants were asked to “Please rate the following statements about your relationship with your spouse.” The statements included items such as “I have a good marriage” and “My relationship with my spouse is very stable.” Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and a total score was created by summing the responses to all 4 items (range = 4 to 20). This scale demonstrated high reliability (α = .97).

Work–family conflict

Military work–family conflict was assessed using spouses’ responses to 4 items from the Work–Family Conflict Scale (Netemeyer et al., 1996), modified to apply to military life. Participants were asked to “Please rate the following statements regarding spouse’s current job(s).” Statements included items such as “Frequent TDY/TAD [temporary duty or training] interfere with our home and family life.” Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and a sum score was created (range = 4 to 20, α = .90).

Military stress experiences

Exposure to potentially challenging military stress experiences in the last 12 months was assessed based on the spouse’s self-report of whether they encountered key military events related to the service member’s deployment, injury, training schedule, or moving (McMaster et al., 2018). Deployment and injury domains were captured using three items each (e.g., deployment: “A combat-related deployment or duty assignment”; injury: “Caring for your ill, injured, or disabled spouse”), while intensified training schedule and permanent change of station (PCS) experiences were measured using single items. Items making up each domain were used to construct a count of the total number of experiences. For example, a spouse who endorsed experiencing any of the items representing each domain would receive a 1 for each respective domain; therefore, the range for the count of experiences was 0 to 4.

Spouse military status

The spouse’s military status was operationalized using the following questions: “Have you ever served in the U.S. military?” and “Are you currently serving in the U.S. military?” Using these two items, dual-military status was determined if the spouse reported currently serving as active duty, Reserve, or National Guard. Veteran status was determined when a spouse reported ever serving in the U.S. military as active duty, Reserve, or National Guard and not currently serving. The remaining spouses who reported never serving in the U.S. military were categorized as civilian spouses with no prior service.

Additional covariates

All analyses controlled for the spouse’s history of childhood trauma, demographics of the spouse, and military characteristics of the service member. The spouse’s reported childhood trauma was included because there is evidence that childhood trauma experiences may increase the risk of marital problems (Pflieger et al., 2018; Whisman, 2006). This has also been found within the Family Study. Similar to Pflieger et al. (2018), childhood trauma was assessed using 8 items from a modified Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Questionnaire (Felitti et al., 1998). Items within the scale assessed physical/emotional neglect, emotional/physical/sexual abuse, parental domestic violence, and family history of mental illness/alcohol abuse (α = .77). The measure was scored based on cut-points used in a previous study (range = 0 to 8) (Dube et al., 2003).

Other covariates included the spouses’ responses to the following items: gender (female vs. male), age (years), race/ethnicity (White non-Hispanic vs. non-White), education (associate degree or higher vs. some college or less), employment (full- or part-time; not employed, looking for work; not employed, not looking for work; student vs. homemaker), years married (6 years or longer vs. less than 6 years), and children from current or prior relationships (yes vs. no). The service member’s military characteristics were obtained from administrative records provided by the Defense Manpower Data Center and included service branch (Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard vs. Army), component (Reserve/National Guard vs. active duty), and pay grade (officer vs. enlisted).

Analysis Plan

While the Family Study is longitudinal in design, the data used for this study were from the baseline survey only, resulting in a cross-sectional analysis. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the unadjusted associations of work–family conflict, military stress experiences, and covariates with marital quality. Mediation analyses were conducted to estimate the effects of work–family conflict as a mediator of the relationship between military stress experiences and marital quality (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The indirect effects approach advocated by Preacher and Hayes (2004) was implemented here, focusing on an investigation of indirect effects and associated confidence intervals with robust standard errors estimation to correct for heteroscedasticity in lieu of Sobel testing. We also examined whether results differed by the service member’s military component (i.e., active duty vs. Reserve/Guard) in the analyses. Lastly, three-way moderating effects between spouse gender and dual-military status with the independent variables of interest (military stress experiences and work–family conflict) were tested on each direct path (see Figure 1). All analyses were weighted for sampling design and nonresponse bias to preserve generalizability to married spouses of service members with 2–5 years of service (Corry et al., 2017). Mplus version 7.3 was used for the final analyses and included full information maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing data on covariates and all continuous variables were centered. An assessment of the missingness for all variables in the models before estimation was less than 3.5%. Furthermore, the specialized maximum likelihood ratio estimation with robust standard errors (Enders & Bandalos, 2001; Muthén & Satorra, 1995) was implemented to maintain correct estimation of standard errors in the presence of sampling weights.

Results

After sample exclusions, the study population included n = 8,703 dyads. The overall mean marital quality score reported by spouses was 17.37 (SD = 3.95). On average, spouses reported 2.34 (SD = 1.14) military stress experiences and a work–family conflict sum score of 13.98 (SD = 5.22). Overall, the majority of spouses were female (88%), White (78%), earned an associate degree or higher (55%), employed part- or full-time (56%), married 5 years or less (71%), currently had children (63%), and civilian spouses with no prior military experience (83%; dual military = 9%, veteran = 8%). The majority of service members were in the Army (46%), active duty (78%), and enlisted (74%). Additionally, the mean age of spouses was 28.61 years (SD = 5.80 years) and the mean ACE score reported by spouses was low (mean = 1.32, SD = 1.80).

Additionally, Table 1 shows unadjusted mean marital quality scores by gender and dual military status, and their interaction. Tukey’s adjustment for multiple group comparisons was used (Tukey, 1949). Results showed marital quality was not significantly different for men and women. However, veteran spouses’ mean marital quality scores were significantly lower compared with civilian and dual military spouses. The interaction between spouse gender and dual military status also was significant. Male-dual military spouses reported significantly higher marital quality than all of the other groups. Female civilian spouses also reported significantly higher marital quality compared with male and female veteran spouses and marginal higher marital quality compared with female dual military spouses (p = .055).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Marital Quality by Spouse Gender and Dual Military Status.

Variable	n	M	SD	Significance comparison
Overall	8703	17.37	3.95
Spouse gender
Male	1065	17.07	3.82	a
Female	7638	17.08	3.98	a
Spouse dual military status
Civilian	7202	17.12	3.90	a
Veteran	699	16.46	4.52	b
Dual	782	17.35	3.93	a
Spouse gender × dual military status
Male civilian	355	16.61	3.92	a,c
Male veteran	245	16.38	4.41	a
Male dual	462	17.93	3.20	b
Female civilian	6847	17.15	3.90	c
Female veteran	454	16.51	4.58	a
Female dual	320	16.50	4.67	a,c

Note. a,b,c letters that are different indicate statistically significant differences (p < .05) of the unadjusted means. Same letters indicate no statistically significant differences in means. Tukey’s method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. The population size may vary due to missing data.

All bivariate correlations are shown in Table 2. Military stress experiences were significantly correlated with higher work–family conflict and lower marital quality. Similarly, work–family conflict was significantly correlated with lower marital quality. Also worth noting among the unadjusted correlations, female spouses, as compared with male spouses, reported more military stress experiences (r = .06, p < .001) and work–family conflict (r = .06, p < .001). Dual military spouses, as compared with civilian spouses, reported having fewer military stress experiences (r = −.04, p < .001) and lower work–family conflict (r = −.05, p < .001). Overall, compared with civilian spouses, spouses in dual-military marriages reported higher marital quality (r = .02, p = .049), while veteran spouses reported lower marital quality (r = −.05, p < .001).

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations of Spouse and Service Member Characteristics with Marital Quality.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1. Gender – sp	–	−0.25	−0.43	−0.21	−0.02	0.05	0.25	0.01	−0.02	0.03	0.00	0.09	0.01	0.06	0.06	0.00
2. Veteran spouse – sp		–	−0.10	0.09	0.02	−0.03	0.05	0.01	0.05	0.12	0.00	0.03	−0.05	−0.01	0.02	−0.05
3. Dual spouse – sp			–	0.05	0.03	0.03	−0.28	−0.10	−0.01	−0.03	0.01	−0.03	0.03	−0.04	−0.05	0.02
4. Age (years) – sp				–	0.05	0.13	−0.10	0.43	0.18	0.06	−0.14	−0.11	0.09	0.03	−0.01	−0.06
5. Race/ethnicity – sp					–	−0.03	−0.01	0.02	0.02	0.01	−0.02	0.03	−0.08	0.05	−0.04	−0.04
6. Education – sp						–	−0.20	−0.03	−0.18	−0.16	0.06	−0.03	0.30	−0.04	−0.01	0.06
7. Employment – sp							–	0.09	0.27	0.09	−0.01	0.18	−0.03	0.07	0.07	0.01
8. Years married – sp								–	0.24	0.07	−0.07	−0.01	0.04	0.05	0.06	−0.04
9. Currently have children – sp									–	0.09	−0.05	−0.02	−0.09	0.02	0.06	−0.06
10. ACE - sp										–	−0.07	0.01	−0.11	0.10	0.17	−0.16
11. Service branch – sm											–	0.24	0.04	−0.09	−0.08	0.07
12. Component – sm												–	0.07	0.20	0.17	−0.01
13. Pay grade – sm													–	−0.02	0.01	0.08
14. Military experiences – sp														–	0.23	−0.07
15. Work–family conflict – sp															–	−0.15
16. Marital quality – sp																–

Note. sp = item related to the spouse; sm = item related to the service member; ACE = adverse childhood experiences. Bold correlations are statistically significant, p < .05. Listwise deletion was implemented for bivariate associations to keep the total population consistent across correlations (N = 8,518).

Although not illustrated the Figures 1 or 2, covariates were controlled for on all paths. Spouse covariates significantly associated with lower work–family conflict included increasing age (β = −.04, p = .011) and non-White race/ethnicity (β = −.06, p < .001), whereas those associated with higher work–family conflict included earning an associate degree or higher (β = .04, p = .007), being married more than 5 years (β = .04, p = .010), having 1 or more children (β = .05, p = .001), and experiencing childhood adversity (β = .15, p < .001). Service member characteristics significantly associated with lower work–family conflict included being in the Air Force or Coast Guard (β = −.10, p < .001 and β = −.04, p = .001, respectively); however, active duty service members had significantly higher work–family conflict (β = .15, p < .001).

Figure 2.

Final adjusted mediation model showing effects between spouse military stress experiences, work–family conflict, and marital quality (N = 8,703). Covariates adjusted for included: spouse’s age, race, education, employment status, years married, children in the home, adverse childhood experiences; the service member’s component, pay grade, and service branch. Italicized effect represents original total effect before adding work–family conflict to the model, effect noted to the right of the arrow represents the reduced direct effect with the mediator in the model. Bold effects represent the estimates that were statistically significant (p < .05).

Spouse covariates significantly associated with lower marital quality included increasing age (β = −.05, p = .009), non-White race/ethnicity (β = −.04, p = .031), employed part- or full-time or not employed looking for work (β = −.06, p = .003 and β = −.08, p < .001, respectively), having 1 or more children (β = −.04, p = .030), and more experiences of childhood adversity (β = −.11, p < .001). However, spouses who earned an associate degree or higher reported significantly higher marital quality (β = .04, p = .029). Service member characteristics associated with higher spouse-reported marital quality included being in the Navy or Coast Guard (β = .04, p = .010 and β = .03, p = .005, respectively) and being an officer (β = .05, p < .001).

The primary results of our fully adjusted mediation model investigating the influence of military stress experiences on marital quality through the mediator of work–family conflict can be seen in Figure 2. After adjusting for all covariates, spouses who reported more military stress experiences had significantly higher work–family conflict (β = .18, p < .001). Additionally, spouses with higher work–family conflict reported significantly lower marital quality (β = −.12, p < .001). While there was a significant total effect (β = −.04, p = .025) of military stress experiences on marital quality, the adjusted direct effect with work–family conflict in the model was not significant (β = −.01, p = .382). The significant indirect effect of the path from military stress experiences to marital quality, through work–family conflict, supported the hypothesis that work–family conflict mediated this relationship (β = −.02, 95% CI [−.03, −.02]).

When testing moderation, there were no significant moderating effects of military component on any paths. Additionally, no significant three-way interactions were found on any of the paths, so these higher-order interaction terms were removed from the model. However, testing the three-way interactions revealed a lower-order two-way interaction in which spouse gender by dual-military status was directly related to marital quality. While dual spouses reported an overall higher marital quality (β = .09, p < .001), results of the interaction indicated female dual spouses, in fact, had significantly lower marital quality compared with male dual and civilian spouses (β = −.08, p = .002).

Discussion

This study investigated whether military stress experiences, such as deployment and PCS moves, would negatively impact marital quality for military spouses via their influence on increasing work–family conflict. Additionally, spouse gender and dual-military status were included as important moderators that may further explain differences in this mediational analysis. The overall results supported our research hypotheses. Specifically, the association of military stress experiences with marital quality was mediated by work–family conflict. Thus, it appears that work–family conflict may be partially responsible for links between taxing military stress experiences and adverse effects on marital quality.

We additionally found that female dual-military spouses reported lower marital quality compared with male dual-military spouses or civilian spouses. This may indicate that the roles females occupy in the military work environment may uniquely impact their marriage to a fellow service member (Huffman et al., 2016; Smith, 2010). Even with increasing numbers of women joining the military over the past 70 years, female service members may feel pressure to occupy traditional gender roles in their marriages but progressive roles within the workplace, where they are working alongside their male counterparts (Huffman et al., 2016; Segal & Segal, 2006; Stander et al., 1998). Indeed, some work has shown that while male service members tend to be more conventional in their gender roles, it is the opposite for female service members; this may mean that female service members are not getting the support they need when confronted with more traditional roles at home (Huffman et al., 2016). However, this interaction was not further moderated by the extent of military stressors experienced, nor was this relation indirectly associated through work–family conflict, indicating that any differences in marital quality for female dual spouses were not explained by greater perception of work–family conflict in the face of military stress experiences. This suggests that the specific reasons females in dual-military roles may be at risk for lower marital quality need further investigation, perhaps by evaluating gender role expectations both at work and at home.

Remarkably, there were no significant moderating effects of dual-military status on the impact of military stress experiences or work–family conflict. This suggests that the marriages of dual- and nondual military couples are similarly impacted by military stress experiences and work–family conflict. Furthermore, counter to our expectations, dual-military couples actually reported somewhat fewer military stress experiences overall. There may be some self-selection effects leading to this, since dual-military spouses experiencing the most challenges may leave the service, and, indeed, veteran spouses reported somewhat higher occurrence of military stress experiences. Prior evidence indicates that female spouses in dual-military relationships may have to choose between job and family, resulting in a higher propensity to leave the military due to work–family conflict (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Farkas & Durning, 1982; Schumm et al., 1996; Smith & Segal, 2013; Triana, 2011). However, it is encouraging to note that the dual-military spouses in our sample appeared to have adjusted to the competing demands of work and family relationships just as well as nondual couples. In addition to self-selection, heightened commonality may further explain these results. On the one hand, those who struggled most to make a dual-military lifestyle work may have already made the choice for one spouse to separate from service; while on the other hand, those who remained dual military may actually be at an advantage by having a partner who is understanding and supportive of the demands faced in the military life. Research has provided evidence that having a spouse supportive of one’s military career promotes service member intentions to remain in the military and actual retention behavior (Etheridge, 1989). Future studies should examine the extent to which dual-military spouses are more understanding and supportive of one another’s work demands and the extent to which this may be protective.

Lastly, some covariates in the current study exhibited significant associations with both work–family conflict and marital adjustment. Our findings align with previous research that having children and experiencing adverse childhood experiences are risk factors for work–family conflict and poor marital quality (Pflieger et al., 2018; Whisman, 2006). Further, service members in the Air Force and Coast Guard seemed somewhat buffered from work–family conflict and poor marital adjustment. This may be related to shorter deployment lengths, frequency of deployments, and combat experiences differing for the service branches (Chandra et al., 2008). Additionally, our findings revealed that spouses married for 5 years or more and spouses of active duty service members were at risk for higher work–family conflict; however, these same factors were protective of marital quality. In other words, while being married longer and active duty status may generally support strong relationships, there may also be increasing life course demands (e.g., addition of children, more senior career positions for one or both spouses, caregiving for elderly parents) that can cause conflict. Active duty status, in particular, may be related to greater access to resources and support through the military community that are ultimately beneficial to relationships, but it is also coupled with more demanding operational and training requirements than Reserve or Guard service members. Finally, consistent with previous research on marital quality in this same study population, those working part- or full-time and those not employed looking for work were at risk of poor marital quality; however, those married to officers (vs. enlisted) demonstrated higher marital adjustment (Pflieger et al., 2018). Although the military has invested considerable effort into assisting military spouses pursuing paid employment, further support in managing the strain associated with work–family conflict in this group is likely warranted. Understanding the impact of job satisfaction and career progression, as well as the presence of children, on these outcomes will be an important focus for future studies.

Strengths and Limitations

There were several limitations to this current project. First, the study design was cross-sectional, which limits the results from establishing causality and directionality. Second, self-reported data from only the spouse were utilized to examine the main outcomes in the study, which is subject to recall bias. Third, only spouse report of work–family conflict and marital quality was utilized. Future dyadic studies should tease apart how the perceptions of work–family conflict by both the spouse and service member relate to their respective reports of marital quality. Fourth, this study was able to assess important stressful military experiences, however, we were only able to measure the number of experiences and not measure how stressful each of the events were. Fifth, as noted above, dual-military status may be impacted by self-selection effects, as those who are maintaining their dual-military status are likely to be handling the demands of this work and family well (Schumm et al., 1996). Sixth, some of the measures used in this study have been modified from the standardized measures (e.g., Quality of Marriage Index, Work Family Conflict Scale) and while they demonstrated favorable internal consistency, they have not been validated against the full original assessments. Last, as a result of the recruitment strategy to enroll participants into the study, the findings are only generalizable to married heterosexual military couples who are early in their military careers.

Despite these limitations, our analyses had several important strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate work–family conflict as a mediator of the relationship between military stressors and marital quality, and to evaluate how these associations differ by gender and dual-military status. Furthermore, this study was able to bridge gaps in the literature by using a large population of service members and their spouses across all service branches and components. Lastly, the study included a large representation of important subgroups, such as dual-military couples and male spouses, which have frequently been underrepresented in military research.

Conclusion and Implications

The results of this study highlight the impact of military life on military spouses’ relationship adjustment. Results indicated that the accumulation of stressful military experiences was associated with lower marital quality as mediated by work–family conflict. Military experiences, such as deployments and PCS moves, often force families to spend long periods of time apart and can result in physical and psychological injury for service members, all of which impact relationship functioning. In addition, important subgroups, such as females in dual-military marriages, face unique stressors that have a direct impact on family life and could benefit from tailored support services to increase their relationship adjustment and bolster readiness and retention. It is vital to identify ways to decrease the burden of stressful military experiences on couples to ultimately strengthen and maintain healthy military marriages. Future research should continue to evaluate the ways military life impacts key relationships such as interrupting communication processes, interfering with family roles, disrupting support networks, and, in particular for dual-military couples, reshaping the balance of work and family commitments for both marital partners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express gratitude to the other contributing members of the Millennium Cohort Family Study Team from Naval Health Research Center, including Lauren Bauer, MPH, Carlos Carballo, MS, Alejandro Esquivel, MPH, Cynthia LeardMann, MPH, Hope McMaster, PhD, Evelyn Sun, MPH, and Alexis Takata. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Nida Corry, PhD, Tara Earl, PhD, Samantha Karon, Sharmini Radakrishnan, PhD, Christopher Spera, PhD, and Christianna Williams, PhD from Abt Associates; team members from the Center for Child and Family Health, including Ernestine Briggs-King, PhD, John Fairbank, PhD, Ellen Gerrity, PhD, Robert Lee, MS, and Robert Murphy, PhD; and contributions of the Millennium Cohort Study Team. In addition, the authors want to express their gratitude to the Family Study participants without whom this study would not be possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared I am a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of my official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. �105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. �101 defines a U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person�s official duties. Report No. 18-705 was supported by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery under work unit no. N1240. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal Regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Health Research Center, Institutional Review Board protocol number NHRC.2015.0019.

Disclaimer

I am a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of my official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 defines a U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties. Report No. 18-705 was supported by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery under work unit no. N1240. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal Regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Health Research Center, Institutional Review Board protocol number NHRC.2015.0019.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Kelly A. Woodall

References

Anderson

J. R.

Johnson

M. D.

Goff

B. N.

Cline

L. E.

Lyon

S. E.

Gurss

(2011). Factors that differentiate distressed and nondistressed marriages in army soldiers. Marriage and Family Review, 47, 459–473. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/01494929.2011.619301

Barnett

R. C.

(1994). Home-to-work spillover revisited: A study of full-time employed women in dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 647–656.

Bronfenbrenner

(1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Bushatz

(2019, May 20). Troop divorce rate continues slow but steady decline. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/20/troop-divorce-rate-continues-slow-steady-decline.html

Chandra

Burns

R. M.

Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

Scott

M. M.

(2008). Understanding the impact of deployment on children and families: Findings from a pilot study of Operation Purple camp participants (Working Paper No. WR-566). RAND Corporation.

Corry

N. H.

Williams

C. S.

Battaglia

McMaster

H. S.

Stander

V. A.

(2017). Assessing and adjusting for non-response in the Millennium Cohort Family Study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 16. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1186/s12874-017-0294-8

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

Dong

Chapman

D. P.

Giles

W. H.

Anda

R. F.

(2003). Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. Pediatrics, 111, 564–572. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1542/peds.111.3.564

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

(1991). Gender differences in work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60–74. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.60

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199.

10.

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.

11.

Etheridge

R. M.

(1989). Family factors affecting retention: A review of the literature (Research Report No. 1511). Research Triangle Institute.

12.

Farkas

A. J.

Durning

K. P.

(1982). Characteristics and needs of navy families: Policy implications (NPRDC Special Report No. 83-1). Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

13.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

Williamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

Koss

M. P.

Marks

J. S.

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

14.

Freniere

C. P.

(1988). Potential effects of relocation decisions on retention of air force dual-officer couples (Master’s thesis). Air Force Institute of Technology.

15.

Gray

G. C.

Chesbrough

K. B.

Ryan

M. A. K.

Amoroso

P. J.

Boyko

E. J.

Gackstetter

G. D.

Riddle

J. R.

Hooper

T. I.

(2002). The Millennium Cohort Study: A 21-year prospective cohort study of 140,000 military personnel. Military Medicine, 167(6), 483–488.

16.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

17.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Marks

N. F.

(2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.

18.

Higgins

C. A.

Duxbury

L. E.

Irving

R. H.

(1992). Work–family conflict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 51–75. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90004-Q

19.

Hill

E. J.

Ferris

Märtinson

(2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 220–241. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3

20.

Huffman

A. H.

Craddock

E. B.

Culbertson

S. S.

Klinefelter

(2016). Decision-making and exchange processes of dual-military couples: A review and suggested strategies for navigating multiple roles. Military Psychology, 29(1), 11–26.

21.

Huffman

A. H.

Dunbar

Broom

T. W.

Castro

C. A.

(2018). Soldiers’ perspectives of the Married Army Couples Program: A review of perceived problems and proposed solutions. Military Psychology, 30(4), 335–349.

22.

Huffman

A. H.

Payne

S. C.

(2005). The challenges and benefits of dual-military marriages. In Castro

C. A.

Adler

A. B.

Britt

T. W.

(Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat. Volume 3: The military family (pp. 115–137). Praeger Security International.

23.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

R. P.

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Karney

B. R.

Crown

J. S.

(2007). Families under stress: An assessment of data, theory, and research on marriage and divorce in the military. RAND Corporation.

25.

Lacks

M. H.

Lamson

A. L.

Lewis

M. E.

White

M. B.

Russoniello

(2015). Reporting for double duty: A dyadic perspective on the biopsychosocial health of dual military Air Force couples. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 302–315. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10591-015-9341-y

26.

Lakhani

Gade

P. A.

(1992). Career decisions of dual military career couples: A multidisciplinary analysis of the U.S. Army. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(1), 153–166. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0167-4870(92)90057-E

27.

McMaster

H. S.

LeardMann

C. A.

Speigle

Dillman

D. A.

(2017). An experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health survey of military spouses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 73. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1186/s12874-017-0337-1

28.

McMaster

H. S.

Stander

V. A.

Williams

C. S.

Woodall

K. A.

O’Malley

C. A.

Bauer

L. M.

Davila

E. P.

(2018). Engaging military couples in marital research: Does requesting referrals from service members to recruit their spouses introduce sample bias? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 114.

29.

Michel

J. S.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Kotrba

L. M.

LeBreton

J. M.

Baltes

B. B.

(2009). A comparative test of work–family conflict models and critical examination of work–family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 199–218. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.005

30.

Muthén

B. O.

Satorra

(1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/271070

31.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

32.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/351302

33.

Orthner

D. K.

Bowen

G. L.

(1982). Families in blue: Phase II. Insights from Air Force families in the Pacific. SRA Corporation.

34.

Pflieger

J. C.

LeardMann

C. A.

McMaster

H. S.

Donoho

C. J.

Riviere

L. A.

Millennium Cohort Family Study Team. (2018). The impact of military and nonmilitary experiences on marriage: Examining the military spouse’s perspective. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(5), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22321

35.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3758/BF03206553

36.

Riviere

L. A.

Merrill

J. C.

Thomas

J. L.

Wilk

J. E.

Bliese

P. D.

(2012). 2003–2009 marital functioning trends among U.S. enlisted soldiers following combat deployments. Military Medicine, 177(10), 1169–1177.

37.

Ryan

M. A.

Smith

T. C.

Smith

Amoroso

Boyko

E. J.

Gray

G. C.

Hooper

T. I.

(2007). Millennium Cohort: Enrollment begins a 21-year contribution to understanding the impact of military service. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 181–191. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.05.009

38.

Robles

T. F.

Slatcher

R. B.

Trombello

J. M.

McGinn

M. M.

(2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140.

39.

Schumm

W. R.

Rice

R. E.

Bell

D. B.

Sanders

(1996). Trends in dual military couples in the U.S. Army. Psychological Reports, 78, 1287–1298. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1287

40.

Segal

M. W.

Segal

D. R.

(2006). Implications for military families of changes in the armed forces of the United States. In Caforio

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (pp. 225–233). Springer.

41.

Smith

D. G.

(2010). Developing pathways to serving together: Military family life course and decision-making of dual military couples (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 3426419)

42.

Smith

D. G.

Segal

M. W.

(2013). On the fast track: Dual military couples navigating institutional structures. In Claster

P. N.

Blair

S. L.

(Eds.), Visions of the 21st century family: Transforming structures and identities (pp. 213–253). Emerald Group Publishing.

43.

Stander

V. A.

McClure

Gilroy

Chomko

Long

(1998). Military marriages in the 1990s (MFI Technical Report No. 98-2). Military Family Institute.

44.

Triana

M. C.

(2011). A woman’s place and a man’s duty: How gender role incongruence in one’s family life can result in home-related spillover discrimination at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 71–86. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10869-010-9182-5

45.

Tukey

(1949). Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 5(2), 99–114. doi:10.2307/3001913

46.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2016). Demographics: Profile of the military community. http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2016-Demographics-Report.pdf

47.

Voyandoff

(2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412.

48.

Whisman

M. A.

(2006). Childhood trauma and marital outcomes in adulthood. Personal Relationships, 13, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00124.x

49.

Zedeck

S. E.

(Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. Jossey-Bass.