University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

(USC Thesis Other)

Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Military Spouse Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic
by
Dru Anna Jackson

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Dru Anna Jackson 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Dru Anna Jackson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jennifer Phillips
Alison Muraszewski, Co-Chair
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
Mindful of the unique challenges that military spouses face, including frequent moves,
distance from family networks, long duty hours of the soldier, and multiple family separations
due to training and deployments, the military has emphasized the enhancement of resilience
through programs and support organizations and in empirical evaluations of resilience-related
interventions. Though these programs offer many to foster resilience, little research has been
conducted to identify the characteristics associated with resiliency among military spouses.
Given the lack of research in this area and the continued need to study military spouses’
resiliency, research aimed at identifying correlates of resilience among military spouses was
needed to enhance understanding of their subjective well-being. Psychological resilience
represents a process of adapting well in the face of adversity. Resilience is the ability to power
through difficult time; however, it does not mean that a resilient individual does not feel stress as
others do. The key difference is they manage their stress to keep it under control. Subjective
well-being and resilience may counter stress related to a global pandemic.
For this study, data was collected from an online survey completed by 597 military
spouses of active-duty service members. Quantitative data included demographics and Likert-
style items about perceived stress scale, military, and COVID-19. Qualitative data were collected
from four open-ended question and analyzed thematically. Quantitative and qualitative findings
were documented in the final analysis.
A main finding was military spouses have higher-than-average levels of perceived stress.
There were slightly higher average scores among the military services with Army, Air Force, and
Coast Guard spouses. While Navy and Marine spouses were slightly below the high level of

v

stress, they remained well above the average level of stress for a general population. No
significant differences were found for race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
Two primary themes evolved from the analysis of the open-ended question for
contributors to stress: employment and loneliness and separation. Additionally, findings of the
open-ended questions were the top resources that respondents used during COVID-19 were
family and friends. The top resources highlighted that would have been helpful or needed were
financial assistance and none. For the military lifestyle, the top support or resources needed are
employment, housing, and medical security.

vi

Acknowledgements
This journey has been adventurous, and I am proud to have taken this journey.
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband and best friend. You not only encouraged me to
take this journey, but your support was endless. Thank you for being my pillar when I needed
encouragement and reminding me to keep moving forward. Your love and support made this all
possible. Jakob, thank you for your never-ending love and patience in supporting this journey.
Always pursue your dreams, you are destined for greatness.
To my mom and Brianna: Thank you for always believing in me and rooting for me in all
my endeavors, and proud to share this experience with you both as you both work on your own
academic endeavors!
This dissertation would not have been completed without the encouragement of many
mentors, family, and friends. I am eternally grateful for the invaluable support everyone has
given me during my doctoral journey. I am genuinely grateful for my committee chair and
cochair whose patience and knowledge guided me through many hurdles faced through the
dissertation process. Without your guidance and consistency, this dissertation would not have
been possible. A huge thank you to the military spouses who took the time and participated in
this study.
To my USC Cohort16, our Saturday Breakfast Club supported my moves as a military
spouse, while my husband was deployed, we fought through the COVID-19 pandemic, we stood
in harmony during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Stop Asian American Pacific Islander
(AAPI) Hate movements, and we offered support in times of illnesses and losses during a global
pandemic. I enjoyed every Saturday hour together and joining the Thursday crew to meet so

vii

many cohort members across the globe. I would not have enjoyed and survived this experience
without each of you! Fight on!

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 9
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
Historical Context: Revolutionary War to Desert Storm Conflict .................................... 13
Importance of Military Spouses’ Well-Being ................................................................... 17
Operationalization of Well-Being ................................................................................ 20
Well-Being and Satisfaction During COVID-19 ......................................................... 21
Risk Factors: COVID-19 Pandemic ............................................................................. 23
Strategies to Promote Military Spouse Well-Being ..................................................... 25
Perceived Stress ................................................................................................................ 26
Understanding Resilience ................................................................................................. 28
Military Spouse Resilience: COVID-19 Pandemic .......................................................... 31
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 32
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 34

ix

Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 36
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 36
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 37
Survey Design .............................................................................................................. 38
Participant Recruitment Strategy and Rationale .......................................................... 40
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 41
Coding ..................................................................................................................... 43
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 45
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 46
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 48
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 48
Research Question 1: To What Degree Are Military Spouses Experiencing Stress? ....... 49
Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale ................................................................................... 50
Research Question 2: How Does the Stress of Military Spouses Differ by Race,
Gender, and Socioeconomic Status? ................................................................................. 51
Race 52
Gender 52
Socioeconomic Status .................................................................................................. 53
Research Question 3: What Factors Influenced the Stress and Well-Being of
Military Spouses and Families ? ....................................................................................... 54
Descriptive Results for Likert-Type Items ................................................................... 55
Contributors to Stress ................................................................................................. 595
Summary of Significant Findings for Research Question 3......................................... 64

x

Research Question 4: What Were the Resources That Positively or Negatively
Influenced the Stress and Well-Being of Military Spouses and Families During
the Pandemic? ................................................................................................................... 65
COVID-19 .................................................................................................................... 66
Support and Resources Used During COVID-19 ........................................................ 66
Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19 ....................................................... 74
Military Spouse Support or Resources to Lower Stress .............................................. 80
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 87
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 88
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 88
High Levels of Perceived Stress .................................................................................. 91
Contributors to Stress ................................................................................................... 91
Resources Influencing Stress and Well-Being ............................................................. 92
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 93
Recommendation 1: Improve Employment and Education Opportunities .................. 93
Recommendation 2: Conduct a Review to Improve Childcare .................................... 95
Areas for Consideration ............................................................................................... 97
Recommendation 3: Community Outreach and Quality of Life .................................. 98
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 100
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 101
Recommendation 1: Targeted Research..................................................................... 102
Recommendation 2: Expand Research ...................................................................... 103
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 104

xi

References ................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix A Survey Protocol ...................................................................................................... 130
Appendix B Recruitment Email .................................................................................................. 136
Appendix C Item Response for Standardized Measurements ..................................................... 137
Appendix D Code Book Qualtrics .............................................................................................. 139
Appendix E Ethics ...................................................................................................................... 141
Appendix F Military Lifestyle Likert Questions ........................................................................ 142

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Active-Duty Service Members and Families .................................................................... 3
Table 2: Active-Duty Families ........................................................................................................ 4
Table 3: Construct of the PSS-10 Instrument: Perceived Happiness ............................................ 42
Table 4: Construct of the PSS-10 Instrument: Perceived Self-Efficacy ....................................... 43
Table 5: Frequency Table of Characteristics of Respondents ....................................................... 49
Table 6: Race by Military Affiliation ............................................................................................ 52
Table 7: Gender by Military Affiliation ........................................................................................ 53
Table 8: Education Level by Military Affiliation .......................................................................... 54
Table 9: Survey Responses of the Military Lifestyle Likert Questions ........................................ 55
Table 10: Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: Employment ............................. 60
Table 11: Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: Lonely and Separation .............. 62
Table 12: Support or Resources during COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Families ............... 67
Table 13: Support or Resources during COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Friends ............... 679
Table 14: Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Financial
Assistance .................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 15: Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: None ......................................... 76
Table 16: Military Spouse Support or Resources Needed Themes and Subthemes: Job Security 81
Table 17: Military Spouse Support or Resources Themes and Subthemes: Housing Security ..... 82
Table 18: Military Spouse Support or Resources Themes and Subthemes ................................... 84
Table 19: Summary of Mixed-Method Results ............................................................................. 87
Table 20: Overview of Discussion of Findings and Links to Theoretical Framework ................. 90

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1: How Social Disruption Due to Military Lifestyle and COVID-19 May Impact Military
Spouse Adjustment ................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 2: PSS-10 by Military Branch Affiliation .......................................................................... 51
Figure 3: Percentages of Responses to Environment Lifestyle Questions: Negative Feeling ...... 56
Figure 4: Percentages of Responses to Military Environment: Positive Feeling.......................... 57
Figure 5: Percentages to Responses to Military Environment: Feeling of Valued ....................... 58
Figure 6: Responses to Military Environment: Contribute Ideas ................................................. 58
Figure 7: Contributing Factors to Stress ....................................................................................... 65
Figure 8: Support and Resources Used during COVID-19 .......................................................... 74
Figure 9: Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19 ........................................................ 82
Figure 10: Support or Resources Needed ..................................................................................... 86

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Sinclair et al. (2019) noted in recent years, interest in resilience has grown in civilian and
military settings, largely due to the well-established importance of resilience in maintaining
subjective well-being in stressful circumstances. Military spouses face unique hardships due to
the demands of their lifestyle, such as frequent moves and multiple family separations. Over the
last two decades, interest has grown in researching their challenges and demands. Despite this
increased interest, few studies have focused on their subjective well-being. While the armed
services have several programs targeted at enhancing spouse resilience, little research has
examined the stress levels and well-being that military spouses have faced during the COVID-19
pandemic. Acknowledging this lack of research, this study explored the subjective well-being
and perceived stress of military spouses during a global pandemic. This study used a mixed-
method approach to explore the various dimensions of subjective well-being as experienced by
civilian spouses of active-duty service members.
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (n.d.) declared COVID-19 a global
pandemic. Since then, the pandemic has impacted military spouses (Zacher & Rudolph, 2021),
compounding existing hardships. The outbreak created a global health crisis that impacted how
individuals perceive everyday life, bearing a greater concern for the military spouses’ well-being.
Additionally, the U.S. military has been continuously engaged in foreign conflicts for over two
decades. The strains of these deployments, the associated increases in operational tempo, and the
general challenges of military life affect service members and people who depend on them, such
as their spouses (Le Menestrel & Kizer, 2019). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is a
particularly important area to explore among military families, with a focus on adverse
outcomes, such as financial hardship, low mental and physical well-being, increased depression,
2

and reduced relationship satisfaction. Therefore, it is important to understand how the pandemic
has impacted military spouses’ subjective well-being and perceived levels of stress. The research
sought to leverage social cognitive theory (SCT) to understand the participants’ lived
experiences and how the military lifestyle impacts their overall well-being.
Context and Background of the Problem
Total U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DoD) active-duty military personnel is
1,333,822 of whom 83% (n = 1,099,188) are enlisted and 17% (n = 234,634) are officers. Thirty-
six percent (n = 481,254) are associated with Army active duty, 25.6% (n = 341,996) with Navy
active duty, 24.7% (n = 329,614) with Air Force active duty, and 13.6% (n = 180,958) with
Marine Corps active duty (U.S. DoD Manpower Data Center [DMDC], 2020b). The Army has
the highest portion of active-duty members to family members (1 to 1.3), while the Marine Corps
has the lowest proportion of active-duty members to family members (1 to .9). Tables 1 and 2
present statistics on these families.
Additionally, the DMDC Active-Duty Military Family File (2020a) highlights military
personnel as an average of 29.6 years and 68.9% White, 17.2% Black or African American,
4.8% Asian, 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander, 3% multiracial and 3.9% other/unknown. Eighty-three percent of active-duty service
members are male, and 17% are female. In the Army, Navy, and Air Force, most active-duty
service members are married, while most members in the Marine Corps have never been married
(DMDC, 2020). Furthermore, the total percentage of married active-duty service members
increased from 2000 to 2010 but decreased from 2010 to 2020. The majority (90.7%) of spouses
of active-duty service members are female. The Marine Corps has the highest percentage
(96.5%) of spouses who are female, whereas the Air Force has the highest percentage (13.0%) of
3

spouses who are male (DMDC, 2020). Military spouses are skilled, diverse, and motivated, with
good work values and a strong work ethic. They are the cornerstone of the military family (Gray,
2015).
Table 1
Active-Duty Service Members and Families
Service
Branch
Active-
Duty
Members
Family
Members
Total Ratio of Active-
Duty Members to
Family Members
n % n % n %
Army 481,254 42.8% 642,816 57.2% 1,124,070 100% 1 to 1.3
Navy 341,996 47.6% 376,083 52.4% 718,079 100% 1 to 1.1
Marine
Corps 180,958 54.0% 154,183 46.0% 335,141 100% 1 to .9
Air
Force 329,614 45.4% 396,759 54.6% 726,376 100% 1 to 1.2
Total
DoD 1,333,882 45.9% 1,569,841 54.1% 2,903,663 100% 1 to 1.2
Note. *Family members include spouses, children, and adult dependents.
Source. U.S. Department of Defense Manpower Data Center (2020a).
The Military Spouse Employment Partnership (MSEP) reported of the 605,000 active-
duty military spouses, 85% want or need work (see Table 2). Furthermore, 84% have attended
some college, with 25% earning a bachelor’s degree and 10% earning an advanced degree.
Additionally, they earn 25% less than their civilian counterparts. This feature may be attributed
to the fact that military families move 14% more frequently than civilian families do. The
frequent moves mean new houses, new schools, new friends, new communities, no networks,
and saying goodbye to friends and family. Military spouses often resign from jobs due to the
4

move and face long periods of unemployment afterward (Manciagli, 2019). They are chiefly
responsible for maintaining household balance and stability (Green et al., 2013). All these factors
adversely impact their well-being: stress, dignity, and identity (Verdeli et al., 2011).
Table 2
Active-Duty Families
Service
branch
Spouses Children Adult
dependents
Total family
members
n % n % n % n %
Army 237,382 36.9% 401,179 62.4% 4,255 0.7% 642,816 100%
Navy 144,092 38.3% 230,778 61.4% 1,213 0.3% 376,083 100%
Marine Corps 65,005 42.2% 88,807 57.6% 371 0.2% 154,183 100%
Air Force 151,258 38.1% 243,721 61.4% 1,780 0.4% 396,759 100%
Total DoD 597,737 38.1% 964,485 61.4% 7,619 0.5% 1,569,841 100%
Note. *Adult dependent refers to a parent, grandparent, former spouse, sibling, disabled older
child, and any other individual over the age of 22 claimed as a dependent in DEERS.
Source. U.S. Department of Defense Manpower Data Center (2020a).
Military spouses are exposed to many changes. They learn to adapt to a culture with
repeated deployments, recurrent family separations, and frequent relocations (Gray, 2015). They
have numerous physical and emotional demands, during deployment and nondeployment, which
children and service members do not share. They are expected to be flexible and adaptable,
bearing the responsibility of juggling multiple roles in the ever-changing military environment
(Gray, 2015). Their responsibilities are numerous, often including finding the family a new home
with each move, securing a job at each new location, taking on a dual-parent role whenever the
5

service member is absent from the home, and caring for the physical and psychological wounds
of the service member following deployment (Eubanks, 2013; RAND Corporation, 2011).
Despite the diverse responsibilities of military spouses, studies suggest many effectively
cope with the demands of military life (Blakely et al., 2012; Blank et al., 2012; Gray, 2015).
Military spouses have strengths, including skills to manage multiple roles, openness to new
experiences, adaptability, flexibility to enact change quickly, and a willingness to get involved in
their communities (Eubanks, 2013; Gray, 2015; Hall, 2016); however, they face unique
challenges due to the military way of life, making them a vulnerable population (Blank et al.,
2012).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study had a focus on the military lifestyle and COVID-19 impact on military
spouses’ subjective well-being and resiliency. The study aimed to extend the knowledge base in
two ways: (a) to characterize military spouses, relative to the military lifestyle, to understand
their overall well-being and (b) to assess the impact of COVID-19 on participants’ perceived
stress to gauge the extent to which social and socioeconomic resources (or lack thereof) may
impact their well-being during a global pandemic. The well-being of the military spouse is
central to the success and healthy functioning of the military family (Gray, 2015).
Many Americans have faced challenges during the global pandemic, but military families
faced additional challenges and hardships. The COVID-19 pandemic posed an acute threat to the
well-being of military families, due to challenges related to social disruption (Prime et al., 2020).
The consequences of these difficulties are likely to be longstanding, partly due to how contextual
risk permeates the structures and processes of family systems (Prime et al., 2020). The following
research questions will guide this study:
6

1. To what degree are military spouses experiencing stress?
2. How does the stress of military spouses differ by race, gender, and socioeconomic
status (SES)?
3. What factors influenced the stress and well-being of military spouses and families?
4. What were the resources that positively or negatively influenced the stress and well-
being of military spouses and families during the pandemic?
Importance of the Study
This study is important because it raises awareness in support of the subjective well-
being of spouses of active-duty service members, during a global pandemic and as the armed
services shift away from a 20-year war that has defined the current generation of service
members and their families. Understanding the psychosocial vulnerabilities of military spouses
informs efforts to assess, identify, and support at-risk spouses (Green et al., 2013), as multiple
layers of stress characterize their lives. Sustaining a family during frequent moves, distance from
extended family, demands of military culture, and the deployment of a spouse requires fortitude,
adaptability, and resilience (Palmer, 2008). Military spouses constitute the central family
member on which the family and its well-being depend.
On September 11, 2001, 19 persons of non-U.S. nationality hijacked four U.S.
commercial passenger jets, crashing them into the World Trade Center in New York City, NY,
the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and in rural Pennsylvania, killing 2,977 people (S. D. Murphy,
2002). In the wake of these terrorist attacks, the president declared a war against terrorism of
global reach, spanning two decades, referred to as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). After
these attacks, deployments for service members increased three-fold, requiring multiple
deployments at varying lengths (Lewis, 2006) to support the GWOT. In a systematic review of
7

studies on deployment length, Buckman et al. (2011) concluded longer deployments are
associated with adverse effects on military spouses. Several studies suggest the cumulative
duration of deployments might be more important than the frequency of deployment or the
duration of a single deployment for certain family-related outcomes (Chandra et al., 2011;
Hurley, 2011). For example, Lara-Cinisomo et al. (2012) found military spouses who
experienced more months of deployment of their active-duty soldier, but not a higher number of
deployments, reported lower relationship satisfaction, more relationship hassles, and poorer
emotional well-being. Mansfield et al. (2010) found the number of cases of depression was
higher among military spouses whose active-duty spouse had been deployed longer.
The nation and military continue to shift from the wars that have heavily defined U.S.
culture over the last two decades. With this development, it will become increasingly important
to understand how to best support and meet the needs of military spouses, following the end of
the GWOT and considering the impact of a global pandemic. Understanding how to support and
meet the needs of military spouses may be partially accomplished by understanding the varying
characteristics associated with the well-being and life experiences of military spouses across the
socioecological system.
Coupled with the military lifestyle, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a public health
emergency worldwide, given that it is a potentially fatal disease caused by the acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; Jiang et al., 2020). While most patients seemed to
remain asymptomatic or present with mild to moderate upper respiratory tract illness (Day, 2020;
Wu & McGoogan, 2020), some developed severe viral pneumonia, with respiratory failure that
could lead to death (Jiang et al., 2020; Rothan & Byrareddy, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). According
to initial reports, many people with COVID-19 required hospitalization or critical care (Grasselli
8

et al., 2020; Wu & McGoogan, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). Consequently, many countries
implemented strict public health measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 (Steffens, 2020).
All these public health measures relied on an individual’s ability to adopt protective behaviors to
avoid the contagion and spread of COVID-19 (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2020; Steffens, 2020).
Since some of these public-health measures are considered disruptive to daily lives, their
behavioral responses should be studied (Hernández-Padilla et al., 2020). Little is known about
military spouses’ behavioral responses to adopting all the recommended protective behaviors
amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Between mid-March and late April 2020, daycares, schools, universities, and all
nonessential businesses were forced to close or go virtual, and, during this national lockdown,
people’s basic rights were considerably restricted (Zacher & Rudolph, 2021). In addition, the
pandemic placed military spouses in an unprecedented time. The federal and state governments
implemented many stringent measures, including quarantine, physical distancing, and isolation
of infected and at-risk populations, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, which might have
led to increased feelings of uncertainty and loneliness (Van Bavel et al., 2020). These feelings
intensified in military spouses, as they were often isolated from their extended families and
experienced uncertainty in the military community. Industrial and organizational psychologists
have suggested that during COVID-19, people experienced more stressors, such as health-related
worries, job insecurity, work-family conflict, and discrimination (Blustein et al., 2020; Restubog
et al., 2020; Rudolph et al., 2020).
The outbreak of COVID-19 was unique in its rapidity of transmission. This disease raised
public health concerns and caused several psychological distresses, including anxiety, fear,
9

depression, stigmatization, avoidance behaviors, irritability, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD; Shahyad & Mohammadi., 2020).
The maintenance of the mental health status of military spouses is essential. Military
spouses may have experienced additional stressors during the COVID-19 outbreak (Shahyad &
Mohammadi, 2020), particularly as their physical location ranges from areas in the United States
to locations overseas. Some geographical locations saw more extreme lockdown measures than
others did, during COVID-19. In considering the coupling, the military lifestyle with a global
pandemic, this study investigated the implications of the military lifestyle and the added stressors
that are not a regular part of that lifestyle (e.g., a global pandemic.).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework that best fits this study is SCT. This theory includes a
description of the influence of individual experiences, the actions of others, and environmental
factors on individual behaviors. Social cognitive theory provides opportunities for social support
through expectations and self-efficacy and observational learning and other reinforcements to
achieve behavior change (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2015). Social cognitive theory has become
a fundamental resource in clinical, educational, social, developmental, health, and personality
psychology.
Social cognitive theory includes Bandura’s (1986) initial construct of observational and
indicates the individual’s knowledge and their ability to acquire new knowledge can be directly
related to their observations of others through their 33 social interactions, experiences, and all
outside influences from media consumption (Bandura & Adams, 1977, 1986; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2003). Through the application of SCT, it becomes possible to predict the self-care
behaviors of the individual (Chen et al., 2015). As individuals collect observations based on how
10

they believe they should behave and the different aspects that constitute life and the associated
health of the individual, they create their perceptions of what each construct means, take those
constructs, and apply them to their lives. This study focused on the belief in one’s ability to
succeed in the current environment. As the individual’s lifestyle and patterns change, their self-
efficacy and participation levels will also change based on the preconceptions they observe
(Perkins et al., 2008).
The pandemic created an added layer to the military environment that could take a toll on
military spouses’ mental well-being. SCT plays a central role in stress reactions and quality of
coping in threatening situations (Bandura et al., 1999). Additionally, a sense of self-efficacy is
the foundation of human agency (Benight & Bandura, 2004). This study explored beliefs, well-
being, support systems, and military installation behaviors in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic and the pre-COVID environment. These issues are important to recognize and resolve.
Definition of Terms
This study uses terminology that is indicative of the military population, lifestyle, and
culture. Therefore, the following definitions ensure uniformity and understanding of these terms
throughout the chapters of this dissertation.
Active duty: full-time duty in the active military service of the United States
Active-duty military spouse: military spouses who are civilians and are married to service
members on active-duty military status.
Deployment: the placement of military personnel in position for a particular use or
purpose, usually in a combat or war zone. During deployment, military personnel are separated
from their families. Deployment is different from temporary duty station (TDY).
11

Enlisted: military personnel whose paygrades are E1–E9 and often perform jobs specific
to their occupational specialty.
Military spouse: a spouse or domestic partner (eligible for benefits) of a service member.
This term is used interchangeably with an active-duty military spouse.
Observation learning: learning to perform new behaviors through exposure to
interpersonal or media displays of the same behavior.
Officer: military personnel whose pay grades include warrant officers (W1–W5) and
commissioned officers (O1–O10) and who hold positions of authority and greater responsibilities
for the command.
Operations tempo (OPTEMPO): stands for operations tempo, which is the rate of U.S.
forces’ involvement in all military activities. High OPTEMPO often refers to a significant
number of sizeable, ongoing deployments to multiple threats.
Permanent change of station (PCS): relocation or reassignment to another military
installation.
Subjective well-being: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy,
environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth.
Temporary duty station (TDY): one or more locations away from the permanent duty
station.
Resilience: the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness
Self-efficacy: the individual’s belief that they will succeed in accomplishing a given task.
Subjective well-being: how individuals experience and evaluate their lives and specific
domains and activities in their lives.
12

Quality of life (QOL): a broad term that covers multiple domains of life that can be
affected by multiple stressors.
Well-being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.
White paper: an in-depth report or guide about a specific topic and the problems that
surround it. It is meant to educate the reader and solve an issue.
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is an overview of the study, including
the purpose, importance, and supporting theoretical framework for accomplishing research.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature and the conceptual framework used to organize and guide
the critical constructs of military spousal well-being. The study’s methodology is presented in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes the study’s research questions and a discussion on the study’s
findings. The dissertation concludes with Chapter 5, which presents the study’s implications,
limitations, and recommendations for future research.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter will include a review of relevant research and the conceptual framework.
First, the literature review explores military history and the role of the military spouse. It also
examines the impact of COVID-19 on the military spouses’ overall well-being, resiliency, and
risk factors. This chapter concludes with the conceptual framework, highlighting the variability
in how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted military families. For example, some families
may be more vulnerable to the sequelae of the pandemic than others are due to pre-existing
vulnerabilities, such as the military status.
The purpose of this literature review is to understand the subjective well-being of the
military spouse prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trail (2019) highlighted that 56%
of military spouses feel stressed/overwhelmed/tired, 39% experience loneliness, and only 5 %
indicated they did not experience any problems the past year. In addition, 22% expressed
problems and needed help but had unmet needs, and 24% reported the top problem domain as
their own well-being. It is imperative to review the current literature on the military lifestyle to
understand the potential impacts of the global pandemic on military spouses’ well-being.
Historical Context: Revolutionary War to Desert Storm Conflict
Families have been affiliated with the U.S. military to varying degrees from as early as
1775. During the Revolutionary War, neglect characterized the military’s earliest relationship
with family members (Albano, 1994). During this period, U.S. Army regulations avoided
references to families, and young, single men were the primary foundation of the army of the
new republic (Albano, 1994). Albano (1994) highlighted the Army did not legally provide for a
service member’s spouse or children, while they were on active duty or in the event of their
death. In 1898, families of service members were recognized monetarily; however, the Army
14

continued to discourage marriage by denying the right to separate housing (in 1883) and free
family transportation (in 1887) and explicitly discouraging the reenlistment of married soldiers
(Albano, 1994). By the mid-19th century, Army regulations formally acknowledged an
obligation to provide for the basic needs of Army families; however, eligibility for services and
benefits was restricted to families of male officers and senior noncommissioned officers
(Albano, 1994). At the turn of the 20th century, families of junior enlisted service members were
considered an unwanted burden. In 1913, Army regulations strongly discouraged marriage, with
some exceptions in which marriage was viewed in terms of efficiency to the service (Albano,
1994). In the meantime, military spouses increased their proficiency and professionalism, while
organizing as volunteers. Women aided the Civil War effort through relief work, nursing, and
covertly in combat (Albano, 1994).
A 1983 U.S. Army Chief of Staff white paper highlighted military policy prohibiting the
peacetime enlistment of or reenlistment of service members with wives and children until 1942
(Shinseki, 2003). Additionally, married women were neither drafted nor allowed to enlist, and
pregnancy, marriage, and parenthood provided grounds for their separation (Holm, 1992). Since
the 18th century, women have served in the military organization as camp followers and
employees, masquerading as boys or men (Holm, 1992). The turning point for military families
was in the 1960s. Demographic changes played a central role in the capacity of the military
institution itself (Albano, 1994). It was no longer practical to pursue the pre-World War II policy
of discouraging the enlistment of married service members. Therefore, married service members
filled the ranks (Albano, 1994). By 1960, for the first time, military family members
outnumbered military service members.
15

The military’s composition has changed since the end of the early wars. From 1940 to
1973, during peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies not filled
through volunteers in the U.S. Armed Forces. On June 30, 1973, the military ended the draft and
switched to an all-volunteer force, which resulted in a more diverse military population (Clever
& Segal, 2012). Following the Vietnam war, upwards of 50% of all personnel were married,
prompting the military to place greater emphasis on the needs of the military family (Bowen,
1985). The surge in interest in military spouses gained further momentum in the 1980s, when the
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences researched how spousal
perceptions and satisfaction with the military influenced retention rates and readiness among
service members (Segal, 2006). Perhaps the most well-known literature about the needs of the
military family was written by Segal (1986), who described the military and family as “greedy
institutions,” with competing demands, to which military spouses must learn to adapt, adjust, and
adapt again between civilian and military lifestyles.
Compared to the civilian sector, military families are more likely to be younger, highly
educated, and ethnically diverse (Rostker & Yeh, 2006). Research on military families gain
traction in the early 1990s, during Operation Desert Storm. Rosen and Moghadam (1990)
measured military spouses’ social support, personality, domains of life satisfaction, military life
stress, and husband’s duty schedules against well-being; it is the first known study to examine
the predictor of well-being among military spouses. Rosen (1995), while studying the impact of
Desert Storm, found certain sociodemographic characteristics, such as young age, affected
spousal well-being. In a longitudinal study with 1,274 spouses of Desert Storm veterans, Rosen
examined the relationship between life events and symptoms throughout the service member’s
deployment and afterward to understand whether marital factors contributed to the retention and
16

reenlistment plans of active-duty service members. Though most spouses fared well, deployment
was shown to affect the emotional well-being of spouses, who were chronically distressed during
the predeployment period (Rosen, 1995).
Although many military spouses function well and adapt successfully to the challenges of
the military lifestyle and deployment cycle (Weins et al., 2006), several studies suggest high
levels of distress among military spouses (Verdeli et al., 2011). For example, Lester et al. (2010)
studied 163 partners of active-duty Army or Marine Corps service members and found
significantly elevated levels of depression and anxiety compared to community norms. In
addition, Eaton et al. (2008) conducted an extensive quantitative survey with 940 spouses (51%
participation) investigating the impact of GWOT deployment on major depression and
generalized anxiety disorder. The authors used two diagnostic definitions for major depression
and generalized anxiety disorders: (a) a broad screening definition, following psychiatric
diagnostic criteria and (b) a strict definition, including psychiatric diagnostic criteria and a
measure of the functional impairment. They measured major depression and generalized anxiety
disorders with a self-administered questionnaire (i.e., the Patient Health Questionnaire). Results
indicated 17.4% of spouses screened positive for generalized anxiety, and 12.2% screened
positive for a major depressive episode (MDE), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition; DSM-IV) symptomatic criteria. When including
functional impairment as a diagnostic criterion, these rates were 7.2% for generalized anxiety
disorder and 6.7% for major depressive disorder (Verdeli et al., 2011). These rates of depression
are comparable to those found among soldiers following combat (Hoge et al., 2004) and are
approximately double the point prevalence of MDE estimated in the general population (Kessler
et al., 2003).
17

Several studies with military spouses identified deployment as the most stressful aspect
of military life (Dimiceli et al., 2009; Green et al., 2013). Prolonged separations, added
responsibilities, and anxiety and worries about their service member’s safety during deployments
are among the challenges that create an atmosphere of uncertainty and stress for military spouses
(Hosek et al., 2011). Burton et al. (2009) found spouses whose partners were deployed to combat
zones reported significantly higher stress and somatization scores than those whose partners were
not deployed (p < 0.001). Other risk factors that impact military spouses’ well-being during
periods of deployment are deployments longer than 11 months (Mansfield et al., 2010), the
returning soldier’s mental health, having children, and spousal life circumstances, such as
pregnancy (De Burgh et al., 2011; Eaton et al., 2008). Spouses presumably had new challenges
with the pandemic, making this an important topic for study. Furthermore, it is also important to
investigate whether there was a shift in stressors with the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Importance of Military Spouses’ Well-Being
In this study, subjective well-being is defined as one’s levels of positive affective states,
functioning, and QOL. The impact of COVID-19 on subjective well-being has been well
documented, with multiple studies reporting an increase in military spouses’ anxiety, depression,
and stress, compared to levels pre-pandemic (Blue Star Families [BSF], 2020b; Zacher &
Rudolph, 2021). It is important to understand how a global pandemic changed individuals’
subjective well-being, including life satisfaction and experiences of positive and negative affect,
and how it was compounded by military spouses’ stressors. To understand this, assessments of
subjective well-being before the pandemic (i.e., December 2019 and earlier), during the early
stages of the pandemic (i.e., beginning of March, April, and May 2020), and in the later stages
18

are important. Given the restrictions implemented during the pandemic, it can be expected that
subjective well-being decreased across its early stages (Zacher & Rudolph, 2021) and throughout
its varying stages. Furthermore, as previously highlighted, military spouses frequently deal with
unique situations, such as geographic separation, unpredictable training cycles, TDY, frequent
relocation, spouse deployments, and secondary effects of the lifestyle, such as frequent job
rotations and gaps in employment. Isolation, separation, and mobility can all impact subjective
well-being.
Blue Star Families (2020a) provided a comprehensive understanding of the experiences
and challenges encountered by military families since 2009. The organization’s 2020 survey
noted COVID-19 intensified some pre-existing concerns across military families. The events in
2020 underscored the importance of addressing these long-standing concerns, while shining a
spotlight on systemic problems (BSF, 2020a). Some of the top issues identified are
● 23% of military spouse respondents indicated having a current diagnosis of
generalized anxiety disorder as compared to the civilian rate of 3% (BSF, 2020a).
● Military spouse unemployment worsened, as 17% of military spouses reported having
lost their jobs because of the pandemic. Military spouses were already experiencing
24% unemployment prior to the pandemic (BSF, 2020a).
● Black and Hispanic/Latino military families experienced greater financial challenges
during the pandemic; 40% of Black and 33% of Hispanic/Latinx active-duty family
respondents reported relying on savings or credit cards during the pandemic,
compared to 29% of White active-duty families reporting the same (BSF, 2020a).
● Top stressors for military spouses were highlighted in the following ways: civilian
spouse’s employment challenges (chosen by 44$ of respondents), 43% isolation from
19

family/friends (43%), financial issues/stress (39%), deployments (38%), relocation
(36%), and emotional/mental health issues (23%; BSF, 2020a)
The BSF (2020a) survey found 37% of military spouse respondents felt civilians in their
local communities appreciate the sacrifices made by local military and veteran families. Also,
21% felt their civilian counterparts understand the sacrifices made, and 55% felt their civilian
counterparts are supportive of local military and veteran families. While military spouses may
feel support and appreciation, they do not have a sense of belonging (BSF, 2020a).
The U.S. DoD (2020) found military spouse suicide increased from 11.5 per 100,000 to
12.1 per 100,000 in 2018 (U.S. DoD, 2020), indicating one in four military spouses at any given
time can suffer from clinical levels of stress. While much focus has been placed on researching
service member and veteran suicide, statistics on military spouse suicide were recently tracked
for the first time and released to the public in September 2019 (U.S. DoD, 2019). In 2018, 128
military spouses died by suicide. Of those, 57.8% were female, and 85.1% were under the age of
40 (Cole et al., 2021). Given the number of spousal suicides outlined in the U.S. DoD report,
research must investigate suicidality in the military spouse population (Cole et al., 2021).
Mailey et al. (2018), highlight military spouses struggle with subjective well-being. They
have unique concerns (Eaton et al., 2008). Among the major concerns are adjustments to a
mobile lifestyle, isolation from the civilian community and extended family, adjustments to
military life, and frequent family separations (Brit et al., 2006; Ursano et al., 1989). In addition,
worries, such as jobs, childcare, and household duties, compound these stressors (Ickovics &
Martin, 1987; Martin, 1984). Military families stationed overseas endure even greater stresses
because they must adjust to new cultures and cope with the military life (Fisher McNulty, 2003).
These stressors may have adverse effects on subjective well-being (Eaton et al., 2008).
20

The military lifestyle is a unique culture that is often a mixture of opportunities and
challenges (Wang et al., 2015). The military lifestyle can be challenging for service members’
marriages and families (Karney & Crown, 2007). Military families often endure repeated
separations due to TDY assignments, overseas deployments, and training assignments.
Additionally, these families repeatedly experience disruptions to their living locations, housing,
schools, and employment due to PCS. Often, spouses must bear the entire workload of caring for
children and the home when their partner is away (Wang et al., 2015).
Operationalization of Well-Being
Over the years, researchers in many disciplines have focused on specific domains of well-
being (e.g., physical, subjective, social, economic), while excluding or limiting attention to
others (Gray, 2015). Researchers have also used different measures and methodologies to define
well-being, resulting in inconsistent findings (King et al., 2014; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997; Stewart
& Ware, 1992; Veenhoven, 2008). In addition, the term well-being is often used interchangeably
with related terms, such as happiness and QOL (Gray, 2015), making it difficult to discern the
exact determinants of well-being. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2014)
listed nine types of well-being: (a) physical, (b) economic, (c) social, (d) development and
activity, (e) emotional, (f) subjective, (g) life satisfaction, (h) domain-specific, and (i) engaging
activities.
In the military, well-being is operationalized as a broad concept with indicators including
QOL, family adaptation, mental health, marital satisfaction, physical health, financial well-being,
and life satisfaction, among others (Booth et al., 2007). As related to a global pandemic, well-
being may need to be looked at from a holistic standpoint, relying on the CDC’s (2018) broad
definition of well-being. According to the CDC (2018), well-being is a positive outcome that is
21

meaningful for people and many sectors of society because shows how people perceive that their
lives are going well. The Blue Star Family (BSF, 2020b) Survey conducted in 2020 highlighted
six out of 10 military respondents said the pandemic made their overall happiness worse or much
worse. Furthermore, COVID-19 is also thought to increase stress on an already strained military
(BSF, 2020b). Among the civilian community, rates of suicidal ideation are highest among the
young. In the military environment, 11% of veterans who separated from service in the past 3
years reported having suicidal thoughts. On the same topic, 6% of children of active-duty service
members, 4% of active-duty spouses, 4% and service members reported having suicidal thoughts
(Kassraie, 2021).
Well-Being and Satisfaction During COVID-19
During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many spouses were forced to work
from home, quickly adapt to new platforms and technologies for themselves and their children’s
virtual school, and balance work and life responsibilities (Ojo et al., 2021). Some confronted
impending decreases in work hours and job termination (Mojtahedi et al., 2021), which remained
a top issue for military spouses prior to the pandemic. All these changes increased emotional
stress and concerns for the health and safety of loved ones and oneself (Kocjan et al., 2021;
Xiong et al., 2020). Previous research has suggested stressors such as these are likely to lower
subjective well-being (Mojtahedi et al., 2021; Zacher & Rudolph, 2021).
As previously highlighted, as of July 9, 2021, the World Health Organization reported the
virus had spread worldwide, infecting 185,291,530 individuals and causing 4,010,834 deaths.
Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic placed severe restrictions on people’s behaviors, globally
(Hale et al., 2020), which negatively affected the general population’s mental health. Less is
known about its impacts on military spouses, although the widespread impacts magnified long-
22

standing issues for military families. Time away from family, already a top concern, was
intensified by unexpected quarantines and extensions. COVID-19 had a significant impact on
service member spouses managing work, school, and home demands. Balancing work, childcare,
child education, and home obligations during a global pandemic brought new challenges to the
recurrent issues of spouse employment, child education, and military family QOL (Gromada et
al., 2020).
Since March 2020, the COVID-19 Military Support Initiative has kept the pulse of the
military community (BSF, 2020b). Through weekly polls on pain points and town hall
discussions, they have tracked the well-being and concerns of military families. Their research
has revealed many pre-existing issues facing the military community have intensified during the
pandemic. For example, military spouses contend with elevated stressors and greater emotional
distress relative to their community counterparts do (Green et al., 2013), though strong formal
and informal support systems may temper the sense of strain and aid problem solving (Orthner &
Rose, 2009). Unfortunately, during the COVID-19 lockdown, these support systems were
unavailable.
Stressed spouses and families with limited support resources struggle in isolation and are
vulnerable to greater strain and subjective distress (McCubbin et al., 1996), which may be
exacerbated by pandemic stressors (D. Murphy et al., 2020). Historically, pandemics have had
significant ramifications on subjective stress and mental health (Han et al., 2020). Prolonged
social distancing protocols, increased unemployment rates, and economic stress may have
created an unprecedented mental health crisis (Han et al., 2020).
There will be considerable variability in how families are impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic (Prime et al., 2020). For instance, some families are more vulnerable to the sequelae of
23

the pandemic than others, such as families with low income, with individuals with mental illness
or special needs, and with experiences of racism or marginalization (Prime et al., 2020). In
contrast, other families may experience resilience or post-traumatic growth, which is the ability
to survive and thrive in the face of adversity (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2014; Masten & Narayan,
2012). Thus, resilience may be more likely if family well-being is preserved or enhanced during
this time.
Risk Factors: COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous research has highlighted several risk factors that can negatively impact an
individual’s well-being in situations of adversity (Harvey et al., 2017; Lorenz et al., 2018;
Virtanen et al., 2005) and financial hardships (Gangopadhyaya & Garrett, 2020; Lorenz et al.,
2018); however, research on the impact of risk factors during a global pandemic is limited.
During a pandemic, individuals may experience specific factors that negatively impact their
well-being, including feelings of vulnerability to contracting the virus and compliance with
preventative policies and recommendations (i.e., social distancing; Coulombe et al., 2020).
While current research on the COVID-19 crisis is limited, findings from previous
research not conducted during a global pandemic may provide some guidance for the present
study. For example, factors related to occupational uncertainty (e.g., job insecurity, job loss)
were associated with increased risk and severity of mental health symptoms in previous research.
In a study by Lorenz et al. (2018), approximately half of the 303 participants experienced
medium to high severity of adjustment disorder symptoms upon losing their jobs. While studies
assessing the potential causal effect of job loss on well-being have yielded mixed findings (Kuhn
et al., 2009; Salm, 2009; Schmitz, 2011), there is some evidence that job loss has a causal effect
on mental well-being (Kuhn et al., 2009). Additionally, one study found job insecurity was
24

associated with poor well-being and increased psychosomatic and physical complaints (Witte,
1999). Job insecurity has been found to negatively influence job performance by reducing
subjective well-being (Darvishmotevali & Ali., 2020); however, these studies were not
conducted during a pandemic. Occupational uncertainty may have an even greater impact on the
well-being of individuals experiencing it during the COVID-19 crisis. In this situation, people
have experienced additional and novel stressors.
In a nonpandemic context, Lorenz et al. (2018) found many participants reported
additional financial life stressors associated with job loss, with approximately one-third of
individuals experiencing financial problems. These findings are particularly relevant to the
current COVID-19 crisis, as many individuals have experienced financial issues, such as changes
to or loss of income (Coibion et al., 2020; Gangopadhyaya & Garrett, 2020). Furthermore,
Mihashi et al. (2009) found income reduction caused by quarantine measures during the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak was associated with subjective disorders.
Approximately one-quarter of participants experienced such conditions. Thus, as individuals
experience occupational uncertainty and financial issues at a higher than usual rate, due to the
COVID-19 crisis, it is important to explore how this situation has impacted military spouses’
well-being (Coibion et al., 2020; Gangopadhyaya & Garrett, 2020).
In addition to employment and financial stressors, many individuals are likely to
experience new well-being risk factors that are explicitly associated with the pandemic
(Coulombe et al., 2020). As previously mentioned, prior research on other outbreaks identified
fear of infection as a common risk factor impacting individuals’ well-being (Desclaux et al.,
2017; Maunder et al., 2003; Reynolds et al., 2008). For instance, during the Ebola outbreak,
individuals living in Senegal reported feeling particularly vigilant about any physical symptoms
25

they experienced, for fear of contracting the virus (Desclaux et al., 2017). As a result, several
participants reported anxiety-induced insomnia, demonstrating constant vigilance and feelings of
vulnerability may negatively impact one’s well-being.
These findings are similar to those demonstrated by Maunder et al. (2003), who
examined healthcare staff caring for patients with SARS and their feelings of anxiety about
contracting the disease. In addition to feelings of personal vulnerability to infection, participants
in previous studies have also indicated feelings of fear and guilt about infecting others, including
family members, friends, and healthcare workers (Maunder et al., 2003). Overall, such
experiences are associated with low mood, poor quality of sleep, and irritability, in addition to
other mental and physical health issues (Brooks et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., 2008). With
previous research focusing primarily on the experiences of vulnerability among healthcare
providers, it is important to understand how a large-scale global pandemic influences feelings of
vulnerability and how these feelings impact the well-being of the military spouse. Finally, social
participation was positively associated with one’s meaning in life. Therefore, it is essential to
consider how this may have added to stressors in a time of social distancing (Coulombe et al.,
2020).
Strategies to Promote Military Spouse Well-Being
Green et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of noting the military provides
considerable programming and support for families, more than the average civilian family often
finds in their community. Furthermore, they noted the military also demonstrates an awareness
of family needs through different referendums and calls for policy and programming as
applicable. The findings by Green et al. are noteworthy, given the existence of the support efforts
they presented. Their findings suggest spouses at the greatest risk for subjective distress are also
26

likely to be the ones with the lowest social support and greater contact with healthcare providers,
mental health counselors, chaplains, or other formal service providers. Collectively, their
findings show the value of increasing the effectiveness of social supports, formal and informal.
Green et al. noted more isolated and less networked spouses would benefit from outreach efforts
that use more normative family locations (e.g., exchange, childcare facilities, schools). Although
families may have contact with professional providers, such contacts are often. Green et al.
suggested the findings from their study and others on military spouses emphasize the need for
family-centered care in the military services and that every contact with a provider represents an
opportunity to assess and care for the whole family (Wadsworth et al., 2013).
Perceived Stress
The term stress, as it is often used, was coined in 1936 by Hans Selye, who defined it as
the body’s nonspecific response to any demand for change (Stress.org, n.d.). Selye (1957)
believed most people viewed stress as an unpleasant threat; therefore, he created a new word,
stressor, to distinguish stimulus from response. Stress was generally considered synonymous
with distress, and dictionaries defined it as physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension or a
condition or feeling experienced when a person perceives that demands exceed the personal and
social resources the individual can mobilize (Stress.org, n.d.). Thus, stress was cast in a negative
light, and its positive effects were ignored; however, stress can be helpful and good, when it
motivates people to accomplish more.
Stress is not a new concept, as researchers have studied it for years, seeking a common
dominator to treat it; however, stress factors are elusive, and there is not a one-size-fits-all
approach. In simple terms, stress is feeling overwhelmed or unable to cope because of an
experience. This straightforward definition does not include consideration of other components
27

of stress (Lowe, 2021). Lowe (2021) highlighted there are varying degrees of stress that can have
mild or severe effects on social and emotional well-being.
Lowe (2020) found 27% of military spouses report significantly high stress levels. Of this
group, 20% have a higher, more clinically significant, level of stress than their civilian
counterparts do (Lowe, 2020). Lowe suggested at any given point, a substantial portion of
military spouses exhibit measurable signs of moderate to clinically significant levels of stress.
Approximately one in four wake up daily with a heavy layer of stress, which compounds daily,
weekly, and yearly. Unsuspectingly, many will perceive such stress as normal, unaware of how
dangerously close they are to clinically significant levels of emotional, social, or physical
distress (Lowe, 2020).
Stressful life events, major stressors (i.e., traumatic events), and minor stressors (i.e.,
circumstances that do not constitute a life threat) are linked to the quality of an individual’s
subjective well-being, including depression and PTSD (Engelhard & van den Hout, 2007). Social
support during a stressful time may reduce the negative impact of stress on the military spouse’s
subjective well-being. Social support is defined as support to an individual from social ties to
other individuals, groups, and the larger community (Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Lin et al.,
1979) and the perception that one is cared for by others (Wills, 1991). Social support comes from
many sources, such as partners, family members, relatives, friends, coworkers, and social and
community networks (Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Siegel, 1993).
Researchers have debated the importance of different sources of support for subjective
well-being (Birditt & Antonucci, 2007). Some researchers found support from a spouse is more
significantly associated with well-being than other sources of support are (Antonucci et al., 2001;
Cunningham & Barbee, 2000). Support from one’s spouse has a direct effect on marital quality
28

(Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Julien et al., 2003) and general well-being (Cunningham &
Barbee, 2000; Dehle et al., 2001).
Just-Bourgeois (2019) found while social support can predict well-being and depression
among military spouses, it does not buffer the effect of deployment stress on subjective well-
being. Consistent with this finding, in a review of studies on social support and subjective health,
Lakey and Cronin (2008) noted few studies found evidence that social support plays a buffering
role. Moreover, the moderating role of social support in explaining military personnel’s
subjective well-being has been found to change, depending on the levels of individual self-
efficacy (Stetz et al., 2006). Specifically, social support buffered the path between stress and
strain when self-efficacy was high but exacerbated when self-efficacy was low (Just-Bourgeois,
2019; Skomorovsky, 2014). Thus, it is possible other individual characteristics, such as coping
styles, may moderate the path between perceived social support and subjective well-being
(Skomorovsky, 2014; Stetz et al., 2006).
A military spouse requires strength and effective coping skills to adapt to new
environments and situations (Eubanks, 2013). Stressors are inherent to the military lifestyle,
which includes long and unpredictable duty hours, frequent relocations, and periodic separations
that can leave the spouse feeling insignificant and abandoned (Moore, 2012). Nonetheless,
research suggests spouses can cope with these stressors because of their resilience (Blakely,
2012).
Understanding Resilience
Military spouse resilience is a state-like developable individual capacity (Luthans et al.,
2007) that is simultaneously influenced by internal (i.e., personality) and external factors (i.e.,
cultural contexts; Herrenkohl et al., 2013; Näswall et al., 2013). It has been theorized that
29

resilient individuals have a repertoire of promotive personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy,
optimism, and emotional regulation) or environmental resources (e.g., organizational practices
and social support) that they use to manage and ultimately transcend adverse events (Hartmann
et al., 2020; Luthans et al., 2007). Resilient individuals possess characteristics, such as
enthusiasm, hope, a high degree of autonomy, self-awareness, flexibility and adaptability, a
sense of confidence, and the ability to find meaning from challenging situations (Ojo et al., 2021;
Parker et al., 2015). In line with Smith et al. (2008), this study defines resilience as the ability to
“bounce back” in the face or wake of adversity and focuses on how the ability to withstand
challenges shaped participants’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The growing interest in resilience among military and nonmilitary scholars has been
accompanied by growing disagreement about exactly what researchers mean when they refer to
resilience (Sinclair et al., 2019). In a review of the literature, Meredith et al. (2011) found
researchers offered over 100 definitions of resilience. They noted definitions differed in
attributes, such as the extent to which resilience was defined as a general trait or competency and
whether someone had to demonstrate the capacity to thrive in stressful circumstances to be
described as resilient. Fikretoglu and McCreary (2012) noted most definitions of resilience
highlight an individual showing signs of positive adaptation after experiencing significant
adversity. Subsequent scholars expanded on this distinction, pointing out the resilience literature
encompasses individual characteristics that reflect the potential capacity one must be resilient
and the actual demonstration of resilience, which reflects “the demonstration of positive
adaptation in the face of significant adversity” (Britt et al., 2013, p. 6).
In a critical review of the resilience literature, Britt et al. (2016) pointed out the need to
distinguish between two broad approaches. The first, the potential capacity approach, refers to
30

the study of personal characteristics that facilitate adaptation to stressors. The second, the
demonstration approach, refers to the actual study of health outcomes in response to stressful
circumstances. Bowen and Martin (2011) drew a similar distinction between what they term
resilience—the process of adapting to stressors—and resiliency, which they described as the
successful performance of life roles. These distinctions suggest that to have a complete
understanding of processes related to resilience, scholars should study individual capacities to
demonstrate resilience and the actual demonstration of resilience (resiliency), as indicated, for
example, by the mental health outcomes of those who experience demanding situations.
While many individual qualities could be associated with a greater potential to
demonstrate resilience, the literature has primarily focused on personality traits, as indicators of
the capacity for resilience (Sinclair et al., 2019). Previous research in this area has generally
adopted one of three approaches (Britt et al., 2016; Sinclair et al., 2013). Sinclair et al. (2019)
suggested some research focuses on resilience as a single trait, typically conceptualizing
resilience as the dispositional tendency to be able to bounce back following exposure to
stressors. Composite trait approaches conceptualize resilience as a syndrome defined by multiple
traits acting in concert (Sinclair et al., 2019). The literature on hardiness provides a classic
example of this approach in military research as hardiness is conceptualized as a dispositional
tendency to perceive (a) meaning in significant life events, (b) one’s circumstances as
controllable, and (c) potential stressors as challenges rather than threats (Bartone, 1999, 2006;
Bartone et al., 1989).
This view of resilience as the ability to “bounce back” aligns with SCT, which explains
psychosocial functioning in terms of the dynamic, reciprocal, and continuous relationships
between personal factors, environmental influences, and behavior (Bandura, 1988). All three
31

elements interact with and on one another to determine behavior (Bandura, 2001). A linchpin of
SCT is the concept of self-efficacy, or one's belief in one's ability to persevere or accomplish
goals across challenging situations (Lightsey, 2006). Researchers have acknowledged the close
connection between self-efficacy and resilience and suggested that a generalized belief in one's
self-efficacy is a central component of resilience (Lightsey, 2006; Milaković, 2021; Ojo, 2021;
Schwarzer, 2013). Furthermore, Bandura (1988) argued SCT provides guidelines for equipping
people with a resilient sense of efficacy that promotes their subjective well-being and personal
accomplishments. Hence, SCT can serve as a helpful framework for examining resilience in
military spouses. In the context of COVID-19, it is likely military spouses’ resilience interacts
with their personalities and cultures to shape their subjective well-being, which, in turn, predicts
their task and relational outcomes (Charoensap-Kelly et al., 2021).
Military Spouse Resilience: COVID-19 Pandemic
Military service members and their families are generally very resilient. They tend to
adjust well to the challenges that are a normative part of military life, such as frequent moves,
separations, long working hours, and having loved ones in potentially dangerous jobs (Meadows
et al., 2016). Prime et al. (2020) conducted a literature review on several topics relevant to the
current pandemic (e.g., natural and artificial disasters, economic recessions, and living in
poverty) to examine how adversity impacts family well-being. They focused on two resilience
processes: (a) building and maintaining family relationships and (b) optimizing family belief
systems to provide a framework. From these two resilience processes, stressful situations related
to the current pandemic can be understood.
Prime et al. (2020) emphasized the idea of making meaning, which is particularly salient
for military families. A military family’s ability to assign meaning and purpose to normative
32

military family stressors helps strengthen the development of a military family identity
(Meadows et al., 2016). The more military spouses can find meaning in stressful life events and
have confidence that they can face adversity with positive outcomes, the more resilient they will
be (Meadows et al., 2016). The same concept may apply when thinking about the current
pandemic. Families will experience the highest levels of resilience when they can make sense of
COVID-19-related stressors, by incorporating them into their existing worldviews or by
modifying their views in such a way to promote “health, togetherness, and a sense of coherence”
(Prime et al., 2020, p. 639).
When discussing military family resilience, it is important to also discuss how family
organization strategies help establish a predictable base from which these families can more
flexibly navigate military lifestyle stressors (Meadows et al., 2016). Examples of this include
family cohesion (working together as a family team), flexibility (having the ability to change and
adapt as a family), and engaging in family routines (that help create a shared meaning). Prime et
al. (2020) found close family relationships can help families endure stressful circumstances, such
as those experienced because of the current pandemic. Social support is very important for
family resilience. This includes support from immediate friends and family and from the broader
community (such as extended family, coworkers, neighbors, the faith-based community, and/or
the military unit). Prime et al. highlighted close relationships, including those beyond the
immediate family, have a protective effect as well.
Conceptual Framework
As the researcher, I used SCT, originally put forth by Bandura and Adams (1977), to
examine this problem of practice. The theory is used to identify how people can learn to change
throughout their lifetimes (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Adams, 1977). According to SCT, a three-
33

way dynamic may be used to define human behaviors and their associated environmental
influences (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Adams, 1977). Viewing the development of the
individual from the perspective of their lived experiences allows for the identification of the
variants that play roles in impacting the behavior of the individual and the level of influence
assigned to those variants by the individual through biological, physical, environmental, social,
and economic influences (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Adams, 1977).
While SCT is a subjective perspective on human functioning highlighting the critical role
played by the social environment on motivation, learning, and self-regulation (Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020; Schunk & Usher, 2012) two significant developments integrated personal
influences as a significant element into Bandura’s theory (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). The
first was the initial publication of Bandura and Adam’s (1977) work on self-efficacy, in which
they defined, theorized, and supported the role of self-efficacy in human behavior (Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020). The second was Bandura’s (1986) work on the conceptual framework of
triadic reciprocity, or reciprocal interactions between three sets of influences: (a) behavioral, (b)
environmental, and (c) personal. In this dynamic conceptualization, motivational processes are
personal influences that are changing, affect behaviors and environments, and are affected by
them (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
The application of SCT employs the use of certain constructs (Sharma, 2021):
knowledge, outcome expectations, outcome expectancies, situational perception, environment,
self-efficacy, self-efficacy in overcoming impediments, goal setting, self-control, and emotional
coping. These are underpinned by the capabilities of symbolizing, vicarious forethought, self-
regulation, and self-reflection (Sharma, 2021). A model suggests the COVID-19 pandemic will
influence military spouses’ adjustment in a cascading fashion and the military lifestyle’s existing
34

factors (see Figure 1). Social disruptions from both the military lifestyle and the pandemic will
generate heightened levels of subjective distress, impacting the quality of relationships among
spouses. Pre-existing vulnerabilities for military spouses increase susceptibility to social
disruptions and the sequelae of the pandemic. Contrarily, an intact or strengthened family well-
being will protect the military lifestyle for these spouses (Prime et al., 2020).
Figure 1
How Social Disruption Due to Military Lifestyle and COVID-19 May Impact Military Spouse
Adjustment

Summary
In summary, the literature offers valuable insight into military spouses’ well-being, while
highlighting the impact of the military lifestyle and the global pandemic. Furthermore, the
35

literature review points to several interrelated constructs that may be linked to military spouse
well-being.
A military spouse’s daily life can be stressful. They deal with unique situations, such as
geographic separation, unpredictable training cycles, frequent relocation, spouse deployments,
and secondary effects of the lifestyle, such as under- and unemployment. While COVID-19
exacerbated unemployment among this population, it is likely to remain a challenge unrelated to
the pandemic. The root causes of military spouse employment have been and continue to be
impacted by service members’ job demands, including day-to-day demands and frequent
relocations, and childcare affordability and availability.

36

Chapter Three: Methodology
The literature presented in Chapters 1 and 2 provided context for the current study and
suggested the need for research that explores military spouses’ subjective well-being, including
perceived stress and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter focuses on the study’s
methodology to evaluate the relationship between military spouses’ life satisfaction, sense of
belonging, perceived stress, resources, and social support. This exploratory study used an online
survey to explore respondents’ subjective well-being. Details of size and target population, data
collection, analysis, and procedures used in conducting this research will be presented in this
chapter. The chapter then provides information related to trustworthiness, credibility, and ethics
relevant to the study. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. To what degree are military spouses experiencing stress?
2. How does the stress of military spouses differ by race, gender, and SES?
3. What factors influenced the stress and well-being of military spouses and families?
4. What were the resources that positively or negatively influenced the stress and well-
being of military spouses and families during the pandemic?
The Researcher
As the researcher in this study, I note that I am a military spouse and federal workforce
employee in the U.S. DoD, with access to varying groups, committees, and networks to reach a
large pool of respondents. As I engaged in this study, I was aware of my preconceived
knowledge, experiences, and barriers, which may be similar to participants’ experiences.
Employing constant reflective practices throughout the research raises awareness of this
influence on the researcher’s interpretation of the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
While my background provides insight and understanding, it also assists in seeing each
37

participant has their own journey. The constant self-reflective practice and the feedback from the
dissertation committee aided in acknowledging inherent bias. While this acknowledgment does
not eliminate bias, it adds transparency to the research.
Overview of Methodology
This study used a concurrent mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative
elements (i.e., Likert-type items) and qualitative elements (i.e., open-ended narrative responses)
in one study. Concurrent timing occurs when the researcher implements quantitative and
qualitative methods during a single phase of the study (Creswell et al., 2003). Mixed methods
were chosen to draw on the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research and minimize the
limitations of both approaches (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The quantitative component of the survey instrument consisted of a series of closed-
ended questions that gathered information on participants’ demographics, military lifestyle
characteristics, level of stress, satisfaction with support and resources, and questions related to
subjective well-being. The quantitative component also included the Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS-10) measurement instrument (Cohen et al., 1994). The qualitative component of the study
included four open-ended questions to gather information about participants’ perceptions of
military lifestyle and experience with the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study investigated various issues about military lifestyle and respondents’ opinions
of their experiences during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Spouses were recruited, through a
snowball sampling method, from multiple geographical locations with the largest population of
military spouses, with 98% (n = 585) of respondents located in the United States and 2% (n = 12)
located outside the United States. Advertisements were placed on my personal Facebook page,
38

on LinkedIn, and sent via personal email. The survey was accessible through Qualtrics for 2
weeks in January 2022.
The U.S. DoD (2020) reported of the over one million military force family members,
38.1% are spouses (597,737). Given this population size, there was a confidence level of 95%
and a margin of error of 5%. The desired sample for this study was 384. The survey for this
study included a total of 649 participants; however, inclusion and exclusion criteria were
considered for the completion of the survey. Inclusion criteria consisted of the participant being
18 years of age or older, married to a U.S. active-duty service member, and who were not on
active duty, national guard, or reserve themselves. Exclusion criteria for the participants were
identified during the first three questions of the survey directing participants to the end of the
survey if they responded with their age being under 18, not married to an active-duty service
member, or being active duty, national guard, or reserve themselves. The exclusion criteria
brought the sample to 597 usable participants.
Survey Design
An online survey design was chosen, due the low-cost in collecting information from a
large and diverse number of participants. As highlighted by Lefever et al. (2007), this approach
protects participants’ privacy, while providing flexibility in allowing them to complete the
survey at a place and time that is convenient for them. These are important considerations when
seeking to maximize participation among members of the military community who are wary of
sharing personal information. A noted limitation of an online survey is the possibility of
fraudulent responses. There is little control over who volunteers to complete the survey and
technical issues that can arise (Lefever et al., 2007).
39

An internet survey through Qualtrics (Version 1) was the selected method to reach
participants. The participation request explained the nature of the research and provided a direct
link to the survey and a link to the information sheet on the exempt study. The information sheet
contained a short description of the study. Snowball sampling was used because military spouses
are a small and unique population, and many spouses were willing to pass it on to others.
Atkinson and Flint (2001) stated snowball sampling is advantageous in reaching participants in a
small population. Snowball sampling yields a nonrandom sample, where the researcher identifies
a case and then bases future information on the interrelationships from that initial case to identify
other cases of the like that fit the profile for said study (Etikan, et al., 2016).
Prior to completing the survey, participants read and signed informed consent forms. The
informed consent forms included identification of the researcher, identification of the sponsoring
institution, identification of the purpose of the study, identification of the level of participant
involvement, a guarantee of confidentiality, assurance that the participant could withdraw at any
time, and provision of names of individuals to contact if questions arose. After participants
agreed to the informed consent, they answered inclusion and exclusion criteria questions. When
the participants completed the survey, a statement was displayed that included information for
participants to contact the primary investigator with questions or to request a summary of the
results when the study was published.
The survey was created by combining questions developed for this study and the PSS-10
questionnaire. The survey included 33 closed-ended questions and four open-ended questions
(see Appendix A). Of the 33 closed-ended questions, Questions 1 through 3 were screener
questions; Questions 4 and 5 were household questions; Questions 6 through 15 were PSS-10
questions; Questions 16 through 24 were focused on demographics, and Questions 25 through 33
40

were focused on COVID-19 and military lifestyle, in which I adapted Likert-type questions.
Finally, Questions 33 through 37 were open-ended questions to gain insight into participants’
perspectives.
The PSS-10 is a self-report measure intended to capture the degree to which persons
perceive situations in their lives as excessively stressful, relative to their abilities to cope (Cohen
et al., 1993, 1994). It is a 10-item questionnaire designed to evaluate the respondent’s self-
reported amount of stress in by assessing thoughts and feelings. I adapted the PSS-10 to assess
participants. The PSS-10 adapted questions relate to Research Question 1, which is about the
degree to which respondents experience stress. To determine an overall PSS-10 score, I took the
average of each 10 PSS questions. Scores for the PSS-10 can range from 0 to 40, with higher
scores indicating higher perceived stress. For each question, the score is calculated as 0 = never,
1 = sometimes, 2 = about half the time, 3 = most of the time, 4 = always, with the exception of
Questions 4, 5, 7, and 8. On the four positively stated questions, the score was in the reverse and
then summed across all scale items (Cohen, 1994). Scores around 13 were considered average
stress, while scores of 20 or higher were considered high stress (Cohen et al., 1994). Tables 3
and 4 highlight the construct of the PSS-10 instrument.
Participant Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
This study used a sampling technique through a direct approach to recruiting respondents.
The following steps were taken to recruit:
1. A few days after receiving approval from the University of Southern California
(USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), I approached Army and DoD’s Human
Research Protection Official (HRPO) to ensure the study did not require IRB
approval from the U.S. DoD or survey licensing. Once both U.S. DoD requirements
41

were deemed exempt, I sent a recruitment letter via email (see Appendix B) to a close
network of family and friends. Additionally, I added a recruitment post on my
personal Facebook and LinkedIn social media pages.
2. I provided a link to Qualtrics as the survey service tool, which was made available to
the target participants for access in a one-time period of 14 calendar days.
3. At the survey’s closing, I proceeded with data collection procedures and analysis of
the survey results, and the random drawing for the recipients of the Amazon gift
cards.
Data Collection Procedures
A survey design provides a quantitative description of trends and feelings of a population
or tests for associations between variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey included
nominal, ordinal, interval, and open-ended questions, providing various types of measurements
to address the research questions (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). The ordinal questions reflect
verbal labels on all scale points to mitigate participants with extreme response styles (Robinson
& Leonard, 2018). The ordinal questions I designed featured 4-point Likert-type scales. The
absence of a midpoint or neutral option ensured participants provided opinions about the
influences that affected their well-being. As noted, I incorporated questions from the PSS-10,
one of the most widely used psychological instruments for measuring the perception of stress
(Cohen et al., 1994). The PSS-10 assisted in understanding how different situations affect an
individual’s feelings and perceived stress. Key areas were designed to tap into how
unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded respondents find their lives (Cohen et al., 1994).
Furthermore, the scale includes several direct queries about current levels of experienced stress.
42

The items were easy to understand, and the response alternatives were simple to grasp (Cohen et
al., 1994). Tables 3 and 4 highlight the PSS-10 scale for perceived happiness and self-efficacy.
Table 3
Construct of the PSS-10 Instrument: Perceived Happiness
Variable
Grouping
Question Cohen's Values (0 to 4)
0 1 2 3 4
Q1 In the last year, how often
have you been upset because
of something that happened
unexpectedly?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q2 In the last year, how often
have you felt that you were
unable to control the
important things in your life?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q3 In the last year, how often
have you felt nervous and
“stressed”?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q6 In the last year, how often
have you found that you
could not cope with all the
things that you had to do?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q9 In the last year, how often
have you been angered
because of things that were
outside of your control?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q10 In the last year, how often
have you felt difficulties
were piling up so high that
you could not overcome
them?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always

43

Table 4
Construct of the PSS-10 Instrument: Perceived Self-Efficacy
Variable
Grouping
Question Cohen’s Values (0 to 4)
4 3 2 1 0
Q4 In the last year, how often
have you felt confident about
your ability to handle your
personal problems?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q5 In the last year, how often
have you felt that things
were going your way?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q7 In the last year, how often
have you been able to
control irritations in your
life?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always
Q8 In the last year, how often
have you felt that you were
on top of things?
Never Sometimes About
half the
time
Most of
the
time
Always

I sorted the survey responses using Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel (Version 1) to delimit
the responses, based on questions that confirm demographics and stress and well-being, which I
used to underpin any patterns of thoughts or experiences the participants shared. I ran descriptive
statistics to measure frequency, central tendency, and variation of the raw survey data through
percentage counts, mean, and standard deviations. The survey predominantly gathered
demographic and stress information about eligible participants that may have potential
significance, when analyzed holistically with information gathered through the document
analysis method. Additionally, I analyzed data through the coding and triangulation process to
interpret it for several of the key data points, such as the open-ended questions.
44

Coding
After collecting data using Qualtrics, analysis and interpretation of participants’
responses to the open-ended questions allowed me to use the coding process to generate a
description of the participants and categories or inductive themes for analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data from the open-ended survey questions were
coded and categorized based on their relevance to the research questions. Coding required an
iterative yet progressive process of constant reflection, beginning with empirical coding. I
independently analyzed and further examined codes to generate inductive themes emerging from
the data and examined the frequency of themes for each of the four open-ended questions.
Responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed separately using the qualitive data analysis
strategy, outlined by Miles et al. (2018).
I exported the responses to the open-ended questions from Qualtrics and organized the
files for further analysis. Qualtrics identified basic coding from the responses. I reviewed each of
the responses for accuracy and clarification purposes using the exported file from Qualtrics in
Microsoft Excel. I used Excel through the qualitative analysis to organize responses, highlight
participant quotes, and create matrices for comments.
I began content analysis with the process of data reduction. I thoroughly read and
unitized all data before categorizing it to create themes based on participant responses. I then
organized and sorted the data to identify patterns to create themes and subthemes. Gibbs (2018)
highlighted themes are a recurring issue, idea, or concept derived from respondents’ lived
experiences that emerge during the analysis of qualitative data. This approach helped me identify
participants’ key experiences. I used themes developed to write textual and structural
descriptions. I calculated the frequencies of themes and subthemes to identify common
45

perceptions among participants and provide organization to the order in which themes would be
presented. Participants’ quotes were incorporated into the qualitative findings to represent
common themes and highlight the voices of those surveyed.
Validity and Reliability
A mixed-methods approach is valuable because it uses more than one method for gaining
participant feedback, embracing participants’ voices, and enhancing the findings’ validity.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlighted internal validity is inferring a relationship between
two variables, whereas external validity is the extent to which the causal relationship applies
across different variables, such as individuals, SES, and military branch affiliation. The closed-
ended survey questions allowed inference of relationships between stress and COVID-19
(dependent variables) and military lifestyle (independent variable). Internal reliability refers to
the extent to which a researcher collects, analyzes, and interprets data consistently, whereas
external reliability is how other researchers could reproduce a study and its results (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). To increase internal reliability, I administered the survey anonymously, using
snowball sampling. To increase external reliability, the questionnaire could be replicated or
administered in any setting or timing.
I applied descriptive research in this study for an overall summary of the study’s
variables and used correlation to investigate relationships between variables in the study. As
noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “All research is concerned with producing valid and
reliable knowledge in an ethical manner” (p. 237). Throughout this study, strategies were
adopted to ensure the process and product of the research were credible and trustworthy. Finally,
as the researcher, I routinely reflected on my assumptions and views, prior to data analysis, to
approach it with self-awareness and humility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
46

I acknowledge participants might have felt apprehensive about providing information
about themselves and their opinions about matters in the scope of the study. It was crucial to
ensure the confidentiality of research participants during and after the study to protect their
identities. Protecting participants’ identities by ensuring confidentiality was important to
ensuring they provided candid and honest answers, increasing the study’s credibility and
trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Ethics
Participation was noncoercive, and data were anonymous. The information has been
stored on a password-protected hard drive and on Qualtrics, which requires a secure login,
protecting the data. The data will be kept for a minimum of 5 years.
The assumptions that underlie this study include a focus on military spouses of active-
duty service members. The assumptions embedded in how I think about research include military
spouses’ well-being to ensure they thrive in the military lifestyle. As a military spouse, I had to
recognize projections of my own lived experience and avoid drawing false parallels to our
experiences. As the researcher, I have paid careful attention to protect the notes, coding,
theming, and all collected data during the quantitative and qualitative processes. Furthermore,
data collected will not be shared without consent from participants and a valid need to review the
data. Additional safety measures will be used to further protect the collected data in the event of
unauthorized access.
Summary
In summary, for this study, I used a concurrent mixed-methods approach that combined
quantitative elements (Likert-type items) and qualitative elements (open-ended narrative
responses). The study investigated issues about military lifestyle and respondents’ opinions of
47

their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. I recruited respondents through snowball
sampling from multiple locations, mostly in the United States. I organized and prepared the data
for analysis. I validated the descriptive statistics, PSS-10, and interpretations and themes
developed from the data for accuracy using the validation strategies clarifying research bias,
committee members, and peer reviews. The data is presented and discussed in Chapter 4.

48

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore military lifestyles that positively
or negative influenced well-being of military spouses during the pandemic. The chapter begins
with description of survey participants, followed by a presentation of the data analysis. The
chapter concludes with a comprehensive synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative findings.
Participants
A total of 597 military spouses married to active-duty service members across different
military branches (Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force) participated in the study.
Most participants were female 67% (n = 575); 3% (n = 19) were male, and 0.5% (n = 3) self-
described. Fifty-three percent (n = 316) of respondents identified as White, 45% (n = 271) as
Black/African American, and 3% (n = 13) as Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, or American
Indian. While there were 597 participants who responded to the survey for the closed-ended
questions, the open-ended questions had varying participation, which will be highlighted further
in this chapter. Table 5 lists the characteristics of the survey respondents.
The following sections of this chapter present the results of the analysis of the online
survey data for each of the four research questions. Findings under each research question
include factors shaping well-being, perceived stress, and resilience and respondents’ statements.
Each research question section ends with a summary of results and a synthesis of the findings.

49

Table 5
Frequency Table of Characteristics of Respondents
Characteristics of Respondents n % of
respondents
Pronoun She/her 575 96.64%
He/Hi 19 3.19%
Nonbinary 0 0%
Self-describe 3 0.50%
Ethnicity* White 316 52.67%
Black or African American 271 45.17%
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 7 1.17%
Asian 4 0.66%
Native American 2 0.33%
Age group** 18–21 6 0.92%
21–34 412 62.90%
35–44 219 33.44%
45–54 12 1.83%
55–64 6 0.82%
Branch of armed
forces identify with
Army 182 30.49%
Navy 112 18.76%
Marine 102 17.09%
Coast Guard 107 17.92%
Air Force 94 15.75%
Other (e.g., Space Force) 0 0%
Service members
military pay
grade/rank
Enlisted (E1–E9) 233 39.03%
Warrant Officer (W1–W5) 118 19.77%
Officer (O1–O6) 179 29.98%
General/flag officer 65 10.89%
Other 2 34.00%
Note. *Respondents could select more than one ethnicity. **Age was an inclusion / exclusion in
which some respondents were later excluded with additional exclusion criteria.
Research Question 1: To What Degree Are Military Spouses Experiencing Stress?
This study examined subjective well-being of military spouses, as pertaining to the
military lifestyle and COVID-19 pandemic. Cohen et al.’s (1994) PSS-10 was adapted to
50

measure military spouse perceived stress. The results of this study show a high level of perceived
stress for military spouses.
Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale
The PSS-10 is a self-report measure, intended to capture the degree to which persons
perceive situations in their lives as excessively stressful, relative to their abilities to cope (Cohen
et al., 1983). The PSS-10 questions asked participants to think about how often they felt or
thought a certain way about 10 items, over the last year. PSS-10 measures a total of six questions
related to perceived happiness (PHS) and four related to perceived self-efficacy (PSES). Cohen
et al.’s (1994) PSS-10 calculation was used to determine an overall PSS score, taking the average
of each 10 PSS questions for all participants, which calculated a PSS score of 21 as the average
score of all respondents, regardless of military branch affiliation. Scores around 13 were
considered average stress, while scores of 20 or higher were considered high stress (Cohen et al.,
1994).
The PSS-10 provides an opportunity to understand how a military spouse sees their own
strengths and challenges in managing stress. According to Cohen et al. (1983), the PSS measures
the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful. The PSS-10 is not a
diagnostics instrument for stress-related disorders, it is an instrument to highlight one’s own idea
of their perception of stress. The PSS-10 can identify if an individual, or group of individuals,
are experiencing high levels of stress, but it does not include how and why.
Although the average of the PSS was 21, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard spouses
were on the higher end of the stress score, with an average score each of 23, while Navy and
Marine were below the score of 20. Figure 2 displays the breakdown of military branch
affiliation and average perceived stress results of respondents per the military branch of which
their partner is active duty.
51

Figure 2
PSS-10 by Military Branch Affiliation

Note. Green line represents average stress = 13. Red line represents high stress = 20+.
Based on the findings, military spouses experienced high levels of stress over the last
year. Dealing with stress as a military spouse is not uncommon, whether it is a deployment,
unknown work schedules, TDYs, a challenging PCS, or un(under)-employment, military spouses
face unique stressors. It is possible the last year of the global pandemic compounded stressors for
military spouses.
Research Question 2: How Does the Stress of Military Spouses Differ by Race, Gender, and
Socioeconomic Status?
The PSS-10 highlighted military spouses have high levels of perceived stress. Further
analysis examined whether stress differed by race, gender, and SES. The statistically differences
were measured using p value, probability value, where p value of .05 or lower highlights a
significant difference. This section highlights those findings.
52

Race
Fifty-three percent of respondents identified as White, 45% as Black or African
American, and 2% as Asian or Native American. No statistical significance was shown between
race and perceived stress indicators. Table 6 provides descriptive statics for race by military
affiliation.
Table 6
Race by Military Affiliation
Military
Affiliatio
n
White or
Caucasian
Black or
African
American
Hispanic,
Latino, or
Spanish
Origin
Asian Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Army 101 32% 76 28% 4 57% 1 33% 1 100% 1 50%
Navy 63 20% 46 17% 2 29% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0%
Marine 48 15% 53 20% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0%
Coast
Guard
54 17% 53 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Air Force 51 16% 43 16% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50%
Total 317 271 7 3 1 2
Note. *Respondents could select more than one ethnicity
Gender
Similarly, when analyzing the data there was no significant differences with gender when
correlated to perceived stress at a p value of 0.236. This could be due to lack of differing genders
given 96% identify with she/her pronoun. Table 7 provides descriptive statics for gender by
military affiliation.
53

Table 7
Gender by Military Affiliation
Military
Affiliation
She/her He/his Self-described
n % n % n %
Army 169 29% 13 68% 3 100%
Navy 107 19% 4 21% 0 0%
Marine 100 17% 1 5% 0 0%
Coast
Guard
107 19% 0 0% 0 0%
Air Force 92 16% 1 0% 0 0%
Total 575 19 3

Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic status in this study was measured by level of education of the participant
for this study. In analyzing the data, using levels of education there were no significant
differences, when correlated to perceived stress at a p-value of 0.374. Given SES is typically
broken out into three levels (high, middle, and low), and no differences may have been found,
due to similarities military spouses face across all levels. Table 8 provides descriptive statics for
education level by military affiliation.

54

Table 8
Education Level by Military Affiliation

High
School
Diploma
or Less
Some
College or
Associates
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
Professional
Degree (JD,
MD)
Military
Affiliation
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Army 34 5% 59 10% 47 8% 9 1% 2 <1% 31 5%
Navy 25 4% 51 9% 9 2% 4 <1% 2 <1% 20 3%
Marine 33 6% 36 6% 4 1% 3 <1% 0 0% 26 4%
Coast
Guard
24 4% 51 8% 0 0% 1 <1% 1 <1% 30 5%
Air Force 30 5% 40 7% 3 1% 1 <1% 1 <1% 20 3%
Total 14 24% 237 40% 63 11% 18 3% 6 1% 127 21%

Research Question 3: What Factors Influenced the Stress and Well-Being of Military
Spouses and Families ?
One Likert-style question and one open-ended question in the survey connect to research
question three. All 597 participants responded to the eight Likert-style questions. While 290
(49%) of the 597 survey participants responded to the open-ended question about the primary
contributing factors to stress as a military spouse.
The Likert-style questions highlight areas that can contribute to stress. Where the open-
ended question gave a deeper understanding to contributing factors to stress for military spouses.
The following section will breakdown the eight Likert questions and the open-ended question.
55

Descriptive Results for Likert-Type Items
This section provides descriptive statistics of the eight Likert-style survey items. These
include three questions associated with negative feelings, two questions associated with positive
feelings, two questions geared toward feelings of valued, and one question about voice to express
individual ideas. Thoits (1991) highlighted stress theory showcases as major life events and
chronic strains accumulate, the individual’s ability to adjust can be overwhelming, resulting in
greater vulnerability of psychological discord. Love and positive social support can increase
feelings of happiness and reduce stress during times of psychological discord. Furthermore,
feeling valued can improve levels of stress. Distribution of responses, means, and standard
deviations are shown in Table 9.

55

Table 9
Survey Responses of the Military Lifestyle Likert Questions
M SD Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Negative
Feelings
Emotionally drained by the military lifestyle 2.7 1.1 18% 27% 26% 27% 2%
My spouse makes me responsible for some
of their problems
2.6 1.2 24% 24% 25% 26% 1%
The military lifestyle is making me uncaring 2.5 1.1 24% 27% 26% 22% 1%
Positive
Feelings
Accomplish many worthwhile things the
community
2.7 1.1 20% 26% 26% 26% 2%
Feeling of positive influence on people 2.6 1.2 21% 26% 27% 23% 3%
Not
valued
Slightly
valued
Moderately
valued
Very
valued
Extremely
valued
Value Feel your opinion is valued by your partner 3.6 1.1 25% 27% 27% 20% 1%
Feel your opinion is valued within the
community
3.3 1.2 20% 26% 23% 25% 6%
None A little A
moderate
amount
A lot A great
deal
Voice Express individual ideas within the
community
2.2 0.9 29% 29% 1% 36% 5%

56

Negative Feeling
The mean for the question around feeling emotionally drained was 2.7 (SD = 1.121), with
29% of respondents agreeing to this statement and 27% being neutral. Feeling emotionally
drained is also referred to as emotional exhaustion, which typically results from accumulated
stress from everyday life. Furthermore, emotional exhaustion often has a feeling of not having
control over what happens in life, which could relate to why 27% of respondents agreed with the
statement of “I have the impression that my spouse makes me responsible for some of their
problems.” The mean for this statement was mean of 2.6 (SD = 1.151). Additionally, 23% agreed
with the feeling of the military lifestyle is making them uncaring with 26% neutral response
reflecting a mean of 2.5 (SD = 1.104). Figure 3 highlights the percentage of respondents per
negative feeling Likert questions.
Figure 3
Percentages of Responses to Environment Lifestyle Questions: Negative Feeling

57

Positive Feeling, Valued and Voice
Only 27% of participants agreed with accomplishing worthwhile things or feelings of
positive influence on others. The mean for accomplishing worthwhile things in their
communities was 2.7 (SD = 1.125), and there was a mean of 2.6 (SD = 1.135) in feeling they
have a positive influence on others. Additionally, for the questions focused on feeling valued,
21% felt very or extremely valued, when asked to what extent do they felt their opinion is valued
by their partners, with a mean of 3.3 (SD = 1.104). For the extent to which they felt their opinion
is valued in the military community, 31% felt very or extremely valued, with a mean of 3 (SD =
1.209). For the extent to which they felt they could truly express their individual ideas in the
military community, 41% stated, “a lot to a great deal,” with a mean of 2.2 (SD = 0.967). Figures
3 highlight the percentage of respondents per positive feeling Likert questions. While Figures 4,
5, and 6 highlight the percentage of respondents per Likert questions for feeling valued.
Figure 4
Percentages of Responses to Military Environment: Positive Feeling

58

Figure 5
Percentages to Responses to Military Environment: Feeling of Valued

Figure 6
Responses to Military Environment: Contribute Ideas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
To what extend is your opinion valued by
your partner
To what extend is your opinion valued by
the military community
Not Valued at All Moderatly / Slightly Valued Extremly/Very Valued
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
To what extend are you able to truly
express your indivdual ideas within the
military community
None A moderate / A little A Great Dea / A lot
59

In summary, military spouses deal with stressors of moving, deployments, job challenges,
solo parenting etc., but the impact on each spouse can be markedly different. While responses to
the eight military lifestyle Likert-type questions did not directly correlate to degree of stress for
military spouses, they are leading indicators that may contribute to high stress levels. Stress is
not a new concept: Researchers have studied it for years but have been unable to find a common
denominator. Stress looks different on everyone and can cause one to feel overwhelmed or
unable to cope because of the stressors.
Contributors to Stress
Two primary themes evolved from the analysis of the open-ended question for
contributors to stress: (a) employment and (b) loneliness. Additionally, two minor findings are
highlighted as follows: unknowns and COVID-19. The first open-ended question was: What are
the primary contributing factors to your stress as a military spouse?
Significant participant responses that illuminate the thematic findings were selected to
accompany the major themes. This approach was selected to ensure the participants’ voices were
reflected as much as possible. The open-ended question provided a deep understanding of the
factors that influence stress and respondents’ well-being.
Employment
One hundred and thirty-five (47%) respondents highlighted factors related to
employment, as a contributing to their stress. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively generated
110 responses to work/employment; however, a high number mentioned finding careers that can
move with the military elevate stressors for them. Additionally, there was a feeling partners’
career came before their own. One respondent stated, “Trying to pursue my career and my
spouses at the same time, while having to move every 2-4 years due to his career, is not
60

manageable.” Three subthemes were further analyzed related employment which are as follows:
work/income pressures, limited job opportunities, and work life balance. Table 10 highlights the
main subthemes for employment.
Table 10
Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: Employment
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
1. What are the primary
contributing factors to
your stress as a military
spouse?
Employment 1.1 Work/Income Pressures
1.2 Limited job opportunities
1.3 Work life balance

Work and Income Pressures. Work pressures can range from career hunting, flexible
career opportunities due to frequent moves, and starting over with each move. Participant 104
stated, “Maintaining employment and professional development in my career while moving ever
few years.” Two respondents highlighted key contributors to employment challenges are
unknown locations of move and unknown dates to transfer job/career adding to the pressure of
job searching and ability to accept or retain positions in their career field.
Income pressures can range from contributing to the family financial and the strain of
childcare expenses. Participant 131 highlighted, “Childcare is expensive, and family does not
live close to help, so I cannot work full time and have the kids home full time which impacts our
finances.” Participant 122 highlighted, “Income pressures with costly moves when PCSing,
childcare, and day-to-day cost, but I cannot find a job to financially contribute to our family.”
Limited Job Opportunities. Another factor some military spouses felt contributed to
their stress is limited job opportunities. Participant 58 stated, “We are in the middle of nowhere,
and I am unable to find employment.” Many respondents felt there were limited job
61

opportunities in the area close to them. Participant 6 stated, “Job opportunities are not available
in a reasonable commuting distance.” Participant 127 stated, “limited jobs due to frequent moves
and instability.” Several respondents highlighted that there were limited job opportunities for
which they were qualified, with one participant stating,
I have my associate’s degree, and all the jobs I see require bachelors or higher, and while
I am okay working minimum wage, I am seeking employment where I can grow my
career and, hopefully, afford to go back to school.
Work-Life Balance. Work-life balance commonly means family activities or personal
activities and one’s work life. Military spouses have other contributing factors that their civilian
counterparts may not face, such as moving every 2 to 3 years or managing the household, while
their partner is deployed. Participant 86 stated, “Relocating and finding employment is a hard
balance.” Participant 66 stated, “lack of support and outside home structure to alleviate the stress
of dual working parents with children.” Participant 20 highlighted, “not having stable help
impacted their ability to have a successful work-life balance.”
Loneliness and Separation
Loneliness and separation were the next theme highlighted by participants, with 128
(44%) responses related to this area. Similar to employment, qualitative thematic analysis
inductively generated 111 responses to lonely, as in feeling alone. Four subthemes were further
analyzed related to loneliness and separation, highlighted in Table 11.

62

Table 11
Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: Lonely and Separation
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
1. What are the primary
contributing factors to
your stress as a military
spouse?
Lonely/Separation 1.1 Loneliness
1.2 Manage as head of household
1.3 Solo parenting
1.4 Deployment

Loneliness
Analyzing the responses to the above referenced question a theme highlighted that being
a military spouse can be lonely. Participant 16 stated, “I feel alone and struggle in balancing
school, motherhood, and household duties.” Several respondents felt alone due to lack of
support, such as, Participant 37 who stated, “Lack of support with the kids is difficult. I just feel
alone or [as] if I am a single parent.” Participant 201 stated the primary factor was “planning all
children activities without my husband, a sense of being alone is stressful to me.”
Manage as Head of Household. Head of household refers to an individual running the
household with at least one dependent. Participant 8 stated, “I cannot rely on him to be around
due to the long workdays, trainings, and deployments; we are separated more than we are
together, and everything falls on me.” Similarly, Participant 32 responded, “Having to manage
everything in the household without my husband makes me feel alone.” Running the house alone
was highlighted by Participant 144 as well: “Pressure of home life and navigating how to keep
the house running while husband is deployed, at work, or TDY: We are constantly separated.”
Solo Parenting. Solo parenting was highlighted in a few responses associated with
loneliness. As the researcher, I felt it was an important subtheme to capture. Participant 120
highlighted an important stressor other military spouses may face: “husband being gone a lot and
63

that the military does not respect his time off from work the very few hours / days he gets
keeping him away from the family forcing me to parent alone.”
Deployment. Deployment was often stated as a stressor, due to being alone, parenting
without their partner (solo parenting), and worrying about their partner’s safety. Participant 8
highlighted being concerned about their partner’s safety while they are deployed and stated, “I
am alone to parent our kids by myself, plan all activities, and no outlet for help.” Participant 50
stated, “Not having my man around during his deployment makes me feel alone, and COVID
had everything locked down to find a social outlet.”
Minor Findings Research Question 3
Minor findings represent a smaller population of themes noted during the analysis. While
the population highlighting unknowns and COVID-19 as a contributing factor to their stress as a
military spouse, as the researcher it was important to ensure their voices were heard. Military
life can be one unknown after the other, and not knowing what to expect can be stressful, which
17 (6%) respondents suggested. Ten respondents (3%) highlighted COVID-19 related responses
as the primary factor contributing to their stress.
Unknowns
In this section unknown means not known or unfamiliar. Participant 143 stated, “PCS due
to the unknowns with moving, looking for a new job, new healthcare for the family, and trying to
settle into another new place.” Participant 129 stated, “Moving is always an emotional and
financial unknown and having to figure out school and healthcare with each move is very
difficult.” Similarly, participant 157 highlighted, “not knowing where we will be in 5 years.
What is the next PCS? Will he travel a lot with the next position? Will he deploy? Will I be by
myself most of the time? Etc.” Additionally, participant 154 simply stated, “the unknowns.”
64

Participant 165 also stated, “the unknowns” and expanded, “wondering whether he will be
deployed at any given time, not just overseas but anywhere in the U.S. to aid in local disasters or
assisting with the pandemic.” Participant 162 stated, “unpredictability, the fact the military
trumps nonmilitary activities, decisions etc.” Participant 60 stated, “the unknowns, along with
the feeling that you can never fully settle.” Participant 19 stated, “constant change,
unpredictability, and no communication from the military.”
COVID-19
COVID-19 scares refer to being exposed to someone positive for the virus and potentially
spreading the virus to others which was also identified as a stressor for military spouses. Several
participants highlighted COVID scares, such as Participant 24, who stated, “having missions that
result in constant COVID-19 scares and having to quarantine because masks and space were not
considered.” Participant 24 stated, “packing people in buses and planes, without tests, sending
spouses home unchecked risking families.”
A couple of respondents highlighted a contributing factor to their stress was that the
military guidance did not align with their local and stated guidance. Participant 147 stated,
“restrictions that I currently cannot leave base due to COVID.” Several participants stated
“COVID restrictions” as a contributing factor to stress. Participant 30 who stated, “military
expectations for managing COVID outbreaks is not aligned with the public/state guidelines for
active-duty personnel adding to stress of potential exposure to our family.”
Summary of Significant Findings for Research Question 3
In summary, military spouses are strong and independent (Mailey et al., 2018), and they
often find themselves in new surroundings, sometimes working as heads of the house, while
acclimating to a new community, all compounded by the stress of securing employment and a
65

global pandemic. As highlighted, two primary themes evolved from the analysis of the open-
ended questions for contributors to stress: (a) employment, (b) loneliness and separation. While
two minor findings were also highlighted: unknowns and COVID-19 related. A summary of the
dominant themes can be found in Figure 7.

Figure 7
Contributing Factors to Stress

Research Question 4: What Were the Resources That Positively or Negatively Influenced
the Stress and Well-Being of Military Spouses and Families During the Pandemic?
One Likert- style question and three of the four open-ended questions in the survey
connected to research question four. For the following open-ended question, the analysis of the
text was based on commonalities in responses to the questions. Significant participant responses
that further illuminate the thematic findings were then selected to accompany the major themes
and ensure the participants' voices were reflected as much as possible. The open-ended question
provided a deeper understanding of the factors that positively or negatively influenced stress and
well-being. The Likert-type question and three open-ended were
66

● I am satisfied with the military support received during COVID-19.
● What were the most helpful support or resources that helped you manage your stress
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
● What support or resources would have been helpful to you as a military spouse
specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic?
● What other support or resources do you feel would help you lower your stress as a
military spouse?
COVID-19
When asked if they were satisfied with the level of military support during COVID-19,
50% (n = 299), either strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement “I am satisfied with the
military support during COVID-19;” 26% (n = 157) neither agreed or disagreed, and 24% (n =
141) strongly or somewhat agreed. Military life is full of unpredictable and unexpected events,
deployments, time away from family, and PCS. Therefore, a similar set of stressors due to
COVID-19 may not have had the same impact as it had on their civilian counterparts.
Support and Resources Used During COVID-19
Five hundred and seven (85%) of the 597 survey respondents responded to the second
open-ended question about the most helpful support or resources to manage stress during
COVID-19. Military spouses have a strong ability to adapt and overcome obstacles due to their
resilience, but COVID-19 brought on new challenges. Understanding the support and resources
military spouses used may help to understand how they positively or negatively contributed to
stress. Two primary themes evolved from the analysis: (1) family and (2) friends; however, five
minor findings were identified: none, church/community, exercise, work, and
counseling/healthcare.
67

Family
Three hundred and forty-four (68%) of the 507 responses were coded in the family
theme. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively generated 102 (30%) responses to family.
During COVID-19, military spouses struggled with school closures, limited childcare options,
and some cases their partner unable to assist due to the demands of the military. Many military
spouses found their support in their family structure. Table 12 highlights the main subthemes for
family.
Table 12
Support or Resources during COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Families
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
2. What are the most helpful support or
resources that helped you manage your stress
during COVID-19?
Family 1.1 Father
1.2 Mother
1.3 Nuclear/Extended
Family

Father. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively generated 115 (33%) responses to
father. Participant 11 said, “my father being supportive to help with the children. They love
seeing their grandfather, and we are lucky he lives close and was the best support we could ask
for.” Participant 29 stated, “Going home for a portion of the time during COVID to have the help
of my parents to get through the challenges of school closure was the most helpful for me.”
Mother. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively generated 114 (33%) responses to
mother. In many instances, military spouses found it helpful to have family listen, such as
Participant 8, who stated, “Having my mother to listen as I struggled with the kids in virtual
school, running the household, and COVID restrictions, while my husband was deployed, was
68

helpful.” Similarly, to Participant 29 previously, Participant 151 stated, “Understanding parents
to help, while my husband was away, was the best resource for them.”
Nuclear and extended family. Thirteen (4%) responses fell in the subtheme of nuclear
or extended family. Nuclear family refers to a couple and their dependent children, while
extended family may consist of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Participant 48 stated, “[My] husband,
family and friends were supportive” and further highlighted they helped each other with the new
challenges COVID brought with virtual school and work. Participant 50 stated, “my spouse and
extended family helping with childcare.” Participant 59 stated, “A supportive husband and
family” was the support/resource they used. “Help and encouragement from family and
community was key during COVID-19 for support and resources for me,” Participant 115 said.
Several respondents found virtual connection with family helpful, such as Participant 120:
“Increasing communication with family through ZOOM calls and facetime helped me and our
children to feel supported and connected during the pandemic.” Participant 164 said, “We have
spent more time together as a family since my husband was not working long days. We slowed
down and spent quality time together, which helped us see the positive side of things during the
pandemic.” Participant 88 stated, “Quality time as a family is what helped during the lockdown
of COVID-19.”
Friends
One hundred and twenty-two (24%) of the 507 responses were coded in the theme for
friends for the support and/or resource that helped them during COVID. Qualitative thematic
analysis inductively generated 113 (93%) responses to friends. Table 13 highlights the main
subthemes for friends.

69

Table 13
Support or Resources During COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Friends
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
2. What are the most helpful
support or resources that helped
you manage your stress during
COVID-19?
Friends 1.1 Connecting with friends
1.2 Fellow military spouses

1.3 Supportive friends

Connecting with friends. One of the biggest changes that COVID-19 brought was the
stay-at-home orders and businesses shutting down, which can make it challenging to connect
with friends one is used to seeing in-person. Four (3%) responses alluded to connecting with
friends. Participant 140 stated, “spending time with friends outdoors to not feel isolated during
the lockdown.” Participant 139 stated, “I turned to social media to reconnect with friends, who
all shared resources they found helpful with me.” Participant 57 stated, “social media for
friendship.” Participant 103 stated, “connecting with friends.”
Fellow military spouses. One of the unknowns with the connecting with friends’
subtheme was it was unclear if friends were from home, other military spouses, friends from
work, etc. Three respondents (2%) alluded to fellow military spouses as the most helpful.
Participant 5 highlighted, “My small community of military spouses was the most helpful
support and resource for me.” Similarly, Participant 128 stated, “My fellow military spouse was
the best support I could ask for, and we shared helpful resources with each other that we may
find from understanding COVID, vaccination sites, and resources for virtual school.” Participant
46 said, “my friends, fellow military spouses.”
Supportive friends. A couple of respondents highlighted what were the most helpful
support or resources to manage during stress during COVID-19 was supportive friends. Two
(2%) highlighted supportive friends: “Connecting with friends to form closer bonds,” said
70

Participant 10, “We supported each other.” Participant 152 stated, “friends that were dealing with
similar situations with virtual school and sharing our stories, resources and websites to enhance
our children’s learning when schools went virtual.”
Minor Findings Research Question 4: Helpful Resources or Support
Ten participants (2%) stated none, meaning, there was no support or resources provided,
or none that they found helpful. Where nine participants (2%) responded with church or
community as the most helpful resources to manage stress during COVID-19 pandemic. Staying
physical active during the lockdown COVID-19 may have been challenging for some. Eight
participants (2%) responded with physical activity as their most helpful resource or support
during the pandemic. Seven (1%) participants highlighted work as the most helpful support or
resource during COVID. Finally, seven (1%) participants highlighted counseling or healthcare as
a positive support or resource during the pandemic.
None. Ten participants (2%) stated none, meaning, there was no support or resources
provided, or none that they found helpful. Several participants stated, “Nothing form the military
was provided” and further stated nothing was provided from the local community to assist or
support during the pandemic. Participant 67 stated, “There were no resources provided to help
the parents or kids to transition to virtual school when the in-person school was closed due to
COVID-19.” Participant 76 stated, “There was nothing provided to assist in the transition to
virtual school for the parents or the kids.” Participant 135 said they did not find anything helpful
that was provided by the military or community. These responses might provoke further
discussion about what were the families’ specific needs were during the pandemic, and more
specifically, what the challenges for virtual school were.
71

Community and church support. Community can have a few different meanings. Small
communities can also be nested in larger communities. For instance, a participant may say “local
community,” referring to those that live in that area, and while church is the smaller, nested
community. Participant 62 stated, “The local community helped with COVID resources” and
highlighted their community was not as locked down as other states, allowing them to keep a
daily routine with their children. It is not clear if they lived on base or off-base; therefore, it is
not known to what type of community. Participant 48 stated, “The military community was there
at the time my spouse was deployed to assist in day-to-day challenges brought on by virtual
schooling with the kids.” They responded further: “There were different routines and
responsibilities dealing with a deployment and pandemic and without the community support I
am not sure how I would have made it.” Participant 33 highlighted “help and encouragement
from family and community.”
Two participants mentioned church, where others expanded to highlight how church
helped them keep a routine or relied on their faith during the difficult time. Participant 19 stated,
“Church was the support I needed, initially attending virtually until we returned to in person.”
They also felt the military did not provide any support other than to tell them to stay home, and
church provided them with a sense of routine with Wednesday night and Sunday morning
services. Participant 43 stated, “My faith was the support I leaned on.” They expanded further
highlighting their Bible study group continued to meet in a small group.
Physical activity. Staying physical active during the lockdown COVID-19 may have
been challenging for some. Exercise can act as a stress reliever; however, with COVID-19
lockdowns, many gyms and other facilities were closed. A few participants found physical
activity as the most helpful resource. Participant 82 stated, “physical exercise,” while Participant
72

104 stated, “daily exercise with my best friend, who is also a military spouse.” Participant 27
said, “working out.” Participant 9 stated, “setting up a home gym to continue to work out during
the lockdown of COVID.” Similarly, yoga and meditation can act as stress relivers. Participant
73 highlighted “yoga, meditation, and physical activity” were the resources they found helpful.
Staying at home for a prolonged period can pose a significant challenge for remaining physically
active, but those who could do so highlighted it as a positive resource for them during the
lockdown.
Work. With COVID-19, many organizations embraced a work-from-home scenario. The
pandemic induced work from home allowing a unique exploration of options for military
spouses. Participant 171 stated, “My work went virtual, so I went to live with my husband” and
highlighted they were living 3,000 miles apart prior to the pandemic. The abrupt shift for
working parents whose children were also in remote school would have faced increased
challenges if unable to work from home. One participant stated their work going virtual was the
most helpful, and their work accommodating flexible hours so working parents could assist in
the transition of the children to virtual school. Participant 39 highlighted, “Letting me work from
home to keep our family safe from possible unnecessary exposure” was the most helpful for
them.
One participant highlighted their work was accommodating to work from home to help
manage the kids, while they were home from school due to COVID-19. They further stated,
“valuable resources for COVID support, such as daily updates and articles to read on how to
protect your family.” Follow up would be helpful to understand how the participant used the
articles to understand more to how they found this as a helpful resource. Staying connected with
coworkers was the support or resource a participant found helpful. Participant 117 highlighted,
73

“My coworkers were my support network assisting with technology challenges of virtual work to
sharing COVID information.” For many, coworkers may have been their main source of daily
human interaction because COVID-19 changed how that looked with many job positions going
virtual.
Counseling and healthcare. One participant described the lack of family nearby as
particularly difficult for their mental health, as their husband was deployed and unable to help;
however, they stated, “Having access to counseling helped me voice my concerns and not feel
alone.” Participant 69 stated, “An understanding and supportive consistent job and mental health
counseling through Cohen Veterans’ Network helped [me] during the lockdown.” Participant
122 stated “My mental health had taken a toll on me, and I was struggling to support our kids
and counseling really helped me get through the hardest part of the pandemic.” Two participants
highlighted mental health services they solicited independently in their local communities were
the primary resource for them. Participant 138 stated, “Self-development books, podcasts, and
ultimately overall self-growth in realizing this is a season, and not a lifetime, and remembering
what I am blessed to have, versus focusing on what I do not have” is what helped them.
Telehealth allowed individuals opportunities to seek medical care during the pandemic by
allowing services via an electronic information and telecommunication technologies. Telehealth
offered options such as video calls or phone calls for medical and counseling appointments.
Participant 42 stated, “the military providing COVID vaccinations quickly relieving medical
concerns associated with catching the virus and accessibility to telehealth services.”
In summary, military spouses found themselves in a unique situation balancing military
lifestyle and COVID-19 where additional support was needed. As highlighted, two primary
themes evolved from the analysis of the open-ended questions for support or resources they used:
74

(a) family and (b) friends. Where five minor findings were highlighted: none,
church/community, exercise, work, and counseling/healthcare. A summary of the dominant
themes can be found in Figure 8.
Figure 8
Support and Resources Used during COVID-19

Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19
Three hundred and fifty (59%) of the 597 survey respondents responded to the third
open-ended question about the support or resources that would have been helpful during
COVID-19. The early stages of the pandemic it was hard to know individual needs. This section
highlights resources or support that a military spouse may have found helpful. Two primary
themes evolved from the analysis of (1) financial assistance and (2) none. Four minor findings
evolved as well: community outreach and counseling assistance, childcare, COVID
testing/vaccine, and virtual work/school.
75

Financial Assistance
Many families experienced financial stress due to COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred
and sixty-five (47%) respondents highlighted financial assistance was the top support or resource
that would have been helpful during COVID-19. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively
generated 159 responses to money. Table 14 highlights the main subthemes for financial
assistance.
Table 14
Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19 Themes and Subthemes: Financial Assistance
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
3. What support or resources
would have been helpful to
you as a military spouse
specifically during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Financial Assistance 1.1 Financial Aid
1.2 Assistance for Virtual School

Financial aid. While participants did not allude to specific financial aid in most
instances, a few did, such as Participant 13, who stated, “financial assistance for food
insecurities. Our grocery bill increased with the kids home in virtual school.” Participant 68
recommended “financial assistance for purchasing better technology for virtual school and to
provide kids with a desk set up.” Additionally, it appears the pandemic showed an increase in
frequency of food insecurities. Participant 162 stated, “Financial aid for food would have helped
during COVID.” Participant 18 stated, “Funding for at home childcare given kids had to be
pulled out of daycare for over a year due to COVID restrictions was needed.”
Assistance for virtual school. Children’s school going from in-person to virtual so
abruptly due to COVID-19 posed some challenges. Participant 30 said, “Education liaisons
reaching out for virtual school with children would be helpful” and highlighted “financial
76

assistance to improve home technology and provide education resource to improve their
children’s experience with virtual school.” Participant 21 stated, “financial support or
volunteering support to assist with my kids’ virtual school.”
None
One hundred and thirty-six (39%) responses fell in the theme of none for what would
have been helpful during COVID-19. Qualitative thematic analysis inductively generated 132
responses to none, meaning there were no support or resources needed. They received all support
or resources they needed, or there was nothing that could have been provided to assist.
Participant 31 stated, “hard to even answer, since everyone was going through a new experience”
and said having an expectation of the military to help with support or resources is a challenging
expectation. Participant 48 stated “none, since we are not located near a military installation,”
while Participant 49 stated “none. We were lucky and healthy.” These responses might provoke
further discussion about what were the families’ specific needs during COVID-19 and what
“none” meant to them. Table 15 highlights the main subthemes for none.
Table 15
Contributing Stress Factors Themes and Subthemes: None
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
3. What support or resources
would have been helpful to
you as a military spouse
specifically during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
None
1.1 None, not near an installation

1.2 Lucky and healthy

Minor Findings Research Question #4: Resources or Support Needed During COVID-19
Twenty-two (6%) participants responded with community outreach or counseling would
have been helpful. Fifteen (4%) of the respondents’ highlighted childcare was something they
77

needed during the pandemic. Eight (2%) participants highlighted COVID related resources or
support would have helped. Four (1%) participants highlighted resources for virtual work and/or
school would have been helpful.
Community outreach and counseling assistance. While some respondents found their
communities or counseling helpful when answering what support or resource were the most
helpful support or resources to manage stress during COVID-19, some respondents felt this was
not provided during COVID. It is possible subjective negative effects, financial challenges, and
social isolation of COVID-19 required a need for community outreach and mental health
awareness for some.
Counseling can assist in managing stress, and some participants highlighted this would
have been helpful during COVID. Participant 19 stated, “Community material or counseling”
would have been helpful to understand the risk of COVID. They expanded, “better resources for
counseling with the new normal that was happening was needed.” Participant 119 stated,
“Community outreach and mental/medical counseling would have helped” and further stated, “I
felt alone during the pandemic.”
Lockdowns during the pandemic may have had some feeling isolated. A few respondents
highlighted more outreach would have been helpful. Participant 142 stated, “community
outreach for medical assistance to understand COVID risk for children and for adults with
existing medical conditions” and highlighted counseling sessions to educate and inform would
have been helpful. Participant 43 stated, “more outreach from the command ombudsman.” For
the military community, the command ombudsman is part of the command support team and are
volunteers and spouses of service members in the command group. Their roles and
responsibilities include keeping the military leadership informed about morale, health, and
78

welfare of the military families. Additionally, the ombudsman is a point of contact for all family
members connected to the command. Participant 54 and Participant 15 highlighted checking in
and offering any support was needed. Participant 15 expanded, saying their husband was
deployed when schools shut down and was gone for 7 months, during which no one reached out:
“It would have been helpful to have anyone reach out.”
Childcare. Childcare availability was an issue during COVID given childcare facilities
were closed to help stop the spread of COVID; however, a few participants felt more affordable
childcare would have been helpful. Participant 11 stated, “affordable and available childcare,”
stating they lived on base, where childcare was at capacity, so they were challenged with finding
affordable childcare off base. Participant 132 stated, “any assistance for childcare, since my
spouse was deployed, would have been helpful,” further stating, “I had to take leave from work
to figure out what to do for childcare.” Several responses highlighted affordable childcare.
For military spouses, infant care can be challenging when they are away from family and
childcare facilities have limited, if any, infant classes. Participant 17 stated, “Childcare services
being open to those needing infant classes.” They highlighted, “I live on post and finding in
home childcare that has access to get on the installation is challenging and time consuming.” It is
possible the pandemic highlighted that childcare is not just a nice to have, but a necessity.
COVID-19 related. Improved access to testing was highlighted by a few participants.
For instance, Participant 55 felt better resources to get kids tested for COVID-19 would have
been helpful. A few participants highlighted better access to the vaccine. Participant 121
highlighted, “Speedier access to vaccine would have been helpful for our family.”
At the start of COVID-19, it was hard to know what protocols would work or were
needed. Participant 20 stated, “COVID testing at the bases and better COVID protocols would
79

have been helpful.” It is hard to know what protocols would have helped, if it was the
organization of the testing site, protocol for potential exposure, etc. Therefore, follow up in this
area would provide more insight. Participant 10 did not state a particular need but stated,
“Virtual learning for two kids while working full time remotely and my husband in and out of
the house was stressful, especially when the media made it sound like if you got COVID it was a
death sentence.” They said, “We had several COVID exposure scares due to my husband’s unit
reporting daily and in close proximity with one another, causing the family to quarantine a few
times.” Participant 10 likely means better protocol of social distancing to minimize potential
exposure to COVID.
Virtual work and school. When the pandemic hit, nearly all schools were disrupted and,
as highlighted by Participant 5, “Resources to balance virtual work and virtual school in a single
parent role would have been helpful. I was unable to rely on my spouse due to his long shifts
with his unit.” They said, “I do not know what those resources would look like to specifically
state, but I feel there is something that could have assisted finding a balance with homeschooling
and virtual work.” Participant 23 stated COVID-19-compliant “events geared toward working
mothers would have been helpful,” highlighting that they could have shared resources they found
helpful and had a sense of not feeling alone. They said, “I struggled with finding a balance with
virtual school for my children and virtual work for me.”
There were blurred lines with working from home and maintaining work-life balance.
Participant 34 stated, “how to handle remote working, beyond just temporary telework, and
access to more resource for work/life balance would have been helpful, and more touchpoints for
town hall type events with military spouses.” While Participant 114 did not specifically highlight
support or resource needed, they stated, “Lack of keeping children in schools, where they do
80

better, was stressful, adding to the challenges of work-life balance when taking time away from
work to ensure proper oversight of my children during virtual schooling was stressful.”
Highlighting a need for potential resources for work-life balance that could relieve some of the
stress brought on by the shifting of school and work to a virtual setting.
In summary, while others may have found the resources they needed, many military
spouses felt there were resources the needed that were not provided. Five primary themes
evolved from the analysis of the open-ended question for support or resourced needed during
COVID: (a) financial assistance and (b) none. While four minor findings were analyzed:
community outreach/counseling, childcare, COVID, and virtual work/school. A summary of the
dominant themes can be found in Figure 9.
Figure 9
Support or Resources Needed During COVID-19

Military Spouse Support or Resources to Lower Stress
Two hundred and seventy-nine (47%) of the 597 survey respondents responded to the
fourth open-ended question about support or resources that would help lower stress. It is
81

important to understand in general what support or resources military spouses feel would help
lower their stress. This section highlights those findings. In which three primary themes evolved
from the analysis: (1) job security, (2) housing security, (3) medical security. Additionally, two
minor findings were analyzed: family/community activities and more stability.
Job Security: Training and Mobility
Eighty-five (30%) of the responses to open-ended question four were related to job
security. Qualitative thematic analysis generated 78 responses as job training. This response
might provoke further discussion about what are the specific needs for a military spouse around
job training. Table 16 highlights the main subthemes for job security.
Table 16
Military Spouse Support or Resources Needed Themes and Subthemes: Job Security
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
4. In general, what other
support or resources do you
feel would help you lower
your stress as a military
spouse?
Job Security: Training &
Mobility
1.1 Career Assistance when PCSing
1.2 Tuition assistance to gain
employment

1.3 Training for certifications

Career assistance when there was a permanent change of station. Military spouses
seek careers, as highlighted by Participant 27, who stated, “career support. I am not just looking
for a job but to maintain my career” and expanded to say there is a need to support military
spouses to maintain their careers while moving so frequently. Participant 36 stated, “It would
help for the military to consider PCS locations and availability of career options for me as a
military spouse and understand what locations military spouses can work from based on their
career field.” They said, “I would like more information on spousal-preference jobs when
PCSing.”
82

Tuition assistance to gain employment. It was highlighted by a few respondents that
there is a need for tuition assistance. Participant 108 stated, “opportunities for military spouses to
apply for tuition assistance. They offer the GI bill to the soldier, which the soldier uses.”
Participant 105 further highlighted, “Spouses have no tuition assistance provided or guidance for
scholarships.”
Training for certifications. Similar to tuition assistance, it was recommended by a few
participants that training for certifications was needed. Participant 4 highlighted, “Job training,
such as certificate opportunities for entering the workforce is needed for military spouses.”
Participant 88 stated, “tuition assistance for certificate programs, such as medical assistance or
administrative certificate training, for military spouses.”
Housing Security
Seventy-nine (28%) of the responses to open-ended question four were related to housing
security. Qualitative thematic analysis generated 70 responses as housing security. This response
might provoke further discussion about what are the specific needs for a military spouse around
housing. Table 17 highlights the main subthemes for job security.
Table 14
Military Spouse Support or Resources Themes and Subthemes: Housing Security
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
4. In general, what other
support or resources do you
feel would help you lower
your stress as a military
spouse?
Housing Security 1.1 Assistance to live off base
1.2 Adequate housing on base
1.3 Waitlist for on base housing

Assistance to live off base. Some concerns participants included was the amount of base
housing allowance (BAH) and lack of options outside of on base housing. Participant 90 stated,
83

“improve BAH for families to live off post,” further stating, “Cost of living has increased in the
housing market and BAH has not caught up.” It is worth noting that BAH is a stipend received
by active-duty military members and is determined by geographic duty location, pay grade, and
dependency status to provide “equitable” housing compensation, based on housing costs in local
civilian housing markets. Participant 63 stated, “Look at housing allowance in areas where living
off post is drastically higher than housing allowance.”
Adequate housing on base. A few participants highlighted inadequate housing on base
and that providing adequate housing would help lower stress. Participant 24 stated their family
will not live on post again due to mold and poor water quality, something the military needs to
investigate and resolve. Participant 25 felt they were not provided with livable on-base housing,
something they stated needs to be fixed. Participant 84 also stated adequate housing and to
improve maintenance support when there are issues with the housing is needed.
Waitlist for on base housing. A few respondents highlighted they remained on the
housing waitlist for on-base housing far after the report date, often staying in hotels or short-term
rentals. Participant 3 stated, “Improve access and process to secure housing on post or assist in
local community house search.” Participant 3 said, “[The] waitlist for housing needs to improve.
This is supposed to be a resource for military families, but we are forced to look off post.”
Medical Security
Seventy-nine (28%) of the responses to open-ended question four were related to medical
security. Qualitative thematic analysis generated 74 responses as housing security. This response
might provoke further discussion about what are the specific needs for a military spouse around
housing. Table 18 highlights the main subthemes for medical security.

84

Table 18
Military Spouse Support or Resources Themes and Subthemes: Medical Security
Open-ended question Themes Subthemes
4. In general, what other
support or resources do you
feel would help you lower
your stress as a military
spouse?
Medical Security 1.1 Better medical &
mental care

1.2 Accessible mental health
information

Better medical and mental care. Consistent medical and mental care can be challenging
for military spouses, as Participant 109 highlighted: “better medical process, not just in
transferring records installation to installation.” Participant 96 stated, “improvement in
communication. When you are accustomed to moving, you get tired of explaining your medical
details over and over.” Participant 64 stated, “Improve medical care on post.”
Accessible mental health information. Mental health can include emotional,
psychological, and social well-being, all critical areas when discussing stress factors. A couple of
respondents found felt better mental health is an area that needs improving, not just during
COVID-19. Participant 93 stated, “Telehealth for mental health counseling really helped during
COVID.” They highlighted, “Access to mental health needs to continue and does not need to be
forgotten about post-COVID.” Participant 15 stated, “better mental health care for military
spouses.”
Minor Findings Research Question #4: Resources or Support Needed, in general
Twenty-eight (10%) respondents highlighted family and or community activities.
Creating a routine can help lower stress, which can be challenging for military spouses, who feel
unstable in the military lifestyle. Eight (3%) of respondents highlighted areas for stability that are
needed.
85

Family and community activities. Active community can help military families feel
welcomed and part of a larger community. Several respondents highlighted more activities, on
and off base, would lower stress. Participant 51 stated, “More military family activities outside
the base are needed to allow families to gain a sense of belonging in the local community and
quality time as a family.” Participant 8 stated, “activities for kids on and off base, but also better
hours for my spouse to be home and join us in the activities.” Participant 108 stated, “more
activities for the family off base, but also for the parents to enjoy activities as well.” Participant
166 stated, “Without COVID-19, I appreciate an active community and highlighted a desire for
community activities to pick back up.” Participant 158 stated, “support groups, more events
offered for kids and families.”
Several respondents highlighted a desire for their partner to be able to join family events,
such as Participant 14: “for my husband to be able to join us at kids’ activities, family
celebrations, and home in time for family dinner.” Similar another respondent highlighted their
spouse works long hours and would like for their spouse to be home in time for dinner.
Participant 136 stated, “less work for my husband so he can join the family.” Participant 100
stated, “more vacation time for my husband with me.”
Soldier and Family Readiness Groups (SFRGs) are command-sponsored programs geared
toward helping build strong families and bridge the gap between families and units. In which two
participants highlighted improvements to SFRG would be helpful. Participant 23 highlighted,
“for units to truly offer meetings and services—not just say there is an SFRG.” Participant 22
stated, “having an SFRG that is active.”
Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) is a program was designed as a quality-of-life
program the directly supports readiness, by providing a variety of community, soldier, and
86

family activities and services. Participant 44 stated more MWR tickets and resources to show
what is available through MWR.
More stability. Participant 12 stated, “being able to stay in one duty station for longer to
have the ability to find gainful employment and become an active member of a community
before having to move again, more stability.” Additionally, many participants felt fewer moves
and control over locations would lower stress and is something needed from the military leaders
to provide stability to military families. Participant 35 viewed stability as consistency between
installations stating, “If the military would do things the same at each duty station so that moving
between them is easier, it would help feel more stable with constant moves.”
In summary, three primary themes evolved from the analysis of the open-ended questions
for support or resources needed to lower stress: (a) job security (b) housing security, and (c)
medical security. Two minor findings were also identified: medical security, family/community
activities and more stability. A summary of the dominant themes can be found in Figure 10.
Figure 10
Support or Resources Needed

87

Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the results from the PSS-10, descriptive statistics for Likert-scale
questions, and four open-ended questions. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study used a
survey of closed-ended and open-ended questions. The findings indicated an average PSS-10
score of 21 for participants. Scores around 13 are considered average stress, and scores of 20 or
higher are considered high stress (Cohen et al., 1994). Additionally, results found two primary
themes for contributors to stress were employment and loneliness. Results also showed the top
resources that respondents used during COVID-19 were family and friends. The needed top
resources were financial assistance and none. Finally, in general to the military lifestyle top
support or resources needed are job, housing, and medical security. Table 19 highlights the
summary of the mixed-method study.
Table 19
Summary of Mixed-Method Results
Quantitative results Qualitative close-ended
explaining qualitative findings
How qualitative findings helped
to explain quantitative results
Average Perceived
Stress Scale-10
reflected a score of
21, which is high
stress
Themes
Employment Concerns
Loneliness/Separation
Housing/Medical Security
Unknowns/Unpredictability
Numerous employment concerns
surfaced, ranging from income
to job mobility with moves.

Improve communication and
access to medical care,
specifically mental health
resources

88

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study focused on the military lifestyle and COVID-19 impact on military spouses’
subjective well-being. The study aimed to extend the knowledge base in two ways: (a) to
characterize the military spouses relative to the military lifestyle to understand their overall well-
being and (b) to assess the impact of COVID-19 on military spouses’ perceived stress to gauge
the extent to which social and SES resources (or lack thereof) may impact their well-being
during a global pandemic. The spouse’s well-being is central to the success and healthy
functioning of the military family (Gray, 2015). Military spouses are exposed to extraordinary
changes and expected to be flexible and adaptable, bearing the responsibility of juggling multiple
roles in the ever-changing military environment (Gray, 2015).
This final chapter provides a discussion of the findings related to the theoretical
framework and existing literature. Based on the discussions, the chapter presents discussion of
findings and implications for practice. This is followed by recommendations for future research
and the study’s conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
The thematic findings correlate with the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2.
Based on the findings, the theoretical framework, SCT influences the ecosystem of military
spouses. This theory describes the influence of individual experiences, the actions of others, and
environmental factors on individual behaviors. Also, SCT provides opportunities for social
support through instilling expectations and self-efficacy and using observational learning and
other reinforcements to achieve behavior change (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2015). Using SCT,
this study focused on the belief in one’s ability to succeed in the current environment. As
89

individuals’ lifestyles and patterns change, their self-efficacy levels and participation levels will
also change based on the preconceptions that they observe (Perkins et al., 2008).
As highlighted in the literature review, BSF (2020a) found military families reported
increased mental health symptoms, unmet health needs, spouse employment concerns, childcare
concerns, and financial insecurities due to free or reduced lunch programs taken away during
school closures. These findings are consistent with much of the feedback in this study, which
found the following:
• 47% of respondents stated that employment contributed to stress.
• 30% highlighted job security as the top resource or support to lower stress.
• 28% responded with medical security /mental health counseling to lower stress along
with housing security.
• 10% stated childcare/children’s activities would help lower stress.
• 47% of respondents stated financial assistance as a support or resource that would
have been helpful during COVID-19.
Job insecurity has also been found to negatively influence job performance, reducing
subjective well-being (Darvishmotevali & Ali., 2020), though this study was not conducted
during a pandemic. Occupational uncertainty may have an even greater impact on the well-being
of individuals experiencing it during the COVID-19 crisis. As individuals are experiencing
occupational uncertainty and financial issues at a higher than usual rate due to the health crisis, it
is important to explore how this situation impacted military spouses’ well-being (Coibion et al.,
2020; Gangopadhyaya & Garrett, 2020). Table 20 provides an over of findings for all research
questions and links to theoretical framework.

90

Table 20
Overview of Discussion of Findings and Links to Theoretical Framework
Research questions Findings Link to theoretical framework
RQ1. To what degree are
military spouses
experiencing stress?
1. High level of stress

Self-efficacy plays an important
role as a mediator between inner
cognitive evaluation of stress and
life satisfaction.
RQ 2. How does the stress
of military spouses differ
by race, gender, and
socioeconomic status?
2. No statistically
significant relationships
found within the military
community.
Economic and social combination
measuring an individual’s
economic and social position in
relation to others, based on
income, education, and occupation.
RQ 3. What factors
influenced the stress and
wellbeing of military
spouses and families?
1. Employment
2. Lonely/separation

Stress has many factors in SCT,
such as personal, environmental,
and behavioral. All these factors
need to play a role when looking at
and observing stressors of
individuals.
RQ 4. What were the
resources that positively or
negatively influenced the
stress and well-being of
military spouses and
families during the
pandemic?
Positive:
1. Family
2. Friends

Needed:
1. Financial assistance
2. Job Security
3. Housing Security
4. Medical Security
SCT has three major constructs
that interact to influence behavior:
personal factors (e.g., age,
experience), environmental (e.g.,
access to resources, support from
family/friends), and aspects of the
behavior itself (e.g., vigor or
behavior, outcomes)

91

High Levels of Perceived Stress
Self-efficacy plays an important role, as a mediator between inner cognitive evaluation of
stress and life satisfaction. Additionally, it plays a key role in stress reactions and quality of
coping in threatening situations (Bandura et al., 1997). Self-efficacy is a type of self-reflection
about the determination of one’s capabilities; it develops as individuals observe environmental
constraints, examine their own achievement history, and consider their psychological states and
self-perceptions (Bandura, 1977). Finally, it is important to highlight perceived self-efficacy to
manage intense stressors affects how threats are construed and how well people cope with them
(Benight & Bandura, 2004).
The study findings demonstrate military spouse are experienced high levels of stress over
the last year, during which there were strains and impacts of a global pandemic. There was a
slight difference among the military services with Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard spouses on
the higher end of the PSS-10, with an average score of 23. While Navy and Marine were slightly
below the high level of stress of 20, they remained well above the average level of stress of 13.
Contributors to Stress
Stress has many factors in SCT, ranging from personal, environmental, and behavioral.
All these factors play a role when looking at and observing potential stressors in military
spouses. To date, a focus on deployment stressor has largely obscured the impact of stress
exposure unrelated to deployments (e.g., personal, environmental, and behavioral in peacetime)
and impact to overall wellbeing of military spouses. This study sought to identify contributing
factors military spouses faced.
Mills et.al. (2008) highlighted a large amount of research has demonstrated possessing
high levels of self-efficacy decreases an individual’s potential for experiencing negative stress
92

feelings by increasing their sense of being in control of the situations they encounter. Levels of
control due to COVID-19 left individuals with little control as to what was happening in their
lives. Two primary themes evolved from the analysis of the open-ended question for contributors
to stress connected to research question number two: employment and loneliness and separation.
Two minor findings evolved as well: unknowns/unpredictability and COVID-19. Each of these
themes highlights areas there was little control, where being in control provides a buffer for
negative stress.
Resources Influencing Stress and Well-Being
While stress is normal, too much stress can impact well-being. SCT highlights three
major constructs that interact to influence one’s behavior as follows: (a) personal factors (e.g.,
age, experience), (b) environmental factors (e.g., access to resources, support from
family/friends), and (c) aspects of the behavior itself (e.g., vigor or behavior, outcomes). These
constructs can look different for the military spouses, versus active-duty service members, and
should therefore be considered when understanding factors that influence stress, both positive
and negative.
Lee et al. (2016) highlighted stress is part of daily life, but people tend to experience
higher stress during major life changes (e.g., a global pandemic). When stress related to these
major life events is inadequately managed or lack proper resources and support individuals may
experience adjustment difficulties (Lee et al., 2016), though not everyone exposed to this life
transition experience adjustment difficulties or higher levels of stress, understanding the support
and resources that are needed remains important.
The top resources respondents used during COVID-19 were family and friends; however,
the top resource highlighted that would have been helpful was financial assistance. Finally, in
93

general to the military lifestyle top support or resources needed are job, housing, and medical
security.
Implications for Practice
This section includes recommendations based on the study’s findings and the literature to
address areas that can improve military spouse ecosystem thus lowering the level of stress. This
is a time when the military is shifting its operational tempo from a war that has heavily defined
our military environment for two decades, defined by combat and frequent deployments to one
of peace time environment. It is increasingly important to explore and identify the characteristics
associated with military spouse well-being to identify support and resources to best meet their
needs. The implications drawn from the study’s findings highlight areas for consideration in the
military community and areas of civilian community to help guide subsequent efforts toward
supporting the well-being of military spouses.
Recommendation 1: Improve Employment and Education Opportunities
The study findings and literature document employment status for military spouses can
be impacted by several factors, such as relocation due to PCS, no childcare, having less than a 4-
year college degree, and lack of opportunities to further their education. Frequent relocations
negatively impact military spouses’ abilities to retain employment, which can impact their
abilities to establish or progress in their careers (Gonzalez et al., 2015; Owen & Combs, 2017).
Professional licenses required by the military spouse’s career may also impede their ability to
find adequate employment (Owen & Combs, 2017). Another issue related to military spouse
employment is adequate, available, and affordable childcare (Owen & Combs, 2017).
Military spouses are faced with not having the appropriate level of education, being
geographically separated to retain their career, not having a career, or choosing a career that can
94

move with them but maybe not in their field of study or interest. Implementation of the following
approach for employment opportunities could assist in this in two ways: (a) assist spouses who
do not have their formal degree or seeking certifications and (b) develop a platform for military
spouses with their degree in areas that match the needs of the department of defense civilian
workforce. The recommendation is a tiered approach with three levels:
● Tier 1: The military has a relationship in many instances with the local community
near the installation, often focused on hiring veterans. There should be a similar
program that assists in placing military spouses to specific job opportunities outlined
in hiring military spouses. This tier would be focused on younger spouses with less
experience on their resumes or without higher education (e.g., bachelor’s or master’s
degrees). It is likely this would be focused on minimum-wage or slightly above
minimum-wage positions. Additionally, military leaders or Department of Defense
leaders working with a local community or state colleges can advocate for military
spouse opportunities for in-state and in-district tuition costs, as often, families must
be residents for at least 1 year, and there should be allowances due to PCS orders to
waive this requirement. Military leaders should provide in-coming spouses with
education opportunities in that area and existing scholarship opportunities for military
spouses. Finally, military leaders or military spouses who may volunteer should
provide a mentor who is season military spouse who may have experience in seeking
out such opportunities.
● Tier 2: Department of Defense should identify dedicated installations that have a local
U.S. DoD intern program as a pilot platform specifically for military spouses, not the
existing priority placement, opportunity to join an intern program set up specifically
95

with the military spouse in mind. This program would focus on recent college
graduates with their bachelor’s or master’s degree, such as the Department of Army
Internship Program (and other existing services intern programs), specifically
targeting military spouses. This program could expand to highlight time required at
that installation prior to moving and other criteria.
● Tier 3: Department of Defense should work with senior-level military spouses with
proven career and advanced education opportunities for remote work. Specifically
focused on the spouses who are U.S. DoD employees or eligible to compete and
apply for senior general schedule (GS) positions in the U.S. DoD. The opportunity for
remote work would assist in retaining the position the individual already holds (e.g.
GS13-G15 level). Criteria in their higher-level positions may require a 1 year in place
at the location to then phase to a remote position for the spouse, to move that position
with their next PCS. This option would also require assessment initially to determine
independency, communication skills, problem solving, and time management as part
of acceptance, with only a few positions for this type of work portfolio as a potential
pilot program. Furthermore, for the remote position, ensure quarterly assessment and
counseling session to ensure employee and employer needs are being met. The
remote work opportunity may require occasionally travel to the home station.
Recommendation 2: Conduct a Review to Improve Childcare
The second recommendation is a review of current childcare availability and affordability
focused on making childcare more affordable and accessible to militaries families. Key findings
centered around financial assistance and childcare availability. Improving childcare affordability
through financial assistance was a critical finding associated with financial needs of military
96

spouses. Childcare was highlighted as a barrier for military spouses to gain, maintain, and retain
employment and seeking time for education opportunities. Additionally, childcare would allow
spouses opportunities to balance other life events, such as running the household, when the
active-duty service member is either away from home or working long duty hours. Improved
childcare resources could provide opportunities for improving military spouses’ well-being and
decreasing negative stress.
Inadequate childcare may affect a family’s decision to remain in the military. There are
several existing programs that help military families pay for childcare. Military spouses may not
know about all childcare assistance options outside of installations’ child development centers.
Child development centers are located on installations and generally offer care for infants
through preschool age children. Childcare is available Monday through Friday during standard
work hours of 6:00a.m. to 6:00p.m. In general, cost of child development centers is lower than
equivalent civilian care costs, due to the military subsidizing the program. Families can expect to
be on a waitlist for child development centers openings for more than 45 days. To supplement
this, military installations could offer local and state child financial assistance programs
opportunities as part of the families in-processing procedures at the new installation and ensure
the military spouse is informed of all available childcare assistance both on base and in the local
civilian community.
The U.S. DoD should consider public-private partnerships between the installation and
local community to increase childcare options and spaces for military families. They could face a
similar issue for waitlist in local programs, as well. Where local families have access to get
children on waitlist early, military families may not given they are unfamiliar with the area or
they do not know their move location in time to apply for early childcare. Opportunities to hold a
97

certain number of slots for incoming military families in the local community is a partnership
that would support childcare availability for families not living on base. For families living on
base, U.S. DoD budget leads can allocate or increase funding for military child development
centers, which may mean increasing the financial aid applicable for low-income military families
and funding to expand current centers in capacity and staff.
Finally, inform the community of legislation that is key in helping military spouses find
employment and providing relief for the financial impact of childcare. Many in the community
may not know about the following legislations, but local communities and military leaders
should fight for the following legislations:
● H.R. 148, Jobs and Childcare for Military Families Act of 2021; introduced to
Congress on 1/04/2021 (GovTrack.us, 2002)
● S.1532, Jobs and Childcare for Military Families Act of 2021; introduced in Senate
on 5/10/2021. (GovTrack.us, 2002)
These legislations allow employers’ opportunities for a tax credit for hiring military spouses,
which requires U.S. DoD to implement flexible spending arrangements that permit members of
the Armed Forces to use basic pay and compensation to pay on a pretax basis for dependent
childcare.
Areas for Consideration
U.S. DoD should identify a clear set of goals for childcare for military families, with on
focus establishing key outcomes of interest. Areas might include the level of unmet need (e.g.,
lack of available infant classes) or the number of workdays lost by military spouses because of
childcare problems or unemployment status, due to lack of affordable and available childcare. If
98

there is a clear set of goals, a focused pulse check could go out to military spouses to obtain
details about pain points of childcare affordability and availability.
U.S. DoD should collect additional data focused on improving the pain points associated
to childcare and better target childcare resources. Validation studies would assist to ensure data
used to assess potential childcare concerns for affordability and availability produce the most
accurate indicators possible. For instance, for families that live on base, the U.S. DoD can work
with local programs and budget allocation for subsiding care in civilian operated childcare
facilities in the local community. Also, in areas with a low cost of living, where childcare may be
more affordable off base, military families can choose civilian childcare, allowing the U.S. DoD
to reduce the number of slots and requirements for on-base child development centers and
allocating funding to areas where there are long waitlists or lack of resources to support demand.
Recommendation 3: Community Outreach and Quality of Life
Gattino et. al (2013) assessed the sense of community affecting QOL, particularly in the
context of culture and value system in which an individual lives, to include their goals,
perspectives, standards, and concerns. Gattino et. al study found individuals had a better score on
the instrument they used to measure QOL when associated with a high sense of community in
their study. They further highlighted sense of belonging to the community and the perception of
interconnection and interdependence with others have a positive effect on QOL. Gattino found
sense of community positively affected all the quality-of-life dimensions, except social
relationships. Finally, Gattino found QOL was better for people who live in small towns than it is
for those who live in large towns.
In understanding how to improve community outreach for military spouses, it could be
helpful to gain an understanding of perceived QOL, including measuring of QOL at different
99

installations. In locations where there is a positive QOL measurement, the U.S. DoD should seek
to understand what community outreach programs or local community connections are made
with the military community and seek to partner with local communities where installations have
lower QOL.
In a targeted effort to improve the assessment of military families’ needs and
effectiveness of support programs, the Army partnered with the RAND Corporation to develop a
research agenda to improve research of QOL matters among Army families (Sims et al., 2013).
Following their analysis, the RAND Corporation presented recommendations for establishing a
research agenda that would first identify “how QOL research is being used, identify gaps in
knowledge, suggest potential areas for new research, and subsequently consider how, in this
case, the Army should think strategically about research, including its investment in new
research” (Sims et al., 2013, p. 2). Additionally, the BSF (2021) survey results highlighted
military families consistently identified military QOL as a Top 5 military family life issue, since
they introduced this choice in the survey instrument 5 years ago. Given the responses for
community outreach the following is recommended to measure and understand QOL in areas
with military families:
• U.S. DoD partnered with Blue Star Families should create a pulse check targeting
military spouses using the McGill Quality of Life (MQQL) Questionnaire, which
original is a 17-item multidimensional tool. This tool is designed to measure the
physical well-being, physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, existential well-
being, and support, and overall QOL. In part A MQOL considers all parts of life—
physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and financial. Part B of the instrument considers
physical symptoms or physical problems. Part C focuses on feelings and thoughts
100

over a specific time period. Part D is optional, designed as an open-ended section,
allowing the individual to list or describe the things that had the greatest effect on
their QOL in the given period being measured.
• The U.S. DoD, partnered with BSF, should develop agreed-on QOL vocabulary,
metrics, and outcomes. These developments are an important consideration, given
QOLs similarities with the construct of well-being. QOL constructs are loosely
defined, multidimensional, and often difficult to measure. Operationalizing the terms
and testing the separate domains, military researchers can develop a precise definition
of QOL. Additionally, Department of Defense should develop agreed-on metrics and
outcomes with a focus on increasing understanding of well-being and QOL of
military spouses.
• In areas where spouses have a positive QOL, the U.S. DoD can look at community
outreach in those areas and seek to adapt them in the communities and locations
where QOL is lower, improving sense of belonging to local communities for military
families.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of the study is that the data were collected for one sample only. Therefore,
findings from the study are not generalizable. Additionally, this study had the limitations of
online surveys as a data collection method (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One limitation of online
surveys is the researcher has no control over the respondents’ accuracy and honesty in
responding to items. Another limitation of online surveys is researchers often cannot clarify or
confirm the information captured. Closed-ended questions on surveys also limit the researcher’s
101

ability to capture highly qualitative information because simple-response options prevent
engagement in deep conversations through probes.
While this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing uncertainty
of the pandemic may introduce additional areas not anticipated or may not apply to post
pandemic restrictions. Responses related to COVID-19, such as virtual working environments
and virtual school, may continue to emerge and shift, with moves away from the peak of the
pandemic. The long-term effects of the pandemic on military families remain unknown.
Therefore, the study’s findings might not have entirely captured the widespread impacts of
COVID-19 pandemic for military families.
Delimitations refer to the boundaries of the study based on the researcher's decision on
what to include and exclude for the study to be manageable and relevant to the problem of
practice (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The main delimitation of the study is the inclusion of
participants whose demographics align with identifying only as a civilian spouse of active-duty
service members. While the content was robust and descriptive, an increase in participants may
have rendered broader perspective such as spouses who were active duty themselves or married
to someone in the national guard or reserve.
Recommendations for Future Research
As noted in delimitations, this study only considered civilian spouses married to active-
duty service members through snowball and convenience sampling and did not seek to identify
what military occupation specialty (MOS) to which the active-duty service member belonged.
Therefore, a consideration for future research could focus on a targeted population, such as
spouses whose active-duty service member are part of the special operations branch, merchant
seaman, and other active-duty positions that require travel away from home for lengthy periods
102

of time and on short notice. Focusing on target populations, such as special operations military
spouses, could lead to understanding of loneliness and separation, as active-duty soldiers in
special operations are often away from home and highlight recommendations to improve across
the greater armed services. Key recommendations from the findings of this study for future
research are described in the following sections.
Recommendation 1: Targeted Research
Early in 2000, the U.S. DoD (2009) acknowledged “more needs to be done” to support
military families across each branch of service (p. 1); however, little research exits. The current
study’s application of the SCT and self-efficacy perspective may interest those seeking to
develop a framework for measuring well-being holistically. Military researchers may also find
the results of the study useful for making comparisons between the study findings and findings
from previous studies assessing military spouse well-being. The BSF (2021) Military Family
Life Survey highlights national guard and reserve service members and their families experience
challenges that differ from each other and from those of their active-duty counterparts. The same
could hold true for varying military units and services supporting the need for targeted research
across the military organizations such as the following:
• Target research in areas where military can make a difference, military spouses of
special operations branch, merchant seaman, and other active-duty positions that
require travel away from home for lengthy periods of time and on short notice may be
able to provide tools or resources they find helpful dealing with loneliness and
separation to implement across the Armed Forces, or identify needs they may have
due to their active duty service member being gone often. This study’s findings offer
valuable insight into participants’ perceptions of important matters associated to their
103

experiences a military spouse and often faced with leading the household only and
feeling alone. Military Research can build on the findings of the present research to
help identify areas where stressors could be mitigated through the creation or
modification of policies, programs and/or services.
• Continue to expand efforts to provide service members more control over their
careers (including where they relocate) and day-to-day schedules, which may require
targeted research to identify key areas of support focused on military family life
satisfaction specifically focused on how this helps military spouses maintain their
own careers.
Recommendation 2: Expand Research
It is particularly important to expand research that examines the mental health and stress
of spouses during varying stages of the military lifestyle. Gray (2015) highlighted, as the military
draws down from the longest waging wars in U.S. history and enters a new phase, it becomes
crucial that we identify and study the various components of military families’ well-being so that
we can best support and meet their needs such as the following:
• Improve knowledge management to expand research – identify and use critical areas
for new research. The present study relied on findings from existing military spouse
literature to identify gaps in knowledge that were used to inform the study’s research
aims, research questions, and survey design. In turn, researchers may find this study’s
review of literature useful for identifying important constructs of well-being across
the socioecological framework and understanding relationship of SCT and one’s own
self-efficacy.
104

• Focus research on individual domains to build a bigger picture. This study
operationalized well-being prior to collecting data. This foundation may provide a
foundation for future domain specific research that seeks to measure and gain a
greater understanding of stressors and multidimensional construct of well-being.
Research about military spouses is lacking; therefore, nonsignificant results continue to
shed light on this underrepresented population. This information, along with more in-depth
research, could assist support to military spouses and the broader military to focus resources on
the support that spouses want and need. Analyzing both significant and nonsignificant
discoveries during this research can be used to continue researching military spouses to better
serve and understand this minority population.
Conclusion
It is important to highlight again that military service members and their families are
generally very resilient. They tend to adjust well to the challenges that are a normative part of
military life, such as frequent moves, separations, long working hours, and having a loved one in
a potentially dangerous job (Meadows et al., 2016). When discussing military family resilience,
it is important to also discuss how family organization strategies help establish a predictable base
from which these families can more flexibly navigate military lifestyle stressors (Meadows et al.,
2016). Examples of strategies are family cohesion (working together as a family team),
flexibility (having the ability to change and adapt as a family) and engaging in family routines
(that helps create a shared meaning). Prime et al. (2020) also found close family relationships
that include extended family, coworkers, neighbors, and the faith-based community can help
families endure stressful circumstances such as those experienced because of the current
pandemic.
105

The daily life of a military spouse can be stressful. They deal with unique situations, such
as geographic separation, unpredictable training cycles, frequent relocation, spouse deployments,
and secondary effects of the lifestyle, such as under- and unemployment. While COVID-19
exacerbated employment stressors among military spouses, it is likely to remain a challenge
unrelated to the pandemic. Root causes of military spouse employment have been and continue
to be impacted by service members’ job demands (including day-to-day demands and frequent
relocations) and childcare (affordability and availability).
Furthermore, as the nation and military continue to shift from the wars that have heavily
defined U.S. culture over the last two decades. It is important to understand how to best support
and meet the needs of military spouses following the end of the GWOT and the impact of a
global pandemic. This may be partially accomplished by strengthening our understanding of
varying characteristics associated with the well-being and life experiences of military spouses
across the socioecological system.
Finally, as previously highlighted, military spouses face a unique set of stressors and
challenges that vary over time. Over the last two decades, military families learned to live and
adjust to a culture heavily defined by the GWOT. While the focus has shifted, this does not
change many of the stressors that military spouses face. Spouses are frequently tasked with
leading the family’s adjustment with each move, taking on dual household and parenting
responsibilities, and going about day-to-day events without their significant others' participation
due to the demands of the military. The stressors and demands military spouses face, combined
with a changing civilian and military environment, give rise to the importance of this research
topic.

106

References
Albano, S. (1994). Military recognition of family concerns: Revolutionary War to 1993. Armed
Forces and Society, 20(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X9402000207
Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J. E., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact of positive and negative aspects
of marital relationships and friendships on well-being of older adults. Applied
Developmental Science, 5(2), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0502_2
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball
research strategies. Social Research Update, 33(1), 1–4. http://ecite.utas.edu.au/35185/
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 80(1), 125.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158
Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in Army Reserve forces.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 51(2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.51.2.72
107

Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: can leaders influence
hardiness?. Military Psychology, 18(Sup1), S131–S148.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military
air disaster on the health of assistance workers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 177(6), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198906000-00001
Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The
role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 1129–1148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008
Birditt, K. S., & Antonucci, T. C. (2007). Relationship quality profiles and well-being among
married adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 595–604.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.595
Blakely, G., Hennessy, C., Chung, M. C., & Skirton, H. (2012). A systematic review of the
impact of foreign postings on accompanying spouses of military personnel. Nursing &
Health Sciences, 14(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00659.x
Blank, C., Adams, L. A., Kittelson, B., Connors, R. A., & Padden, D. L. (2012). Coping
behaviors used by Army wives during deployment separation and their perceived
effectiveness. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 24(11), 660–668.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2012.00766.x
Blue Star Families (BSF). (2020a). 2020 military family lifestyle survey: Findings and analysis.
https://www.bluestarfam.org/survey/#reports
Blue Star Families (BSF). (2020b). COVID19 Initiative survey: Findings and analysis.
https://www.bluestarfam.org/covid-19
108

Blue Star Families. (2021). 2021 military family lifestyle survey: Findings and analysis.
https://www.bluestarfam.org/research/mfls-survey-results-2021/#reports
Blustein, D. L., Duffy, R., Ferreira, J. A., Cohen-Scali, V., Cinamon, R. G., & Allan, B. A.
(2020). Unemployment in the time of COVID-19: A research agenda. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103436
Booth, B., Segal, M. W., Bell, D. B., Martin, J. A., Ender, M. G., Rohall, D. E., & Nelson, J.
(2007). What we know about Army families: 2007 update. Family and Morale, Welfare
and Recreation Command.
Bowen, G. L. (1985). Families in blue: Insights from Air Force families. Social Casework, 66(8),
459–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438948506600802
Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2011). The resiliency model of role performance for service
members, veterans, and their families: A focus on social connections and individual
assets. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(2), 162–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.546198
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Castro, C. A. (Eds.). (2006). Military life: The psychology of
serving in peace and combat (Vol. 1: Military Performance). ABC-CLIO.
Britt, T. W., Crane, M., Hodson, S. E., & Adler, A. B. (2016). Effective and ineffective coping
strategies in a low-autonomy work environment. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 21(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039898
Britt, T. W., Sinclair, R. R., & McFadden, A. C. (2013). Introduction: The meaning and
importance of military resilience. In R. R. Sinclair & T. W. Britt (Eds.), Building
psychological resilience in military personnel: Theory and practice (pp. 3–17). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14190-001
109

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin,
G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review
of the evidence. Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)30460-8
Buckman, J. E., Sundin, J., Greene, T., Fear, N. T., Dandeker, C., Greenberg, N., & Wessely, S.
(2011). The impact of deployment length on the health and well-being of military
personnel: A systematic review of the literature. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 68(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.054692
Burton, T., Farley, D., & Rhea, A. (2009). Stress‐induced somatization in spouses of deployed
and nondeployed servicemen. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse
Practitioners, 21(6), 332-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2009.00411.x
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research
and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315805597
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). Health-related quality of life
(HRQL): Wellbeing concepts. http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Chandra, A., Lara-Clinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Burns, R., Han, B., & Ruder, T.
(2011). Views from the homefront: The experience of youth and spouses. The RAND
Corporation.
Charoensap-Kelly, P., Sheldon, P., Antony, M. G., & Provenzani, L. (2021). Resilience, well-
being, and organizational outcomes of Croatian, Thai, and US workers during COVID-
19. Journal of Management & Organization, 27, 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.58
110

Chen, M. F., Wang, R. H., & Hung, S. L. (2015). Predicting health-promoting self-care
behaviors in people with pre-diabetes by applying Bandura social learning theory.
Applied Nursing Research, 28(4), 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2015.01.001
Clever, M., & Segal, D. R. (2012). After conscription: The United States and the all-volunteer
force. Sicherheit und Frieden (S+ F)/Security and Peace, 9–18.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. Measuring stress: A
Guide for Health and Social Scientists, 10(2), 1–2.
https://www.northottawawellnessfoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/PerceivedStressScale.pdf
Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A., & Smith, A. P. (1993). Negative life events, perceived stress, negative
affect, and susceptibility to the common cold. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64(1), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.131
Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2020). Labor markets during the COVID-19
crisis: A preliminary view. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cole, R. F., Cowan, R. G., Dunn, H., & Lincoln, T. (2021). Military spouses’ perceptions of
suicide in the military spouse community. The Professional Counselor, 11(2), 203-217.
https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pages-203-217-Cole-Military-
Spouses-Perceptions-of-Suicide-in-the-Military-Spouse-Community.pdf
Coulombe, S., Pacheco, T., Cox, E., Khalil, C., Doucerain, M. M., Auger, E., & Meunier, S.
(2020). Risk and resilience factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A snapshot of the
experiences of Canadian workers early on in the crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
Article 580702. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580702
111

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L., Gutman, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research design. In A. Tashkkorit & C. Teddle (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). SAGE Publications.
Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2000). Social support. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick
(Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 274-284).
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220437.n20
Darvishmotevali, M., & Ali, F. (2020). Job insecurity, subjective well-being and job
performance: The moderating role of psychological capital. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 87, 102462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102462
Day, M. (2020, April 2). Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate.
BMJ, 369. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375
De Burgh, H. T., White, C. J., Fear, N. T., & Iversen, A. C. (2011). The impact of deployment to
Iraq or Afghanistan on partners and wives of military personnel. International Review of
Psychiatry, 23(2), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2011.560144
Dehle, C., Larsen, D., & Landers, J. E. (2001). Social support in marriage. The American Journal
of Family Therapy, 29(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180126500
Desclaux, A., Badji, D., Ndione, A. G., & Sow, K. (2017). Accepted monitoring or endured
quarantine? Ebola contacts’ perceptions in Senegal. Social Science & Medicine, 178, 38–
45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.009
112

Dimiceli, E. E., Steinhardt, M. A., & Smith, S. E. (2010). Stressful experiences, coping
strategies, and predictors of health-related outcomes among wives of deployed military
servicemen. Armed Forces & Society, 36(2), 351-373.
Eaton, K. M., Hoge, C. W., Messer, S. C., Whitt, A. A., Cabrera, O. A., McGurk, D., ... &
Castro, C. A. (2008). Prevalence of mental health problems, treatment need, and barriers
to care among primary care-seeking spouses of military service members involved in Iraq
and Afghanistan deployments. Military medicine, 173(11), 1051-1056.
https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.173.11.1051
Etikan, I., Alkassim, R., & Abubakar, S. (2016). Comparision of snowball sampling and
sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1),
55. https://medcraveonline.com/BBIJ/
Engelhard, I. M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2007). Preexisting neuroticism, subjective stressor
severity, and posttraumatic stress in soldiers deployed to Iraq. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 52(8), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370705200808
Eubanks, T. (2013). Life as a military spouse. Urologic Nursing, 33(2), 97–99.
https://doi.org/10.7257/1053-816X.2013.33.2.97
Fikretoglu, D., & McCreary, D. R. (2012). Psychological resilience: A brief review of
definitions, and key theoretical, conceptual, and methodological issues (Technical
report). DRDC Toronto.
Fisher McNulty, P. A. (2003). Does deployment impact the health care use of military families
stationed in Okinawa, Japan? Military Medicine, 168(6), 465–470.
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/168.6.465
113

Gangopadhyaya, A., & Garrett, A. B. (2020). Unemployment, health insurance, and the COVID-
19 recession. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation & Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101946/unemployment-health-
insurance-and-the-covid-19-recession_1.pdf
Gattino, S., De Piccoli, N., Fassio, O., & Rollero, C. (2013). Quality of life and sense of
community. A study on health and place of residence. Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(7), 811-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21575
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Gonzalez, G., Matthews, L., Posard, M., Roshan, P., & Ross, S. (2015). Evaluation of the
military spouse employment partnership: Progress report on first stage of analysis.
RAND Coporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr1349
GovTrack.us. (2002). Jobs and Childcare for Military Families Act of 2021 (H.R. 148).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr148
Grasselli, G., Pesenti, A., & Cecconi, M. (2020). Critical care utilization for the COVID-19
outbreak in Lombardy, Italy: Early experience and forecast during an emergency
response. Journal of the American Medical Association, 323(16), 1545–1546.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4031
Gray, L. A. (2015). Exploring dimensions of well-being among spouses of active-duty service
members (Publication No. 3702666) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Green, S., Nurius, P. S., & Lester, P. (2013). Spouse psychological well-being: A keystone to
military family health. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(6),
753–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.795068
114

Gromada, A., Richardson, D., & Rees, G. (2020). Childcare in a global crisis: The impact of
COVID-19 on work and family life. UNICEF. https://www.unicef-
irc.org/publications/1109-childcare-in-a-global-crisis-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-work-
and-family-life.html
Hale, T., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., & Webster, S. (2020). Variation in government responses to
COVID-19. Blavatnik School of Government.
Hall, L. K. (2016). Counseling military families: What mental health professionals need to know.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203761984
Han, R. H., Schmidt, M. N., Waits, W. M., Bell, A. K., & Miller, T. L. (2020). Planning for
mental health needs during COVID-19. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(12), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01189-6
Hartmann, S., Weiss, M., Newman, A., & Hoegl, M. (2020). Resilience in the workplace: A
multilevel review and synthesis. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 913-959.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12191
Harvey, S. B., Modini, M., Joyce, S., Milligan-Saville, J. S., Tan, L., Mykletun, A., Bryant, R.
A., Christensen, H., & Mitchell, P. B. (2017). Can work make you mentally ill? A
systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 301–310.
https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-104015
115

Hernández-Padilla, J. M., Granero-Molina, J., Ruiz-Fernández, M. D., Dobarrio-Sanz, I., López-
Rodríguez, M. M., Fernández-Medina, I. M., Correa-Casado, M., & Fernández-Sola, C.
(2020). Design and psychometric analysis of the COVID-19 prevention, recognition and
home-management self-efficacy scale. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(13), Article 4653. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134653
Herrenkohl, T. I. (2013). Person–environment interactions and the shaping of resilience. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 14(3), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013491035
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004).
Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040603
Holm, J. (1992). Women in the military: An unfinished revolution. Gower Publishing.
Hosek, J., & Martorell, P. (2011). Deployment, reenlistment intentions, and actual reenlistment:
Single and married active-component service members. Springer.
Hurley, E. C. (2011). Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of marital adjustment among military
spouses during military deployments (Publication No. 3443987) [Doctoral dissertation].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Ickovics, J. R., & Martin, J. A. (1987). The impact of employment on the psychological well-
being of Army wives: A longitudinal survey study. Military Medicine, 152(10), 500–503.
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/152.10.500
Jiang, F., Deng, L., Zhang, L., Cai, Y., Cheung, C. W., & Xia, Z. (2020). Review of the clinical
characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 35(5), 1545–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05762-w
116

Julien, D., Chartrand, E., Simard, M. C., Bouthillier, D., & Bégin, J. (2003). Conflict, social
support and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male and
lesbian couples’ communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 419–428.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.419
Just-Bourgeois, C. (2019). The lived experiences of military spouses who choose to live
separately (Publication No. 13860476) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: an assessment of data, theory, and
research on marriage and divorce in the military (Vol. 599). RAND Corporation.
Kassraie, A. (2021). Pandemic magnifies problems for military families. AARP.
https://www.aarp.org/home-family/voices/veterans/info-2021/blue-star-families-
survey.html
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R., Rush, A. J.,
Walters, E. E., & Wang, P. S. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder:
Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Journal of the
American Medical Association, 289(23), 3095–3105.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.23.3095
King, M. F., Renó, V. F., & Novo, E. M. (2014). The concept, dimensions and methods of
assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: A literature review.
Social Indicators Research, 116(3), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0320-0
117

Kocjan, G. Z., Kavčič, T., & Avsec, A. (2021). Resilience matters: Explaining the association
between personality and psychological functioning during the COVID-19
pandemic. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 21(1), 100198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.08.002
Kuhn, A., Lalive, R., & Zweimüller, J. (2009). The public health costs of job loss. Journal of
Health Economics, 28(6), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.09.004
Kursan Milaković, I. (2021). Purchase experience during the COVID‐19 pandemic and social
cognitive theory: The relevance of consumer vulnerability, resilience, and adaptability for
purchase satisfaction and repurchase. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6),
1425-1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12672
Lakey, B., & Cronin, A. (2008). Low social support and major depression: Research, theory and
methodological issues. In K. S. Dobson & D. J. A. Dozois (Eds.), Risk factors in
depression (pp. 385–408). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
045078-0.00017-4
Lara-Cinisomo, S., Chandra, A., Burns, R. M., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Ruder, T., & Han, B.
(2012). A mixed-method approach to understanding the experiences of non-deployed
military caregivers. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(2), 374–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0772-2
Lee, J., Kim, E., & Wachholtz, A. (2016). The effect of perceived stress on life satisfaction: The
mediating effect of self-efficacy. Ch’ongsonyonhak Yongu, 23(10), 29-47.
https://doi.org/10.21509/KJYS.2016.10.23.10.29
118

Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research:
Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574–582.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x
Le Menestrel, S., & Kizer, K. W. (2019). Strengthening the military family readiness system for
a changing American society. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25380
Lester, P., Peterson, K., Reeves, J., Knauss, L., Glover, D., Mogil, C., Duan, N., Saltzman, W.,
Pynoos, R., Wilt, K., & Beardslee, W. (2010). The long war and parental combat
deployment: Effects on military children and at-home spouses. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(4), 310–320.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-201004000-00006
Lewis, J. P. (2006). Planning for the effects on personnel readiness of increased OPTEMPO.
Naval War College. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA463688
Lightsey, Jr, O. R., Burke, M., Ervin, A., Henderson, D., & Yee, C. (2006). Generalized self-
efficacy, self-esteem, and negative affect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 38(1), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087272
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., Simeone, R. S., & Kuo, W. (1979). Social support, stressful life events,
and illness: A model and an empirical test. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20,
108–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136433
Lorenz, L., Perkonigg, A., & Maercker, A. (2018). The course of adjustment disorder following
involuntary job loss and its predictors of latent change. Clinical Psychological Science,
6(5), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618766290
Lowe, K. A. (2020). 5 ways to manage military spouse stress. Military Spouse.
https://www.militaryspouse.com/military-life/5-ways-to-manage-military-spuse-stress
119

Lowe, K. A. (2021). Milspouse strength. Thrive On, LLC.
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2015). Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman
(Eds.), Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with health
behavior (3rd ed., pp. 225–251). Open University Press.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the
human competitive edge (Vol. 198). Oxford University Press.
Mailey, E. L., Mershon, C., Joyce, J., & Irwin, B. C. (2018). “Everything else comes first”: A
mixed-methods analysis of barriers to health behaviors among military spouses. BMC
Public Health, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5938-z
Manciagli, D. (2019, January 9). The military spouse employment plight. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/01/09the-military-spouse-
employment-plight/?sh = 701892f712d1
Mansfield, A. J., Kaufman, J. S., Marshall, S. W., Gaynes, B. N., Morrissey, J. P., & Engel, C. C.
(2010). Deployment and the Use of Mental Health Services among U.S. Army Wives.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(2), 101–109.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0900177
Martin, J. A. (1984). Life satisfaction for military wives. Military Medicine, 149(9), 512–514.
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/149.9.512
Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war, and
terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227–257.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100356
120

Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Vincent, L., Bennett, J., Peladeau, N., Leszcz, M., Saldavoy, J.,
Verhaeghe, L M., Steinberg, R., & Mazzulli, T. (2003). The immediate psychological and
occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 168(10), 1245–1251.
McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency,
coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice. Center for Excellence in
Family Studies.
Meadows, S. O., Beckett, M. K., Bowling, K., Golinelli, D., Fisher, M. P., Martin, L. T.,
Meredith, L. S., & Osilla, K. C. (2016). Family resilience in the military: Definitions,
models, and policies. RAND Health Quarterly, 5(3), 12.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5158214/
Meredith, L. S., Sherbourne, C. D., Gaillot, S. J., Hansell, L., Ritschard, H. V., Parker, A. M., &
Wrenn, G. (2011). Promoting psychological resilience in the US military. RAND Health
Quarterly, 1(2), 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945176/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Designing your study and selecting a sample. In S. B.
Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (pp. 73-104).
Jossey-Bass.
Mihashi, M., Otsubo, Y., Yinjuan, X., Nagatomi, K., Hoshiko, M., & Ishitake, T. (2009).
Predictive factors of psychological disorder development during recovery following
SARS outbreak. Health Psychology, 28(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013674
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage Publications.
121

Mills, H., Reiss, N., & Dombeck, M. (2008). Self-efficacy and the perception of control in stress
reduction. Mental Help.
Mojtahedi, D., Dagnall, N., Denovan, A., Clough, P., Hull, S., Canning, D., ... & Papageorgiou,
K. A. (2021). The relationship between mental toughness, job loss, and mental health
issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 607246.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.607246
Moore, B. A. (2012). Handbook of counseling military couples. Routledge.
Murphy, D., Williamson, C., Baumann, J., Busuttil, W., & Fear, N. T. (2020). Exploring the
impact of COVID-19 and restrictions to daily living as a result of social distancing within
veterans with pre-existing mental health difficulties. BMJ Military Health, 168(1), 29–33.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmilitary-2020-001622
Murphy, S. D. (2002). Terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon. The American
Journal of International Law, 96(1), 237–254.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000221593
Näswall, K., Kuntz, J., Hodliffe, M., & Malinen, S. (2015). Employee resilience scale (EmpRes)
measurement properties. Resilient Organizations Research Programme.
Ojo, A. O., Fawehinmi, O., & Yusliza, M. Y. (2021). Examining the predictors of resilience and
work engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(5), 2902.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052902
Orthner, D. K., & Rose, R. (2002). Relocation adjustment among army civilian spouses. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
122

Orthner, D. K., & Rose, R. (2009). Work separation demands and spouse psychological well‐
being. Family Relations, 58(4), 392-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2009.00561.x
Owen, R., & Combs, T. (2017). Caring for military families: Understanding their unique
stressors. Nurse Practitioner, 42(5), 26–32.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000515421.15414.fb
Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families. Military
Psychology, 20(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600802118858
Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., Walsh, A. J., & Loakes, J. L. (2015). Trait resilience fosters
adaptive coping when control opportunities are high: Implications for the motivating
potential of active work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 583-604.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9383-4
Perkins, J. M., Multhaup, K. S., Perkins, H. W., & Barton, C. (2008). Self-efficacy and
participation in physical and social activity among older adults in Spain and the United
States. The Gerontologist, 48(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/48.1.51
Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during
the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660
RAND Corporation. (2011). Children and spouses of deployed military members report
challenges as responsibilities increase. http://www/rand.org/news/press/2011/01/19.html
Restubog, S. L. D., Ocampo, A. C. G., & Wang, L. (2020). Taking control amidst the chaos:
Emotion regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
119, Article 103440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103440
123

Reynolds, D. L., Garay, J. R., Deamond, S. L., Moran, M. K., Gold, W., & Styra, R. (2008).
Understanding, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine
experience. Epidemiology and Infection, 136(7), 997–1007.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807009156
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Rosen, L. N. (1995). Life events and symptomatic recovery of Army spouses following
Operation Desert Storm. Behavioral Medicine, 21(3), 131–139.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.1995.9933751
Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1990). Matching the support to the stressor: Implications for
the buffering hypothesis. Military Psychology, 2(4), 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0204_1
Rostker, B. D., & Yeh, K. C. (2006). I want you!: The evolution of the all-volunteer force.
RAND Corporation.
Rothan, H. A., & Byrareddy, S. N. (2020). The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Journal of Autoimmunity, 109, Article 102433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433
Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Shockley, K., SHoss,
M., SOnenntag, S., & Zacher, H. (2020). Pandemics: Implications for research and
practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 14(1-2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.48
Salm, M. (2009). Does job loss cause ill health? Health Economics, 18(9), 1075–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1537
124

Schmitz, H. (2011). Why are the unemployed in worse health? The causal effect of
unemployment on health. Labour Economics, 18(1), 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2010.08.005
Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and
meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 549–559.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.549
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, Article 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 13–27). Oxford University Press.
Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L. M. (2013). Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience.
In S. Prince-Embury & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Resilience in children, adolescents, and
adults (pp. 139-150). Springer.
Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces and
Society, 13(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8601300101
Segal, M. W. (2006). Military family research: Psychology in the service of national security.
American Psychological Association.
Selye, H. (1957). Stress. Einaudi.
Shahyad, S., & Mohammadi, M. T. (2020). Psychological impacts of Covid-19 outbreak on
mental health status of society individuals: A narrative review. Journal of Military
Medicine, 22(2). https://eprints.bmsu.ac.ir/8279/
125

Sharma, M. (2021). Theoretical foundations of health education and health promotion. Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Siegel, J. M. (1993). Companion animals: In sickness and in health. The Journal of Social Issues,
49(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00915.x
Sims, C. S., Wong, A., Bana, S. H., & Winkler, J. D. (2013). Strategically aligned family
research: Supporting soldier and family quality of life research for policy decision
making. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1256.html
Sinclair, R. R., Paulson, A. L., & Riviere, L. A. (2019). The resilient spouse: Understanding
factors associated with dispositional resilience among military spouses. Military
Behavioral Health, 7(4), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2019.1608876
Sinclair, R. R., Waitsman, M. C., Oliver, C. M., & Deese, M. N. (2013). Personality and
psychological resilience in military personnel. In R. R. Sinclair & T. W. Britt (Eds.),
Building psychological resilience in military personnel: Theory and practice (pp. 21–46).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14190-002
Skomorovsky, A. (2014). Deployment stress and well-being among military spouses: The role of
social support. Military Psychology, 26(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000029
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief
resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 15(3), 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
Steffens, I. (2020). A hundred days into the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
Eurosurveillance, 25(14), 2000550. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-
7917.ES.2020.25.14.2000550
126

Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the
moderating effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work and Stress,
20(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600624039
Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical
outcomes study approach. Duke University Press.
Stone, A. A., & Mackie, C. E. (2013). Subjective well-being: measuring happiness, suffering,
and other dimensions of experience. National Academies Press.
Stress.org. (n.d.). What is stress? https://www.stress.org/what-is-
stress#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cstress%E2%80%9D%2C%20as%20it%20i
s%20currently%20used,of%20the%20body%20to%20any%20demand%20for%20chang
e%E2%80%9D.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54(2), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786929
Trail, T. E., Sims, C. S., & Tankard, M. (2019). Today’s Army spouse survey: How Army
families address life’s challenges. Rand Arroyo Center.
Ursano, R. J., Holloway, H. C., Jones, D. R., Rodriguez, A. R., & Belenky, G. L. (1989).
Psychiatric care in the military community: Family and military stressors. Psychiatric
Services, 40(12), 1284–1289. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.40.12.1284
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2009). Report of the 2nd quadrennial quality of life review.
http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/Quadrennial%20Quality%20of%
20Life%20Review%202009.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2019). Annual suicide report. https://bit.ly/2TVxxkx
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2020). Annual suicide report. https://bit.ly/3czBXEn
127

U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). (2020a,
September). Active-duty military family file.
U.S. Department of Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). (2000b). Active duty military
personnel master file.

Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M.
J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N.,
Finkel, E. J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Shihui H., Haslam, S. A., Jettem J., . . . Willer,
R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic
response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-
0884-z
Veenhoven, R. (2008). Sociological theories of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen
(Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 44–61). Guilford Press.
Verdeli, H., Baily, C., Vousoura, E., Belser, A., Singla, D., & Manos, G. (2011). The case for
treating depression in military spouses. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 488–496.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024525
Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Joensuu, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2005).
Temporary employment and health: A review. International Journal of Epidemiology,
34(3), 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi024
Wadsworth, S. M., Lester, P., Marini, C., Cozza, S., Sornborger, J., Strouse, T., & Beardslee, W.
(2013). Approaching family-focused systems of care for military and veteran families.
Military Behavioral Health, 1, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2012.721062
128

Wang, M.-C., Nyutu, P. N., Tran, K. K., & Spears, A. (2015). Finding Resilience: The Mediation
Effect of Sense of Community on the Psychological Well-Being of Military Spouses.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37(2), 164–174.
https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.37.2.07054x614489204m
Weins, T. W., Boss, P., Castro, C. A., Adler, A. B., & Britt, T. W. (2006). Military life: The
psychology of serving in peace and combat (Vol. 3: The military family). Praeger
Security International
Whoqol Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL):
position paper from the World Health Organization. Social science & medicine, 41(10),
1403-1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K
Wills, T. A. (1991). Social support and interpersonal relationships. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),
Prosocial behavior (pp. 265–289). Sage Publications.
Witte, H. D. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and
exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398302
Wu, Z., & McGoogan, J. M. (2020). Characteristics of and important lessons from the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314
cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 323(13), 1239–1242.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648
129

Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iocobucci, M., Ho,
R., Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental
health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 277, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2021). Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing
during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Psychologist, 76(1),
50–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000702
Zhou, F., Yu, T., Du, R., Fan, G., Liu, Y., Liu, Z., Xiang, J., Wang, Y., Song, B., Gu, X., Guan,
L., Wei, Y., Li, H., Wu, X., Xu, J., Tu, S., Zhang, Y., Chen, H., & Cao, B. (2020).
Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in
Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet, 395(10229), 1054–1062.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his contributions to
educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational
psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431–457). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.

130

Appendix A
Survey Protocol
INTROUDCTION OF SURVEY THROUGH QUALTRICS: We are interested in understanding
the life of a military spouse. You will be presented with information relevant to military spouses
and asked to answer some questions about it. Please be assured that your responses will be kept
completely confidential. The study should take you around 15-20 minutes to complete. Your
participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the
study, for any reason, and without any prejudice. If you would like to contact the Principal
Investigator in the study to discuss this research, please e-mail Dru Anna Jackson at
dru.jacks@usc.edu. By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the
study is voluntary, you are 18 years of age, you are married to an active-duty service member of
the armed forces, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in
the study at any time and for any reason. Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a
laptop or desktop computer. Some features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.
o I consent, begin the study
o I do not consent, I do not wish to participate

Question
Open or Closed-
ended questions Response options
1.What is your age? Closed Drop down menu for age selection
2. Are you currently serving on either
Active Duty, the Reserves, or in the
National Guard?
Closed a. Yes
b. No
3. Are you married, separated, or
widowed to your active-duty service
member?
Closed 1. Married
2. Separated
3. Widowed
4. How many do you have living at home
with you or whom you have regular
responsibility for? (If none, skip logic to go
to #6)
Closed Drop down menu; there will be
an option for 0 to 5+
131

5. What are the age groups of your
children or individuals residing with you
that you care for? (Select all that apply)
Closed a. 0-5 years old
b. 6-12 years old
c. 13-17 years old
d. 18-24 years old
e. 25 and older
6. In the last year, how often have you
been upset because of something that
happened unexpectedly?

Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
7. In the last year, how often have you
felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?

Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
8. In the last year, how often have you
felt nervous and “stressed”?

Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
9. In the last year, how often have you
felt confident about your ability to
handle your personal problems?

Closed ● Never
● Sometimes
● About half the time
● Most of the time
● Always
10. In the last year, how often have you
felt that things were going your way?

Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
11. In the last year, how often have you
found that you could not cope with
all the things that you had to do?

a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
12. In the last year, how often have you
been able to control irritations in
your life?

Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
13. In the last year, how often have you
felt that you were on top of things?
Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
14. In the last year, how often have you
been angered because of things that
were outside of your control?
Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
132

15. In the last year, how often have you
felt difficulties were piling up so high
that you could not overcome them?
Closed a. Never
b. Sometimes
c. About half the time
d. Most of the time
e. Always
16. What pronoun(s) do you identify
with:
Closed a. He/His
b. She/Her
c. Non-binary
d. Prefer to self-describe______
(Short Answer Space)
e. Prefer not to answer
17. What pronoun(s) does your spouse
identify with:

Closed a. He/His
b. She/Her
c. Non-binary
d. Prefer to self-describe______
(Short Answer Space)
e. Prefer not to answer
18. How long have you been married to your
active duty spouse?
Closed a. Less than a year
b. 1-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years
e. 16-20 years
f. 20-25 years
g. 25+ years
19. Which is your racial background?
(select all that apply)
Closed (Select all that apply)
f. White (For example, German,
Irish, English, Italian, Polish,
French, etc.)
g. Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
origin (For example, Mexican or
Mexican American, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran,
Dominican, Columbian, etc.)
h. Black or African American (For
example: African American,
Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian,
Ethiopian, Somalian, etc.)
i. Asian (For example: Chinese,
Filipino, Asian Indian,
Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese,
etc.)
j. Middle Eastern or North African
(For example: Lebanese, Iranian,
Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan,
Algerian, etc.)
k. American Indian or Alaska
Native (For example, Navajo
Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan,
Aztec, Nome Eskimo
community, etc.)
133

l. Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander (For example:
Native Hawaiian, Samoan,
Chamorro, Tongan, Fijian,
Marshallese, etc.)
m. Prefer not to answer
n. Other___________________
(Short Answer Space)
20. Which military branch do you
identify with?
Closed a. Army
b. Navy
c. Air Force
d. Marine
e. Coast Guard
f. Space Force
________________________
21. What is your spouse’s military pay
grade (which is associated to their
rank
a. E1 – E4
b. E5 – E6
c. E7 – E9
d. W1 – W2
e. W3 – W5
f. O1 – O3
g. O4 – O5
h. O6
i. General / Flag Officer
j. ________________________
Prefer not to answer
22. In which country do you currently
reside? Skip logic: If the U.S. is
selected, skip to Q23, if outside the
U.S. moves to Q24.
Closed DROP DOWN WITH A FULL LIST
23. In which state do you currently
reside?
Closed DROP DOWN WITH A FULL LIST
24. What is your highest degree level or
level of school you have completed?
If currently enrolled, mark the
previous grade or highest degree
received.
Closed a. Less than high school
b. High school graduate (diploma
or equivalent e.g., GED)
c. Some college credit, but less
than 1 year
d. 1 or more years of college, no
degree
e. Associate degree (e.g., A.A.,
A.S.)
f. Bachelor’s degree (e.g., B.A.,
B.S)
g. Master’s degree (e.g., M.A.,
M.S, M.B.A, Med)
h. Professional Degree (e.g., M.D,
D.D.S, D.V.M, L.L.B, J.D.)
i. Doctoral Degree (e.g., PhD,
EdD, D.B.A.)
j. ______________________
134

25. I am satisfied with the military
support received during COVID-19:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
26. I feel emotionally drained by the
military lifestyle:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
27. I have the impression that my spouse
makes me responsible for some of
their problems:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
28. I am afraid the military lifestyle is
making me uncaring:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
29. I accomplish many worthwhile things
in my community:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
30. Through my work, or volunteer
efforts in the community, I feel that I
have a positive influence on people:
Closed ● Strongly Agree
● Disagree
● Neutral
● Agree
● Strongly Agree
31. To what extent do you feel that your
opinion is valued by your
spouse/partner?
Closed
● Extremely valued
● Very valued
● Moderately valued
● Slightly valued
● Not valued at all
32. To what extent do you feel that your
opinion is valued within the military
community?
Closed
● Extremely valued
● Very valued
● Moderately valued
● Slightly valued
● Not valued at all
135

33. To what extent are you able to truly
express your individual ideas within
the military community?
Closed
● A great deal
● A lot
● A moderate amount
● A little
● Not at all
34. What are the primarily contributing
factors to your stress as a military
spouse?
Open
35. What were the most helpful supports
or resources that helped you manage
your stress during the COVID-19
pandemic?
Open
36. What supports or resources would
have been helpful to you as a
military spouse specifically during
the COVID-19 pandemic?
Open
37. In general, what other support or
resources do you feel would help you
lower your stress as a military
spouse?
Open

136

Appendix B
Recruitment Email
To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Dru Anna Jackson, and I am a military spouse and Department of Army civilian
professional. I am also a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California, conducting research on psychological well-being of military spouses pre-
COVID, as well as during COVID-19 pandemic. This research has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB).

You are cordially invited to participate in the study, if you are over age 18 and spouse of an
active-duty service member of the U.S. military. Neither your name, nor any identifying
information will be linked to your responses, which are completely anonymous. As a fellow
military spouse, I hope that you will consider completing the survey! The survey will take
approximately 15-20 minute to provide your thoughts and experiences. Please follow this link for
more information on how to participate: (LINK WILL BE PROVIDED)

All respondents who complete the survey will be entered in a drawing to receive one of five
$100 Amzon.com gift cards.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at drujacks@usc.edu or 256.431.5416

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Dru Anna Jackson
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

137

Appendix C
Item Response for Standardized Measurements
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10 Item Response Rates)

Total Army Navy Marine
Coast
Guard
Air
Force
Q1: In the last year, how
often have you been
upset because of
something that
happened unexpectedly?
Never (0)
Sometimes (1) 1.00
About half the time(2) 2.00 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (3) 3.00 3.00
Always (4)
Q2: In the last year, how
often have you felt that
you were unable to
control the important
things in your life?
Never (0)
Sometimes (1) 1.00
About half the time(2) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (3) 3.00
Always (4)
Q3: In the last year, how
often have you felt
nervous and “stressed”?
Never (0)
Sometimes (1) 1.00 1.00
About half the time(2) 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (3) 3.00 3.00
Always (4)
Q4: In the last year, how
often have you felt
confident about your
ability to handle your
personal problems?
Never (4)
Sometimes (3) 3.00
About half the time
(2) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (1)
Always (0)
Q5: In the last year, how
often have you felt that
things were going your
way?
Never (4) 4.00
Sometimes (3) 3.00 3.00
About half the time
(2) 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (1) 1.00
Always (0)
Q6: In the last year, how
often have you found
that you could not cope
with all the things that
you had to do?
Never (0)
Sometimes (1)
About half the time(2) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (3) 3.00
Always (4)

138

Total Army Navy Marine
Coast
Guard
Air
Force
Q7: In the last year, how
often have you been able
to control irritations in
your life?
Never (4)
Sometimes (3) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
About half the time
(2)
Most of the time (1)
Always (0)
Q8: In the last year, how
often have you felt that
you were on top of
things?
Never (4)
Sometimes (3) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
About half the time
(2) 2.00
Most of the time (1)
Always (0)
Q9: In the last year, how
often have you been
angered because of
things that were outside
of your control?
Never (0)
Sometimes (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
About half the time(2) 2.00 2.00
Most of the time (3)
Always (4)
Q10: In the last year,
how often have you felt
difficulties were piling up
so high that you could
not overcome them?
Never (0) 0.00
Sometimes (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
About half the time(2)
Most of the time (3) 3.00
Always (4)

Total Army Navy Marine
Coast
Guard
Air
Force

21 23 19 18 23 23

139

Appendix D
Code Book Qualtrics
Survey Population Size (N) Sample Size (n) Number of Distinct Categories

597 290 78

Survey Population Size (N) Sample Size (n) Number of Distinct Categories

597 507 74

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Lonely
Work pressure, no escort
Balancing school,…
Childcare (Availability…
Constant lockdown…
Declining healthcare,…
Deployment of my…
Employment difficulties
Feel like military …
Having missions,…
Having to manage…
Husband being gone a…
Income pressure
Lack of friends
Last minute changes, no…
Military expectations…
Moving, finding…
My husbands stress…
No sense of security
Not been able to have…
Not having answers,…
Not having support. My…
PCS back to States,…
Pressure of home life…
Restrictions. Currently …
Separation and spouse…
Separation work/family…
The lack of support and…
The unknown
The unknown-…
There are so many…
Unknown move…
Unpredictability, the…
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Father
Family
Community…
Church, military…
Daily exercise talking…
Flyers
Friendships, workout…
Gym
Home gym
I'm sorry I don't want…
Mental health…
My Faith
My friends, fellow…
My job and my family
None from the military
School for my daughter
Spending time with…
Talking to my spouse,…
Therapist, medication
There were none.
Very good
Yoga, meditation,…
family
my work went virtual…
physical exercise
Percent
Work
Lonely
Father
Mother
Friends
Family
140

Survey Population Size (N) Sample Size (n) Number of Distinct Categories

597 350 74

Survey Population Size (N) Sample Size (n) Number of Distinct Categories

597 279 79

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Money
None
Any sort of help and…
Checking in, offering any…
Childcare, funding for at…
Easier access to…
Financial support will be…
Food deliveries specific…
Government support
Help w/ remote classes…
I'm sorry I don't want to…
Literally anything.
Money to help
More specific…
None but I’m not near a …
Physical help with the…
Respite care to get a…
Some benefits for…
The offer to go back to…
To continue to ensure…
When we pcs'ed, no…
financial aid
n
priority
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Job security
Housing security
Medical security
More vacation time…
Active spouse group in…
Activities for kids,…
Affordable/Available…
Being able to stay in…
Being stateside with the…
Better explanation and…
Better help during pcs.…
Better mental health care
Better support or our…
Career support, not just…
Checking on me from…
Childcare, adequate…
Community building
Financial support…
Finding other spouses…
For the military to take…
For the units to actually…
Getting paid when we…
Government support
It would help if they…
Keeping children in…
Lack of affordable and…
Less moves and more …
Less work for my…
MWR tickets
Count
141

Appendix E
Ethics
Participants in this study will be adults, at least 18 years of age and older. Participants, as
required, read and signed a consent prior to their participation. Participants acknowledged their
understanding of this study and what their participation entails and participated willingly.
Participating in this study exposed participants to minimal risk of harm. Participants could
withdraw from the study at any time. Prior to collecting data, I obtained approval from IRB to
conduct the study. I shall store all information collected, including paperwork, files, audiotapes,
consents, and transcripts, in a private locked desk located in my home office. In addition, all
paperwork will be stored for a minimum of 5 years. Additional safety measures will be used to
further protect the collected data in the event of unauthorized access.
Though I am not a supervisor or have direct authority over any research participants, I
hold a professional position in the Department of Defense, specifically Army, and am a military
spouse. I acknowledge that participants may feel apprehensive about providing information
about themselves and their opinions about matters within the scope of the study. It is important
to ensure the confidentiality of research participants during and after the study to protect their
identities. Protecting participants' identities by ensuring confidentiality was important to ensure
they provided candid and honest answers, increasing the credibility and trustworthiness of the
study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

142

Appendix F
Military Lifestyle Likert Questions
Variables Assigned to Military Lifestyle Likert Questions
Variable Grouping Negative Feelings Likert Scale type and Values (1 to 5)
1 2 3 4 5
Q26 I feel emotionally drained by the
military lifestyle
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Q27 I have the impression that my spouse
makes me responsible for some of their
problems
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Q28 I am afraid the military lifestyle is
making me uncaring
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Variable Grouping Positive Feelings Likert Scale type and Values (1 to 5)
1 2 3 4 5
Q29 I accomplish many worthwhile things in
my community
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Q30 Through my work, or volunteer efforts
in the community, I feel that I have a
positive influence on people
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neutral Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Variable Grouping Valued Likert Scale type and Values (1 to 5)
1 2 3 4 5
Q31 To what extent do you feel that your
opinion is valued by your
spouse/partner
Extremely
Valued
Very
Valued
Moderatel
y Valued
Slightly
Valued
Not Valued
at All
Q32 To what extent do you feel that your
opinion is valued within the military
community
Extremely
Valued
Very
Valued
Moderatel
y Valued
Slightly
Valued
Not Valued
at All
Q33 To what extent are you able to truly
express your individual ideas within the
military community
A great
deal
A lot A
moderate
amount
A little None

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Military spouses, military lifestyle, and the concept of thriving

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

PDF

Well-being among Black female managers in retail banking during COVID-19

PDF

The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Lived experiences of transgender young adults transitioning during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physician burnout in LA County Hospital settings

PDF

Physician burnout in the COVID-19 pandemic: Healthcare organization and leadership implications for patient care and clinical team leadership with nurses

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

Perception of Work Intensification and Well-Being Among Hybrid University Staff in the Post-COVID-19 Context

PDF

Physician burnout during a global pandemic: an evaluation study

PDF

Intersectional equity in higher education leadership: leveraging social capital for success

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The experience of Eritrean refugee women in addressing their mental health needs

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians

Asset Metadata

Creator Jackson, Dru Anna (author)

Core Title Military spouse well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/04/2022

Defense Date 07/27/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag COVID-19 pandemic,Military,military spouse,OAI-PMH Harvest,resilience,well-being

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member)

Creator Email druanna1205@gmail.com,drujacks@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376146

Unique identifier UC111376146

Legacy Identifier etd-JacksonDru-11103

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jackson, Dru Anna

Type texts

Source 20220805-usctheses-batch-970 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu