Perceived stress and hair cortisol levels amongst conscripts during basic military training: A repeated measures study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model of aspects which are assumed to be of importance to stress levels in conscripts during their military service period.

Table 1. Factor loadings on items designed to measure squad cohesion.

Item	Cohesion-instrumental factor	Cohesion-affective factor
My current squad has a really good esprit de corps	.93	−.09
At war my squad members would help me even if it might put them in danger	.81	−.01
If a soldier fails during an exercise, the entire squad assists him	.79	−.08
My squad works together to achieve the set goal	.78	.01
If the squad’s achievements are poor, then everyone in the squad feels responsible	.74	.04
Squad soldiers are involved as we carry out the task	.74	.04
I do not like the way this squad solves its tasks (R)	.70	−.03
I do not think the squad has a sufficiently strong will to complete tasks in the best way (R)	.63	−.08
The quality of task performance provided by this squad is improving over time	.59	.15
In my squad, we easily accomplish tasks	.57	.02
In case of war, I would like to be in my current squad	.56	.19
Soldiers in this squad positively accept criticism	.53	.04
Our squad finds innovative ways to achieve the set goal	.49	.08
People would be concerned when a group member is absent from the group	.47	.03
Most group members contribute to decision making in the group	.44	.20
Group members usually feel free to share information	.42	.21
Here I can show my abilities	−.03	.83
It is safe to take a risk in this squad	.01	.79
Squad soldiers feel comfortable expressing disagreements in the group	.01	.78
No-one in this squad would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts	.04	.73
In my squad, everyone can ask questions and problems	.01	.68

N = 107. The extraction method was principal axis factoring with an oblique (oblimin) rotation. Factor loadings above .40 are in bold. Reverse-scored items are denoted with (R).

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and ANOVA, repeated-measures design, for study variables.

	1. After four weeks of service		2. Middle of service (18 weeks)		3. Two weeks before end (36 weeks)				Hypothesis	Error		Paired t-test^a
Model-derived scales	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Pillai’s trace	F	df	df	p	1–2	1–3	2–3
Emotional stability^b	5.23	1.52	Not measured		Not measured
Private-life problems^c	1.81	1.44	2.04	1.78	1.67	1.55	.038	2.09	2	105	.129
Military attitudes^b	4.74	1.40	4.10	1.52	4.22	1.56	.187	11.12	2	97	.000	A	B
Military engagement^d	3.87	1.27	3.22	1.31	3.59	1.43	.186	10.84	2	95	.000	A	B	C
Military adaptation^b	4.84	1.38	4.55	1.63	5.00	1.51	.062	3.11	2	94	.049			C
Cohesion-instrumental^b	5.09	1.00	4.52	1.01	4.56	1.28	.209	11.64	2	88	.000	A	B
Cohesion-affective^b	5.41	1.30	4.85	1.32	4.98	1.48	.130	7.10	2	95	.001	A	B
Leadership platoon^b	5.89	1.28	5.70	1.45	5.67	1.43	.014	0.681	2	98	.508
Leadership squad^b	5.68	1.76	5.11	1.81	5.04	1.97	.113	6.23	2	98	.003	A	B
Perceived stress^e	17.56	7.05	18.48	6.65	17.14	7.44	.056	2.48	2	84	.090			C
Cortisol^f	4.27	2.26	3.73	2.14	3.13	1.49	.226	14.27	2	98	.000		B	C

N = 107. ANOVA = analysis of variance. Paired t-tests: A = significant difference time 1–2, B = significant difference time 1–3, C = significant difference time 2–3. ^cScores could range from 1 to 7. ^dScores could range from 0 to 6. ^eScores could range from 1 to 6. ^fScores could range from 0 (lowest stress) to 40 (highest stress). ^gScores show ng/g.

Table 3. Correlations between model-derived scales and stress measures (N = 107).

Model-derived Scales	Perceived stress after four weeks of service	Perceived stress at the middle of service	Perceived stress two weeks before end	Cortisol after four weeks of service	Cortisol at the middle of service	Cortisol two weeks before end
Emotional stability^a	−.42***	-	-	−.02	-	-
Private-life problems	.50***	0.60***	0.52***	.01	.13	.01
Military attitudes	−.47***	−.30**	−.32**	−.07	−.15	−.16
Military engagement	−.68***	−.43***	−47***	−.08	−.22*	−.08
Military adaptation	−.69***	−.45***	−.47***	−.07	−.24*	−.08
Cohesion-instrumental	−.47***	−.42***	−.52***	−.12	−.16	−.05
Cohesion-affective	−.48***	−.42***	−.49***	−.11	−.17	−.11
Leadership platoon	−.32**	−.21*	−.29**	−.06	−.14	−.27**
Leadership squad	−.28**	−.41***	−.29**	.08	−.23*	.09

^aNot measured at middle of service or two weeks before end of service. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 4. Regression analysis – predictors on the perceived stress scale at time 1 (N = 107).

Step/Predictors	b	SE β	F	p
STEP 1
Emotional stability	−1.87	0.44	18.04	.000
STEP 2
Emotional stability	−1.53	0.42	13.21	.000
Private-life problems	1.69	0.44	15.09	.000
STEP 3
Emotional stability	−0.72	0.33	4.72	.033
Private-life problems	0.75	0.35	4.67	.033
Military attitudes	0.04	0.43	0.01	.920
Military engagement	−1.79	0.55	10.78	.001
Military adaptation	−2.00	0.45	19.56	.000
STEP 4
Emotional stability	−0.68	0.35	3.94	.051
Private-life problems	0.75	0.36	4.33	.041
Military attitudes	0.09	0.47	0.04	.850
Military engagement	−1.85	0.58	10.11	.002
Military adaptation	−1.71	0.49	12.34	.001
Cohesion-instrumental	0.39	0.71	0.30	.588
Cohesion-affective	−0.80	0.44	3.30	.073
Leadership platoon	−0.04	0.43	0.01	.933
Leadership squad	−0.04	0.30	0.02	.893

Final model R² = .64, adjusted R² = .60.