Personal values in soldiers after military deployment: associations with mental health and resilience

Figures & data

Fig. 1 Circumplex structure of personal values based on Schwartz et al., 2001.

Table 1 Definition and scale means (M) of value types

Universalism   M: 2.96 (0.88)	Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of other people
Benevolence  M: 3.66 (0.69)	Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact
Conformity   M: 3.28 (0.82)	Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms
Tradition   M: 2.38 (0.72)	Respect, commitment, and acceptance of customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self
Security   M: 3.35 (0.85)	Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships and of self
Power   M: 2.57 (1.05)	Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people, and resources
Achievement   M: 3.16 (1.06)	Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards
Hedonism   M: 3.27 (1.09)	Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
Stimulation   M: 2.77 (1.07)	Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Self-Direction   M: 3.63 (0.73)	Independent thought and action; choosing, creating, exploring

Note. Adapted from the basic human values theory by Schwartz et al. (2001). M, mean values of the value types in the sample and (Standard Deviation).

Table 2 Correlations between value types and age, resilience and PTSD severity

Value type	Age	RS-11	PTSD severity
UN	0.24**	0.13	0.08
BE	0.26**	0.03	.09
CO	0.17	0.08	0.10
TR	0.17	−.04	0.16
SE	0.27**	0.12	0.07
PO	−0.03	0.34**	−0.26**
AC	−0.07	0.32**	−0.19*
HE	−0.18	0.43**	−0.43**
ST	−0.33**	0.30**	−0.25**
SD	0.11	0.40**	−0.00

Note. Pearson coefficient

* p<0.05

** p<0.01. UN, universalism; BE, benevolence; CO, conformity; TR, tradition; SE, security; PO, power; AC, achievement; HE, hedonism; ST, stimulation; SD, self-direction.

Table 3 Regression model for probability of PTSD

Variable	R	OR	p
Results without RS-11 (Cox-Snell-r ^2=0.235)
Universalism (UN)	0.84	2.32	0.024
Power (PO)	−0.66	0.52	0.029
Hedonism (HE)	−0.72	0.48	0.010
Results incl. RS-11 (Cox-Snell-r ^2=0.338)
RS-11	−0.12	0.89	<0.001
Universalism (UN)	1.09	2.97	0.014
Power (PO)	−0.62	0.54	0.046

Note. Values controlled for age and sex (both always n.s.; not shown). OR, odds ratio; R, regression coefficient.

Table 4 Results of mediation analysis for probability of PTSD

Variable	Direct effect	Predictor on mediator	Indirect effect	Total effect
Universalism (UN)	1.13	0.37	−0.04	0.84
(standardized)	0.42		−0.01	0.36
	(p=0.012)	(p=0.760)	(p=0.760)	(p=0.024)
Power (PO)	−0.49	2.20	−0.25	−0.66
(standardized)	−0.18		−0.09	−0.29
	(p=0.135)	(p=0.037)	(p=0.067)	(p=0.029)
Hedonism (HE)	−0.40	3.78	−0.42	−0.72
(standardized)	−0.150		−0.16	−0.31
	(p=0.191)	(p=0.001)	(p=0.009)	(p=0.010)

Note. Mediator: RS-11; effect of mediator on outcome: −0.112; standardized: −0.042; p<0.001; values controlled for age and sex (both always n.s.; not shown); standardization after MacKinnon & Dwyer, 1993; Sobel test used for indirect effects.

Table 5 Regression model for severity of PTSD

Variable	R	T	p
Results without RS-11 (r ^2=0.20)
Hedonism (HE)	−0.32	−4.56	<0.001
Results incl. RS-11 (r ^2=0.43)
RS-11	−0.04	−6.17	<0.001
Hedonism (HE)	−0.21	−3.13	0.002
Self-direction (SD)	0.33	3.39	0.001

Note. Values controlled for age and sex (both always n.s.; not shown). R, regression coefficient.

Table 6 Results of mediation analysis for severity of PTSD

Variable	Direct effect	Predictor on mediator	Indirect effect	Total effect
Hedonism (HE)	−0.21	3.62	−0.15	−0.36
	(p=0.002)	(p<0.001)	(p=0.001)	(p<0.001)
Self-direction	0.33	4.37	−0.187	0.16
(SD)	(p=0.001)	(p=0.002)	(p=0.005)	(p=0.158)

Note. Mediator: RS-11; effect of mediator on outcome: −0.041; p<0.001; values controlled for age and sex (both always n.s.; not shown); Sobel test used for indirect effects.

Table 7 Value types of soldiers in psychiatric–psychotherapeutic treatment (1) and of soldiers not in any such treatment (2)

Variable	Group	M	SD	Adjusted for age and sex
Universalism (UN)	1	2.86	0.917	t(113)=−0.94
	2	3.15	0.789	p=0.333
Benevolence (BE)	1	3.59	0.711	t(113)=−0.78
	2	3.81	0.644	p=0.439
Conformity (CO)	1	3.19	0.842	t(113)=−1.10
	2	3.45	0.751	p=0.273
Tradition (TR)	1	2.29	0.725	t(113)=−1.27
	2	2.55	0.701	p=0.206
Security (SE)	1	3.27	0.829	t(113)=−0.51
	2	3.50	0.877	p=0.609
Power (PO)	1	2.80	0.895	t(113)=3.36
	2	2.13	1.178	p=0.001
Achievement (AC)	1	3.33	0.949	t(113)=2.19
	2	2.85	1.199	p=0.031
Hedonism (HE)	1	3.54	0.912	t(113)=3.48
	2	2.75	1.210	p=0.001
Stimulation (ST)	1	2.98	1.025	t(113)=2.07
	2	2.37	1.064	p=0.041
Self-direction (SD)	1	3.62	0.700	t(113)=0.24
	2	3.64	0.792	p=0.812

Note. M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Schwartz S. H, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, Owens V. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2001; 32(5): 519–542.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Streb M, Häller P, Michael T. PTSD in paramedics: Resilience and sense of coherence. Behavioral Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2013; 29: 1–12.

 Google Scholar

Maercker A, Mohiyeddini C, Müller M, Xie W, Hui Yang Z, Wang J. Traditional versus modern values, self-perceived interpersonal factors, and posttraumatic stress in Chinese and German crime victims. Psychology and Psychotherapy. 2009; 82(2): 219–232. 10.1348/147608308X380769.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar