Presentation on theme: "PHILIP ZIMBARDO, PH.D., SARAH BRUNSKILL, M.A. & ANTHONY FERRERAS, M.S."— Presentation transcript:
1PHILIP ZIMBARDO, PH.D., SARAH BRUNSKILL, M.A. & ANTHONY FERRERAS, M.S. Social Intensity Syndrome Theory: Looking at the Military as a SubculturePHILIP ZIMBARDO, PH.D.,SARAH BRUNSKILL, M.A.&ANTHONY FERRERAS, M.S.
2Background Past studies The social environment has powerful effects on individual behaviors and can often change the way they normally behaveE.g., Milgram Study, Stanford Prison StudyEach of the experiments, however, produced only temporary changes in participants’ attitudes and behaviors.What about real life?Obviously, the social situation in which people find themselves in is a powerful influence on their behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions
3Social Experiments in Real Life Real life situations are created and structured to produce long lasting effects in people who participate.Religious cultsMilitaryReligious cults - adopt more intense and long-term versions of the principles used in social experiments to change new members’ attitudes, values, and behaviors to create life members devout to the organization’s views and causeMilitary - . Serving in the military involves a much longer term exposure to situations that are much more intense than the experiments mentioned above, and must reach beyond the changes in job-related behaviors in civilian organizations; the military must replace much of what their recruits learned since very early life. The intensity is greater because every aspect of recruits’ and servicemen’s lives is controlled and manipulated to socialize them to adopt attitudes and bring about new behaviors (Dyer, 1985)
4Why?The present study failed to find literature analyzing the effects of the intense, long-term socialization that happens in the military on Veterans’ lives beyond their serviceThe purposeIntroduce a new theoretical concept that describes this social phenomenon,Explore its assumptions about intense and long-term effects of military socialization.The composite of causes and effects related to long-term military socialization is new to academia and is referred to here as Social Intensity Syndrome (SIS).
5What is SIS? Social Intensity Syndrome (SIS) – Is the descriptive term for the complex of values, attitudes, and behaviors organized around personal attraction to and desire to maintain association with Male dominated social groupings.
6WHERE DID THE IDEA COME FROM? REPORTS OF SPOUSE AND FAMILY ABUSE AMONG RETURNING VETS FROM OVERSEASHIGH RATES OF REDEPLOYMENT AMONG IRAQ VETS BACK TO CONFLICT ZONES.SOME VETS HAVE REDEPLOYED 4 AND 5 TIMES!WHY?
7WHERE ELSE DID THE IDEA COME FROM? My Fair Lady,Rex Harrison singing WHY CAN’T A WOMAN BE MORE LIKE A MAN?
8Conceptual Assumptions Men, are attracted to social settings that involve the presence of a group of other menThat attraction is greater when:The more intense the nature of the relationshipThe more exclusive it is of tolerating “outsiders” or those who have not qualified for that group membershipThe more embedded each man is perceived to be within that groupE.g., the military, deployment, gangs, contact team sports, fraternities, prisons, some cults, and bars/ pubs.Examples of such social groups are the military, especially during boot camp and deployment, gangs, contact team sports, fraternities, prisons, some cults, and bars.
9Conceptual Assumptions Men experience a positive arousal, when they feel they are part of such an all MALE social group.Cortisol, Adrenergic system activation, or testosterone increaseMen adapt to that level of social intensity contact as an optimally desired personal and social state.Over time, that degree of social intensity becomes a “set point” of desirable functioning, operating at a non-conscious level.
10Conceptual Assumptions When separated from such socially intense group settings, men experience a sense of …Isolation and then boredomWithdrawal symptomsWhich are greater the longer the prior duration of their group participation
11Behavioral Predictions Those with high levels of SIS will do some or all of the following:Respond to the negative affect of disengagement from such groups by engaging in:Arousing activities (e.g., such as high risk ventures, daring deeds, getting into arguments and fights, drinking to excess, gambling, motorcycling, and similarly intense actions.)Choose Male group activities over smaller pairings of one or a few other men. (homo-avoidance)Choose all men groupings over mixed gender ones.
12Behavioral Predictions Feel less comfortable in the presence of women as “friends.” Women/spouse less trusted than men.Spend more time in symbolic male groups,E.g., watching sports in a sports bar, fantasy football or baseball competitions.Report high levels of boredom after separating from the socially intense grouping.Recall greater positive and fewer negative aspects of one’s time in that group.Deal with the arousal deficit by seeking redeployment if in the military.
13Behavioral Predictions Deal with the arousal deficit byHanging around settings where there are likely to be other men who also belong to such high intensity groupingsE.g., VA hospital lobbies, sports team “fanatics”, etc.More likely to engage inSpousal abuseDivorced or separate from matesMore likely to experienceAlcoholism,Drug addiction,Commit crimes,Suffer higher levels of PTSDThey are also more likely to engage in spousal abuse and divorced or separate from mates with whom they had a positive relationship prior to deployment or team membership.
14Behavioral Predictions Men who are paroled from prison may engage in crimes in which they are more likely to get caughtnon-conscious attempt to return to the socially intense prison atmosphere.Develop generally negative attitudes toward women as “the other” who do not understand them,prefer pornography and sex with prostitutes over consensual sexual relationships with equal status female mates.
15Transitioning from Active to Inactive The change is typically abrupt and without proper training for dealing with their now “new other” life.Military personnel leave the culture and enter another for which they have little or no training to deal with as independent, socially responsible civilian adultsFind it difficult to relate to civiliansFind that ordinary life is boring, tedious, non challengingBegin to social isolate themselvesBegin to feel inadequate, incompetentAND NO ONE IS AWARE OF THE SIS TRAP AT WORK!these young adults were socialized to deal with child and adolescent issues, and combat situations, but never to deal with adult civilian responsibilities and independent functioning; they skipped this important life training and transition.
16Lyrics from My Fair Lady: Reprise lamenting the failure of women to be men Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so honest, so thoroughly square; Eternally noble, historically fair. Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat. Why can't a woman be like that?Why does every one do what the others do? Can't a woman learn to use her head? Why do they do everything their mothers do? Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?
17Women would be more loved if they were MEN Why can't a woman take after a man? Men are so pleasant, so easy to please. Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease. But by and large we are a marvelous sex!Why can't a woman take after a man? 'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind. A better companion you never will find. Why can't a woman be more like a man? Men are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't a woman be a chum? Why can't a woman be like me?
18Creating a New SIS Survey SARAH R. BRUNSKILL, M.A.
19Item writing and selection 150 preliminary items were createdInterviews with Veterans, military family members and cliniciansLiterature reviewsReceived consultation from Veterans and active military personnelThe criterion for item retentionAlignment with the theoretical assumptionsAppropriatenessWordingRelevancyUsing the theoretical assumptions developed by Dr. Zimbardo,150 preliminary items for potential selectionreceived consultation from veterans and active military personnel to ensure appropriateness of item topics and wording.After receiving consultation, researcher selected items based on alignment with the theoretical assumptions, appropriateness, wording, relevancy.
20Measures 1oo exploratory items Used a 1 to 5 Likert type scale Length Intended to measure the various conceptual aspects of SIS.Higher scores on this scale reflect/endorsed SISUsed a 1 to 5 Likert type scale“Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly”LengthApproximately 30 minutes2 items needed to be reverse codedDemographic questions helped determine whether they wereactive/inactivedeployed/nondeployedUsed a 1 to 5 Likert type scale“Disagree Strongly” to “Agree Strongly” to indicate their level of agreement to each statementTimeAbout 30 min
22ProcedureA group of 5 undergraduates and 1 PI contacted both active and inactive military personnel through…Websites,Social media,Personal contacts,Military lists,Veteran services,Senior centers,Education facilities,Interest groups, est.
23Recruitment Snowball Method friends, family, other acquaintances or individuals lists on public websites as the contact person for a military groupcontacts asked to forward the letter to their military networkrecipients were asked to forward the letter to othersWe know from previous experience that this a very hard group to break into this group due to their general distrust for research and psychology.Through using the snowball methods to recruit participants we were able to...finding champions within the military, we were able to break into the cultureaccess people we otherwise would not be able to.First, a recruitment letter was ed and physically handed out to friends, family and other acquaintances who are inactive and active military personnel.Second, the recruitment letter was distributed to acquaintances with military contacts asked to forward the letter to their military network.Finally, recruitment letter recipients were asked to forward the letter to others. Reportedly, this method even reached several military/veteran organizations.
24Participants N (survey hits) 618 (100%) n (completed surveys) 346 (56.0%)Female11 (3.2%)Male335 (96.8%)Missing itemsEligible surveys for analysis324 (52.4%)618 – people went to the first page346 – completed the survey324 (52.4%) – of the surveys were eligible for analysisBetter than chanceQualifications for survey-Maleover 18take survey onlineread Englishcurrently serving or have served in US military
25Participant Demographics Age18 to 2416 (5.0%)25 to 3557 (17.8%)26 to 4555 (17.2%)46 to 5552 (16.3%)56 to 6570 (21.9%)66 to 7535 (10.9%)76 and aboveEthnicityAfrican American7 (2.2%)Asian/Pacific Islander46 (14.2%)Caucasian241 (74.6%)Hispanic/Latino19 (5.9%)Other10 (3.1%)A good distribution amongst the age groups.We need to get more 18-24Ethnicity –need to get a more diverse sampleCurrently working on these things by focusing on these groups
26Military Demographics n(n = 324)2010 Military CensusMilitary BranchAir Force92 (28.5%)24.1%Army139 (43.0%)39.8%Coast Guard5 (1.5%)2.3%Marine Corp36 (11.1%)10.2%Navy51 (15.8%)23.5%CategoryActive/Not Deployed17 (5.2%)Active/Deployed88 (27.2%)Inactive/Not Deployed45 (13.9%)Inactive/Deployed174 (53.7%)We are still working to create a better distribution amongst military branches; however,we found that it falls very close to the military's own distributionDeploymentdefined and asked by asking if the participant had been deployed to a “combat/conflict zone”were asked to select 0-5+Finally, we have identified four groups to that should express varying levels of SIS:Active/Non-deployed – Current servicemen who have not been deployedActive/Deployed – Current servicemen who have experienced combatInactive/Non-deployed – Veterans who were never deployedInactive/Deployed – Veterans who have experienced combat
27Predicted Ranking of SIS Higher SISLower SISActive/Non-deployedActive/DeployedInactive/DeployedInactive/Non-deployedActive/Non-deployed,individuals should express the lowest levels of SIS and its characteristics,they are still actively involved in the militaryhave not experienced the socially intense situations that those who have been deployed have.Active/Deployed,still immersed in the intense social environment providing the social supporthave immediate access to those who have also been deployed.Inactive/Non-deployed,this groups have been separated from the social support with which they are most comfortable.Inactive/Deployedrespondents should express the highest levels of SISthey have been separated from constant access of the military culture and those who share the same intense experiences
28Data Screening Data was screened for outliers Minimum amount of data for analysisNot satisfiedNeed an estimated >500 casesExploratory preliminary factor analysisCurrent N = 324~3 cases per variableData was screened for univariate outliersno out of range outliers were foundThis is a preliminary analysis, welcome suggestions~3 cases per variableaiming for a minimum of 5
29Assumption Testing Factorability Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s test of sphericityAnti-image correlation matrixCommunalitiesFactorability100 of the 100 items correlated at least .3suggesting reasonable factorabilityKaiser-Meyer-Olkinmeasure of sampling adequacy was above the recommend value of .6.being .919 we were confident that a factor analysis was appropriateBartlett’s test of sphericity was significantdiagonals of the anti-image correlation matrixall over .5,supporting the inclusion of each item in the factor analysis.communalitiesall above .3Given these overall indicators, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted with all 100 items.
30Variance Explained Principle components analysis was used the primary purpose was to identify compute scores for the factors underlying in SIS19 were observed with an eigen value over 1.0
31Scree Plot While 19 variables were observe, the scree plot suggests an estimated 3-6 factor loadings before leveling offThree, four, five and six factor solutions were examined,using both varimax and oblimin rotations of the factor loading matrix.
32Variance Explained With 3 Factors The three factor solution, which explained 39.65% of the variance, was preferred because of itsprevious theoretical support,the ‘leveling off’ of eigen values on the scree plot after three factors,and the insufficient number of primary loadings and difficulty of interpreting the fourth factor and subsequent factors.There was little difference between the varimax and oblimin solutions,thus both solutions were examined in the subsequent analyses beforedeciding on an varimax rotation for the final solution.
33Example of Items Eliminated QuestionReason 1I feel my best when with my MILITARY friends.Cross-loading on factors 1 and 2Since being deployed, I am more interested in connecting with my MILITARY friends.The guys I was close to in my unit probably understand me better than anyone else currently in my life.I prefer to be around people most of the time.Cross-loading on factors 1 and 3I enjoy playing extreme sports (e.g., skydiving, cliff diving, motorsports, etc.).Did not have a high enough factor loadingDuring several steps, a total of 50 items were eliminated becausethey did not contribute to a simple factor structurefailed to meet a minimum criteria of having a primary factor loading of .4 or above,no cross-loading of .3 or above.
34Final Factor Analysis: Assumption Testing FactorabilityKaiser-Meyer-OlkinBartlett’s test of sphericityAnti-image correlation matrixCommunalitiesfactorability50 of the 50 items correlated at least .3 suggesting reasonableKaiser-Meyer-Olkinmeasure of sampling adequacy was above the recommend value of .6.being a .908Bartlett’s test of sphericitysignificantdiagonals of the anti-image correlation matrixall over .5,supporting the inclusion of each item in the factor analysis.communalitiesall above .3Given these overall indicators, a factor analysis was conducted with all 50 items.
35Final Factor Analysis: Variance Explained A principle-components factor analysis of the remaining 50 items,the three factors explaining 45.1% of the variance which increased from the original 3 factor solution (39%)An Varimax provided the best defined factor structure.All items had primary loadings over .4 and no cross-loading items
36Reliability Analyses: Factor 1 Title/theme – TrustNumber of items = 29a = .954Example QuestionsFactor LoadingIt is easier to trust my MILITARY friends than my significant other.779It is hard for me to trust women.742I wish my significant other was more like my best MILITARY friends.714I distance myself from my NON-MILITARY friends.633I distance myself from my SIGNIFICANT OTHER.621I feel like my family gets in the way of hanging out with my MILITARY friends.491Internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha.The alphas was HIGH for family (Excellent range)No substantial increases in alpha for any of the scales could have been achieved by eliminating more items.
37Reliability Analyses: Factor 2 Title/theme – NostalgiaN = 12a = .835Example QuestionsFactor LoadingI want to reenlist because I miss the excitement.780I enjoyed being in the military.709I wanted to redeploy because I missed the people.708I have more good memories with my MILITARY friends than bad.628There is a level of excitement that I felt just being part of that unit on a day-to-day basis.568Internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha.The alphas was GOOD for Deployment (good range)If item “I feel down when I am with my MILITARY friends” is deleted raise alpha to .870
38Reliability Analyses: Factor 3 Title/theme – Social BondingN = 9a = .837Example QuestionsFactor LoadingI often feel the need to be around others.836I often feel an intense need to be around people.787I feel lonely when friends are too busy to hangout.655I do NOT like being alone.600I would rather hangout with a group rather than hangout with just one friend.556Internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha.The alphas was GOOD for Deployment (good range)If item “When I am out, I talk to anyone around me” is deleted raise alpha to .849
39Descriptive statistics for all 3 factors No. of itemsMean (SD)SkewnessKurtosisAlphaFactor 1 (Trust)292.37 (.95).48-.68.95Factor 2 (Nostalgia)123.43 (.74)-.30-.50.84Factor 3 (Social Bonding)92.59 (.81).27-.41Composite scores were created for each of the three factors, based on the mean of the items which had their primary loadings on each factor.Factor 1 (Trust) displayed a slight positive skewed distribution,Factor 2 (Nostalgia) displayed a slight negatively skewed distribution,Factor 3 (Social Bonding) displayed a slight positive to normal distribution
40Descriptive Statistics by Military Category nFactor 1(Trust)Factor 2 (Nostalgia)Factor 3(Social Bonding)Overall SISMean (SD)Active/Not Deployed171.88 (.72)3.71 (.65)2.76 (.77)2.78 (.42)Active/ Deployed882.13 (.81)3.34 (.66)2.70 (.74)2.72 (.50)Inactive/452.02 (.68)3.43 (.68)2.28 (.70)2.57 (.48)Inactive/ Deployed1742.64 (1.02)3.46 (.80)2.60 (.86)2.90 (.65)Higher reports of SIS falls in line with the theoryLower reports of SIS is closer to civilian
41Descriptive Statistics by Military Category nFactor 1(Trust)Factor 2 (Nostalgia)Factor 3(Social Bonding)Overall SISMean (SD)Active/Not Deployed171.88 (.72)3.71 (.65)2.76 (.77)2.78 (.42)Active/ Deployed882.13 (.81)3.34 (.66)2.70 (.74)2.72 (.50)*Inactive/452.02 (.68)3.43 (.68)2.28 (.70)2.57 (.48)Inactive/ Deployed1742.64 (1.02)3.46 (.80)2.60 (.86)2.90 (.65)*Active Deployed vs Inactive/Deployed SIG DIFFERENCE (P = .016)Inactive/ Not Deployed vs Inactive/Deployed SIG DIFFERENCE (P = .002)No Sig DifferenceActive/Not Deployed vs Active DepolyedActive/Not Deployed vs Inactive/ Not DeployedActive/Not Deployed vs Inactive/DeployedActive Deployed vs Inactive/ Not Deployed*p = .016
42Descriptive Statistics by Military Category nFactor 1(Trust)Factor 2 (Nostalgia)Factor 3(Social Bonding)Overall SISMean (SD)Active/Not Deployed171.88 (.72)3.71 (.65)2.76 (.77)2.78 (.42)Active/ Deployed882.13 (.81)3.34 (.66)2.70 (.74)2.72 (.50)Inactive/452.02 (.68)3.43 (.68)2.28 (.70)2.57 (.48)*Inactive/ Deployed1742.64 (1.02)3.46 (.80)2.60 (.86)2.90 (.65)*Higher reports of SIS falls in line with the theoryLower reports of SIS is closer to civilianActive Deployed vs Inactive/Deployed SIG DIFFERENCE (P = .016)Inactive/ Not Deployed vs Inactive/Deployed SIG DIFFERENCE (P = .002)No Sig DifferenceActive/Not Deployed vs Active DepolyedActive/Not Deployed vs Inactive/ Not DeployedActive/Not Deployed vs Inactive/DeployedActive Deployed vs Inactive/ Not Deployed*p = .002
43Ranking of SIS Predicted Ranking Actual Ranking Higher SIS Higher SIS Lower SISActive/Non-deployedActive/DeployedInactive/DeployedInactive/Non-deployedHigher SISLower SISActive/Non-deployedActive/DeployedInactive/DeployedInactive/Non-deployedInactive/Non-deployed,lowest reports of SIS,have an easier time going back into civilian life after leaving the military.This appears to be related to them not being deployed.Active/Deployed,2nd lowest reported SIS.still immersed in the intense social environmentproviding the social support systemimmediate access to those who have also been deployed and the life or death experiences.Active/Non-deployed,2nd highest reports of SIS.This is our younger group (18-24), this is their identitythey most likely have been wanting to be apart of this culture for a long time.Inactive/Deployedhighest reports of SIS.they have been separated from constant access of the military culturethose who share the same intense experiences of being deployed.
44Ranking of SIS Predicted Ranking Actual Ranking Higher SIS Higher SIS Lower SISActive/Non-deployedActive/DeployedInactive/DeployedInactive/Non-deployedHigher SISLower SISActive/Non-deployedActive/DeployedInactive/DeployedInactive/Non-deployedInterestingly, what we also found is a predictive model.Once the military status changed, the reports of SIS change.If you were deployed higher SISIf you were not deployed lower SISHOW CAN WE USE THISPrior to exiting the military, de-escalation/ civilian integration training needs to happenclinicians can help prepare active/deployed service members prior to being discharged, to help lessen some of the negative aspects of having higher reports of SIS once they become inactiveSocial integrationHelping the spousesEducation to support the sig otherPrevent misunderstandHelp family unit
45Conclusions 3 distinct factors TrustNostalgiaSocial BondingInternally consistentSaw directional trends of SIS and how it affects certain groupsSupport for the foundational theory of SISNext stepsWrite a theory paperStandardizing survey and publishDisseminating information to clinicians and Veterans AffairsOverall, these analyses indicated that three distinct factors were that these factors were moderately internally consistent.Primary
46QuestionsContact infoSarah Brunskill –If you know anyone who is serving or has served in the military, and think they might participate, please let us know.