Gender and Deployment Effects on Pro-Organizational Behaviors of U.S. Soldiers

Abstract

This study examines whether gender moderates the relationships between deployment and both organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors. The broader context motivating this study is the U.S. military’s 2016 rescission of the ground combat exclusion, accomplishing full gender integration in the armed forces. Structural equation modeling is used to test for gender moderation effects. Results reveal deployment frequency, but not current deployment, has small effects on several pro-organizational behaviors. Results also show that gender does not moderate the effects of deployment frequency on soldiers’ perceptions of the organization or economic or social satisfaction. Gender does moderate the effects of deployment frequency on soldiers’ identification with the army. Additionally, while gender was not found to moderate the relationship between combat deployments and overall pro-organizational behaviors among soldiers, it does moderate the effect of deployments on one pro-organizational item: sacrificing behavior. Implications are discussed with an eye toward full gender inclusion in the U.S. military.

Keywords

gender integration military deployment pro-organizational behaviors organizational identification

In January 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey announced the decision to rescind the Department of Defense regulation that excluded women from being assigned to units “whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.”¹ For service in the army, the ground combat exclusion prohibited women from serving in infantry, armor, or field artillery units. January 1, 2016, marked the date whereby any commands within the service branches could request exemption from full gender integration. No exemptions were filed, which ushered in a new era of military organization in the United States.

This historic change to remove gender-based exclusion for military specializations motivated this study to explore differences in the value male and female service members provide to the military. In particular, we focus on the effects that deployments have on male and female service members’ behaviors and attitudes that add value to the military. Investigating these gender differences will establish a gender-comparison baseline prior to rescission of the exclusion of women from ground combat specialties. The degree to which we observe any gender differences may have implications for what we should expect once women are fully integrated across all military specialization. It also serves as a reference point from which changes may be assessed once full gender inclusion is firmly established in the coming years.

It is important to examine the effects of deployment on organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors by gender because there has been great concern over the effects of multiple deployments on the well-being and morale of our soldiers (Adler, Huffman, Bliese, & Castro, 2005; Fiedler et al., 2006; Luxton, Skopp, & Maguen, 2010; Vogt et al., 2011; Wadsworth & Southwell, 2011). In addition, the debate over expanding women’s roles in the armed forces has often cited deployment challenges in addition to physical ability among women as reasons to limit female military participation to noncombat arms specializations (see I. I. Baker, 2006; Burrelli, 2013). Challenges range from physical strength, to privacy in sleeping and bathroom arrangements, to issues related to sexual distraction, to paternalism that affects focus on the military mission.

Theoretically, differential effects of deployment by gender can be understood in the context of the greedy institution framework and a critical lens that emphasizes the military as a hypermasculine institution. Segal (1986) argues that the military is a greedy institution, demanding high levels of commitment, energy, and emotional investment, at times exceeding what the individual feels they are able to give to the organization. The family is also a greedy institution and the dual pressures of work and family felt among female service members are more acute than among male service members. Although both genders are expected to be professionals and good parents/spouses, women are significantly more likely than men to shoulder the primary family-oriented commitments, even when both spouses work (Hochschild, 1989/1997; Kelty & Segal, 2013). When deployed, women are more likely than men to feel they are not upholding their familial responsibilities (Segal, 1986).

Numerous scholars have noted the military has informal norms that privilege men and (hyper) masculine organizational characteristics (Kelty & Segal, 2013; Miller, 1997; Snyder, 2003). In recent decades, the formal regulations, most notably the ground combat exclusion,² that structurally promoted and perpetuated the military’s hypermasculine environment have been removed. Still informal norms, beliefs, and practices persist. One would expect that women would have different orientations to and experiences in an organization founded not merely on the masculinity but the outright rejection of feminine qualities. Of the various missions performed by the military, war fighting is the most masculine. Thus, the hypermasculine structure and culture of the military, especially during war fighting, are expected to lead to differential experiences for our men and women in uniform. To the extent that we anticipate more negative consequences of deployment for women, we likewise anticipate that greater numbers of deployments will amplify the gender disparity.

While full gender integration is now underway, both supporters and critics continue to make claims and seek evidence for their claims on the positive and negative consequences of full gender inclusion. The positive consequence of increased value to the military is conceptualized to operate in two forms: fostering greater commitment to the organization via soldiers’ identification and satisfaction with the military (attitudes) and enacting behaviors that directly benefit the military (actions). This study uses a conceptual model that integrates perceptions of the organization, satisfaction, and organizational identification as predictors of pro-organizational behaviors. Analyses presented below identify whether and to what extent gender moderates the effects of deployment on organizational identification and pro-organization behavior, thereby assessing the veracity of the claim that deployment effects reduce the value of women to the military.

Given the structural prohibition from serving in ground combat units that were in place at the time data were collected for this study, women are compared to the full male sample as well as to the subsamples of men serving in combat arms and in noncombat arms specializations. These comparisons allow for a more nuanced assessment of gender differences in that they compare women to men in general as well as to men who serve in structurally similar units as women (noncombat arms) and those serving in units restricted to women (combat arms). By intentional design via the ground combat exclusion rule, service and deployment experiences are expected to differ between men in combat arms specializations versus women (and men) in noncombat arms specializations.

Lifting the ban against women in combat roles has not ended the debate concerning women’s ability to serve in these roles or the value to the organization created by doing so. The concerns voiced by opponents of full inclusion related to physical ability, privacy issues, and fraternization (Snyder, 2003) are important considerations in light of the historic change underway in women’s military participation. These concerns, if they indeed manifest as problems, are likely to be the most pronounced during deployment. An alternative, powerful set of questions involves an examination of the value of establishing a fully gender-integrated military. In other words, if physical ability is effectively controlled for through proper qualifications standards and appropriate privacy and social standards are met, what effects might gender have on key indicators of value to the organization?

This study examines the effects of gender and two measures of deployment on the variables in a model predicting pro-organizational behaviors. Analyses presented below assess the degree to which a gender moderates the effects of deployment on soldiers’ organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors, thereby assessing the veracity of the claim that deployment effects reduce the value of women in the military. To this end, this study tests the following hypothesis: Women will report greater negative effects of deployment on organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors than will men.

Conceptual Model

The conceptual model predicting pro-organizational behavior (Figure 1) advanced for this study is based on the research of Mael and Ashforth (1992), Fishbach and Ferguson (2011), and Kruglanski et al. (2002). The model identifies perceptions of the organization, satisfaction, and organizational identification as variable that affect pro-organizational behaviors directly and/or indirectly. This study also controls for the reasons a person joined the army, which tend to have strong effects on identification and pro-organizational behavior (Woodruff & Kelty, 2015).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of gender moderation of deployment on identification and behavior.

A person’s value to an organization is significantly affected by how strongly they identify with the organization and their willingness to enact pro-organizational behaviors. Stronger organizational identification produces more positive perceptions and promotes behaviors of importance to the organization. Increased identification also fosters the development of relationships and enacting behaviors that support the organization (Oakes, 1987; Stets & Burke, 2000). Given the hypermasculine structure and culture of the U.S. military, and difference in how work–family conflict are likely to impact men and women differently, we expect gender differences in the relationship between deployment and both organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors.

There are a number of behaviors that are believed to be critical to the military’s success. These behaviors are also discretionary and should reflect relationship quality better than compulsory behaviors. These pro-organizational behaviors include retention, providing positive word of mouth (WOM) to others about the military, sacrificing for the mission or organization, use of military services, and participation in voluntary organizational activities. Although this set of membership behaviors is not exhaustive, they are among the more important behaviors that cannot typically be compelled by a commander. Nonetheless, these behaviors benefit the mission (e.g., sacrificing and voluntary participation) or the long-term health of the military (e.g., reenlistment and use of military services). Service members experience the military as a greedy institution, and for many the military competes with the family as a greedy institution. In addition, since the military remains dominated by hypermasculine culture, examination of attitudes and discretionary behaviors that benefit the military can be expected to vary by gender.

Method

This study uses a sample of active duty U.S. Army Soldiers in the ranks of private through staff sergeant (E1–E6) and was drawn from a population of roughly 400,000 soldiers in those six ranks as of September 2011 (Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division, 2014). Data were collected using two sampling methods: simple random sampling from the full relevant population and sampling of operational units using a method similar to stratified cluster sampling.

The sample consists of a majority of respondents who are unmarried (62%) men (86.5%), with a mean age of 28 years, two thirds of which have at least some college education (Table 1). Nearly two thirds of soldiers included are Caucasian (62%), with much smaller proportions of African Americans (15.5%), Hispanics (12%), and another 10.5% identifying with other racial/ethnic minorities. Respondents are drawn from the six most junior ranks in the army (private through staff sergeant). In terms of military service, the sample has an average of 5.7 years of service, just under half (43.5%) serve in combat specialties, and on average have 24 months of combat deployment. This sample is representative of army soldiers on the characteristics presented with two minor exceptions. Relative to their proportions in the active duty population, African Americans are underrepresented in the sample by 5% and staff sergeants (E6) are overrepresented by 8% in the sample (Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division, 2011). These variations are not believed to have significant effects on the results of this study.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Sample.

Sample Characteristic	Frequency	Average
Age		28.2 years
Average time in service		5.7 years
Combat deployments		2 tours
Percentage of unmarried, %	62.0
Race
Caucasian	62.0
African American	15.5
Hispanic	12.5
Other	10.0
Male	86.5
Education
High school	93.5
Some college	65.7
Combat job specialty	43.5

Note. N = 1,091.

Simple random sampling was used to select individuals who then received individual e-mail invitations to participate in a web-based survey. One quarter of those sampled completed the instrument, resulting in 610 usable surveys. In addition, three army organizations were sampled to reflect the army’s variation in mission type and deployment status. One sampled unit was deployed in a combat zone, one unit had just returned from a combat zone deployment, and one unit had spent the previous year at its home installation in the United States. These organizations included both combat arms units that engage in direct combat with the enemy (e.g., infantry, armor, field artillery) and combat support units that provide service and support for the combat arms units (e.g., logistics, communication, transportation). This was done to provide a balance of unit types and create a sample that is more representative of the army. When sampling within units, it is common to oversample the military specialty that aligns with that unit type (e.g., an armor unit would have most soldiers in armor combat specialties, whereas a support unit would be heavily represented by transportation and maintenance specialties). We also collect military specialty data from individuals. This is to ensure that we are controlling for any effects of job type/specialty within the model.

Response rates were between 69% and 90%, resulting in 481 usable surveys. After testing the survey data for invariance (Byrne, 2001) and comparing them against population statistics, the samples were combined to create a total sample of 1,091 soldiers, which closely reflects the Department of Defense population statistics (Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division, 2011).

Focal Measures

A summary of the focal measures used in this study is included in Appendix Table A1. Each variable’s conceptual definition and source of adaptation is provided along with reliability measures when available. Construct definitions for focal study variables are consistent with extant theory in social psychology, and all scales and most items were adapted from the existing measures with good psychometric properties. Items were assessed for content and face validity using panels of expert judges (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003) and included the use of a Q-sort, which demonstrated strong consistency, with over 90% agreement between respondents. The survey was then pilot tested using an independent sample and the data were analyzed using principal components analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which affirmed the item and factor structures suggested by theory and PCA.

PCA indicated items loaded as hypothesized at .725 or higher, with no cross loadings exceeding .250. CFA of the final first-order measurement model produced strong fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = .977, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .035, χ² = 435.408, df =173), meeting the prevailing recommendations for CFI and RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999). All scales had reliability scores above .7 and the survey itself was analyzed for patterns of nonresponse or any other indications of problems. Lastly, the model was adjusted to include three second-order factors and again tested using CFA: a general economic satisfaction factor, an economic membership goal factor, and a pro-organizational behavior factor (CFI = .966, RMSEA = .040, χ² =1,703.5, df = 620), with all loadings reaching significance.

Plan of Analysis

This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify the differential effects of gender on the relationships between deployment and pro-organizational behaviors (Figure 1). SEM is a multivariate analysis that facilitates factor analysis and the simultaneous testing of the entire system of regression equations. This is a preferred method of determining direct, indirect, and total effects when using latent variables, particularly when there are multiple mediators and outcome variables (Kenny, 2016). SEM also estimates model fit relative to a fully saturated model with paths between all factors. Specifically, this analysis will assess the direct and indirect effects of deployment on perceptions of and satisfaction with the army, organizational identification, and pro-organizational behaviors.

Next, we test whether gender moderates the relationship between deployment and the constructs in the pro-organizational behavior model. This is accomplished through freeing model paths to vary between genders and then fixed as equal between genders one at a time, yielding a χ² difference scores for each path. Each of the paths with a significant χ² value (those paths that differ in some way between groups) is then compared pairwise using the unstandardized path estimates and standard errors to compute Z-scores for the path difference between genders. A significant difference indicates the path is moderated by gender or combat specialty, depending on which pairwise comparison is significant.

Results

Demographic and combat deployment variables had modest effects on pro-organizational behaviors but were substantially less influential than the reasons for joining, satisfaction, and perceptual factors in the model. The most influential variables were the dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the service member was currently deployed and the number of total deployments the member has experience (Figure 2). The results indicate that when individuals were deployed, they perceive the army as less distinctive (β = −.135, SE = .061, p = .027) and less prestigious (β = −.132, SE = .067, p = .049) and were less economically satisfied (β = −.172, SE = .080, p = .031); moreover, they were less likely to enact pro-organizational behaviors (β = −.227, SE = .083, p = .007). Additionally, when the frequency of deployments increased, social satisfaction increased (β = .056, SE = .021, p = .007).

Figure 2.

Effects of deployed and deployment frequency on identification–behavior model.

Additional analysis removed the pro-organizational behavior factor and allowed the antecedent factors (to include deployed status and deployment frequency) to have a direct effect on the component behaviors (sacrificing, retention, participation, positive WOM, and use of services; Table 2). While being currently deployed did not have a significant effect on any specific behavior, the frequency of deployment did have a positive effect on sacrificing (β = .102, SE = .033, p = .002) and retention (β = .115, SE = .049, p = .019).

Table 2.

Effects of Being Deployed and Deployment Frequency on Specific Pro-Organizational Behaviors.

Relationship	Coefficient	SE	p Value
Currently deployed → Sacrificing	.110	.098	.264
Currently deployed → Retention	−.087	.146	.549
Currently deployed → Positive word of mouth	−.132	.104	.203
Currently deployed → Discretionary participation	−.012	.125	.926
Currently deployed → Use of services	−.036	.077	.638
Deployment frequency → Sacrificing	.102	.033	.002*
Deployment frequency → Retention	.115	.049	.019*
Deployment frequency → Positive word of mouth	.014	.035	.691
Deployment frequency → Discretionary participation	.069	.042	.102
Deployment frequency → Use of services	.015	.026	.550

Note. SE = standard error.

*p < .05.

A second set of analyses examines the moderating effects of gender on the relationship between being deployed and the frequency of deployment on the pro-organizational behavior model constructs. Results indicate that gender does not moderate any of the effects of being deployed on the various model constructs.

Gender does not moderate the effect of the frequency of combat deployments on soldiers’ satisfaction or perceptions of the organization (Figure 3). However, the data do show that gender moderates the effects of the frequency of combat deployments on soldiers’ identification with the army. Higher frequencies of deployment have a small nonsignificant negative effect on identification among female soldiers (β = −.080, SE = .066, p = .225) but a small statistically significant positive effect among male soldiers (β = .057, SE = .022, p = .009). This test of moderation is significant at the p < .05 level. Thus, deployments do not appear to have the negative effects on either gender one might anticipate from increased deployments, and in fact males’ identification with the army benefits from increased deployments. The relationship between combat deployment and overall pro-organizational behavior was not moderated by gender.

Figure 3.

Gender moderation of deployed on identification–behavior model. Note. M = male; F = female.

The final set of analyses examines the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between deployment and specific pro-organizational behaviors (Figure 4). Gender failed to moderate the effect of being currently deployed (or not) on specific pro-organizational behaviors. Gender was found to moderate the effect of deployment frequency on only one pro-organizational item: willingness to sacrifice for the organization. Frequency of deployment is observed to have a statistically significant positive effect on willingness to sacrifice for the organization among male soldiers (β = .151, SE = .037, p < .001), whereas there is no effect of deployment on sacrificing among female soldiers (β = −.155, SE = .151, p = .306).³ The difference between the male and female path coefficients is significant (bottom of Figure 3). In other words, increased number of deployments leads to greater willingness among male service members to take actions for the benefit of the army that are hazardous, disliked, or create hardships for the individual soldier. This positive effect on sacrificing behavior is not observed among women.

Figure 4.

Gender moderation of deployment on specific pro-organizational behaviors.

Importantly, while women’s sacrificing behavior is not enhanced by deployment, neither does deployment have a significant dampening effect on their willingness to sacrifice for the organization. Indeed taken together, the tests of moderation across all relationships examined show limited gender effects on the relationships between deployment and the identification model constructs. Where significant moderation does occur (i.e., identification and sacrificing behavior) men’s value to the organization is enhanced but women’s value is neither enhanced nor muted. It should be noted that the small number of women in the sample limits the statistical power. As such, other significant effects may have been identified with a larger sample of women. For example, gender may moderate the effects of deployment frequency on discretionary participation (p = .10).

Interestingly, while being currently deployed to a combat zone made soldiers perceive the army as less distinctive and less prestigious and also made them less likely to enact pro-organizational behaviors, none of these effects were moderated by gender. In short, the effects of being currently deployed on any of the other pro-organizational behavior model constructs are not observed to differ by gender.

Discussion

This study examines two related research questions. First, does deployment affect organizational identification and pro-organizational behavior among U.S. soldiers? Second, does gender moderate the relationship between deployment and the model constructs of organizational identification and pro-organizational behavior? Our findings indicate that when individuals were currently deployed, they perceive the army as a less distinctive and prestigious organization. Additionally, deployment had negative effects on soldiers’ economic satisfaction and reports of pro-organizational behaviors. We should note, however, that while these deployment effects were significant, they were small in magnitude (no greater than ±.103 in standardized effect size).

Gender was not observed to moderate the relationship between combat deployment and overall pro-organizational behaviors. When gender moderation was tested against specific behaviors used to create the pro-organizational factor, we found significant results only for sacrificing behavior, which reflects a soldier’s willingness to take actions for the benefit of the army that are hazardous, disliked, or create hardships for the individual. Although deployments are observed to increase male soldiers’ sacrificing behaviors, this salutary effect of deployment is not observed among female soldiers—but neither is a negative impact from deployment observed among female personnel. It should be noted that the latent mean score for sacrificing behavior is statistically higher among men (M = 6.179, SE = .075) than women (M = 6.366, SE = .035, p < .05), and while sacrificing is the only construct in the model where latent means differ by gender, the mean level is high for both men and women.

This study is motivated in part by the recent repeal of the ground combat exclusion for women in the U.S. military. This historic change for the United States marks not just a key moment in military manning policy but comes at the end of the longest war fought in American history. The conflicts in both theaters of operation witnessed the broadest exposure of women to combat, serving in the most diverse capacity in our nation’s history. The operational tempo during Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom was such that many service members experienced multiple deployments to active theaters of conflict. There has been much concern over the effects of this deployment tempo, including its effects on service women in particular (e.g., Lowry, 2015).

The greedy institution (Segal, 1986) and critical perspectives (Kelty & Segal, 2013; Miller, 1997; Snyder, 2003) together suggest that women will have more challenging experiences related to military deployment as a result of persisting gender expectations and hypermasculine structure and culture of the military. Given the move to full gender inclusion, this study is a timely assessment of the effects of deployment on pro-organization behaviors of both sexes. The full inclusion of women in the military is an opportunity both for women and for the organization to increase its readiness. Thus, examination of the effects of deployment on organizational identification and pro-organizational behaviors by gender is important for both sociological and practical reasons.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly demonstrated that women are critical for the readiness of the U.S. military. Female service members are capable, committed, and provide a strategic asset beyond their technical training. Women provide important support and intelligence functions in cultures where we need to be especially sensitive to gender issues related to traditional beliefs and practices of proper interaction between the sexes. This will continue to be the case for future war-fighting missions as well as for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

Our results indicate that there are differences with respect to the effects of deployment of male versus female soldiers. One key question that emerges from our findings is why aren’t women experiencing the same positive benefit of deployment that men do for organizational identification and sacrificing behavior? We know that men and women tend to orient toward work differently, though there is also evidence of increasing parity in men’s and women’s view of work (see review in Kelty, Segal, & Woodruff, 2011). The differences observed between the deployment effects of men and women may be related to these gendered orientations and/or expectations of work—and perhaps specifically to military service. The difference may also be linked to gendered role expectations. Although our data do not allow us to assess it, future studies may find it fruitful to include measures designed to capture work–family conflict as an additional variable related to deployment that may help explain the gender gap observed in this study. Indeed, the recent changes among the various service branches to increase the amount of maternity leave to service members (O’Brien, 2015) suggest the military is already working under the dual assumptions that (1) retaining highly qualified female service members is important and (2) a key mechanism for doing so is to reduce work–family conflict.

Our findings also have practical significance for the military. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the U.S military has had frequent medium- and large-scale deployments for combat, humanitarian, and peacekeeping missions around the globe. President Obama recently announced that nearly 10,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through 2016, then dropping to 5,500 troops through the end of his presidency in January 2017 (Rosenberg & Shear, 2015), while the number of soldiers in Iraq are again in the thousands. In addition, we’ve had U.S. service members in the Sinai for more than three decades, and the American military presence in Africa to support allied nations is increasing. The crisis in Syria is unpredictable and the use of the U.S. military in that conflict remains a possibility. The U.S. military is designed and used as an expeditionary force and we can and should expect service members to continue to be deployed around the globe. It is encouraging that the current findings indicate deployment frequency is not having a significant negative impact on a number of key outcomes.

Taken together, our findings suggest that the biggest story of the relationships among gender, deployment, and pro-organizational behaviors is that male and female soldiers have far more in common than they differ. Where they do differ, the magnitude of difference is not alarming. In practical terms and when viewed holistically, it appears that men and women have similar reactions to deployment with respect to its effect on perceptions, satisfactions, identification, and behavior. Where there are gender differences, they are not likely detrimental to the military. This is particularly true for gender differences in the effect of deployment frequency on identification, where there is a small standardized effects size, combined with the relatively small gender differences in path coefficients.

The same is true for sacrificing, which has been and continues to be a variable of keen interest and debate in the issue of gender integration. Any initial alarm based on our finding of significant gender differences in the effect of deployments on sacrificing behavior is muted by the fact that it is small in magnitude and that women’s sacrificing behavior is not, in fact, negatively impacted by deployment. Since sacrificing behavior is strong among men and women, and not negatively impacted by deployment, we conclude that while differences exist between men and women on this variable, the differences do not constitute a fundamental challenge to full and effective military participation by women across the breadth of military specializations. This set of findings is good news for a military that will continue to deploy its personnel to missions around the globe.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Scale and Survey Instrument Development.

Factor	Definition	Scale and Reliability
Perceived organizational prestige	Degree to which the organization is respected, valued, or admired by others in absolute and comparative terms (Bergami & Baggozi, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1992)	Mael (1988) and Mael and Ashforth (1992) perceived Organizational Prestige Scale. Reliability = .900
Perceived organizational distinctiveness	Degree to which the organization is unique and distinguishable from other organizations, particularly competitors (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994)	Measured using the unpublished Mael and Ashforth Scale. Reliability = .848
Social satisfaction	Member’s evaluation of the personal contacts and interactions within or enabled by membership (Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000)	Adapted from the Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) Scale. Reliability = .839
Economic satisfaction	Member’s evaluation of economic outcomes that result from the relationship with organization (Geyskens & Steenkamp, 2000). For this context, pay and future employment were used	Adapted from the Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) Scale. Reliability = .851
Length of membership	Number of years and months of membership from the date of enlistment	NA
Organizational identification	Psychological connection and sense of oneness with the organization, where the individual classifies or defines themselves in terms of the organization	Adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992). Reliability = .901
Retention intention	Likelihood of the soldiers to reenlist for a subsequent period of service	U.S. Army Retention Likelihood Scale. Reliability = .932
Sacrificing intention	Soldier’s willingness to take actions for the benefit of the organization that are hazardous, disliked, or create hardships	Developed and pretested for this study. Reliability = .841
WOM	Providing positive WOM, “talking up/down” the organization and providing positive/negative information in social situations (Arnett, German, & Hunt, 2003)	Balanced scale using items adapted from the Arnett, German, and Hunt (2003). Reliability = .945
Participation intention	Soldier’s belief that he or she would attend discretionary events that benefit their unit or army	Measures using new 5-item scale. Reliability = .911
Use of services	Use of army provided services that are intended to limit financial burden and increase the quality of life for the soldier and their family	Measures using new 7-item scale. Reliability = .852
Altruism goal	A self-transcendence goal that includes patriotic service, and service to others, the organization, or the mission/cause	Measures adapted from T. A. Baker (1990). Reliability = .937
Self-enhancement goal	Improvement of character, maturity, or values associated with the organization. It does not include acquiring new skills or training	Measures adapted from T. A. Baker (1990). Reliability = .933
Future employment goal	Acquiring skills and experiences that will make the individual more marketable for employment outside the army	Measures adapted from T. A. Baker (1990). Reliability = .940
Pay goal	Acquiring pay benefits	Measures adapted from T. A. Baker (1990). Reliability = .919

Note. NA = not applicable; WOM = word of mouth.

Authors’ Note

The views presented in this article are those of the authors and not of the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the Department of Defense. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2015 meeting of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Chicago, IL.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

An accompanying podcast for this article is available at .

Notes

References

Adler

A. B.

Huffman

A. H.

Bliese

P. D.

Castro

C. A.

(2005). The impact of deployment length and experience on the well-being of male and female soldiers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 121.

Arnett

D. B.

German

Hunt

S. D.

(2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67, 89–105.

Aspen

(1994). Direct ground combat definition and assignment rule. Retrieved June 4, 2014, from http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/031910d1.pdf

Baker

I. I.

(2006). Women in combat: A culture issue. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War College.

Baker

T. A.

(1990). Scale development for enlistment motivation measures. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. Accession No. ADA227235. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA227235

Bergami

Bagozzi

(2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.

Burrelli

D. F.

(2013). Women in combat: Issues for congress (Congressional Research Service report 7-5700, R42075). Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf

Byrne

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division. (2011). Army personnel statistics. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

10.

Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division. (2014). Active duty military personnel by service by rank/grade, statistics on male and female US Army general officers. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

11.

Dempsey

M. E.

Panetta

L. E.

(2013). Elimination of the 1994 direct combat definition and assignment rule. Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Acting Under Department of Defense Public Affairs, Defense Department Rescinds Direct Combat Exclusion Rule [Story No. NNS130124-10], January 24. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=71623

12.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

13.

Fiedler

Ozakinci

Hallman

Wartenberg

Brewer

N. T.

Barrett

D. H.

Kipen

H. M.

(2006). Military deployment to the gulf war as a risk factor for psychiatric illness among US troops. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 188, 453–459.

14.

Fishbach

Ferguson

(2011). The goal construct in social psychology. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

T. E.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, pp. 490–515. New York: The Guilford Press.

15.

Geyskens

Steenkamp

J. B.

(2000). Economic and social satisfaction: Measurement and relevance to marketing channel relationships. Journal of Retailing, 76, 11–32.

16.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1989/1997). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.

17.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

18.

Kelty

Segal

D. R.

(2013). The military as a transforming social agent: Integration into or isolation from normal adult roles? In Wilmoth

J. M.

London

A. S.

(Eds.), Life course perspectives on military service (pp. 19–47). New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Kelty

Segal

D. R.

Woodruff

(2011). Relative salience of family versus soldier role identity among combat soldiers. Annual Review of Political and Military Sociology, 38, 27–52.

20.

Kenny

D. A.

(2016). Learn how you can do a mediation analysis and output a text description of your results. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

21.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Shah

J. Y.

Fishbach

Friedman

Chun

W. Y.

Sleeth-Keppler

(2002). A theory of goal systems. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

22.

Lowry

(2015). Women at war: A qualitative study of U.S. female military personnel, their journeys home, multiple deployments, and the effect of war. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Retrieved October 22, 2015, from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3348/

23.

Luxton

D. D.

Skopp

N. A.

Maguen

(2010). Gender differences in depression and PTSD symptoms following combat exposure. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 1027–1033.

24.

Mael

F. A.

(1988). Organizational identification: Construct redefinition and a field application with organizational alumni. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

25.

Mael

F. A.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

26.

Miller

L. L.

(1997). Not just weapons of the weak: Gender harassment as a form of protest for army men. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 32–51.

27.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Bearden

W. O.

Sharma

(2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. London, England: Sage.

28.

Oakes

(1987). The salience of social categories. In Turner

J. C.

(Ed.), Rediscovering the social group (pp. 117–141). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

29.

O’Brien

(2015, 7 11). U.S. navy triples maternity leave, air force looks to follow suit. Townhall.com. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2015/07/11/us-navy-extends-maternity-leave-n2023450

30.

Rosenberg

Shear

M. D.

(2015). In reversal, Obama says U.S. soldiers will stay in Afghanistan to 2017. New York Times, October 15. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html

31.

Segal

M. W.

(1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces & Society, 13, 9–38.

32.

Snyder

R. C.

(2003). The citizen-soldier tradition and gender integration of the U.S. military. Armed Forces & Society, 29, 185–204.

33.

Stets

J. E.

Burke

P. J.

(2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.

34.

Vogt

Smith

Elwy

Martin

Schultz

Drainoni

M. L.

Eisen

(2011). Predeployment, deployment, and postdeployment risk factors for posttraumatic stress symptomatology in female and male OEF/OIF veterans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 819.

35.

Wadsworth

S. M.

Southwell

(2011). Military families extreme work and extreme “work-family”. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638, 163–183.

36.

Women’s Research & Education Institute. (2013). Chronology of significant legal & policy changes affecting women in the military: 1947-2003. Retrieved July 9, 2013, from http://www.wrei.org/Women%20in%20the%20Military/Women%20in%20the%20Military%20Chronology%20of%20Legal%20Policy.pdf

37.

Woodruff

Kelty

(2015). Gender effects on soldier value: Evidence in support of full gender integration in the US army [Special Issue: Women in the Military, Part 1]. Res Militaris, 5(S1), 1–23.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB