Ge be w wa Taw & ee ee wae a es Psychological Reactions to Infantry Basic Training? Paul Eknan University of California School of Medicine Wallace V, Friesen University of Kansas Daniel R. Lutzker Fort Dix, New Jersey One of the working assumptions of military psychiatry is that basic train- ang has a beneficial psychological impact on the typical recruit. Based in part gon this impression, army psychiatric facilities employ a variety of techniques which strive to maintain the recruit in his training status, with the expectation hat the training experience itself will have a generally aneliorative influence on many adjustment problens. The plausibility of this assumption was explored wy administering the MNP] to recruits selected from the first, fourth and eighth weeks of basic training,’ Method Ninety-three active Army personnel having 12 years of education and between & and 22 years of age were selected as subjecte (Ss). These controls on age esd education were adopted to reduce probable sources of variation and thereby ragnify any changes attributable to basic training. It should be recognized bat these controls also act to limit the generalizations which can be made to caer military populations, Subjects were tested at three points in training: during the first, fourth und eighth or final week, Three separate groups of recruits were tested, rather than adopting test-retest procedures, The latter alternative was rejected since Zesentment about taking the MPI two or three times within eight weeks might Save become a contaminating influence. The extremely small nunber of psychiatric ciseharges usual during the course of basic training suggested that there would not be any Selective factor operative in sampling three separate groups of nen from each period of training. All of the Ss were drawn from three basic training companies at one mili- tary post. Men were tested from more than one company, and men from each com= ya0y were tested at each point of training in order to minimize the chance that ay results obtained might simply reflect differences between companies rather stan changes due to basic training. Hen from each company were tested at each joint dn training: 28 men in the first week, 34 different men in the fourth week, this study was supported by an inservice research grant fron the Army ‘edical Research and Development Command, Office of the Surgeon General. the original formation of the problem was conceived of by the former ef Poychologist at Fort Dix, ¥.J., Dr. Robert Marshall. Note: A brief report of this paper will appear in the Journal of Consulting Psychology.2 and 31 additional men in the eighth week of training. All the men were tested in classrooms in their company area, and a minimum amount of information wi given as to the purpose of the testing. The number of Ss in each group varied from the expected nunber of 30 because of eliminations due to large question mark scores, and a surplus of Ss in the fourth and eighth week testing sessions. Results ‘The MMPI profiles without K correction for the mean scores cbtained by the first, fourth and eight week groups are shown in Fig. A. It can be seen that apart from D, Hy, and Mf, there is a consistent increase in the clinical les from first, to fourth, to eighth week. Fig. As Mean Profiles without K correction for the first, fourth and eighth week groups. Table A gives the means and standard deviations on the MMPI scales for the groups tested at the three points of basic training. In this table the scores on the treditional scales are listed first, followed by scores on the MMPI sus~ scales (Lingoes, 1960), the recidivism scale (Clark, 1919), the ego-strengtn zeale (Barron, 1953), and the pathology scale (Tankin, 1959). gue PFs SF ess ges ees Fess Ss es S| eS3. Table A Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Scales for the First, Fourth and Eighth Week Groups An F ratio was used to evaluate the difference between the variance scores on each of the MMPI scales for the three groups. Table 3 sunmarizes the ? tests which vere found significant. 2MPI Means Standard Deviations Fourth Eighth First Fourth Sighth Weer Week Week Week Week | 2 2.09 1.58 27h L 4.82 4.00 2.26 F 5.18 5.38 I K 15.26 165 is lies 3.71, 4.62 ds + 5% 12:50 3280 4139 D 17.76 5r0u Lash, ay 18:79 3.65 5.52 Pd 15.88 3.97 4.61 Pda + ole 22.2h 4.03 UL ioeo« 22.35 436 5.87 Fa 8.68 2.78 390 Pt 10.71 8.60 771 8.04 q Peek 25.88 60 4188 5.61 Se 30.18, 156 8.73 5.22 fe + 1K 25.35 5.70 7.8 8,12 Ta In kilos L60 4.67 i ka + 2K 2129 3.62 3.99 435 Si 23.06 9.88 7.22 9.65 Nean 55.10 Sieh 99 nT 1 Tescore Pal 2435 2.29 rea 2.37 Pa2 *3ehh 4.32 gs 129 is Pa 3 7.68 7.L8 2.54 2.3h 2.3 I Pak 7.15 9.06 3469 3.93 L.69 Pa a 3282 5.06 2h 8.25 2185 . Pd LB 3.32 hoo 2.28 2.17 2.22 I Mal 2.62 3.29 ke 165k Ly Ma 2 hi76 5.64 Zick 2203, 158 Ma 3 4.03 3.68 2.35 1.56 1.57 va 2.79 3.52 US 155 13k i Pal 1153 2.68 i ee 2150 Paez 1.79 2.42 1b 13 1.78 Pa 3 ues 3426 2.06 1.87 1.75 Il Re Bh 10.22 $21.87 2.81 Es 33.45 32.32 3.12 5423 4.10 P Tel 9.77 b.02 6.74 7.10Table B Differences in Variance on the MMPI Scales for the First, Fourth and Eighth Week Groups IPI kth week — 8th week — Scales lst week ‘Ist week pifrerence 2 2.4200 25TH 5 3.33% = F - 400m a 2.19% = Ss 2.2800 2.26% 2,38 2 a 33s 7.08 285s _ 19,22 2. BS (3.2 p< 05 we p < OL wet p< .001 A t test was used to evaluate the significance of the differences between the means for the three groups on the MMPI. Table C sumarizes the t tests which vere found significant with a two-tailed probability test. Table C Differences Between Mean MPI Scores for the First, Fourth, and Eighth Week Groups WPI 8th week — 8th week -— Scales _Uth week Ist week Mean t Mean t Difference Difference = 2.99 2.62 2 3.47 = 2.22 Pd = 205 Ma _ 3.85 va + 2K - 3.20 Fak = 20% Tal Lis 2.7L 1.25 al “67 2.01» 1.38 Mal | - 1.38 ze 1.89 2.728 3.17 ~ - fizz # p< .05 wo p< Ol con p< CCL gue fe Ss se |e Fes ses ees eS eS@e kw w ea we db eS ee ee Se Disscussicn Interpretation of the results is difficult since there is little informa- tion in the literature regarding differences which remain well within normal limits, The results should also be viewed with some caution because the magnitude of the differences obtained was usually quite small, although statistically significant. There does not appear to be any pattern to the direction of the changes in variance or the scales on which a change was found. This problem was further explored by comparing the distribution of scores for each of the scales listed in Table B, Again, there was no consistent pattern noted, with the most fre~ quent finding being a change from a rectangular to a positively or negatively skewed distribution, No interpretation is therefore offered for the data on the variability in scores on the MMPI scales, from the first, to fourth, to eighth week of training. Over the period of basic training four of the traditional MMPI scales in- creased (F, His, Pd, Ma), while scores on X decreased, In addition, scores on four of the subscales, the recidivism scale and the pathology scale also in- creased. There was, however, no evidence of beneficial psychological effects accruing from basic training. While there was an increase in ego inflation and feelings of self importance, there was no such increase in measures of ego- strength, ‘The change in the shape of the MMPI profiles suggests that aggressive, impulsive and energetic features became slightly more prominent. The most cautious explanation of this change would be that the Ss were more willing to adait mild degrees of anti-social behavior in the eighth week since they had finished their training, and perhaps also experienced some relief in completing an arduous task. The results on the four subscales suggest that asocial tendencies, a readi- ness to blame others, ignore the needs of others, and feelings of self ingortance increase slightly during the course of basic training. In different terns, the recruit develops more superficial, uninvolved attitudes towards personal rela- tionships. He is less likely to examine his own contribution or responsibility for any conflict, and thus becomes more prone to react aggressively. These changes in psychological reactions may well be functional or adaptive to the basic training situation. It certainly is not surprising, on an ex post facto basis, to note the developments of aggressive, inpulsive or manipulative characteristics when men are subjected to a period of training in which they are reinforced for learning organized approved methods of expressing hostile impulses. It vould seen important to determine if the reactions noted in this study are specific to basic training, or whether they persist during the re- cruits subsequent military career. the psychological reactions which develop during basic training, while possibly functional in that setting, might vell not te as adaptive in many of the other situations encountered in a peacetine army. 4 final note can be nade of the implications of the results cbtained on twe the MMPI special scales. The fact that the eighth week group obtained a mean sgore on the recidivism scale close to that reported for nen with multiple AiOL's jSlark, 1949), and a mean score on the 2athology scale higher than that rero:ted for neuvotic veterans (Tamkin, 1959), raises sone question as te the validity of these tuo scales.6 Summary The belief that basic training has a beneficial psychological impact on the typical recruit was examined by administering the PI to recruits selected from the first, fourth and eight weeks of training. Three separate groups of recruits were tested; 93 active army personnel served as Ss. ‘There was no increase in scores on eco-strength or any other evidence of beneficial psychological effects accruing from basic training. Aggressive, impulsive and energetic features did become slightly more prominent. The recruits appeared less prone to examine their own responsibility for conflicts, and more ready to react aggressively. The results also raised some question as to the validity of the recidivism and pathology scales. References Darron, F, An ogo-strength scale which predicts response to psychotherapy. Je consult. Psychol., 1953, 17, 327-333. Clark, J.H. The adjustment of army AWOL's, J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1949, Ub, 394-L01. Lingoes, J.C. MMPI factors of the Harris and the Wiener subscales, Psychol., 1960, 24, 74-83. consult, Tamkin, A.S. An MMPI scale measuring severity of psychopathology. J. clin. Psychol., 1959, 15, 56. a eee ee eee a ee ee ee ee ee ee