Deployment-Related Benefit Finding and

Postdeployment Marital Satisfaction in Military

Couples
KEITH D. RENSHAW*
SARAH B. CAMPBELL*

Extensive research has evaluated potential negative effects of military deployments on

romantic relationships. Comparatively few studies have examined potential positive effects
of such deployments. In stressful situations, benefit finding (BF) has been found to be
linked with better functioning on both individual and interpersonal levels. This study
reports on deployment-related BF in a sample of 67 male service members (SMs) who
deployed at least once since 9/11/2001 and their wives. Couples completed measures of
marital satisfaction at baseline (an average of 1 year postdeployment) and follow-up
4–6 months later. At follow-up, SMs also provided data on symptoms of posttraumatic
stress, and both partners provided reports of deployment-related BF. Multivariate path
analysis controlling for SMs’ PTSD symptom severity revealed that wives’ BF was posi-
tively associated with increases in SMs’ relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest
that wives’ responses to deployment may be more influential than SMs’ responses to deploy-
ment on military couples’ relationships. This pattern indicates that support for spouses
during deployments is essential; furthermore, such support should include an emphasis on
trying to facilitate personal growth in spouses.

Keywords: Military; Deployment; Benefit Finding; Couples; Marital Satisfaction

Fam Proc 56:915–925, 2017

A great deal of research over the past decade has focused on effects of combat deploy-
ments on service members (SMs) in the context of the recent conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Much of that work has focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
some of which has included a focus on SMs’ relationships. Two recent meta-analyses have
shown a clear link between PTSD (diagnosis or symptoms) in SMs and relationship dis-
tress in SMs (Taft, Watkins, Stafford, Street, & Monson, 2011) and their partners (Lam-
bert, Engh, Hasbun, & Holzer, 2012). In turn, additional research has shown that
relationship problems are associated with poorer prognosis for PTSD, poorer response to
treatment for PTSD, and less treatment-seeking in the context of PTSD (Evans, Cow-
lishaw, Forbes, Parslow, & Lewis, 2010; Evans, Cowlishaw, & Hopwood, 2009; Meis,
Barry, Kehle, Erbes, & Polusny, 2010). In addition to distress caused by PTSD, research
has also shown that deployments themselves are associated with distress in partners (e.g.,
Allen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2011), and difficulties with postdeployment reinte-
gration can be associated with further problems in relationships (Sayers, Farrow, Ross, &
Oslin, 2009).

*Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Keith D. Renshaw, Department of
Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Dr. MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail:
krenshaw@gmu.edu.

915
Family Process, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2017 © 2016 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12249
916 / FAMILY PROCESS

Despite this growing body of knowledge, little research has focused on factors that may
enhance relationship functioning in these couples. The importance of resilience in military
SMs and families is written about frequently, but concrete operationalizations of resilience
and empirical research in general in this area have lagged (e.g., reviews by MacDermid,
Samper, Schwarz, Nishida, & Nyaronga, 2008; Meredith et al., 2011). Accounting for posi-
tive factors is essential for a full understanding of how individuals and families cope with
stress. Moreover, identifying factors that enhance functioning in the context of stress can
help identify potential targets for prevention and intervention.
Although deployments involve significant stressors, some SMs have noted that deploy-
ments have the potential to strengthen their romantic relationships (Newby et al., 2005).
This finding is consistent with a broader literature on benefit finding (BF), or the experi-
ence of positive changes in the context of a stressful experience. BF is related to the con-
struct of posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), which is the experience
of positive changes subsequent to the experience of a traumatic event. BF, however, is a
broader construct that can apply to stressful but nontraumatic situations. Both BF and
PTG have been shown to buffer negative effects on individuals in the context of myriad
stressors (e.g., Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998).
Moreover, a smaller literature indicates that BF also shows protective effects for rela-
tionships. Specifically, levels of BF in relation to having cancer, myocardial infarction, or
Parkinson’s disease have been positively associated with partners’ reports of BF in rela-
tion to the same stressor (Manne et al., 2004; Zwahlen, Hagenbuch, Carley, Jenewein, &
Buchi, 2010), with patients’ reports of support from partners (Senol-Durak & Ayvasik,
2010; Weiss, 2004), and with both partners’ reports of marital quality (Mavandadi et al.,
2014). Specifically in relation to relationship quality, Mavandadi et al. (2014) found signif-
icant actor and partner effects of BF related to having (or one’s partner having) Parkin-
son’s Disease. These researchers did not evaluate whether actor and partner reports of BF
interacted in any way. In a different analytic approach, Manne et al. (2004) explored part-
ners’ BF in relation to the experience of breast cancer. Although the researchers did not
evaluate actor and partner effects of BF on marital satisfaction, they did find that discor-
dance between partners’ ratings of BF was not related to either partner’s rating of marital
satisfaction. However, the researchers noted that this may have been impacted by the
fairly high and stable levels of satisfaction in the couples in their sample, who had been
married for more than 20 years on average. Thus, the limited evidence suggests that
stressor-related BF may be associated with relationship quality, but the overall patterns
are not yet clear.
A specific stressor that is relevant to military couples is BF in relation to the experience
of deployment. Deployment-related BF would reflect the experience of positive individual
or relational changes that either a SM or his/her partner experiences specifically as a
result of a SM’s deployment. In the context of a relationship, these types of changes might
include feeling stronger after making it through a difficult time, coming to appreciate
one’s partner more due to a prolonged separation, or finding new sources of support that
continue to be helpful after the stress of deployment has ended. Studies of individual SMs
and veterans have revealed that deployment-related BF is associated with greater resili-
ence and overall psychological adjustment, greater occupational attainment, and lower
levels of suicidal ideation, PTSD, and depression (Dohrenwend et al., 2004; Gallaway, Mil-
likan, & Bell, 2011; Schok, Kleber, Elands, & Weerts, 2008; Schok, Kleber, & Lensvelt-
Mulders, 2010; Wood, Britt, Thomas, Klocko, & Bliese, 2011). Only two published studies,
however, have examined PTG or BF in the context of military couples.
Using data gathered in the 1980s as part of the National Vietnam Veterans Adjustment
Study (Kulka et al., 1990), Dohrenwend et al. (2004) found that Vietnam veterans who
reported highly salient positive appraisals of their wartime experience were more likely to

www.FamilyProcess.org
RENSHAW & CAMPBELL / 917
be married than those who reported highly salient negative appraisals. No data from
spouses were reported in this study. In a second study, Dekel (2007) examined PTG specif-
ically in relation to living with a combat veteran, in a sample of Israeli spouses of combat
veterans assessed 30 years after the 1973 Yom Kippur war ended. Spouses of prisoners of
war (POWs) endorsed significantly higher levels of BF than spouses of non-POW veterans.
This finding suggests that greater experiences of stress can be associated with greater
degrees of BF. However, there were no analyses of PTG in relation to marital outcomes in
this study. Moreover, in both studies, PTG was assessed in relation to living with a combat
veteran several years after combat exposure occurred, not in relation to a recent deploy-
ment separation.
One recent study addressed a related construct in military couples, by examining SMs’
and partners’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of SMs’ overall military service. In a sam-
ple of over 600 military couples (male SMs married to female civilians), Bergmann, Ren-
shaw, Allen, Markman, and Stanley (2014) found that marital satisfaction of both spouses
was higher when the female partner reported higher meaningfulness of service, regardless
of whether the male SM reported high or low meaningfulness of service. The authors spec-
ulated that this pattern reflected the likely distress that might arise in couples in which a
male SM perceived his service as highly meaningful, but a female spouse did not. Such
couples would likely have vastly different views on the value of the sacrifices that are
inherent in the context of serving in the military, potentially leading to conflicts and dis-
agreements. Although illustrative, these data do not speak directly to the perceived
growth each partner individually experiences in the context of the stress of deployment.
Thus, the current study was designed to address the lack of empirical information about
deployment-related BF in military couples. Such information can provide broader under-
standing of specific ways in which couples may be resilient to distress in the face of stres-
sors like separation due to deployment. In a sample of married SMs who experienced a
deployment during the era of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we evaluated the associa-
tions of SMs’ and spouses’ reported deployment-related BF with SMs’ and spouses’ rela-
tionship satisfaction. We hypothesized that deployment-related BF would have significant
actor and partner effects on relationship satisfaction in both SMs and wives, even when
accounting for severity of any PTSD symptoms in SMs. We included PTSD symptom
severity in our models to provide a more contextualized examination of BF. We did not
hypothesize any differences in actor and partner effects, as no such differences were
detected by either Bergmann et al. (2014) or Mavandadi et al. (2014). Furthermore, we
explored the potential interactive effects of SMs’ and wives’ deployment-related BF in the
prediction of satisfaction. Although Manne et al. (2004) failed to find any association of
discordance in partners’ BF and marital quality, their sample differed significantly from
ours. Based on the more recent findings from a sample of military couples (Bergmann
et al., 2014), we hypothesized that discordance in deployment-related BF (i.e., one spouse
reporting high BF when the other spouse reports low BF) would reflect differing perspec-
tives on SMs’ deployment and, therefore, would be associated with poorer satisfaction.

METHOD
Participants
Analyses in this study focused on a subsample of 67 married couples for whom both
partners provided data in a follow-up phase of a larger study of romantic relationship
functioning in military couples (222 couples participants in Phase 1) after a deployment.
The 67 SMs were all male and mostly White (93.8%), with a mean age of 35.67
(SD = 8.49). Most were in the Army National Guard or Reserves (83.9%), with the

Fam. Proc., Vol. 56, December, 2017

918 / FAMILY PROCESS

remainder in the Air Force Guard or Reserves. Nearly all SMs had deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan (83.6%) between 2001 and 2008, with a small handful deploying to other
areas in the Middle East (11.9%) or non-Middle East areas, such as South Korea (4.5%).
Mean length of the most recent deployment was 10 months (M = 9.93; SD = 3.98), and
SMs had been back from deployment a little over 1 year (M = 1.29; SD = 1.21) when they
completed the follow-up phase questionnaires. Spouses were female and most were White
(92.5%), with a mean age of 33.16 (SD = 7.81) years. The mean length of marriages was
11.39 (SD = 8.54) years.

Procedure
Participants were recruited for a larger study on romantic relationships in military cou-
ples. Recruitment occurred at eight optional relationship enrichment workshops held for
Utah National Guard and Reserve members throughout 2007 and 2008. The workshops
were conducted by National Guard chaplains over a full weekend. At the beginning of each
workshop, an announcement about the study was made. Interested participants were
given packets with self-report measures, which took approximately 60–90 minutes to com-
plete. Packets could be returned throughout the weekend or by postal mail after the week-
end ended. Each couple who completed questionnaires received $10. Of the roughly 490
couples who attended the workshops, 271 SMs (55% agreement) and 258 of their partners
(53% agreement) elected to participate in the Time 1 data collection for the study (no data
from couples who did not participate were available for comparison). Two hundred
twenty-four of the SMs reported at least one deployment since 2001 (216 had partners
who also participated).
All couples were subsequently contacted via email 4–6 months later to participate in a
follow-up survey. The follow-up survey included the questionnaire regarding deployment-
related BF. Data collection was voluntary, with compensation of $15 per couple. Of the
original 224 SMs and 216 partners, 83 SMs (37%) and 91 partners (42%) returned follow-
up questionnaires, with 68 intact couples (31%). Despite the significant attrition, there
were no differences between these 68 intact couples who did participate in the follow-up
phase and the remaining couples who did not participate on any of the following baseline
variables: SMs’ relationship satisfaction, F(1, 209) = 0.28, p = .594, partners’ relationship
satisfaction, F(1, 208) = 2.87, p = .092, SMs’ PTSD, F(1, 213) = 1.61, p = .206, SMs’ age,
F(1, 220) = 0.16, p = .686, partners’ age, F(1, 214) = 0.00, p = .953, or marriage length,
F(1, 206) = 2.18, p = .141. Of note, all but one of the 68 couples was married; thus,
analyses focused on the 67 married couples. Missing data were minimal (ranging from
1.5% to 11.9%; see complete description in Measures). Little’s MCAR test suggested data
were missing completely at random, v2(50) = 40.70, p = .823.

Measures
PTSD symptoms
Service members (not wives) completed the military version of the PTSD Checklist
(PCL; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993) during the follow-up phase. The
PCL is a 17-item scale based on the criteria for PTSD specified in the Diagnostic and Sta-
tistical Manual of Mental Disorders—fourth edition (American Psychiatric Association,
1994). Each item corresponds to one of the PTSD symptom criteria. Participants are asked
to indicate how much each symptom has bothered them in the past month on a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The scale is widely used with well-docu-
mented evidence of its reliability and validity (e.g., Pratt, Brief, & Keane, 2006), and it
demonstrated good internal consistency in the current sample at Time 1 (Cronbach’s

www.FamilyProcess.org
RENSHAW & CAMPBELL / 919
a = .92) and Time 2 (Cronbach’s a = .96). Two SMs had missing data on the PCL at Time
1, and three had missing data at Time 2. Weathers et al. (1993) recommended a cutoff
score of 50 as indicative of likely PTSD for returning SMs, whereas Bliese et al. (2008)
found that a cutoff score of 35 maximized sensitivity and specificity in estimating diag-
noses of PTSD in a primary care sample, based on receiver operating curve analyses.
Relationship satisfaction
Both SMs and wives completed the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick,
1988) at both baseline and follow-up. The RAS is a 7-item scale assessing general satisfac-
tion in relationships. Items are answered on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores
corresponding to greater satisfaction (two items are reverse-scored). The measure has
shown strong reliability and validity in a number of samples (Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick,
Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998; Renshaw, McKnight, Caska, & Blais, 2011). Hendrick et al.
(1998) reported that scores lower than 3.5 were likely indicative of relationship distress.
Internal consistency in this sample was high at baseline and follow-up for both SMs (Cron-
bach’s a = .85, .90) and wives (Cronbach’s a = .88, .93). At Time 1, three SMs and one wife
were missing data on the RAS. At time 2, five SMs and five wives were missing data.
Deployment-related BF
Both SMs and wives completed the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 1996) at Time 2. The PTGI is a 21-item Likert-type self-report measure, with
higher scores indicating greater growth or positive change. The PTGI has been shown to
have good test–retest reliability (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) as well as good internal con-
sistency reliability in military samples (Gallaway et al., 2011; Lee, Luxton, Reger, &
Gahm, 2010).
For the purposes of this study, SMs were directed to respond to items with regard to
their deployment (“please mark the degree to which you have experienced this change in
your life as a result of your deployment”), and partners were directed to respond to items
with regard to their partners’ deployment (“please mark the degree to which you have
experienced this change in your life as a result of your spouse’s/partner’s deployment”).
These instructions keyed participants’ responses to a stressful event, rather than a formal
trauma. In so doing, the measure is more consistent with the broader construct of BF, as
opposed to the narrower construct of PTG. Example items from the measure include: “I
developed new interests,” “I have a greater feeling of self-reliance,” “I discovered that I’m
stronger than I thought I was,” and “I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own
life.” Internal consistency in our sample was high for both SMs (Cronbach’s a = .96) and
wives (Cronbach’s a = .97). Three SMs and eight wives were missing data for this
measure.

Data Analyses
After exploring bivariate correlations among all variables, we used path analysis to
examine actor and partner effects of BF, as well as the interaction of these, on SMs’ and
wives’ relationship satisfaction at Time 2. SMs’ and wives’ Time 2 RAS scores were mod-
eled as covarying, endogenous outcome variables, with their respective Time 1 RAS scores
and SMs’ Time 2 PTSD scores as predictors. SMs’ BF scores, wives’ BF scores, and their
interaction were also modeled as covarying predictors of Time 2 RAS scores, with each
partner’s Time 1 RAS score also predicting their Time 2 BF score. Covariances were speci-
fied between SMs’ and wives’ Time 1 RAS scores, and among SMs’ BF, wives’ BF, and their
interaction. In this model, the paths from SMs’ BF, wives’ BF, and their interaction to
SMs’ and wives’ Time 2 RAS scores reflected the contribution of BF to Time 2 relationship

Fam. Proc., Vol. 56, December, 2017

920 / FAMILY PROCESS

satisfaction, controlling for each partner’s previous (Time 1) relationship satisfaction and
SMs’ concurrent (Time 2) PTSD symptoms. The model is shown in Figure 1. To account
for missing data, we ran the model using full information maximum likelihood (FIML)
estimation, as well as Bayesian estimation. The pattern of results was identical; thus, we
report results of the more commonly used FIML estimation.
Of note, the PCL-M scores and RAS scores showed some evidence of skewness, with
a greater number of low scores on PCL-M and high scores on RAS. Logarithmic trans-
formations were successful in restoring normality to these variables (cf. Cohen &
Cohen, 1983), but there was little change in the pattern of results. Thus, we report
results with raw data (results with transformed data are available from the first
author upon request).
Finally, we ran the same model shown in Figure 1 controlling for a number of potential
covariates (SMs’ age, wives’ age, relationship duration, time since deployment, levels of
combat exposure), by adding these variables as predictors of Time 2 RAS scores. In all
cases, the pattern of significance in results remained identical; thus, we report results
without these covariates (results with covariates are available from the first author upon
request).

RESULTS
Basic descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all primary variables of interest
are shown in Table 1. Of the 67 SMs, 23.4% had PCL scores of 35 or greater, and 14.1%
had PCL scores of 50 or greater. Overall, SMs and wives reported fairly high levels of rela-
tionship satisfaction at follow-up, although 16.1% of wives and 12.9% of SMs fell below the
cutoff score of 3.5 indicating possible distress. With regard to bivariate correlations, Time
2 PTSD severity and Time 2 relationship satisfaction in both SMs and wives were all

SM Benefit
Finding .02

.03 .00
.18
SM Time 1 .57*** SM Time 2
Satisfaction Satisfaction
.34***
Wife Benefit
-.10
.46*** Finding .46**
.12

.06 -.04 -.06

Wife Time 1 .64*** Wife Time 2
Satisfaction Satisfaction
-.08
SM x Wife
Interaction
-
.23*
-
.24*
SM PTSD
Symptoms

FIGURE 1. Path Analysis Model (Error Terms not Shown), with Standardized Path Estimates
(N = 67).
Note. SM = service member; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder. *p < .05, **p < .01,
***p < .001.

www.FamilyProcess.org
RENSHAW & CAMPBELL / 921
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Main Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. SMs’ Time 2 PTSD 29.80 13.72

2. SMs’ Time 2 deployment-related BF 41.09 24.04 .09
3. Wives’ Time 2 deployment-related BF 51.85 26.36 .02 .19
4. SMs’ Time 1 relationship satisfaction 4.42 0.60 .28* .04 .02
5. Wives’ Time 1 relationship satisfaction 4.42 0.60 .23† .03 .02 .44***
6. SMs’ Time 2 relationship satisfaction 4.17 0.76 .38** .08 .34* .59*** .35**
7. Wives’ Time 2 relationship satisfaction 4.25 0.81 .37** .04 .15 .35** .68*** .58***

Note. SM = service member; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; BF = benefit finding.

†
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

significantly correlated. Somewhat surprisingly, of all the correlations of deployment-

related BF with PTSD symptom severity and relationship satisfaction, only one was
significant: that between wives’ deployment-related BF and SM’s Time 2 relationship
satisfaction.
Results from the multivariate path analysis, shown in Figure 1, reflect the effects of
each variable controlling for the others. The model provided an excellent fit for the data,
v2(11) = 10.09, p = .522; NFI = .921; RMSEA = .000. In addition to the expected, signifi-
cant effects of Time 1 relationship satisfaction and Time 2 PTSD symptoms on SMs’ and
wives’ marital satisfaction, wives’ BF was significantly, positively associated with SMs’
relationship satisfaction, with a medium-sized effect. In other words, the more BF wives
reported experiencing as a result of deployment, the more the SMs’ relationship satisfac-
tion improved from Time 1 to Time 2. This finding was somewhat in line with the positive
bivariate association of wives’ BF with SMs’ Time 2 relationship satisfaction. All other
effects of BF and the interaction of SMs’ and wives’ BF were nonsignificant.

DISCUSSION
A great deal of research has focused on the negative association of combat-related PTSD
with relationship satisfaction in military couples (meta-analyses by Lambert et al., 2012;
Taft et al., 2011). The literature on protective factors in this population, however, is lack-
ing. An understanding of protective factors is key to developing a thorough conceptualiza-
tion of how military couples cope with the demands of military lifestyle. Such a
conceptualization can, in turn, inform prevention and intervention efforts with this popu-
lation. Based on associations of BF with positive adjustment in other populations (Manne
et al., 2004; Mavandadi et al., 2014; Senol-Durak & Ayvasik, 2010; Weiss, 2004; Zwahlen
et al., 2010), the present study was the first empirical evaluation of whether BF related to
the experience of deployment might be associated with greater satisfaction in the relation-
ship domain for both SMs and their partners.
Interestingly, reports of BF in SMs and wives were only weakly, nonsignificantly
related to each other. This lack of association contrasts with two prior studies of BF in cou-
ples facing cancer (Manne et al., 2004; Zwahlen et al., 2010). Although further research is
needed before drawing definitive conclusions, one contributor to this lack of association in
our sample may be due to partners’ separation throughout the stressor of deployment. In
the context of medical illnesses, partners may be engaging in starkly different activities
(one undergoing treatments, the other having to do more at home), but they are typically
still living together. In contrast, deployment results in a clear separation of partners, often
across several time zones, which makes regular communication difficult. Moreover, SMs
have to maintain a focus on the mission at hand, while partners are left to handle issues

Fam. Proc., Vol. 56, December, 2017

922 / FAMILY PROCESS

at home, often single-handedly. The dramatic differences in these experiences may lead to
differential experiences of growth during the experience of deployment. Another contribu-
tor may be the tendency to blame others for problems that are seen as more controllable
rather than uncontrollable (e.g., Alicke, 2000). Medical illnesses are often seen as uncon-
trollable, whereas joining and staying in the military is a choice that individuals make.
Thus, partners may become more resentful of SMs when problems arise during deploy-
ments. Future research that evaluates partners’ experiences during deployment is needed
to better understand these issues.
Another noteworthy finding was that SMs’ and wives’ reports of BF were nonsignifi-
cantly related to their own relationship satisfaction at the same or an earlier time point.
On the surface, this lack of association is at odds with prior findings that BF is associated
with positive outcomes in a variety of contexts (e.g., Mavandadi et al., 2014; Senol-Durak
& Ayvasik, 2010; Weiss, 2004). However, very few of these studies have evaluated BF in
relation to relationship satisfaction, and none have done so in a military population with a
focus on deployment-related BF. Thus, it may be that growth related to the experience of a
deployment functions differently in this context. Further research on potential positive
reactions that couples have in response to the experience of deployment can expand our
understanding of this issue.
In evaluating partner effects of BF (associations of SMs’ BF with wives’ relationship
satisfaction and vice versa), a significant result did emerge. SMs who reported greater
relationship satisfaction had wives who reported higher levels of deployment-related BF
at the same time point. This association, which was medium in size, was also significant
in the multivariate path analysis that controlled for both SMs’ and wives’ reports of BF,
both SMs’ and wives’ reports of baseline relationship satisfaction, and SMs’ concurrent
reports of PTSD symptom severity. Thus, it appeared to be a robust association, which
highights the importance of partners’ deployment-related BF in the context of the satisfac-
tion of military couples.
The fact that SMs’ own deployment-related BF was wholly unrelated with either SMs’ or
wives’ relationship satisfaction in bivariate and multivariate analyses is in contrast with
most literature on BF and positive outcomes in other domains (Manne et al., 2004; Mavan-
dadi et al., 2014; Senol-Durak & Ayvasik, 2010; Weiss, 2004; Zwahlen et al., 2010). This
pattern of a significant effect of only wives’ (not SMs’) BF is consistent, however, with
results regarding the associations of another military-specific protective factor, perceived
meaningfulness of service, with relationship satisfaction. In a sample of over 600 military
couples, Bergmann et al. (2014) found that marital satisfaction of SMs and partners was
higher primarily when the female partner reported higher meaningfulness of service,
regardless of whether the male SM reported high or low meaningfulness of service. The
authors hypothesized that, because military service affects both members of the couple but
only the SM is engaged in the actual service activities, it was a partner’s view of this service
that exerted the strongest influence on the overall relationship satisfaction of the couple.
Such an interpretation could apply to our findings, as well. Deployments may feel indi-
vidually rewarding to a SM, but if the impact on the spouse is neutral or negative, the
SM’s individual benefits may not offset the negative impact of the spouse’s struggle on the
couple’s relationship. In fact, it is plausible that a spouse would view the deployment even
more negatively if she perceived that a SM found great benefit from his deployment while
she suffered. In contrast, if a spouse finds some positive development from having gone
through the experience of a deployment, such as feeling more self-reliant or developing
new and meaningful interests, those benefits may well spill over into the relationship.
They may even help to offset a SM’s lack of perceived benefit or growth, at least in the con-
text of the relationship, by providing the spouse with a stronger sense of self-efficacy in
terms of being able to support the SM.

www.FamilyProcess.org
RENSHAW & CAMPBELL / 923
If these findings are replicated, they suggest that spouses’ experiences of and responses
to SMs’ deployments may have long-lasting effects on military couples’ relationships.
Thus, supports, programs, and interventions designed to help spouses during this time
may be crucial in helping to maintain the stability and quality of military marriages. Cur-
rently, such programs are typically handled by the Family Readiness Group (FRG) associ-
ated with each unit. The programs and personnel of FRGs vary across units, and spouses’
feelings of connection to FRGs are similarly variable. Moreover, there is little to no
research on the needs of spouses during deployment or on the effectiveness of currently
available programs and supports, leaving a crucial gap in our understanding of how to
best intervene with this population. Spouses likely experience needs in several areas,
including logistical, financial, informational, and emotional. Our findings suggest that,
when possible, it may be beneficial to whatever programs and supports that are available
to seek to facilitate a sense of personal growth in spouses during the challenges of deploy-
ment. For instance, spouses may derive personal benefits from helping other spouses and
families in need as they are able, or from programs that help them develop self-efficacy in
addition to offering logistical support. Future research on deployment supports and pro-
grams for spouses would benefit from attention to spouses’ sense of growth over time.
There are, of course, several limitations to the present study. The military couples stud-
ied were all married, male SM/female spouse couples, mostly White, and recruited at mar-
ital enrichment workshops. Furthermore, measures related to BF were only included in a
follow-up time point that suffered from high levels of attrition. Thus, the sample was not
representative of the broader U.S. Army, and the generalizability of findings is question-
able. Those who attended marital enrichment workshops may have represented couples
who were more committed and/or more actively focused on their relationship health. In
addition, measures were administered many months after deployment. It is quite likely
that perceived benefits of deployment vary with the amount of time that has passed
since the deployment. Moreover, only married couples were included. Future research
with unmarried couples is needed to determine whether similar results extend to such
individuals.
These limitations notwithstanding, the present results represent the first quantitative
findings with regard to deployment-related BF in couples. They contribute to a small but
important literature on protective factors in military couples. More research of this type
can help further the field’s understanding of couple functioning in the context of signifi-
cant stress.

REFERENCES
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.556
Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). On the home front: Stress for recently
deployed Army couples. Family Process, 50, 235–247. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01357.x
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Bergmann, J. S., Renshaw, K. D., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Meaningfulness of service
and marital satisfaction in Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 701–706. doi:10.1037/fam0000013
Bliese, P. D., Wright, K. M., Adler, A. B., Cabrera, O., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2008). Validating the primary
care posttraumatic stress disorder screen and the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist with soldiers return-
ing from combat. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 272–281. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, C. G., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Larson, J. (1998). Making sense of loss and benefiting from the experience:
Two construals of meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 561–574. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.2.561

Fam. Proc., Vol. 56, December, 2017

924 / FAMILY PROCESS

Dekel, R. (2007). Posttraumatic distress and growth among wives of prisoners of war: The contribution of hus-
bands’ posttraumatic stress disorder and wives’ own attachment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77,
419–426. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.419
Dohrenwend, B. P., Neria, Y., Blake, J., Turse, N., Marshall, R., Lewis-Fernandez, R. et al. (2004). Positive ter-
tiary appraisals and posttraumatic stress disorder in U.S. male veterans of the war in Vietnam: The roles of
positive affirmation, positive reformulation, and defensive denial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 72, 417–433. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.417
Evans, L., Cowlishaw, S., Forbes, D., Parslow, R., & Lewis, V. (2010). Longitudinal analyses of family functioning
in veterans and their partners across treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 611–622.
doi:10.1037/a0020457
Evans, L., Cowlishaw, S., & Hopwood, M. (2009). Family functioning predicts outcomes for veterans in treatment
for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 531–539. doi:10.1037/a0015877
Gallaway, M. S., Millikan, A. M., & Bell, M. R. (2011). The association between deployment-related posttraumatic
growth among U.S. Army soldiers and negative behavioral health conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
67, 1151–1160. doi:10.1002/jclp.20837
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,
93–98. doi:10.2307/352430
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 15, 137–142. doi:10.1177/0265407598151009
Kulka, R. A., Schlenger, W. E., Fairbank, J. A., Hough, R. L., Jordan, B. K., Marmar, C. R. et al. (1990). Trauma
and the Vietnam war generation: Report of findings from the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study.
Brunner/Mazel Psychosocial Stress Series. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Lambert, J. E., Engh, R., Hasbun, A., & Holzer, J. (2012). Impact of posttraumatic stress disorder on the relation-
ship quality and psychological distress of intimate partners: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 26, 729–737. doi:10.1037/a0029341
Lee, J. A., Luxton, D. D., Reger, G. M., & Gahm, G. A. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the posttraumatic
growth inventory with a sample of soldiers previously deployed in support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66, 813–819. doi:10.1002/jclp.20692
MacDermid, S. M., Samper, R., Schwarz, R., Nishida, J., & Nyaronga, D. (2008). Understanding and promoting
resilience in military families. Retrieved from https://www.mfri.purdue.edu/resources/public/reports/Under-
standing%20and%20Promoting%20Resilience.pdf
Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Winkel, G., Goldstein, L., Fox, K., & Grana, G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth after breast
cancer: Patient, partner, and couple perspectives. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 442–454.
Mavandadi, S., Dobkin, R., Mamikonyan, E., Sayers, S., Ten Have, T., & Weintraub, D. (2014). Benefit finding
and relationship quality in Parkinson’s disease: A pilot dyadic analysis of husbands and wives. Journal of
Family Psychology, 28, 728–734. doi:10.1037/a0037847
Meis, L. A., Barry, R. A., Kehle, S. M., Erbes, C. R., & Polusny, M. A. (2010). Relationship adjustment, PTSD
symptoms, and treatment utilization among coupled National Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24, 560–567. doi:10.1037/a0020925
Meredith, L. S., Sherbourne, C. D., Gaillot, S., Hansell, L., Ritschard, H. V., Parker, A. M. et al. (2011). Promot-
ing psychological resilience in the U.S. military. Arlington, VA: RAND Corportion. Retrieved from http://
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG996.sum.pdf
Newby, J. H., McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., Shigemura, J., & Tucker-Harris, Y. (2005). Positive and
negative consequences of a military deployment. Military Medicine, 170, 815–819.
Pratt, E. M., Brief, D. J., & Keane, T. M. (2006). Recent advances in psychological assessment of adults with post-
traumatic stress disorder. In V. M. Follette & J. I. Ruzek (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral therapies for trauma
(2nd ed., pp. 34–61). New York: Guilford.
Renshaw, K. D., McKnight, P., Caska, C. M., & Blais, R. K. (2011). The utility of the Relationship Assessment
Scale in multiple types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 435–447.
doi:10.1177/0265407510377850
Sayers, S. L., Farrow, V. A., Ross, J., & Oslin, D. W. (2009). Family problems among recently returned military
veterans referred for a mental health evaluation. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 70, 163–170. doi:10.4088/
JCP.07 m03863
Schok, M. L., Kleber, R. J., Elands, M., & Weerts, J. M. P. (2008). Meaning as a mission: A review of empirical
studies on appraisals of war and peacekeeping experiences. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 357–365.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.04.005
Schok, M. L., Kleber, R. J., & Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M. (2010). A model of resilience and meaning after mili-
tary deployment: Personal resources in making sense of war and peacekeeping experiences. Aging & Mental
Health, 14, 328–338. doi:10.1080/13607860903228812

www.FamilyProcess.org
RENSHAW & CAMPBELL / 925
Senol-Durak, E., & Ayvasik, H. B. (2010). Factors associated with posttraumatic growth among myocardial
infarction patients: Perceived social support, perception of the event and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy in Medical Settings, 17, 150–158. doi:10.1007/s10880-010-9192-5
Taft, C. T., Watkins, L. E., Stafford, J., Street, A. E., & Monson, C. M. (2011). Posttraumatic stress disorder and
intimate relationship problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 22–33.
doi:10.1037/a0022196
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471. doi:10.1002/jts.2490090305
Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Herman, D. S., Huska, J. A., & Keane, T. M. (1993, October). The PTSD Checklist
(PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society
for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX.
Weiss, T. (2004). Correlates of posttraumatic growth in married breast cancer survivors. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 20, 20–32. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.5.733.50750
Wood, M. D., Britt, T. W., Thomas, J. L., Klocko, R. P., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). Buffering effects of benefit finding
in a war environment. Military Psychology, 23, 202–219. doi:10.1080/08995605.2010.521732
Zwahlen, D., Hagenbuch, N., Carley, M. I., Jenewein, J., & Buchi, S. (2010). Posttraumatic growth in cancer
patients and partners—Effects of role, gender, and the dyad on couples’ posttraumatic growth experience.
Psycho-Oncology, 19, 12–20. doi:10.1002/pon.1486

Fam. Proc., Vol. 56, December, 2017

Copyright of Family Process is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.