Communication and Intimacy Through the Cycle of Deployment for Military Couples by Berni Button A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah Approved _____________________________ Daniel Hubler, Ph.D. ______________________________ C.Ryan Dunn, Ph.D. ______________________________ Hailey Gillen Hoke, Ph.D.2 Nature of Problem When most people think of a soldier being deployed, they picture them in their uniform leaving their family behind with hugs and kisses and fanfare in the background. A homecoming scene would look much the same, and the soldier’s life picks back up where it left off and everything goes back to some form of normal. As of 2020 49.9% of active-duty military members and 43.9% of selected reserve members are married (2020 Demographics profile, 2020). Almost half of the entire US military power is married and many more are in committed relationships. Long separations, like deployments, can be very hard on couples who must have a solid foundation for their relationship, or they will not get through these periods of separation unscathed. A strong romantic relationship is one that relies on practices of effective communication and healthy intimacy (Anderson et al., 2012; Gambardella, 2008; Butzer & Campbell, 2008) in a variety of circumstances. Military couples have an added need for strong relationship skills because of the unique stressors they face in their everyday lives (Gambardella, 2008; Pflieger et al., 2019) but especially during a prolonged separation or deployment (Drummet et al., 2003; Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2018). The reality of a deployment looks a little different from the fanfare and happy reunions that one observes in the media and in online videos. Once deployment orders are received, many military members can have difficulty coping from the sudden and absolute change in their life, in everything from their physical location and job to the people they are surrounded by (Asbury & Martin, 2012). Meanwhile the spouse at home must make many adjustments in the household to compensate for the military spouses’ absence while also trying to cope with the emotions of having an absent partner (Devoe & Ross, 2012; Gambardella, 2008). A military deployment can add a lot of unique stressors to a couples’ relationship and communication and intimacy can 3 especially be negatively affected by it (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2018; Cordova et al., 2005; Lavner et al., 2016; Pincus et al., 2001). Reintegration and role negotiation when the soldier returns to home life after a deployment can be hard for both partners (Devoe & Ross, 2012; O’Neal et al., 2018), especially if the soldier is struggling with PTSD symptoms (Hoge et al., 2004; Allen et al., 2010; Asbury & Martin, 2012). Military deployments can be a stressful time for couples (Asbury & Martin, 2012; Everson et al., 2012; Pflieger et al., 2019). That stress can hinder the way both the at-home partner and the military partner handle communication and intimacy during their time apart (Everson et al., 2012; Pflieger et al., 2019) and the reintegration and role negotiations that happen when they return home (Devoe & Ross, 2012; Gambardella, 2008; O’Neal et al., 2018). If a couple is not able to have effective communication to help them work through these difficulties and maintain their relationship by creating intimacy, it can lead to marital discord (Ebaugh, 1988; Gambardella, 2008), instability in the home (Devoe & Ross, 2012; Sheppard et al., 2010), if already present, exacerbated PTSD symptoms (Asbury & Martin, 2012; Allen et al., 2010) or divorce (Sheppard et al., 2010). Literature Review A Strong Relationship is Built on Affective Communication and Intimacy There are many things that can help a romantic relationship to be strong and healthy, and much of that has to do with what each partner brings to the relationship. There are, however, intentional practices that a couple can consciously incorporate into their relationship to strengthen their bond and aid them in working through problems. David (2015) conducted a review of couple therapy and found that Gottman and Gottman’s (2018) “Sound Relationship House (SRH) Theory” was very effective for couples to learn some of those intentional practices. 4 David said that a cornerstone of Gottman’s therapeutic approach was teaching emotional regulation and how the couple can deliberately build a connection. For emotional regulation to take place a couple must be able to articulate their emotions with each other and through that spoken vulnerability, a connection between them grows. Vulnerability breeds an emotional connection that David (2015) said is necessary for a couple to build a deeper friendship, grow in trust, build their conflict management skills, and have a shared meaning and purpose with each other. Likewise, Cordova et al. (2005) found that couples who were able to identify emotions and communicate those emotions with their partner scored higher in intimacy and conflict resolution than couples who cannot. Relationship satisfaction effects many things including a couples’ ability to communicate with each other. The more satisfied a couple is with their relationship, the less negative, more positive, and more effective communication they will have (Lavner et al, 2016). Intimacy and communication are two big parts of any relationship and have the potential to impact relationship outcomes for good or bad depending on how well they are used. How Communication can Help a Relationship be Strong Overall and McNulty (2017) thought about defining “effective communication,” but they found too many variables and contexts to stop at just one clear and simple definition. There are too many types of communication like problem-solving or appeasing, is the communication expressing opposition or cooperation, etc. to put a blanket definition of “effective communication” over all of it. So, for the sake of this study, effective communication will be simply defined as positive communication that is cooperative and effective in conveying the speakers meaning and message. 5 Cordova et al. (2005) found in their research that emotional skillfulness is essential to maintaining a healthy marriage. Emotion skills are the ability for someone to identify emotions, express them to a partner, empathize, and be able to manage and handle challenging emotions. Those skills all have to do with intimacy and bringing a couple closer together, but they would not be able to be achieved if there was not a communication skill set to execute those actions. A person might be able to feel empathy for someone, but it does not bring those two people closer unless that empathy is expressed. It is the communication of emotions that brings a couple closer together and creates those feelings of intimacy that strengthens the relationship. Communication is an important relationship process that can either facilitate or impede intimacy for a couple (Yoo et al., 2013). Partners who have positive communication generally also have high levels of intimacy in their relationship. When there is shared vulnerability and validated self-disclosure, a couple is more likely to feel intimate with each other. Conversely, Yoo et al. also said it can be difficult for couples to feel intimacy with each other when those communication patterns are not present. How Intimacy Can Help Relationships Be Strong Intimacy between committed partners is a key component for most couples and is something that can bring depth and joy to a relationship. Julien et al. (2003) defined intimacy as a sense of connection between partners and feeling mutual closeness that is recognized and credited with contributing to relationship quality. Butzer and Campbell (2008) found that there is a strong correlation between intimacy and sexual satisfaction for most couples. Morgis et al. (2019) found similar results. They connected a couple’s intimacy to their sexual satisfaction, which then extended to relationship satisfaction. If a couple was able to develop a romantic attachment that is strong and secure, both be vulnerable with each other and feel emotionally 6 safe, then they were better able to communicate sexual needs with each other (Johnson & Zuccarini, 2010). The intimacy that is created with a strong sexual satisfaction in a relationship, often translates to high relationship satisfaction. But there is a difference between intimacy and sexual satisfaction. Sex and intimacy are closely tied but are not the same thing. Sex with a partner can bring intimacy to the relationship and building intimacy with a partner can bring a new depth to their sexual interactions, but intimacy is important for a committed relationship whether sex is present or not. This is important to point out because intimacy becomes much more important to a romantic relationship who are not able to have sexual relations for one reason or another. Umberson et al. (2015) said that intimacy is commonly created through emotion work which consists of activities that partners can participate in that enhance the others’ emotional well-being and helps them feel supported. Yoo et al. (2013) said when couples have feelings of intimacy, they tend to also have high levels of relationship satisfaction. We know that intimacy helps create a strong relationship, so having multiple tools of physical and emotional activities to help couples build it can be useful for longevity in a relationship. The Unique Stressors Military Couples Face Smith and Carlson (1997) defined stress as situations or life events that require change or adaptation from the person experiencing it. There are many things about a military lifestyle that can be considered stressful. Drummet et al. (2003) stated that military families face unique stressors that are not typical to the civilian population. Military families usually face frequent relocations that can include international sites, regular separation for service members from their families because of training and deployments and reintegration to family life after they return home (Pflieger et al., 2019). There is also an unsaid pressure for military spouses and children as 7 they “informally carry the rank” (Drummet et al., 2003 pg. 279) of the military service member in the family and are expected to conform and follow guidelines for behavior. Russo and Fallon (2015) name many lifestyle qualities that military families face that are considered stressful. A transient lifestyle can create difficulties for adults or children who are in school. Financial difficulties are common, especially among the enlisted population that makes up about 80% of the military population (2020 Demographics Profile, 2020). Having a family member with disabilities can be stressful but that can be exacerbated when new doctors, care professionals, tutors, or IEP’s must be found or renewed with every move. There is also the fear of a wartime deployment that can seem like a looming stress (Russo & Fallon, 2015). Some other stressors military couples face is long distance communication and trying to keep intimacy in the relationship though physically separated (Merolla, 2010). Military Deployment Stressors Stress in a relationship can have many negative outcomes. Gottman has been studying partner relationships for over four decades and found that when a couple is in distress or under prolonged stressful situations, they have more negative and less positive encounters with each other (Gottman, 1998; Gottman & Gottman, 2017). This trend can be detrimental for couples who are in a prolonged stressful situation like a deployment for 6 to 12 months at a time. Merolla (2010) found that 27% of married military members out of a sample of soldiers in Iraq in 2007 experienced marital problems during their deployment. Deployments are not the only think in the military that can cause a couple to be separated. TDY’s (Temporary DutY) occur more often than deployments and vary in length from a few days up to 6 months, depending on what training is taking place (V., 2021). Deployments also vary in length and often depend on what branch of the military one serves in. An average deployment for a member of the Army is 12 months but 8 can go up to 15 months where a military member in the Air Force would expect a 6-month deployment (Johnson, 2022). Gottman and Gottman (2017) found that couples who classified themselves as being in distress tended to be more negative with each other even after a positive interaction than couples who did not classify themselves as being in distress. This could be particularly alarming for military couples who have limited communication with each other during a deployment. Since 2001 military deployments have become more frequent and longer in length then they were prior to 9/11 (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2018). Balderrama-Durbin addressed the many challenges of communication that deployed military members and their spouses face. One of them is the stress that a military members’ life can be at risk and experience daily threats to survive while their at -home counterpart is trying to manage life and possibly a family, while worrying about the well-being of their spouse. While the couple is separated, they must rely heavily on partner communication to maintain their relationship and also to problem solve challenges that each face during their separation. They found that more frequent communication between the couples lead to more positive coping among the at-home spouses, but it also led to more feelings of loneliness. The soldiers reported that communication with their spouse benefited them the most when it was assurance/support based but the at-home spouses said that problem solving/disclosure communication benefited them the most (Balderrama-Durbin et al.). When couples are experiencing a deployment, they are in very different environments and their communication needs to adapt to allow for that difference so each partner can feel understood and supported. Even with short deployments, many military members and their partners can experience problems in their relationships both while the soldier is away and once they return home 9 (Hillenbrand, 1976; Rossetto, 2012). Often the different roles that partners take on because of a deployment is what causes the stress. The at-home partner tends to feel higher levels of stress because of the added responsibility of keeping the household functioning, dealing with the care of children if they have any, and their feeling like they must manage their emotions alone. The military partner can feel helpless and frustrated being so far away, may feel nervous if they are deployed to a dangerous place, or feel like they must be strong for their at-home partner, so they tend to not share as much. If either partner leans toward ineffective coping skills to manage the stress, it can place an added strain on the relationship (O’Brian et al., 2009). Dimiceli et al. (2010) identified two main types of coping that at-home partners tend to participate in to deal with stress during the deployment of their significant other. The first is problem focused coping when the at-home partner actively and consciously does something to resolve the situation or change the source of the stress. This is a positive and healthy coping mechanism that should be used. The second is avoidant or emotion-focused coping and is not the ideal to stay mentally and emotionally healthy. Dimiceli et al. describes these behaviors as actions to reduce the emotional distress that is caused by the stressor without actually dealing with the stressor source. Examples include avoidance, distancing, venting, substance abuse, etc. If one or both partners participate in avoidant or emotion-focused coping, instead of relieving stress, it can add to the stress of an already strained situation. What Partners Go Through While They Are Apart Military couples go through a drastic transition in their lives and relationships when partners deploy and physical separation is only one part of the experience. Sometimes the at-home spouse can feel isolated from their partner and weighed down with responsibilities, so they have trouble utilizing support networks (Pflieger et al. 2019). On the other hand, the service 10 member can sometimes feel they have extra support because they are surrounded by their military unit and they feel as though they have boosted psychological health (Green et al., 2013). New technologies have made deployment communication the best it has ever been. In many deployments couples can talk often without waiting in line for shared phones or even having calls directed through the base dispatch. Most military members are able to use their own devices, but this can cause some worry about service quality or disruptions in service, deployment schedules creating unpredictability, and time zone differences that can all lead to anxiety, worry and relationship conflict (Hinojosa et al., 2012). Balderrama-Durbin et al. (2018) studied military couples while one was deployed and found a strong correlation for both deployed military member and their at-home partner when it came to the importance of Assurance/Support and Problem-Solving/Disclosure when they were geographically separated and facing the challenges of a deployment environment. Both partners ranked Assurance/Support is what they wanted from their partner in the new roles they take on during a deployment. For the military member it can be a role of walking into a dangerous situation or just being separated from their family and not being able to help like they normally do. For the at-home partner, they are looking for that Assurance/Support from their military partner in the new roles they are taking on because of their absence. This can be an especially difficult job if the couple has children, and all parental responsibilities fall to the at-home partner. The other category that was ranked the highest (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2018) was Problem-Solving/Disclosure. Problem-Solving can be difficult for a couple when they have limited interactions and often have restricted time to communicate. When they do have that time to connect it can be hard to relate to each other because of the vastly different circumstances that 11 both partners are living in, therefore problem solving together takes great efforts on both parts. Disclosure is from both parties not wanting to burden the other with their individual responsibilities. The military member often does not want their partner to know of danger or circumstances they are in because they feel it will be an added worry to their at-home partner or are unable to disclose locations or information for security reasons. Often the at-home partners do not want to share the burden of household and child responsibilities because they do not want the military member to feel guilty for leaving. The Military Partner Most military members care about the job they are doing and look forward to opportunities to defend their country. Meadows et al. (2017) reported that despite military members eagerness to utilize their training, one of the most stressful aspects of their job are the separations from their families that a deployment requires. Pincus et al. (2001) studied the emotional cycle of deployment from 1995-2000 while US troops were keeping the peace in Bosnia and experiencing long periods of deployment. They wanted to know the emotional effects that extended deployments were having on families. When military members are first deployed, they reported a roller coaster of emotions and feelings of disorientation from being thrust into a totally different environment so far from home. If they are entering a combat or volatile area, this high stress situation can be further jarring. Military members have very little control over what happens at home while they are gone. Often the military partner will try to keep a presence at home, especially if they have children, but they can feel very limited in their efforts by restrictions of what and how they can communicate with their family (Devoe & Ross, 2012). This can lead to a preoccupation with how family is doing at home and can be a major concern for them. Asbury and Martin (2012) 12 studied couples with a military member and found that when the military partner is deployed, the marital relationship is a critical part of their coping and wellness while away. Hoge et al. (2004) found that military members who were deployed to combat areas and participated in or were close to combat, had a significantly higher percentage rate of having major depression, displaying symptoms of PTSD, or alcohol misuse after their deployment then they did before their deployment. The high contrast in environment when the military member returns home can also be disorienting. The home and even their partner are very different from when they left and trying to fit back into a new situation has proven to be frustrating and difficult for many military partners (Devoe & Ross, 2012). Military members sometimes feel like they are not relevant to their families because they have been functioning without while they were away. The At-Home Partner Deployments can also be confusing for the partner that stays behind. Not much in their life changes except for their partner leaving. They stay in the same place and still do all the same things as they did before deployment orders were issued, while life for their partner changes drastically. Many at-home partners reported feeling disoriented and overwhelmed with the process of getting the military member ready to deploy (Pincus et al., 2001). There is an emotional cycle that couples go through when deployment orders are received that lasts months after the deployment is over. If a deployment tasking is received early enough, many couples try to prepare for their time apart by finally getting to some repairs that need done (often dealing with security of the home), car maintenance, preparing tax documents, getting finances in order, setting up help with 13 childcare or someone who can be on-call for “hard days” that are sure to come, along with wills and power of attorney paperwork. It can be a very frantic time of trying to set the at-home partner up with everything they will need to be able to handle things while the military partner is away (Pincus, 2001). A military member does not always know how much lead time they will receive before a deployment. No matter how much time a couple has to prepare for a deployment, it is always a stressful time. These tasks of preparation can bring out a lot of emotions for the at-home spouse who may feel anxious about being able to manage everything while their partner is gone, especially if this is the first deployment the couple has gone through, and they do not know what to expect. Often the anticipation of loss that builds before the military member leaves causes considerable stress for the couple and it is a common occurrence for them to have significant arguments just before the military member leaves (Pincus et al., 2001; Devoe & Ross, 2012). There is so much stress during this pre-deployment period that there is often a sense of relief once the military member actually leaves. The relief is usually short lived because it is replaced with other challenges. Russo and Fallon (2015) reported that often the at-home partner can feel overwhelmed by the duties and challenges they get stuck with while their partner is away. They can feel lonely, have trouble with making decisions by themselves, have a lack of social outlets, not comfortable handling all the finances, ignored by the military, or have problems with disciplining children. Asbury and Martin (2012) studied the at-home spouse during a military deployment and said that coping is a major factor in whether a military member will reintegrate well back into family life or not. They found that prolonged separations due to military deployments negatively affect the family homeostasis and that families cope better with deployments that are less than 6 14 months in length. Even with that being said, military spouses still experience higher levels of marital discord than civilian spouses do. Asbury and Martin (2012) compared civilian couples to couples that had a military member and found that when the military member is deployed, the at-home partner will experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, and feelings of isolation then their civilian counterparts. Devoe and Ross (2012) looked at the parenting cycle of deployment to see how couples that are parents, handled military deployments. They found that the further a couple got into a deployment, the less likely the at-home partner was to participate in “health promoting behaviors” (pg. 186). They found that as the deployment wore on, the exhaustion of holding the home together kept building. The number one stressor that the at-home spouses reported during a deployment was no break from the responsibilities that used to require both spouses to fulfill. To add more to that situation is, the at-home spouse is often fearful for the well-being of their military-partner, especially if they were deployed to a combat area (Devoe & Ross, 2012). That stress and fear can add a heavy burden to bear for the at-home spouse. That being said, Everson et al. (2012) studied a group of at-home Army wives while their husbands were deployed and found that, even though they had a hard time during their husband’s deployment, they did not entertain any delusions about living an easy life. Most families in the military know what they are getting into and willingly commit to a military lifestyle. How A Deployment Can Impact Couples’ Communication The importance of effective communication cannot be understated and the communication that goes on between a couple, especially during a deployment, can play a big role in their feelings of relationship satisfaction. Frequent communication can help a couple get over that initial feeling of loss when they are first separated because of a deployment but over 15 time the affect tends to wear off (O’Neal et al., 2018). Balderrama-Durbin et al. (2018) studied a group of Army National Guard soldiers and their partners and found that it is important to find out the type and consequences of the communication that is going on between the couple in addition to how often they are able to communicate during deployments. With recent technology military members are able to communicate more with their families then they could 15 years ago, but just because they can talk more often does not mean that the communication problems are solved. Lavner et al. (2016) where studying communication between partners and wanted to know whether a couple’s communication predicted marital satisfaction or if the state of their marital satisfaction predicted how well they communicated. They were not able to prove a causal affect either way but some of their data suggested that when a couple had higher levels of relationship satisfaction, they also had higher levels of positive communication. Looking at couples who are going through a military deployment and are facing more stressors than normal during this time, shows how important positive communication can be. Lavner et al. (2016) also found that communication does occupy a central role if a relationship is deteriorating. If a couple has a trend of high levels of negative communication, it is predicted that they will have a steeper decline in marital satisfaction over time. This is a good reason to have positive communication practices in place or taught to a couple before a deployment ever happens. Problem solving with a partner becomes more difficult when separated. Cordova et al. (2005) conducted a study about emotional skillfulness and if it would lead to greater relationship satisfaction. One of their hypothesis’ was that it is harder for men to identify and articulate their emotions to their partners than it is for a woman. This was only partially proven: men scored themselves higher on the difficulty of communicating emotions but scored the same as woman in 16 their ability to identify their emotions. This difference could be even more extreme for the military member if they get put into a deployed setting that tends to be very male dominated. Suppressing the expression of their feelings is not a relationship killer on its own but can create a domino effect when we know that emotional skillfulness leads a couple to better intimacy, which leads to better relationship satisfaction. Cordova et al. (2005) also said emotional skills are a part of resilient marital health because they play an important role in maintaining healthy intimacy. Intimacy is important to have while a couple is separated so the emotional skills of a couple need to be on point as they are getting through a deployment. When military members get to call home and speak to their partner it is usually a stabilizing experience that boosts moral for both parties. Partners that can connect and share with each other while they are separated feel closer. Most couples reported that staying in close contact with each other helped them to cope with the separation better (Pincus et al., 2001). It helped them to feel connected and the military member felt like they did not miss as many milestones like birthdays, graduations, or anniversaries. On the other hand, if they have a “bad phone call,” Pincus et al. (2001) says that it can exacerbate the stress of the situation and lead to negative outcomes for both partners. When a couple has limited contact, those interactions become very meaningful, and the value of interactions have longer lasting affects because of their scarcity. How A Deployment Can Impact Couples’ Intimacy As stated previously, intimacy and sex are closely related but not the same thing. It is possible to have one without the other but in a committed, healthy relationship it is ideal to have both. That is not always possible though if there are circumstances that require a physical 17 separation of the partners. This is the case during a military deployment and why intimacy is such an important part of the relationship for a couple that is separated. Pincus et al. (2001) observed that many couples try to have increased intimacy before the military partner leaves for a deployment but, there are also complicated feelings about having sexual relations. Many couples have fears about fidelity going into a deployment and that adds to the complicated feelings about sex and intimacy before the military partner leaves. Whether these fears and concerns are communicated or not, they affect the couple’s relationship and their ability to connect emotionally. Many at-home partners also reported fears of their military partner dying while being deployed. They want to have sex before they leave but those fears also turn that sexual experience into a sad one. There can also be the apprehension of having sex for the “last time” for the next how-ever many months and that puts a lot of pressure and weight on the experience (Pincus et al.). From the study that Smith et al. (2011) conducted they found that when men and woman are not having sex as frequently as they desire, it directly affects their feelings toward their relationship satisfaction. This can become an issue for military couples who regularly deal with training and deployments that take the military member away from their partner for long periods of time. If a couple is going to be separated for a year due to a deployment, it will not only affect their sexual satisfaction for their relationship but also affect their feelings toward their relationship as a whole. They found that men and woman who were not happy with the current frequency of sex with their partner were also more likely to rank overall lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. Interestingly, they found that particularly middle-aged men were the group that was the most dissatisfied with the frequency of sex with their partners which would make them more likely to not be satisfied with their relationship. If you apply this information to 18 military couples who have frequent separations and deployments from 2 to 12 months long, then their absence of sex with their partner during these times makes them more likely to be dissatisfied, not just with their sexual satisfaction, but also with their relationship satisfaction. There are other things that can affect a couple’s intimacy too. Collins et al. (2017) had results consistent with other studies that showed the at-home partners tended to report higher more depressive symptoms due to a deployment then those with non-deployed partners did. Depressive symptoms can cause emotional distance between a couple and leads to a lack of intimacy. Intimacy is one of the strengths of a relationship so when it is affected, the whole relationship is affected. After the deployment Reintegration And Role Negotiations When a couple separates for a deployment the dynamics in their relationship change; the at-home spouse takes over many of the responsibilities that the couple used to share and the military member can sometimes feel helpless when they are so far away from their partner. This role-adjustment can be a hard transition for many couples, and it begins when the military member first leaves and then again when they return home and reintegrate back into home life (Pincus, 2001). Often the shock of being immediately thrown back into everyday life with their partner and the US culture can be very hard to adjust to when the military partner has finally returned home and is reunited with their families (Devoe & Ross, 2012). Some families handle this time well and it can turn out to be quite difficult for others. This reintegration time naturally brings stress to the home situation since the dynamics are changing and Marek and D’Aniello (2014) found that it is particularly hard for military members or at-home partners who rate their mental 19 health low. It is not just the at-home spouse that has to deal with role stress and role confusion; it effects both partners in the relationship. Military members have reported feeling displaced when they return home. It takes time for partners to readjust and become reacquainted with each other, they must build their communication, manage mood changes, and find a new homeostasis (Chandra et al., 2011). This process can be thwarted by unrealistic expectations that everything would be fine once the military member returns home. Card et al. (2011) said that partners can have inaccurate expectations about couple communication, family organization, or the meaning behind new roles. At-home partners can feel resentful about their partners behavior when they return home, especially if they do not have a good understanding of the military members’ orders, deployment stress or if there are things about their operation they are not allowed to discuss. O’Neal et al. (2018) conducted a study to try to help military families with the reintegration process. They found that couples with more frequent communication during the deployment tended to fare better than families who communicated less. They said that communication is a way to bridge the gap, both emotionally and physically, while the military member is away. This helps to enhance the continuity in the relationship so when they couple is reunited, the differences do not seem as big because they have been talking about them in advance. PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) needs to be mentioned in this discussion because of its effect on relationship satisfaction and spousal communication. Hoge et al. (2004) found that of the Armies soldiers who were returning home from Iraq, 18% of them reported significant levels of PTSD symptoms. This is also something that professionals feel is under reported 20 because of the stigma that surrounds disabilities, so in reality, the numbers are probably higher. Allen et al. (2010) looked at marital outcomes from active-duty Army husbands who were recently deployed and had civilian wives and who currently had PTSD symptoms. They found that PTSD symptoms displayed by a spouse, lowers reported levels of relationship satisfaction for both spouses and affects many things in the relationship from confidence in the relationship to positive bonding between the spouses and the effectiveness of their communication. Both spouses reported higher levels of negative communication when PTSD symptoms were present and it was not until a couple could have positive bonding experiences, control negative communication and parent on the same page that marital satisfaction for the wives went up. It is not necessarily PTSD that causes the breakdowns in communication and intimacy but the symptoms of it that affect the relationship. Allen et al. (2010) also wanted to measure if a recent military deployment would produce more negative communication between married partners, then couples who did not experience a deployment. Their results showed that a deployment was not a predictor of negative communication but the PTSD that a military member can develop on a deployment does. Both husbands and wives reported higher levels of negative communication when a husband was currently experiencing PTSD symptoms. Asbury and Martin (2012) estimated from their study that one-in-five military service members returns home with PTSD from a military deployment but only about 50% of service members who have symptoms of PTSD actually seek treatment for it. They also found that a strong marital relationship can assist the military member with a faster recovery from PTSD symptoms once they return home. A support system that can help with healthy coping can act as a buffer against anxiety and depression which usually accompany reintegration with PTSD 21 symptoms. This is important because the critical component of wellness and coping for the military member appears to be the marital relationship (Asbury & Martin, 2012). Another thing of interest is that when Grieger et al., (2006) did a study about the effects of deployment on families they found that married solders where 3 times more likely to display PTSD symptoms and almost 3 times more likely to meet the criteria for depression if they are injured during their deployment. Out of all the deployments that military members are sent on, many of them are not to combat zones and most soldiers do not come home wounded from battle. For those military members that do see combat on their deployments, it tends to have a direct effect on their mental health and well-being but also goes beyond that to affect their relationship and family functioning (Pflieger et al., 2019). But because the study showed that married solders where more likely to develop symptoms of both PTSD and depression, it suggests that being part of a couple or having a family puts more pressure and stress on a solder so when something goes wrong, it has a bigger effect on them. Bakhurst et al. (2017) said there are large numbers of military members that suffer from PTSD symptoms at “subclinical levels” (pg. 168) who still report lower marital satisfaction rates then couples who do not have any symptoms. So, no matter how severe or mild the PTSD symptoms are, they do have an effect on that person’s personal relationships. Communication To Help with Reintegration, Role Negotiation and PTSD Symptoms Effective communication can accomplish so many things in a relationship. Anderson et al. (2012) did a study to find the top four things that made the biggest difference to a couples’ relationship and how well they fair during a deployment. The factor that made the biggest different for couples was having a good strong marriage before deployment orders ever came but the second factor was effective communication before, during and after the deployment. 22 Communication throughout the whole deployment period, including time after the military member returns home and reintegrates back into their family is so important. During the couples time apart, both experience different circumstances but grow and change very much due to those circumstances. When a military member returns home, they are often changed from the experiences they have had and so is the at-home partner. Role negotiation is a very important part of the process of post deployment. Gambardella (2008) did an entire study on role-exit theory (Ebaugh, 1988), and how it affects partners after a military deployment. Gambardella explains that it is common for the at-home partner to exit a role that used to be fundamental to their identity and become a “new person.” The at-home partner, who is usually a woman (Lundquist, 2014), must stretch and do things they have never done before while their military partner is away. This is often empowering for them and most at-home partners like their new capabilities because it gives them a sense of confidence. The discord comes into play when the military member returns home and they feel like they are no longer needed, or they are expecting the version of their partner that they left behind. This is a major factor in the discord that a deployment brings and one that is best managed through affective communication and/or therapy, professionally guided communication (Gambardella, 2008). When both partners change so much during an experience while they are apart, the best way to get them to a new place of understanding is communication. By nature of a deployment, space is put between a couple that they did not choose. When the military member returns home, that physical space is gone but many couples feel they are still not in the same place whether that is emotionally, personally, or psychologically. Yoo et al. (2013)’s study on couple communication, intimacy, and relationship satisfaction sheds light on the answer to this dilemma. They found a significant association between healthy couple 23 communication, emotional intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. Healthy communication can not only bridge the gap when a couple is physically separated but it can bring them back together emotionally when they are reunited. The only way for a couple to overcome the changes that took place in their relationship during a deployment is to establish understanding with each other and that happens through healthy communication. It can be very stressful for couples to maneuver being physically back together again. O’Brien et al. (2009) studied couples who were trying to cope with stress. They found that couples who coped with stressful situations with empathic responding were able to defuse the marital tension faster then couples who used other means. This shows that learned communication behaviors can help couples who are dealing with situations of high stress. How Intimacy Can Help Get Through These Challenges Cordova et al. (2005) said an important thing for relationship health is how skillfully each partner handles their emotions when they come, not the lack of having any emotion. Some partners try to be tough and not show emotion while they are separated during a deployment but that has shown to only leave a lot of things unsaid and create doubt for the other partner. Balderrama-Durbin et al. (2018) found that what type of communication couples during a deployment had was significant to the couples’ relationship satisfaction. When couples had communication about assurance and support for each other, they felt better about their relationship and rated having more confidence in their relationship. When partners felt emotionally close, through words of affirmation and support, their view of their relationship was more positive. Collins et al. (2017) looked at military couples and how the stress of a deployment can affect their relationship. He found that couples who had been in an intimate relationship for 24 longer had fewer depressive symptoms than those who were still in newer relationships. The strength that intimacy can bring to a relationship helps to act like a buffer to some of the harsher and more negative effects of a military life. Negative Outcomes from Lack Of Effective Communication And Intimacy During A Deployment Balderrama-Durbin et al. (2018) stated that there is a scarcity of research about communication during deployments for military members and their partners. Baptist et al. (2011) said that further research is needed to discover why some couples adapt to deployment and post-deployment and others do not. Merolla (2010) said there is such limited research about relational maintenance during a military deployment that they had to look at non-military relational maintenance research and make conjectures. With how many service men and woman we have in this country, there is about a two-million-person population that this kind of research would directly benefit. Communication and intimacy skills are not traits that a couple either has or does not have; they can be learned skills. Figley and Nelson, (1989) wanted to know what skills they could teach a family through therapy to help them function better. They compiled an extensive list of skills, and several forms of communication and intimacy were on the list. It was stated that relationships need a foundation of these abilities to be successful and all of them could be learned. Any research that sheds light on how healthy communication and intimacy skills work will shed light on what could be taught to couples. If these skills where more accessible to those who need them military families could manage the challenges of a military lifestyle a little bit better. 25 The effects of not having healthy communication and intimacy skills are already known. Military couples have been in distress before, during, and after deployments. They have experienced discord in their homes and been under great amounts of stress. The stress that military deployments are causing couples who do not have the skills to manage them is creating instability in their homes and exacerbating the PTSD symptoms that some military members are returning home with. Overall and McNulty (2017) did not study a military population but their study of healthy communication in intimate relationships can be applied to them. They found that distressed couples engaged in much more hostility, criticism of each other, and disagreement than non-distressed couples. The more negative a couple’s communication was the lower they would rate their relationship satisfaction. The researchers concluded that communication that was negative, was harmful to the relationship. In Gottman and Gottman’s (2008) research on marriages they found there are patterns that are always consistent with an ailing marriage. One of those patterns to look for is when a couple does not take the time to repair the processes that are not working in the marriage. This can happen when a couple or even one member of the relationship experiences a stress pileup. It is established that deployments cause stress for a couple and if that stress gets to be too much, the partner experiencing the pileup is much more likely to have depressive symptoms (Collins et al., 2017). On the other hand, O’Brian et al. (2009) stated that when a couple goes through a stressful experience together and they are able to maintain a close relationship it can create a buffer for them from negative outcomes. Couples build a close relationship through communication and intimacy and when it is not practiced, they cannot enjoy that shield protecting them from the negative effects of stress. 26 Sometimes couples that have relationship challenges try to put issues aside while a military partner is deployed or about to be deployed. They think they are doing their partner a favor by keeping things happy and not causing conflict, but Drummet et al. (2003) found that ignoring significant concerns about the relationship to avoid conflict can negatively effect the relationship, especially post-deployment. Asbury and Martin (2012) did a study where they tested specifically for marital discord relating to a military deployment and found that the military members who where married reported higher levels of marital discord then their civilian spouses did. This shows that even when a couple is going through a deployment together, they can still be on very different pages with each other because they are having very different experiences. They are physically in two different places, doing totally different things and it can make it harder for them to connect and get on the same page with each other. Instability in the home can happen when there is miscommunication that does not get resolved. Devoe and Ross (2012) found that often the military partner can feel helpless when it comes to things in their home while they are deployed. They can feel confined by their orders and the limits with what they are allowed to communicate to their partner and often have restrictions for when they are allowed to communicate. These frustrations can appear in their communications with their partners and cause the at-home partner to be unsure of where they stand with each other. Another thing that can cause instability in the home is when the military member is returning home. The reintegration phase of deployment can be surprisingly hard, especially when the couple is finally getting what they want, to be together again. Devoe and Ross (2012) found that both partners experienced added stress and uncertainty in how to negotiate finding a new 27 equilibrium. The at-home partner can find it hard to give up some of their control and freedoms that they had while the military partner was away, and the military partner can feel like their place is gone in the home. This is even more exaggerated when there are children in the home who often have found a new routine during the deployment to make things work with only one parent at home (Devoe & Ross, 2012). Every couple has things that they need to work on in order to keep their relationship healthy and couples in the military are no exception. In fact, the unique challenges that a military couple will face like frequent moves, separations from TDY’s or deployments and PTSD symptoms make functioning as a successful couple even harder to accomplish. Sheppard et al. (2010) said that marital separation and divorce are some of the negative outcomes that are associated with deployments. Research suggests that when a military spouse returns home with PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) the re-establishment of in-person relationships can be an added stress and reintegration back into the family is usually a complex process for all parties involved (Devoe & Ross, 2012). Allen et al. (2010) studied military members with PTSD and how it affected their marital relationships. They could not prove a causal relationship between PTSD and marital dysfunction but there was very strong evidence of the negative impact that PTSD symptoms have on multiple aspects of marital functioning. One of the main symptoms of PTSD emotional avoidance which in turn, effects emotional intimacy and connecting through vulnerable communication. Thus, PTSD is a direct assault on the skills that can be most helpful for a military couple to connect and heal after a deployment. It is safe to say that based on the literature, a military deployment is a complex set of processes that start before the military member ever leaves home and lasts long after they return. 28 It is not a single event, and it touches much more than just the person whose name is on the orders. Each one of the deployment stages and processes have their own set of unique challenges for both partners in the relationship. Those challenges include stress, worry, doubt, fear, exhaustion, effort, understanding and dealing with things beyond their control like PTSD symptoms or depression. Whether they were chosen or not, healthy communication and practiced intimacy can help to soften the negative outcomes that coincide with a military deployment. Purpose With that in mind, a strong relationship is built on effective communication and intimacy and military couples have an added need for strong relationship skills because of the unique stressors they face. One of those stressors are the various stages and events surrounding military deployments. The military partner and the at-home partner both go through difficult, but very different, experiences during the separation. The deployment can specifically affect the couple’s communication and intimacy while they are apart. After the deployment, things do not automatically go back to how they were before the military member left. It can be very hard for a couple to maneuver the reintegration and role negotiation process when the military partner returns home, especially if the military partner returns home with PTSD symptoms which happens in 5.5 % of total deployed forces (2020 Demographics Profile, 2020). Communication and intimacy can be very effective tools for the couple as they navigate these challenges. If communication and intimacy are not being used positively by the couple once deployment orders are received, during the deployment and after the military member returns home, then the couple risks having marital discord, instability in the home, exacerbated PTSD symptoms if already present, or a divorce. 29 The US military reported 1.3 million active-duty military members across the four branches of the US military of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force and 1.02 million Selected Reserve members who serve in the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve as of 2020 (2020 Demographics profile, 2020). All of those military members are eligible for some kind of deployment or TDY that could take them away from their significant others and families from a week or two of training up to 12 months of deployment. The purpose of this study is to explore how a couples’ relationship dynamics, specifically communication and intimacy, are impacted both during and after a military deployment. Hypotheses The stress and chaos associated with these separations can be difficult to manage for even the best of marriages. The objective of this study is to use the data that was collected to broaden our understanding of military couples’ experiences during deployments and separations so when interventions are created, they can be purposeful and able to offer solutions that get at the heart of the problems surrounding the deployment process. For this research, participants were asked to answer questions about stress, communication, intimacy, and relationship satisfaction, while they specifically think about a time of deployment or separation they have gone through as a couple. Six hypotheses were tested to further understand the associations between stress, deployment, communication, intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 1- As the stress level of partners goes up during a deployment, then relationship satisfaction of partners will go down. 30 Hypothesis 2 - If the relationship satisfaction of partners goes down, then reported intimacy will go down also. Hypothesis 3 - When deployment stress goes up for a couple, their healthy communication will go down. Hypothesis 4 – When a couples’ healthy communication goes down, then reported intimacy will go down also. Hypothesis 5 – The relationship between stress and intimacy will be mediated by couples’ healthy communication during deployment. Hypothesis 6 – The relationship between stress and intimacy will be mediated by couples’ relationship satisfaction during deployment. Methods Context This research was to learn more about what couples go through during a military deployment or extended TDY. That separation is a unique experience that not many of the civilian population experiences. The data that we collected will inform educator and program creators how this experience affects couples’ communication and intimacy so when curriculum or programs are developed for a military population, they will have a better scope of the issues military couples face and how to help them overcome those challenges. Participants We targeted an adult military population who were in committed relationships and experienced a deployment or TDY for two months or longer while together. This included any active or reserve military members and their significant other, whether the partners are military or not. This group also included people who have retired from the military since all participants 31 reflected on a time when they or their spouse were separated from their family due to military service. Out of all those that responded, the average age was 38 years old (SD=9.28), with ages ranging from 20 to 58 years old. Ten of the respondents were male and 56 were female. Twelve of the respondents were the only military partner in their relationship, 10 respondents had both partners who were in the military and 64 respondents were the spouse of a military member. Of those that answered about their ethnicity, 58 of the respondents identified as white, 3 selected being of Asian descent, 2 selected Hispanic, and 1 selected Black. Of those participants that responded about their highest level of education earned, 3 earned a High School diploma or equivalent, 2 had vocational training, 14 had completed some collage, 9 had earned an Associate’s degree, 22 had earned a Bachelor’s degree, 4 had some post undergraduate work done, 10 had earned Master’s degrees, and 1 had earned a Doctorate degree. Seventy of the respondents were active-duty or a spouse to a military member that was active-duty. 63 respondents were either associated with the Air Force directly or through their military partner, 22 Army, 1 Navy and 1Marine Corpse. There were 13 responses from military member (or spouses of) who were in the Reserves or Guard, and only 2 respondents who were civilian contractors. Being in (or having been in) a relationship that experienced a deployment was a qualifier to participate in the research so of those that answered the relationship status question 3 were currently single but used to be in a relationship, 3 were in a committed relationship and 75 were married. The mean length of relationships was 16.5 years, ranging from 3 years to 45 years. Instruments 32 A questionnaire was developed for respondents who were in a romantic relationship in which at least one partner is in, or was in, the military. There were three qualifiers: - the person taking the survey must be or have been in a committed relationship - one or both people in the relationship must be or have been in the military - they must have experienced a military induced separation for 2 months or longer of either a deployment or TDY, while they were a together If those qualifications were met then the participant went through a series of 25 questions covering different aspects of relationship satisfaction, relationship stress, intimacy, and communication during a deployment. There were three qualitative questions in the questionnaire about what the biggest conflict with communication was, what caused the most conflict when the couple was apart for a deployment or TDY, and if the participant answered positively that they were able to have emotional intimacy while they were separated, they were asked about what they did to have it present. There was basic demographic information at the end of the survey along with what branch of the military they or their partner are/were in. In order to test the hypotheses above, four measures were used in the survey to accurately measure stress levels, relationship satisfaction, effective communication and intimacy. These tools were the CSI-4, PSS-4, CPQSF, and the Clark Marital Intimacy Scale. A modified version of the CSI-4 tool to measure a Couple’s Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007) was used in our survey to measure the couple’s relationship satisfaction. The respondents were instructed to think about a time when they, or their partner, was experiencing a military induced separation while answering the questions to gage their relationship satisfaction specifically during a deployment instead of measuring their current level of satisfaction. Four 33 questions were asked about the couple’s relationship with a seven-point scale to answer (see Appendix A). The modified measure was found to be reliable (α = .87). A modified version of the PSS-4 (Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983) tool was used in our survey to measure the stress levels of participants during a military deployment (see Appendix B). They were asked four questions about their levels of stress during a deployment and could answer with a five-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Very Often.” This modified measure was found to be reliable (α = .76) The CPQSF (communication pattern questionnaire short form) (Futris et al., 2010; Heavey, Larson, Zumtobel, 1996) was used in our survey to measure communication in the couple’s relationship. The questionnaire was modified to have the respondent reflect on a time when they were separated due to a military TDY or deployment and then answer the questions for that time period (see Appendix C). This tool had two parts asking a total of 11 questions about problem solving and communication. To measure healthy communication, a mean score of the following items from the CPQSF were used: o Both you and your partner tried to discuss the problem o Both you and your partner express your feelings to each other. o Both you and your partner suggest possible solutions and compromises. This modified measure was found to be reliable (α = .86). The fourth tool that was used was the Clark Marital Intimacy Scale (The Common Cold Project, 2010). This tool was also modified to accommodate results to be reflective of the level of intimacy for a couple while they were apart because of a military deployment (see Appendix D). This tool had 12 questions about intimacy and participants could answer on a five-point scale from “Disagree” to “Agree.” Intimacy was measured by taking the mean score 34 from three of the items (It was easy to identify with my partner. | My partner could really relate to me. | My partner believed in me.) and the measure was found to have acceptable reliability (α = .62). Two questions in the survey were used to measure deployment stress for the respondent and their spouse. They answered directly, on a scale of 1- not stressful at all to 5- stressful all of the time how they felt about the stress during a deployment. We used a mean score of these two items (α = .57). Procedures Once the project and questionnaire were approved by a committee, they were submitted to Weber State University’s internal review board. It was approved by the review board on May 23, 2022, and the questionnaire was sent out through social media on May 26. Military couples were encouraged to take it and send it to others so it could snowball to a large participation group. The questionnaire was sent through Facebook to some military friends and shared with others along with being posted on Hill AFB’s military wives Facebook page. Initially we were hoping for around 200 responses but were only able to collect less than 100. Results Hypothesis 1- It was expected that as the stress level of partners went up during a deployment, relationship satisfaction would go down. Results from a bivariate correlation test found a nonsignificant relationship between these two variables (r = -.17, ns), failing to support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 – It was expected that if the relationship satisfaction of partners went down, then reported intimacy would go down also. Results from a bivariate correlation test found a 35 significant and positive relationship between relationship satisfaction and reports of intimacy during deployment (r = .68, p <.001). Hypothesis 3 – It was expected that when the deployment stress went up for a couple, their healthy communication would go down. Results from a bivariate correlation test found a nonsignificant relationship between these two variables (r = .05, ns), failing to support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 – It was expected that when a couples’ healthy communication went down, then reported intimacy would go down also. Results from a bivariate correlation test found a significant and positive relationship between healthy communication and reports of intimacy during deployment (r = .45, p <.001). Hypothesis 5 & 6 were not tested, because main effects were not found for the relationship between the measures of stress and intimacy. Also, we did not receive a sufficient sample size to accurately conduct these mediation-tests (https://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm). Discussion We found no correlation between stress levels and relationship satisfaction. While it was expected that if stress levels for the couple rose, they would have less time and energy to put toward their relationship but, for the participants that we sampled, that did not appear to be the case. Green et al. (2013) talked about the very different experiences that service members who have the support of their unit with them, have while they are deployed compared with their partners at home, who often struggle for outside support according to Pflieger et al. (2019). In this research we did not measure if either member of the couple had prior military life experience. There could be a learning curve from growing up in a military home to then know 36 how to handle a deployment when that child is an adult. The family origin could have an affect on the results where no correlation was found. The second hypothesis that if the relationship satisfaction of partners went down, then their reported intimacy would go down also showed a significant correlation (r = .68, p <.001). This information is useful to curriculum writers who might create a marriage class for military couples because it appears that intimacy in a marriage is linked to high levels of relationship satisfaction (Yoo et al., 2013). Other studies have shown that intimacy and the process of intimate partner formation is key in a partner’s feelings of overall relationship satisfaction (Cordova et al., 2005). Additionally, some research has shown that a foundation of skills, including intimacy, is essential for effective a healthy functioning relationship (Figley & Nelson, 1989). This information can also transfer to couples outside the military. It was expected that when the deployment stress went up for a couple, their healthy communication would go down but there was no correlation to support that. Gottman and Gottman’s (2008) research explores the effects of having a stress pile-up. The amounts of stress that a deployment can put on a couple could cause a breakdown in communication according to Overall and McNulty (2017). The sample size did not allow us to positively correlate the two factors but another possible reason for the non-correlation could be a suppressor effect from having participants reflect on a time of deployment. Participants may unintentionally suppress the negative feelings and experiences of a deployment inadvertently skewing the data to be more positive than it would have been if data was collected during the actual event. The fourth hypothesis was that if couples’ healthy communication would go down, then their reported intimacy would also go down. The correlation test supported this hypothesis. Yoo et al. (2013) made a very strong case for a couple’s communication and intimacy being tied 37 closely together. That would still be the case if not more so for a couple who is physically separated and relying on their communication to bridge the gap that their proximity created. A couple’s communication and intimacy are closely linked when they are together, it only makes sense that when they are apart and communication is the only tool they have to create intimacy, it’s affects will be amplified. Limitations and Future Directions There are two limitations to this study and the biggest one is the small sample size that we had. A much bigger sample size would have really helped when we tested questions for their reliability to see if they were valid measures or not. A larger sample size would have given the accuracy to be reliable. It might have also given us a broad enough look at a military member’s experience compared to a stay-home partners experience during the deployment that we could find trends in their different experiences. This would allow us to better understand what each goes through in their separate environments during the shared experience of the deployment. One more thing that a larger sample size would do, is allow us to see if there are specific trends from different branches of the military. For instance, the Army tends to have longer deployments than the other branches and we might find that healthy communication is more important for couples who go through a 12 month or longer deployment whereas couples who experience a Marine Corpse deployment might find that intimacy, connecting on an emotional level, is more beneficial to their relationship because their deployments tend to have a higher percentage of being combat oriented. The second limitation for this study was the retrospective nature in which it was conducted. In order to expand the sample size, we used broad qualifying strokes to include anyone who had ever been in a deployed situation while in a committed relationship would 38 qualify instead of limiting responses only from someone who is in that situation right now. The human mind is not always accurate, and memory accuracy goes down with time. If someone was trying to recall a deployment that happened 15 years ago, they might not have the most accurate recollection of how they or their spouse felt and delt with it. If a study was conducted on a group that was currently getting ready to deploy and followed them through the departure, deployment and reintegration from the deployment, the information recorded would be much more accurate. Since there was no correlation between a couple’s stress levels and their relationship satisfaction during a deployment, it would be interesting to see what is causing their stress and what they do to relieve their stress. A hypothesis that would be interesting to test with that question is whether education level or participants age had anything to do with their ability to separate their stress of the situation from the partner they are separated from. The older the couple is the more life experience they have and the more practice they would have in handling stress in a healthy way. The same goes for education, it could be hypothesized that the higher the education level of an individual or couple, the better they would handle a stressful deployment. An interesting study would be to question young, enlisted military members and their spouses and compare them to older counterparts and see if education levels or life experience made a difference in who handled stress better. A helpful future direction would be if someone was to create a perspective study instead of the retrospective one. One that could be administered before, during and after a deployment so feelings and stresses that are happening in the moment can be recorded as opposed to looking back on a hard time. Some people tend to look past the bad or hardest parts, just being thankful that it is over causing data to be lost. 39 Another future direction that this study could go would be to control the study to distinguish data between combat deployments and non-combat deployments. There is a lot of data on combat deployments and how that affects couples and families but there is a need for more information on non-combat deployments since the vast majority of military deployments are not combat related. In this survey, we did not ask any questions about dependents because we wanted to focus the questions about the couple relationship. Children could be a big factor into how well a couple fares during a deployment. A deployment while a couple has several young children could go very different than a deployment while a couple has teenagers. The number of, and age of children in the home during a deployment could shed more light on some of the factors we tested for. Conclusion The information we gained from this small study has been useful. The military community is very tight, and the system is set up to watch over and take care of its members. When a base is looking for ideas as to what they can do for families that have a deployed parent, the information we collected from this survey will help inform them. Couples that are going to go through a deployment deserve curriculum that will address their needs and help them build healthy communication skills, teach them how to have intimacy even though they are far apart and help them find relationship satisfaction that will last beyond a solder returning home. 40 References 2020 Demographics profile. (2020). Military One Source. Retrieved from www.militaryonesource.mil/data-research-and-statistics/military-community-demographics/2020-demographics-profile/ Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Hitting home: Relationships between recent deployment, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and marital functioning for Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019405 Anderson, J. R., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Stith, S. M., & Foster, R. E. (2012). Resilience in Military Marriages Experiencing Deployment. Handbook of Family Resilience, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3917-2_7 Asbury, E. T., & Martin, D. (2012). Military deployment and the spouse left behind. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 20(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480711429433 Bakhurst, M. G., McGuire, A. C., & Halford, W. K. (2017). Relationship education for military couples: A pilot randomized controlled trial of the effects of couple care in uniform. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(3), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2016.1238797 Balderrama-Durbin, C., Erbes, C. R., Polusny, M. A., & Vogt, D. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of a measure of intimate partner communication during deployment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000382 Baptist, J. A., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Garrett, K., Nelson Goff, B. S., Collum, J., Gamble, P., ... & Wick, S. (2011). Military marriages: The aftermath of operation Iraqi freedom (OIF) and 41 operation enduring freedom (OEF) deployments. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-011-9162-6 Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal relationships, 15(1), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x Chandra, A., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Han, B., Burns, R. M., et al. (2011). Views from the homefront: The experiences of youth and spouses from military families. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Rand Health Quarterly, 1(1), 12-12 Cohen‚ S.‚ Kamarck‚ T.‚ Mermelstein‚ R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior‚ 24‚ 385-396 Collins, C. L., Lee, K.-H., & Wadsworth, S. M. M. (2017). Family stressors and resources: Relationships with depressive symptoms in military couples during pre-deployment. Family Relations, 66(2), 302-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12251 Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 218-235. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.2.218.62270 Cynar, D. J. (2008). Keeping the home fires burning: The effects of military induced separations on marital intimacy from a female perspective. Masters Thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks 42 David, P. (2015). Wedding the Gottman and Johnson approaches into an integrated model of couple therapy. The Family Journal, 23(4), 336-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480715601675 Devoe, E. R., & Ross, A. (2012). The Parenting Cycle of Deployment. Military Medicine, 177(2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-11-00292 Dimiceli, E. E., Steinhardt, M. A., & Smith, S. E. (2010). Stressful experiences, coping strategies, and predictors of health-related outcomes among wives of deployed military servicemen. Armed Forces & Society, 36(2), 351-373. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0095327X08324765 Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M., & Cable, S. (2003). Military families under stress: Implications for family life education. Family Relations, 52(3), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00279.x Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Everson, R. B., Darling, C. A., & Herzog, J. R. (2012). Parenting stress among US Army spouses during combat-related deployments: the role of sense of coherence. Child & Family Social Work, 18(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00818.x Figley, C. E., & Nelson, T. S. (1989). Basic family therapy skills, I: Conceptualization and initial findings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15(4), 349 Futris, T. G., Campbell, K., Nielsen, R. B., & Burwell, S. R. (2010). The communication patterns questionnaire-short form: A review and assessment. The Family Journal, 18(3), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480710370758 43 Funk, J.L., & Rogge, R.D. (2007). Testing the Ruler with Item Response Theory: Increasing Precision of Measurement for Relationship Satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583 Gambardella, L. C. (2008). Role-exit theory and marital discord following extended military deployment. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 44(3), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2008.00171.x Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 169-197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.169 Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S. (2008). Gottman method of couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy, (4th ed., pp.138-164). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182 Green, S., Nurius, P. S., & Lester, P. (2013). Spouse psychological well-being: A keystone to military family health. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(6), 753-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.795068 Grieger, T. A., Cozza, S. J., Ursano, R. J., Hoge, C., Martinez, P. E., Engel, C. C., & Wain, H. J. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle-injured soldiers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1777-1783. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.10.1777 Heavey, C. L., Larson, B. M., Zumtobel, D. C., & Christensen, A. (1996). The Communication Patterns Questionnaire: The reliability and validity of a constructive communication subscale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 796-800. 44 Hillenbrand, E. D. (1976). Father absence in military families. Family Coordinator, 25(4), 451-458. https://doi.org/10.2307/582860 Hinojosa, R., Hinojosa, M. S., & Högnäs, R. S. (2012). Problems with veteran–family communication during Operation Enduring Freedom/ Operation Iraqi Freedom military deployment. Military Medicine, 177, 191–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00385 Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England journal of medicine, 351(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040603 Johnson, S. (March 23, 2022). How Long is a Military Deployment?. USO. How Long is a Military Deployment? · United Service Organizations (uso.org) Johnson, S., & Zuccarini, D. (2010). Integrating sex and attachment in emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.111 1/j.1752-0606.2009.00155.x Julien, D., Chartrand, E., Simard, M. C., Bouthillier, D., & Bégin, J. (2003). Conflict, social support and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male and lesbian couples' communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.419 Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples' communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301 45 Lundquist, J., & Xu, Z. (2014). Reinstitutionalizing families: Life course policy and marriage in the military. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 1063-1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12131 Meadows, S. O., Tanielian, T., Karney, B., Schell, T., Griffin, B. A., Jaycox, L. H., ... & Vaughan, C. A. (2017). The deployment life study: Longitudinal analysis of military families across the deployment cycle. Rand health quarterly, 6(2). Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance during military deployment: Perspectives of wives of deployed US soldiers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 4-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483557 Morgis, B. L., Ewing, E., Liu, T., Slaughter-Acey, J., Fisher, K., & Jampol, R. (2019). A hold me tight workshop for couple attachment and sexual intimacy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 41(4), 368-383. O’Brien, T. B., DeLongis, A., Pomaki, G., Puterman, E., & Zwicker, A. (2009). Couples coping with stress: The role of empathic responding. European Psychologist, 14(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.18 O’Neal, C. W., Lucier-Greer, M., Duncan, J. M., Mallette, J. K., Arnold, A. L., & Mancini, J. A. (2018). Vulnerability and resilience within military families: Deployment experiences, reintegration, and family functioning. Journal of Child and Families Studies, 27(10), 3250-3261. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10826-018-1149-6 Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships?. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002 46 Pflieger, J. C., Porter, B., Carballo, C. E., Stander, V. A., & Corry, N. H. (2019). Patterns of Strengths in U.S. Military Couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(5), 1249– 1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01593-4 Pincus, S. H., House, R., Christenson, J., & Adler, L. E. (2001). The emotional cycle of deployment: A military family perspective. US Army Medical Department Journal, 4(5), 15-23. Rossetto, K. R. (2013). Relational coping during deployment: Managing communication and connection in relationships. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 568-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12000 Russo, T.J., Fallon, M.A. Coping with Stress: Supporting the Needs of Military Families and Their Children. Early Childhood Education Journal 43(5), 407–416 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0665-2 Sheppard, S. C., Malatras, J. W., & Israel, A. C. (2010). The impact of deployment on U.S. military families. American psychologist, 65(6), 599-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020332 Smith, A., Lyons, A., Ferris, J., Richters, J., Pitts, M., Shelley, J., & Simpson, J. M. (2011). Sexual and relationship satisfaction among heterosexual men and women: The importance of desired frequency of sex. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 37(2), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.560531 Smith, C., & Carlson, B. E. (1997). Stress, coping and resilience in children and youth. Social Service Review, 71(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/604249 47 The Common Cold Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold- project/measures-by-study/psychological-and-social-constructs/marital-quality- measures/marital-intimacy.html Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., & Lodge, A. C. (2015). Intimacy and emotion work in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 542-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12178 V., R. (2021). TDY: Temporary Duty Assignment Explained. OMK. Retrieved from Military TDY: The Basics of Temporary Duty Assignments (operationmilitarykids.org) Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication, emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 40(4), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.751072 48 APPENDICES Appendix A CSI-4 49 Appendix B PSS-4 We invite you to think of the time when you and your partner were separated due to a deployment or TDY for 2 months or longer while you answer the next four questions. 1. During that deployment or TDY, how often did you feel that you were unable to control the important things in your life? Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 2. How often did you feel confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 3. How often did you feel that things were going your way? Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often 50 Very Often 4. How often did you feel difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them? Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often 51 Appendix C CPQSF We invite you to think of the time when you and your partner were separated due to a deployment or TDY for 2 months or longer while you answer the following questions. Directions: We are interested in how you and your partner dealt with problems in your relationship during times of deployment. Select the appropriate rating number. 52 Appendix D Clark Intimacy Scale We invite you to think of the time when you and your partner were separated due to a deployment or TDY for 2 months or longer while you rate your level of agreement on the following items. 1. I liked my partner. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 2. It was easy to identify with my partner. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 3. Taking care of my partner made me happy. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 53 4. My partner could really relate to me. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 5. Sometimes it felt as though my partner and I were from different planets. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 6. I would do just about anything to help my partner. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 7. My partner often just wouldn’t seem to “get” what I would say to him/her. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) 54 Agree (2) 8. My partner ignored my complaints. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 9. My partner felt my concerns were trivial. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 10. There were many things about my partner I’d have liked to change. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 11. My partner would do just about anything to help me. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) 55 Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2) 12. My partner believed in me. Disagree (-2) Slightly Disagree (-1) Neutral (0) Slightly Agree (1) Agree (2)