Expecting the Fight: How a Soldier’s Mindset Can Buffer PTSD
“I do not hope our country needs to go to war, but as a professional soldier, I want to be there if it does.”
This quote, often repeated in military circles, reflects an important insight emerging from both frontline experiences and scientific research: mindset matters. Especially when it comes to how soldiers prepare for and mentally frame the experience of combat.
A recent study co-authored by a US/Norwegian research team, prospectively studied 396 Norwegian Army soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan in 2012. The team surveyed these individuals at several points, both before and after deployment, tracking their psychological health for two years after returning home.
The goal was to explore why some veterans develop long-term symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after combat experiences, while others seem to respond with greater resilience. The central finding was simple, but significant: soldiers who both expected to face combat and placed a positive value on this eventuality were markedly less likely to develop PTSD symptoms if they were exposed to combat.
Military personnel spend years preparing for wartime, yet whether an individual actually anticipates facing combat varies widely. Frontline infantry may fully expect to see action, whereas those in support or technical roles often consider it unlikely. Accordingly, the study introduced the concept of “positive-expectancy” to describe this effect. Positive-expectancy is a psychological resource made up of what individuals anticipate they will encounter and the valence they assign to experiencing such events. In the context of the current study, combat valence referred to how a soldier viewed the prospect of engaging directly in warfare. Two soldiers might end up in the same firefight, yet while one may think, “this is what I’ve trained for,” the other might respond with, “I never signed up for this.” These differences in the valence placed on combat, the study show, can result in very different psychological outcomes after the experience.
Mindset Is Not a Cure, But It Can Be a Shield
When both the expectation of combat was present, as well as a sense that combat could hold professional value, soldiers had significantly less PTSD symptoms compared to the soldiers who did not have this mindset, if they ended up having to fight the enemy. This tells us something powerful: mental preparation isn’t just a “nice to have” quality. It is a psychological resource. Positive-expectancy acts as a kind of shield against the intense stress of warfighting. Of course, none of this is to say that trauma can be avoided by willpower or mindset alone. Combat will always carry risks, both physical and psychological. But knowing that some aspects of a soldier’s internal world can moderate how they experience traumatic events gives us a powerful tool for support, training, and intervention.
Understanding Valence
Importantly, having a positive-expectancy towards combat does not imply that soldiers enjoy war or seek out violence. Rather, it reflects the framing the soldiers assign to combat. This could be viewing combat as a proving ground, the ultimate test of readiness, years of training being put to the test, and a check on personal resilience. For many professional soldiers, a combat scenario is not just something to survive, rather it is something to master with competence and purpose. In that sense, for a soldier, being in combat can be compared to a firefighter running into a burning building, or a trauma surgeon working through a critical emergency: it is dangerous and adverse, yes, but it is also exactly what they have trained to do.
Implications for Military Training and Leadership
So, what should we do with these findings?
First, realistic preparation matters. Even for soldiers in non-combat roles, it’s important to receive honest briefings about the potential for danger. “It probably won’t happen” is not a helpful message. “It might happen, and here’s how you can think about it” is better.
Second, military leaders should be talking about valence. If we want to maximize the likelihood of our soldiers having a resilient response to combat experiences, we need to help them connect what they do to a broader professional identity. That doesn’t mean romanticizing war, instead it means framing combat as a possible part of the job, one that can be faced with skill and a professional attitude, and something that can make the soldiers more competent in their chosen vocation.
Finally, this research can help us identify who might need more support. If we know a soldier went into deployment not expecting combat, and not seeing any professional value in that part of the mission, then they might be especially vulnerable to trauma if they’re exposed to combat. That’s something leaders, psychologists, and health providers should be attuned to, both during and after Service.
Thank you Andreas Espetvedt Nordstrand for writing this Research Spotlight.
You can access the full article here.
