La importancia de la dicotomía amigo/enemigo

It would therefore seem important to be able to measure exposure to the potentiall y traumat ic events involved in peacekeeping service to determine if exposure t o these events is a predictor of subsequent psychopathology. That is, "peacekeeping exposure" . In keeping with the results from previous research and models of peacekeeping stress such as those developed by Lamerson & Kelloway ( 1 996) and Kidwell & Langholtz ( 1 998) it would also seem necessary to measure more chronic stress, including job stress and organisational stress.

53

However, while more chronic everyday stress can be measured by currently existing "life events" or "minor stresses" scales with known psychometric properties, such as the well-known Social Readjustment Scale (Holmes and Rahe, 1 967) and the Hassles Scale ( Delongis, Lazarus & Folkman, 1 988) there is no known widely used scale that can provide a reliable and valid measure of the more potentially traumatic events associated with peacekeeping service.

There are, of course, a number of combat exposure scales (e.g. the Combat Exposure Index (Janes, Goldberg, Eisen & True, 1 99 1 ); the Combat Exposure Scale (Keane et al, 1 989); the Military Stress Scale (Watson, Kucala, Manifold, Vassar & Juba, 1 988; cited in Watson, Juba & Anderson, 1 989) the Objective Military Stress Scale (Solomon, Mikulincer & Hobfoll, 1 987); the Combat Exposure Scale (Friedman, Schneiderman, West & Corson, 1 986); the Combat Index (Boulanger & Kadushin, 1 986), the Combat Exposure Scale (Lund, Foy, Sipprelle & Strachan, 1 984); and the Vietnam Veterans Questionnaire Combat Exposure Scale (Figley & Stretch, 1 980; cited in Keane, Newman & Orsillo, 1 997 and Watson et al, 1 989). There are also scales that specifical ly assess exposure to war-time atrocities (e.g. Unger, Gould & Babich, 1 998) and war-zone trauma-related guilt (e.g. Kubany et al, 1 997). Keane et al ( 1 997) provide a very good review of the scales available within each of four different conceptual approaches: measuring the intensity, frequency and duration of traditional combat experiences; including items outside the realm of traditional combat; evaluating the many generally unpleasant parameters of the military experience (e.g. bad environmental conditions) through specifically designed scales and assessing the individuals emotional appraisal of events.

Little evidence exists as to the psychometric properties of scales in the latter two categories described by Keane et al ( 1 997), although a number of scales in the first two categories have shown good psychometric properties. However, the items and wording render them highly inappropriate for use in the peacekeeping context, which by definition, does not involve combat. That is, they commonly use words like "enemy" and "hostile" which imply that the situation is a combat one, with a defined enemy. An example of such an item is: "Did you ever fire rounds at the enemy?" from Keane et al ' s ( 1 989) Combat Exposure Scale. Furthermore, as Keane et al ( 1 997) point out, many were based on the experiences of Vietnam veterans. Issues

54

such as whether or not servicepersonnel were armed, and thus able to protect themselves, and the quality of life of the local people, including the children, that are widely acknowledged as fundamental to the complex nature of peacekeeping service are often not represented. More chronic everyday stressors, job stress and organisational stress are also not represented.

Attempts to overcome these difficulties in peacekeeping research have ranged from the inclusion of two items to measure "combat" to the use of an adaptation of Keane et al ' s ( 1 989) CES, to "purpose-built" scales. These purpose-built scales have almost exclusively been reported after the data from the current study was gathered and thus were unable to be used or modified in the current research.

For example, Fontana et al (2000) used two five-point items to measure "combat" - unit exposure (or the number of times one ' s unit was fired upon) and personal exposure (or the number of times one went on patrols or very dangerous duties). They also used an item called "witnessing dying Somalis" that asked how often this occurred. Bramsen et al (2000) asked subjects to indicate whether or not they had experienced 1 3 possible traumatic events during deployment, such as being held at gunpoint and witnessing human distress, while Larsson et al (2000) asked subj ects to indicate whether or not they had been involved in each of six events (such as "any kind of firing very close") which they experienced as very distressful.

Keane et a! ' s ( 1 989) CES has been used or adapted by a number of authors. For example, Ward ( 1 997) used Keane et al ' s ( 1 989) CES in addition to the Impact of Events Scale (Horowitz, Wilner & Alvarez, 1 979; cited in Ward, 1 997). By far the most comprehensive approach was taken by Orsillo et al ( 1 998) and Litz et al ( 1 997a & 1 997b) who used a five to six item measure of frequency of exposure to war-zone stressors adapted from Keane et al ' s ( 1 989) CES, in addition to a 30-item scale of potentially rewarding and frustrating aspects of the peacekeeping experience. The items were derived from preliminary interviews with servicepersonnel who had served in Somalia and media coverage of the events. Subj ects were asked to rate the positive and negative impact of these items. A six-factor solution emerged from a principal components factor analysis of this scale (Orsillo et al, 1 998). These were frustration with Somalis and Somalia, separation from family and friends, general

55

military pride, exposure to starvation, exposure to a new culture and restraint/changing rul es. When three items with factor loadings less than 0 . 5 were later removed, these factors accounted for 60 percent of the variance.

None of the approaches taken before the data for the current study was gathered seemed ideal for the purposes of the current study. Many of the scales contained very few items and this means they might not capture the range and specificity of events experienced. Furthermore, it was not until after the data for the current study was gathered that authors attempted to include items that related to more everyday stressors, in addition to the potentially traumatic events (Mehlum, 1 999 and research reported by Orsillo et al, 1 998 and Litz et al 1 997a & 1 997b).

As several reliable and valid measures of more chronic, "everyday" stress currently exist, it seemed that these would be ideal, with possibly some modification, for the current study. However, it was necessary to develop a scale to measure the more potential ly traumatic aspects of the peacekeeping experience. That is, a "Peacekeeping Exposure Scale".

1. 4. 1. 1 Desirable Features of a "Peacekeeping Exposure Scale"

Keane et al ( 1 989) state that to be suitable for research a combat exposure scale should be:

• easily administered • easi ly scored

• possess sound psychometric properties (internal stability & test-retest reliability) • have some degree of external validity.

It is reasonable to suggest that these features would also be important for a scale that measures peacekeeping exposure. It would also be important for the scale to be administered immediately after a peacekeeping deployment to minimise the often­ reported problems inherent with the retrospective nature of such scales, and for the

56

scale to provide a possible start-point for future research and development. This means that wording needs to be non-specific to a particular mission or easily adapted to other missions, and to be appropriate for military and civilian personnel.