Responsibility acts as a psychological adhesive that connects an actor to an event and to relevant prescriptions that should govern conduct. People are held responsible to the extent that (a) a clear, well-defined set of prescriptions is applicable to an event (prescription-event link); (b) the actor is perceived to be bound by the prescriptions by virtue of his or her identity (prescription-identity link); and (c) the actor is connected to the event, especially by virtue of appearing to have personal control over it (identity-event link). Studies supported the model, showing that attributions of responsibility are a direct function of the combined strengths of the 3 linkages (Study 1) and that, when judging responsibility, people seek out information that is relevant to the linkages (Study 2). The model clarifies prior multiple meanings of responsibility and provides a coherent framework for understanding social judgment.

Past research purporting to study employee resilience suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity about both the resilience construct and the methodological designs that examine resilience without ensuring the occurrence of significant adversity. The overall goal of this article is to address our contemporary understanding of employee resilience and identify pathways for the future advancement of resilience research in the workplace. We first address conceptual definitions of resilience both inside and outside of industrial and organizational psychology and make the case that researchers have generally failed to document the experience of significant adversity when studying resilience in working populations. Next, we discuss methods used to examine resilience, with an emphasis on distinguishing the capacity for resilience and the demonstration of resilience. Representative research is then reviewed by examining self-reports of resilience or resilience-related traits along with research on resilient and nonresilient trajectories following significant adversity. We then briefly address the issues involved in selecting resilient employees and building resilience in employees. The article concludes with recommendations for future research studying resilience in the workplace, including documenting significant adversity among employees, assessing multiple outcomes, using longitudinal designs with theoretically supported time lags, broadening the study of resilience to people in occupations outside the military who may face significant adversity, and addressing the potential dark side of an emphasis on resilience.

This research explored the relationship between the meaningfulness of work, personality hardiness, and deriving long-term benefits from a stressful event. U.S. soldiers participating in a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia completed measures assessing the meaning of their work and personality hardiness midway through a 1-year deployment (mid-deployment) and completed a measure of deriving benefits from the deployment 4-5 months after it was over (postdeployment). Structural equation modeling revealed that personality hardiness was associated with being engaged in meaningful work during the deployment, which was strongly associated with deriving benefits from the deployment months after it was over. Enriching experiences were also associated with deriving benefits from the deployment. Discussion focuses on the linkages between personality processes, meaningful work, and deriving benefits from a stressful experience.

Stigma and organizational barriers have been identified as factors for why a small proportion of soldiers with psychological problems seek professional help. In this article, we examine the impact of negative attitudes toward treatment on treatment seeking among soldiers previously deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq (n = 2,623). We asked soldiers with psychological problems questions about stigma, organizational barriers, negative attitudes toward treatment, and whether they sought treatment for their psychological problems. We found that negative attitudes about treatment inversely predicted treatment seeking. These results provide a more comprehensive examination of reasons that soldiers do not seek needed treatment and highlight the need for policy aimed at reducing negative attitudes toward mental health treatment.

The present review addresses the perceived stigma associated with admitting a mental health problem and seeking help for that problem in the military. Evidence regarding the public stigma associated with mental disorders is reviewed, indicating that the public generally holds negative stereotypes toward individuals with psychological problems, leading to potential discrimination toward these individuals. The internalization of these negative beliefs results in self-stigma, leading to reduced self-esteem and motivation to seek help. Even if soldiers form an intention to seek help for their psychological difficulty, barriers to mental health care may prevent the soldier from receiving the help they need. An overall model is proposed to illustrate how the stigma associated with psychological problems can prevent soldiers getting needed help for psychological difficulties and proposed interventions for reducing stigma in a civilian context are considered for military personnel.