Analysis of the Psychological Features of Stress Resistance of Servicemen of Mechanized Units in conditions of Defensive Combat

Vladyslav Klochkov^1*, Vasyl Stasiuk², Vasyl Ukrainets², Artem Filippskyi², Fedorenko Yuliia²

¹American University Kyiv, Ukraine

²Department of Military Psychology, National Defence University of Ukraine

^*Corresponding Author: Vladyslav Klochkov, PhD in Psychology, American University Kyiv, Ukraine

Received: 18 December 2025 Accepted: 24 December 2025 Published: 30 April 2026

1. Problem statement

In the context of large-scale armed aggression unleashed by russia against Ukraine, studying the stress resistance of servicemen in mechanized units is a prerequisite for their effective action in defensive combat. First and foremost, this is due to the rapid development of forms, methods, and technologies of warfare, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and other weapons, including the use of artificial intelligence. The constant threat from the air and limited physical protection options significantly affect the mental state of military personnel, causing chronic stress and potentially leading to post-traumatic stress disorder. Under such conditions, the successful adaptation of military personnel to the stress factors of combat depends on a high level of stress resistance, which can be achieved on the basis of theoretical and empirical analysis of its psychological features.

2. Theoretical foundations

In contemporary foreign and domestic psychological literature, a sufficient number of theoretical and empirical studies are devoted to the issue of systematic analysis of psychological features of stress resistance. Among the main ones are the works of M. Bilova, G. Dubchak, N. Endler, O. Kogut, V. Korolchuk, R. Lazarus, J. Parker, Y. Teptiuk, S. Folkman, N. Yurieva, and others. At the same time, each psychological research has its own methodological specificity and focuses on a specific type of activity.

3. Methodology

To achieve the goal, we have used empirical (observation, conversation, survey, experiment, generalization of experience) and statistical research methods (Pearson's correlation coefficient r). The set of research methods we have used made it possible to obtain scientifically sound quantitative and qualitative data on the level of development of the structural components of stress resistance, identify the dominant and weak mechanisms for overcoming the stress factors of combat, and track the relationships between stress resistance and a number of individual psychological characteristics of servicemen.

4. Results

The results of previous theoretical studies have shown that the effective activity of military personnel in defensive combat is determined by their high level of stress resistance to the negative factors of the combat environment [7]. To gain a deeper understanding of the mental states of military personnel and determine their ability to act effectively in conditions of increased danger, emotional tension, and uncertainty, we conducted an empirical study and analyzed the psychological characteristics of stress resistance of military personnel of mechanized units in conditions of defensive combat. The research was conducted on the basis of mechanized units of the Ground Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with 232 servicemen participating: 12 officers, 56 sergeants, and 164 soldiers. For this purpose, a set of psychodiagnostic techniques was used to study stress resistance as a systemic, integrative, and holistic property of a serviceman's personality. To this end, a set of psychodiagnostic techniques was used to study stress resistance as a systemic, integrative, and holistic property of a military serviceman's personality. We have studied the motivational-value component of stress resistance in military personnel of mechanized units using the methods of T. Ehlers, “Diagnostics of Motivation for Success,” K. Zamfir, as modified by A. Rean, “Motivation for Professional Activity,” and V. Osodlo, “Research on Professional Activity.” We have determined the degree of military personnel's orientation toward achieving success in defensive combat using T. Ehlers' methodology “Diagnostics of Motivation for Success” [1, pp. 89–92; 3, pp. 143–146]. The results of the study using this methodology are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Levels of motivation for success among servicemen in mechanized units

Based on the quantitative data interpreted in Table 1, it is possible to predict the ability of servicemen of mechanized units to achieve success in defensive combat. Considering that 126 servicemen (54%) have “high” and “moderately high” motivation scores, the motivational orientation of this category of individuals is determined by stable attributes of their personality: loyalty to military duty, honesty, fairness, self-confidence, and confidence in their abilities and qualities. They are characterized by prudence, activity, determination, and persistence in achieving their goals. Excessive diligence and caution in making important decisions indicate a high level of responsibility for the results of their activities.

At the time of the survey, “average indicators” of motivational orientation were observed in 92 servicemen (40%). Such servicemen have a situational motivational orientation that depends on external stimuli; they are less proactive and success-oriented. Servicemen with “low” scores, numbering only 14 people (6%), exhibited the following psychological characteristics: low self-esteem, dominance of external motives over internal ones, lack of confidence in themselves and their abilities, and discomfort due to the need to perform complex combat tasks. Interviews revealed that this category of military personnel had been on the battlefield for a long time (from 6 to 24 months). Under conditions of prolonged emotional and physiological stress, these servicemen lost faith in themselves, their strength, the meaning of being at war, and the prospects for its end. Using K. Zamfir's methodology, modified by A. Rean in “Motivation for Professional Activity,” we have identified the dominant motivational complexes characteristic of servicemen in mechanized units, the ratio of which is reflected in three types of motivation: internal motivation (IM), external positive motivation (EPM), and external negative motivation (ENM) [1, pp. 94–96]. The results of the statistical data are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Indicators of motivation for professional activity in servicemen of mechanized units

As shown by the results interpreted in Table 2, the optimal motivational complex (IM > EPM > ENM; IM = EPM > ENM) is characteristic of 17% of officers, 25% of sergeants, and 28% of soldiers. This result indicates a high level of motivation among these categories of military personnel, their desire for self-development and self-improvement, their desire to achieve positive results and realize their potential through military and professional activities. At the same time, 33% of officers, 25% of sergeants, and 24% of soldiers have a negative motivational complex (ENM > EPM > IM), where external negative motivation (ENM) is reinforced. The desire to avoid criticism and condemnation from commanders prevails over life values. These results show that the activities of servicemen are motivated by external incentives (reward or avoidance of punishment). However, there is a category of military personnel who have intermediate motivational complexes (IM = EPM = ENM; IM = ENM > EPM; ENM > IM > EPM; EPM > IM > ENM; EPM > ENM > IM). The actions of such servicemen in defensive combat are determined by poly-motivation, caused by a number of motivational stimuli, each of which makes a certain contribution to the regulation of the servicemen's behavior. In our opinion, such motivational orientation is negative, since the actions and deeds of military personnel in combat conditions will be difficult to predict and correct.

Using V. Osodlo's methodology “Research on Professional Motivation,” we have conducted a multidimensional analysis of professional motivation in conditions of defensive combat [1, pp. 81–89]. The relevant statistical data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Indicators of motivation for professional activity in servicemen of mechanized units

The survey results presented in Table 3 show that, according to this methodology, high scores dominate on the scales of “Professional Aspirations” (officers – 67%, sergeants – 82%, soldiers – 86%), “Internality in the Sphere of Professional Achievements” (officers – 83%, sergeants – 68%, soldiers – 57%), and “Life Goals” (officers – 83%, sergeants – 63%, soldiers – 71%). Such military personnel have clearly defined life plans and specific paths, methods, and objective and subjective resources necessary for their implementation. Servicemen are aware that the achievement of defense combat objectives depends not only on the quantity and quality of weapons and military equipment, but also on their own efforts and abilities. It is likely that such servicemen strive to improve the results of their activities and show persistence and determination in their actions, as indicated by the indicators on the “professional aspirations” scale.

A slight predominance of low scores was found on the scales of “Activity Results Evaluation” (officers – 66%, sergeants – 60%, soldiers – 52%), “Professional Interests and Values” (sergeants – 64%, soldiers – 59%), and “Social Desirability” (sergeants – 53%, soldiers – 66%) scales, the majority of presented military personnel are servicemen with combat experience. The value-semantic sphere of this category of persons has undergone transformational changes under the influence of psychological factors of defensive combat. Feelings of frustration leave the tasks set before them unfulfilled and cause military personnel to lose interest in further combat operations. In particular, the indicators on the “Social Desirability” scale reflect the desire of military personnel to prove themselves and behave in accordance with the norms of their environment. This category of individuals may adhere to socially accepted values, even if they do not correspond to their beliefs.

We have analyzed the cognitive-intellectual component of stress resistance of servicemen of mechanized units using R. Kettell's “Multifactor Personality Study” methodology [4, pp. 409–421]. In this methodology, the system of cognitive-intellectual abilities is represented by three independent factors: “Intelligence” (factor B); “Practicality – Developed Imagination” (factor M); “Conservatism – Radicalism” (factor Q₁). The overall indicators of the cognitive-intellectual component of stress resistance among servicemen of mechanized units are within the average statistical norms. However, for a more detailed understanding of the development of cognitive-intellectual abilities, we have analyzed each of the factors separately (Table 4).

Table 4: Indicators of cognitive and intellectual abilities of servicemen in mechanized units

As we can see from Table 4, the scores for factor B, “Intelligence,” are quite low in all categories of military personnel (officers – 100%, sergeants – 79%, soldiers – 93%). Low intelligence scores indicate that it is difficult for servicemen to generate new ideas and seek non-standard solutions in defensive combat. Despite sudden changes in the situation, military personnel are likely to prefer stereotypical thinking and previously rehearsed actions. In addition, there is a significant predominance of low scores for the M factors “Practicality – Developed Imagination” (officers – 67%, sergeants – 67%, soldiers – 64%) and Q1 “Conservatism – Radicalism” (officers – 100%, sergeants – 72%, soldiers – 81%). Servicemen with such scores in defensive combat tend to use established decision-making methods. The concrete thinking of servicemen allows them to quickly solve combat tasks and achieve combat aims based on realism and composure.

In addition, empirical analysis has shown that cognitive and intellectual abilities are more pronounced in military personnel who participated in combat operations. Probably due to the high intellectual load in combat, the strength and endurance of nervous processes to the effects of combat stress factors, such servicemen have developed skills of rapid analysis, information processing, situation assessment, and optimal decision-making in combat. From a psychological point of view, servicemen with such indicators are more stress-resistant, which is extremely important for activities in the conditions of defensive combat. It is possible that there is also a connection with the age of servicemen, who, thanks to their life and combat experience, adequately comprehend and assess the combat situation and their own resources and choose constructive strategies for behavior in combat.

The emotional-volitional component of stress resistance is revealed through a system of stable mental processes and characteristics of military personnel in mechanized units focused on achieving a specific defensive combat objective. We investigated the ability of military personnel to regulate their emotions and behavior and focus on specific combat tasks using the methodology of A. Zverkov and E. Eidman, “Research on Volitional Self-Regulation” [1, pp. 107–111; 3, pp. 135–140]. The results of the study are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Indicators of volitional self-regulation in servicemen of mechanized units

Analysis of the results showed that most of the personnel of mechanized units (officers – 50%, sergeants – 61%, soldiers – 52%) are distinguished by high levels of emotional-volitional self-regulation, which indicates their emotional maturity, activity, independence, and self-reliance. The activities of this category of individuals in defensive combat are based on self-confidence, steadfastness of purpose, and a sense of responsibility for the results of their actions. In the event of a sudden change in the situation, servicemen will control their actions and distribute their efforts in accordance with the objectives and circumstances of the battle.

High scores on the scales of “Persistence” and “Self-Control” indicate the activity and responsibility of military personnel. Volitional qualities such as self-control, determination and purposefulness are the core of volitional actions aimed at achieving a specific goal in defensive combat. However, low scores are also observed on these scales: “Persistence” (officers – 50%, sergeants – 47%, soldiers – 57%); “Self-Control” (officers – 50%, sergeants – 39%, soldiers – 54%). These results reflect the increased emotional lability of military personnel to the influence of external and internal factors of combat. Uncertainty and impulsiveness are manifested in the inconsistency of their actions in defensive combat. It is possible that the emotional-volitional sphere of servicemen in mechanized units has a dual cause: on the one hand, the conscious regulation of their actions by servicemen depends significantly on the properties of the nervous system, and on the other hand, on the acquired knowledge, skills, abilities, and combat experience [6, pp. 32–35]. Accordingly, the optimization and development of the emotional-volitional sphere of military personnel can be achieved through psychological training [5, pp. 27–28].

We have studied the current emotional state of servicemen in mechanized units using the methodology developed by A. Wessmann and D. Rix, “Research on Emotional State” [1, pp. 114–117]. The results of the study are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Integral indicator of emotional state in servicemen of mechanized units

As can be seen from Table 6, there are no significant differences in the indicators between “poor,” “deteriorated” (officers – 50%; sergeants – 47%; soldiers – 60%) and “good,” “very good” (officers – 50%; sergeants – 53%; soldiers – 40%) are not observed. High indicators of emotional state characterize emotionally stable servicemen with sufficient psychological resources, capable of controlling their emotions in combat conditions. The presence of some servicemen with low emotional state indicators shows their emotional exhaustion. In our opinion, such indicators are the result of the prolonged impact of a number of negative combat factors on the psyche of military personnel, since the study was conducted immediately after the personnel returned from the area of operations. Excessive anxiety, low self-esteem, irritation, fear, and worry led to emotional discomfort in the emotional-volitional sphere of servicemen. As a result, the prolonged expression of such signs significantly affected the sensitivity threshold of military personnel to combat stressors.

The indicators of the emotional-volitional component have been revealed through the indicators of situational anxiety, which are analyzed using the Spielberg-Khanin method “Study of Situational Anxiety” [1, pp. 341–343]. The corresponding results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Indicators of situational anxiety levels in servicemen of mechanized units

The results of situational anxiety measurements showed high levels in 4% of personnel, moderate levels in 38%, and low levels in 58% (see Table 7). Low anxiety levels characterize emotionally stable, confident, and adaptable military personnel in rapidly changing situations. On a cognitive level, such military personnel perceive combat stressors as non-threatening. Servicemen with “moderate” and “high” levels of situational anxiety demonstrate excessive excitement and anxiety even in situations that do not pose a danger to them. In any case, high levels of anxiety prevent adequate perception of the situation and affect the adaptation process and behavior of military personnel in defensive combat. In addition, the vast majority of servicemen with elevated anxiety levels are combatants, and just the thought of returning to the combat zone and memories of traumatic events cause them increased anxiety.

The behavioral component of stress resistance of servicemen of mechanized units to defensive combat has been revealed through behavioral strategies and individual personality traits of servicemen. This approach made it possible to comprehensively study the factors that directly influence the choice of behavioral strategies by servicemen in a combat situation. Using the methodology of S. Norman, D. Endler, D. James, and M. Parker, “Coping Behavior in Stressful Situations,” we have identified the dominant behavioral strategies of servicemen of mechanized units in defensive combat [2, pp. 173–175]. The results of the study using this methodology are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Indicators of coping behavior in servicemen of mechanized units

As can be seen from Table 8, the predominant strategy of behavior of servicemen of mechanized units in defensive combat is problem-oriented coping (officers – 67%; sergeants – 54%; soldiers – 43%). This behavior of servicemen is optimal and rational in combat, as it involves a consistent solution to the problem: analysis of the situation, planning, and active action. In fact, this reaction of the body is caused by a rational perception of the source of stress and the use of personal resources to weaken its impact on the serviceman's body.

The next most frequently chosen strategy among military personnel is “seeking social support,” with 8% of officers, 20% of sergeants, and 24% of soldiers choosing this option. This trend in military personnel behavior indicates the effective use of social environment resources: family, friends, and comrades-in-arms. By choosing this strategy, servicemen seek to minimize the negative impact of combat stress through informational and emotional support, sympathy, advice, and attention from their social environment.

The least represented strategies in the behavior of military personnel in defensive combat are the “emotionally oriented strategy,” the “avoidance strategy,” and the “distraction strategy.” The frequency with which they are chosen by military personnel is as follows: “emotion-oriented strategy” (officers – 17%; sergeants – 8%; soldiers – 9%), “avoidance strategy” (officers – 8%; sergeants – 4%; soldiers – 9%), “distraction strategy” (sergeants – 14%; soldiers – 13%). Such behavioral dynamics reflect the underdevelopment of psychological self-defense mechanisms in military personnel. When exposed to strong combat stressors (socio-psychological, combat, ecological-ergonomic), servicemen will exhibit maladaptive forms of behavior: complete or partial ignorance of the problem, passivity, aggression, confusion.

Using V. Rybnikov's method “Research on the level of neuropsychiatric stability – Prognosis 2,” we identified individual signs of personality disorders and assessed the likelihood of neuropsychiatric breakdowns [1, pp. 325–331]. The results of the study using this method are presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Indicators of the level of neuropsychological stability in servicemen of mechanized units

The survey results have showed that 16% of officers, 24% of sergeants, and 43% of soldiers had a high level of neuropsychological stability. This category of military personnel was less likely to experience neuropsychological breakdowns in combat. Servicemen with an average level of neuropsychological stability (officers – 17%, sergeants – 12%, soldiers – 18%) will demonstrate situational neuropsychological breakdowns depending on the intensity of combat operations. The majority of military personnel have a low level of nervous and mental stability: 67% of officers, 64% of sergeants, and 39% of soldiers. The vast majority of servicemen in this category are combatants.

To determine the causes of low levels of neuropsychological stability, we have analyzed internal connections and decoded the factors that significantly influence the overall neuropsychological stability of servicemen. Positive correlations were found for the following indicators: feelings of helplessness (r_xy = 0.348; p = 0.05); bouts of bad mood (r_xy = 0.400; p = 0.05); nervous system overexcitement (r_xy = 0.332; p = 0.05); apathy (r_xy = 0.360, p = 0.05). The psychological content of such connections is characterized by a disruption of normal living conditions, activities, and rest. The constant and prolonged influence of psychotraumatic factors of combat leads to fatigue, nervous exhaustion, disruption of activities, and affective reactions.

Using O. Kokun's methodology “Research of Psychophysiological State,” we have studied various components of the psychophysiological state of servicemen of mechanized units in the conditions of performing specific tasks [1, pp. 100–101]. The results of the study using this methodology are presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Indicators of the psychophysiological state in servicemen in mechanized units

The results presented in Table 10 show that in the vast majority of the studied servicemen of mechanized units, the indicators of psychophysiological state vary within the lower and upper average values. This dynamic can be explained by the individual characteristics of the servicemen (age, health, combat experience) and other factors that determine their activities (living conditions, team cohesion, family problems, sleep deprivation, fatigue, length of stay in the combat zone, etc.). Particular attention is drawn to the low levels of psychophysiological condition in 50% of officers who did not participate in combat operations. A more detailed analysis of the components of psychophysiological condition showed their low self-confidence and belief in their abilities. These results probably indicate that newly arrived officers lack the skills necessary to perform their duties. This category of individuals will need to work on self-improvement, as it will be extremely difficult for them to make important decisions and take responsibility.

5. Conclusions and prospects for further research

Thus, empirical analysis using pre-selected psychodiagnostic tools made it possible to establish that the ability of servicemen of mechanized units to adapt and act effectively in defensive combat depends on a number of characteristics determined by the internal nature of stress resistance. Using a set of methods, we have been able to objectively identify the factors that influence the process of adaptation of servicemen in defensive combat. The empirical data have been obtained outlined the specifics of progression of program for developing stress resistance of servicemen of mechanized units, the development of which will become the focus of further scientific research in this area.

References

1. Dykun V G, Moroz V M, Stasjuk V V. Methodology for researching the moral and psychological state of military personnel (forces). navch. -metod. posib. Kyi'v: 7BC (2023).
2. Zlyvkov V L, Lukoms'ka S O, Fedan O V. Psychodiagnostics of personality in crisis life situations. Kyi'v: Pedagogichna dumka (2016).
3. Kokun O M, Pishko I O, Lozins'ka N S, et al. Psychodiagnostics of leadership qualities of military personnel: metod. posib. Kyi'v: 7BC (2023).
4. Lemak M V, Petryshhe V P. Psychologist for work. Diagnostic techniques: zbirnyk. Uzhgorod: Vyd. O. Garkushi (2011).
5. Klochkov V V. Organization of psychological training in the Armed Forces of Ukraine: navch.-metod. posib. Kyi'v: NDC GP ZS Ukrai'ny (2023).
6. Stasjuk V V. Psychology of military management: pidruchnyk. Kyi'v: NUOU (2024).
7. Stasiuk V V, Ukrainets V M. The essence of stress resistance in psychological science. Naukovyi zhurnal “Habitus”. Odesa, Vyp 48 (2023): 60-65.