Troubled childhoods may prompt men to volunteer for military service
In the era of the all-volunteer military, men who served are more than twice as likely as those who never did to have been sexually abused as children and to have grown up amid domestic violence and substance abuse, a study has found.
The analysis showed the differences did not exist before 1973, when the draft was in effect.
The study, published on Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry, did not look at why men with difficult upbringings were drawn to the military, but other researchers said the camaraderie and the opportunity to relocate far from home were probably major factors.
The military can serve as a surrogate family, “a group that has ties that will last a lifetime,” said Glen Elder, a University of North Carolina sociologist who has studied people's motivations for enlisting.
The study relied on 2010 data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an extensive telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
More than 60,000 adults in 10 states and the District of Columbia answered demographic questions, including veteran status, and indicated which in a series of 11 “adverse childhood experiences” applied to them.
Among the men who served in the all-volunteer force, 43 percent reported emotional abuse, 34 percent said alcohol was abused at home, 27 percent were exposed to domestic violence and 11 percent had been touched sexually.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.