BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience ISSN: 2068-0473 | e-ISSN: 2067-3957 Covered in: Web of Science (WOS); PubMed.gov; IndexCopernicus; The Linguist List; Google Academic; Ulrichs; getCITED; Genamics JournalSeek; J-Gate; SHERPA/RoMEO; Dayang Journal System; Public Knowledge Project; BIUM; NewJour; ArticleReach Direct; Link+; CSB; CiteSeerX; Socolar; KVK; WorldCat; CrossRef; Ideas RePeC; Econpapers; Socionet. 2021, Volume 12, Issue 3, pages: 64-78 | https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.3/220 The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a Combat Deployment Ihor PRYKHODKO¹, Anastasiia LYMAN2, Yanina MATSEHORA3, Nataliia YURIEVA4, Liubov BALABANOVA5, Konstantin HUNBIN6, Ivan RADVANSKY7, Dmytro MORKVIN8 1 Doctor of Science in Psychology, Professor, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, prikhodko1966@ukr.net 2 Researcher, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, liman.ndc@gmail.com 3 PhD, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, yanina_gora@ukr.net 4 PhD, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, yureva_natali@ukr.net 5 Doctor of Science in Psychology, Professor, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, balabanova05@gmail.com 6 PhD, Department of Operational and Logistic Support, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, hunbinkonstantin65@gmail.com 7 PhD, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, radvanskiji@gmail.com 8 Researcher, Research Center, National Academy of the National Guard of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine, liman.ndc@gmail.com Abstract: The purpose of this article is to present an empirically-derived psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during combat deployment. The model was developed using the methods of semantic differential, peer review, and factor analysis. Its theoretical basis is the concept of “hardiness”. The study involved 104 military personnel of the National Guard of Ukraine had combat experience in the War in Eastern Ukraine. The model includes four components: “Ability for volitional efforts (mobilization)”, “Military brotherhood”, “Professional identity”, “Self-control (endurance)”. Their content covers the emotional- volitional, cognitive, motivational, moral, active-practical, existential- being, and interpersonal-social spheres of the individual. The leading role in the model belongs to strong-willed features, combat cohesion, patriotism, and adaptive resources of the individual, which make it possible to maintain the effectiveness of military personnel’s combat activities under conditions of risk. The basis of the psychological readiness of military personnel to actively act and overcome difficulties in conditions of risk (uncertainty, direct threat to health and life) with the absence of reliable guarantees for success is hardiness. It is suggested that the model can be used for psychological selection procedures, professional and psychological training of military personnel, predicting their behavior under conditions of risk, and developing strategies for psychological support in the post-deployment period. This will reduce psychogenic losses during hostilities. Keywords: psychological readiness; risk; hardiness; military personnel; combat deployment. How to cite: Prykhodko, I., Lyman, A., Matsehora, Y., Yurieva, N., Balabanova, L., Hunbin, K., Radvansky, I., & Morkvin, D. (2021). The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a Combat Deployment. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 12(3), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.3/220 https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.3/220 mailto:prikhodko1966@ukr.net mailto:liman.ndc@gmail.com mailto:yanina_gora@ukr.net mailto:yureva_natali@ukr.net mailto:balabanova05@gmail.com mailto:hunbinkonstantin65@gmail.com mailto:radvanskiji@gmail.com mailto:liman.ndc@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.3/220 BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 65 1. Introduction The modern world is full of stress and extreme situations that require a person to make quick decisions and act effectively under risk conditions. Overcoming an extreme situation with the least losses requires a person to possess special personal resources (Delahaij et al., 2006). One of the psychological constructs that explain the personality’s ability to withstand the influence of various stressors is called “hardiness” (Bartone, 2006; Florian et al., 1995; Kobasa, 1979; Maddi, 2002; Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994). Hardiness is a psychological style associated with resilience, good health, and performance under a range of stressful conditions (Bartone, 2006). Hardiness is viewed as a personal resource, a belief system about a person, the world, and relationships with the outside world (Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994). This resource is filled with attitudes and skills that allow you to take risks, enrich your mental potential, and cope with distress, resulting in new opportunities for personal development (Maddi, 2006). The structure of hardiness includes three main components “commitment”, “control” and “challenge” (Maddi, 2002). It contains core values such as cooperation, credibility, and creativity. People high in hardiness have a strong sense of commitment to life and work, and are actively engaged in what’s going on around them (Bartone et al., 2008). They believe they can control or influence what happens, and they enjoy new situations and challenges. Also, they are internally motivated and create their own sense of purpose (Bartone et al., 2008). In a situation of personal choice, hardiness is a factor determining the readiness to choose a new, unfamiliar situation, as well as a situation of uncertainty as opposed to an indifferent, impersonal choice or a choice of a familiar situation (Gayton & Kehoe, 2015). Therefore, hardiness can be considered as a person’s psychological readiness to actively act and overcome difficulties in conditions of risk with the absence of reliable guarantees of success (Kolesnichenko et al., 2019). Thus, the researchers emphasize the importance of all the main components of hardiness for maintaining mental health: a) the ability to take risks or be psychologically prepared for risky and stressful situations; b) act in combat (extreme) conditions (Kolesnichenko et al., 2019; Leontev & Rasskazova, 2006; Maddi, 2002). Extreme situations and risk are integral components of combat deployments (Börjesson et al., 2015; Momen et al., 2010). Almost every soldier experiences combat stress under these conditions (Pols & Oak, 2007; Prykhodko et al., 2020). The impact of combat stress on military personnel The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 66 begins before direct contact with the enemy and continues until they leave the combat deployment zone (Escolas et al., 2013; Nash, 2007). The constant threat to health and life, changes in the combat situation, super- heavy and prolonged loads that exceed the limits of human capabilities, the loss of comrades, brutal violence against the enemy significantly affect the mental health of combatants (Blinov, 2018; Chu et al., 2016). During combat, 75-80% of military personnel develop short-term acute stress reactions, accompanied by partial or complete loss of combat effectiveness (Blinov, 2018; Breivik et al., 2020; Yehuda et al., 2014). To increase the hardiness of military personnel, it is necessary to have a high level of risk readiness, which will contribute to the successful performance of missions in combat (extreme) conditions. From 2014 to the present, the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU) have been fighting in the East of Ukraine against illegal armed formations of separatists supported by the Russian Federation. In the first years of the War, most of the Ukrainian military personnel had no combat experience, since after the Second World War no military operations were carried out on the territory of Ukraine (Prykhodko et al., 2019). Therefore, at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict, it was revealed that the existing level of professional and psychological training of Ukrainian military personnel was not enough to conduct large-scale, non-standard, asymmetric operations (Kokun et al., 2020; Melnyk et al., 2019). According to Blinov (2018), 80-90% of Ukrainian combatants showed signs of combat stress, 25% of combatants subsequently experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) of varying severity, 20% of combatants showed some symptoms of PTSD (maladaptation reactions), 27% of military personnel had incomplete clinical manifestations of PTSD. Therefore, the search for effective ways to preserve the mental health of military personnel (Bein et al., 2019; Kaikkonen & Laukkala, 2016; Prykhodko et al., 2021), their professional development, increase endurance, and improve their ability to resist stress is relevant (Bartone, 2006; Delahaij et al., 2006; Maddi, 2007; Pitts et al., 2016). Determining the content of psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment is also relevant for improving their professional and psychological training, forming military (special) skills for participating in hostilities in the East of Ukraine (Kolesnichenko et al., 2019). Consequently, the purpose of this study was to present an empirically- derived a psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment to improve their professional and psychological training. BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 67 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants 104 NGU military personnel (male officers) took part in the study as experts: 16 psychologists, 23 researchers, and lecturers of Military Academies, 25 commanders of NGU units, 11 PhD students, 29 master’s students. The mean age was 36.78 years (SD = 7.09) with 27 as the minimum age and 55 as the maximum. The selection of experts was carried out according to the following criteria: the success of professional activity combined with authority among colleagues; psychological, military or legal education; more than 10 years of military experience; experience of professional activity in combat (extreme) and risky conditions. More than 90% of the experts took part in combat deployments in the East of Ukraine. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects for inclusion in the study while maintaining their confidentiality. 2.2. Instruments The semantic differential method (Osgood, 1952; Serkin, 2008; Stoklasa et al., 2019) was used to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the features of the studied concept of “psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks” as its representation in the mind of an expert. According to Serkin (2008), the semantic differential method measures connotative meaning as a state that occurs between the perception of a stimulus and a meaningful work with it. The experts determined the content of the concept of “psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks”, which was related by meaning, stereotypes, social attitudes, and other forms of generalization, using the Questionnaire-Scale of semantic differential developed by us (Table 1). Table 1. The Questionnaire-Scale of the semantic differential of the concept of “psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks” during a combat deployment Instructions: Dear Expert! We ask you to take part in defining and assessing the personality characteristics that must be possessed by a soldier who is psychologically prepared for risk during combat deployment. Pay attention to the work with the questionnaire. Each line of the questionnaire contains polar characteristics (antonyms) of one or another personality trait, and the space between them is divided into 7 ranges. Choose only one number: the closer to the pole you choose the number (circle or crossed out), the more pronounced this personality feature. Feature Number Feature Proud of his/her profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Burdened by his/her The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 68 profession Leader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn’t have leadership skills Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indifferent Principled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unprincipled Financially dependent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Financially independent Resilient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weak Determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indecisive Emotionally resistant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emotionally unstable Brave 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cowardly Strong-willed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weak-willed Vigorous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Passive Observant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inattentive Quick-witted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Slow-witted Sane 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reckless Professionally competent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Professionally incompetent Reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unreliable Patriotic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpatriotic Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lying Follows the rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ignore the rules Socially responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Socially irresponsible Self-confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unconfident Purposeful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unfocused Adventurous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timid Independent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dependent Altruistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Egoistic Organized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unorganized Disciplined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Undisciplined Responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irresponsible Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lacking initiative Visionary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Improvident Trustful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mistrustful Friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Isolated Considers opinion of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disregards opinion of others Authoritative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unauthoritative Objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Biased Source: Authors’ own conception BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 69 The construction of the Questionnaire-Scale of the semantic differential was carried out in five stages: 1) study, theoretical description, and definition of relevant concepts for the development of the questionnaire-scale; 2) highlighting the first set of concepts with the help of a group of experts; 3) cutting off insignificant features and defining the second set of concepts; 4) processing of results and construction of a working version of the semantic differential; 5) the selection of the main features and the formation of the final version of the questionnaire-scale, the use of factor analysis. The final version of the Questionnaire consisted of 35 scales (features and their antonyms), which were distributed over 7 personality spheres: emotional-volitional, cognitive, motivational, moral, activity-practical, existential-being, and interpersonal-social. The results obtained became a means for reconstructing the perception of the studied concept in the consciousness of experts, which made it possible to determine the content of the structural and functional components of the psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment. 2.3. Procedure The obtained data were subjected to the procedure of factor analysis, which made it possible to determine the factor matrix of the grouping of personality characteristics related to the concept of “psychological readiness of a military personnel to take risks” during a combat deployment. Factor analysis of matrices was carried out using the extraction method (principal component analysis) and the rotation method (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization). The statistical analysis of the results of the study was carried out using the program SPSS 17.0. 3. Results Factor analysis made it possible to obtain a four-factor structure of the psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment, which describes 60.81% of the variance of features (Table 2). The first factor (component) contained 18.62% of the variance of features, the second – 13.89%, the third – 13.76%, and the fourth – 12.22%. The factor loading of 0.58 was used as a criterion for the level of significance, which made it possible to avoid the inclusion of features (indicators) with a low factor loading in the factors. The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 70 Table 2. Factorial matrix of a grouping of personality characteristics related to the concept of “psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks” during a combat deployment, Rotated Component Matrixa Source: Authors’ own conception Features (indicators) of psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment Factors (components) 1 (18.62%) 2 (13.89%) 3 (13.76%) 4 (12.22%) Determined 0.80 Emotionally resistant 0.74 -0.13 0.10 Brave 0.75 0.13 Strong-willed 0.74 0.16 Professionally competent 0.26 0.19 0.65 Patriotic -0.12 0.76 Follows the rules 0.13 0.17 0.64 0.14 Adventurous 0.24 0.75 Organized 0.38 0.14 0.72 Trustful -0.18 0.80 0.14 Friendly 0.19 0.78 0.15 Proud of his/her profession 0.58 0.23 Considers opinion of others 0.70 0.26 0.18 Disciplined 0.27 0.68 Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 5 iterations. The content of the first factor was determined by direct correlations with the variables “Determined” (0.80), “Brave” (0.75), “Emotionally resistant” (0.74), and the ability “Strong-willed” (0.74). Given this content of features, the first component of the psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment was named “Ability for volitional effort (mobilization)”. The content of the second factor was determined by direct positive correlations with the variables “Trustful” (0.80), “Friendly” (0.78), and “Considers opinion of others” (0.70). Given this content of features, the second component of the model was named “Military brotherhood”. The third factor was determined by direct positive correlations with the variables “Patriotic” (0.76), “Professionally competent” (0.65), “Follows BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 71 the rules” (0.64), and “Proud of his/her profession” (0.58). Given this content of features, this component of the model was named “Professional identity”. The fourth factor was determined by direct positive correlations with the variables “Adventurous” (0.75), “Organized” (0.72), and “Disciplined” (0.68). In terms of content, it reflected the characteristics of a soldier’s personality, the role of which is to self-organize and self-regulation of behavior in accordance with the statutory and generally recognized social norms and rules of behavior in the military environment. Therefore, this component of the model was named “Self-control (endurance)”. Thus, a psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment consists of four components, has a specific structure and content, and is presented in the Figure 1. Fig. 1. A psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment Source: Authors’ own conception 4. Discussion The first component “Ability for volitional effort (mobilization)” is the most significant among other components of the psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment. A special role in its structure is assigned to the ability to initiate the transition A psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment “Professional identity”: “Patriotic”; “Professionally competent”; “Follows the rules”; “Proud of his/her profession” “Self-control (endurance)”: “Adventurous”; “Organized”; “Disciplined” “Ability to the volitional effort (mobilization)”: “Determined”; “Brave”; “Emotionally resistant”; “Strong-willed” “Military brotherhood”: “Trustful”; “Friendly”; “Considers opinion of others” The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 72 from making a decision to act in risky conditions to its direct implementation, to carry out such activities, to maintain its purposefulness and efficiency. Abilities to show volitional effort include qualities that characterize the emotional-volitional sphere of the individual: the ability of a soldier to quickly mobilize in extreme situations; the ability to concentrate attention and energy on the fulfillment of the assigned combat mission; the ability to master and regulate one’s own emotional state and reactions to external and internal stimuli. In addition, this component of the model determines the ability to self-organize their actions in unusual conditions, the self-restraint of some aspirations and needs, self-control, and the manifestation of other volitional qualities. Our results are confirmed in the studies of Heckhausen (1991), Shamlyan (2020), which determined that the necessary signs of volitional behavior of a person are the obligatory presence of a conscious goal, tangible obstacles, and the implementation of efforts to overcome them. Findings from other researchers show that this component mobilizes the individual’s volitional efforts and encourages risky activities (Bartels et al., 2009; Boe, 2015a; Forstmeier & Ruddel, 2008; Nindl et al., 2018). According to Pols & Oak (2007), volitional efforts ensure a person’s ability to maintain stability in various circumstances of activity and are a prerequisite for ensuring high efficiency in the performance of combat missions by military personnel. Bartone et al. (2002), Ben-Shalom et al. (2005), King (2006), Siebold (2007) have shown that good communication, understanding, and combat cohesion are essential prerequisites for effective activity of a military unit in risky situations. Therefore, it is obvious that the second component of the model contains personal characteristics that are included in the interpersonal and social sphere of a person. This presupposes that military personnel who are ready for risk have sufficiently well-formed communicative qualities that regulate social relations and affect the reduction of social tension among members of the military collective. According to the researchers, good communication and cohesion in the unit contribute to the formation of mutual respect, companionship, openness and trust, consideration of each other’s interests, and mutual assistance among its members (Ben-Shalom et al., 2005; King, 2006; Siebold, 2007). The personal characteristics highlighted in the third component “Professional identity” characterize the motivational, moral, and cognitive spheres of the soldier’s personality. Their combination provides self- confidence, in the correctness of their actions, which, according to Myrseth et al., (2018), is the basis for maintaining the professional activity of military personnel in conditions involving the exercise of choice, “struggle of BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 73 motives”. This component of the model also ensures the desire of the soldier to improve his professional skills in extreme conditions. “Professional identity” reflects the desire to be appropriate to the chosen profession, satisfaction with it, identification with the professional role of a serviceman. An integral part of military culture and professional identity, according to Griffith (2010), Johansen et al., (2014), Meyer (2015), is the necessary level of patriotism in the army. Based on the findings of the researchers, patriotism is the leading personality trait for the formation of a soldier’s psychological readiness for risk in combat deployment (Delahaij et al., 2006; Myrseth et al., 2018). Patriotism as a motive for choosing military service is constantly at the center of the discussion among researchers from different countries. Krebs & Ralston (2020) argues that many Americans continue to subscribe to an idealized image of service members as moved by self-sacrificing patriotism. A unique example of the manifestation of patriotism is the volunteer movement of Ukrainian citizens in the first years (2014-2015) of the War in the East of Ukraine, called the “dobrobaty” (volunteer battalions) (Stasiuk, 2018). The members of these battalions (about 100 thousand people, 40 battalions) did not have the necessary military training and combat experience. However, their patriotic spirit allowed them to fight the enemy for the preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the most difficult military operations (Ilovaisk, Shyrokyne, Donetsk Airport, Debaltseve, etc.) (Hrytsiuk et al., 2019; Stasiuk, 2018). Our results also confirm that “Professional Identity” ensures the desire of military personnel to comply with the universal and military values of their social group (patriotism, follows the rules, pride of his/her profession), to improve their professional competence. The fourth component, “Self-control (endurance)”, determined the ability of military personnel to minimize the possibility of falling (caution) into a situation of imminent danger. However, in this case, according to Gayton & Kehoe (2015), it is necessary to take into account the absence of an arbitrary right from evasion (organization, discipline) or even non- performance of their official duties. Structurally, this component of the model includes existential-being and active-practical personality traits. “Self- control (endurance)” reflects the perception of military personnel by the provisions, rules, and norms of military culture, the mandatory observance of subordination (Boe, 2015b). In our opinion, this component of the model characterizes not only the maintenance of strict statutory order, the fulfillment of orders from commanders, a high combat and mobilization The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 74 readiness of a military unit but also the psychological readiness of military personnel to take risks during combat deployment. 5. Conclusions The psychological readiness model of military personnel to take risks during a combat deployment includes four components: “Ability for volitional effort (mobilization)”, “Military brotherhood”, “Professional identity”, “Self-control (endurance)”. Their content covers the emotional- volitional, cognitive, motivational, moral, active-practical, existential-being, and interpersonal-social spheres of the individual. The leading role in the model belongs to strong-willed features, combat cohesion, patriotism, and adaptive resources of the individual, which make it possible to maintain the effectiveness of military personnel’s combat activities under conditions of risk. The basis of the psychological readiness of military personnel to actively act and overcome difficulties in conditions of risk (uncertainty, direct threat to health and life) with the absence of reliable guarantees for success is hardiness. It is suggested that the model can be used for psychological selection procedures, professional and psychological training of military personnel, predicting their behavior under conditions of risk, and developing strategies for psychological support in the post-deployment period. This will reduce psychogenic losses during hostilities. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no competing interests to declare. References Bartels, J. M., Magun-Jackson, S., & Kemp, A. D. (2009). Volitional Regulation and self-regulated Learning: An Examination of Individual Differences in Approach-Avoidance Achievement Motivation. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(2), 605–626. bit.ly/3nN6YrI Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness? Military Psychology, 18(sup1), S131–S148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10 Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors Influencing Small-Unit Cohesion in Norwegian Navy Officer Cadets. Military Psychology, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1401_01 Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2008). Psychological Hardiness Predicts Success in US Army Special Forces Candidates. BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 75 International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00412.x Bein, L., Grau, P. P., Saunders, S. M., & DeRoon-Cassini, T. A. (2019). Military Mental Health: Problem Recognition, Treatment-Seeking, and Barriers. Military Behavioral Health, 7(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2018.1526147 Ben-Shalom, U., Lehrer, Z., & Ben-Ari, E. (2005). Cohesion during Military Operations. Armed Forces & Society, 32(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X05277888 Blinov, O. (2018). Combat stress and results of its empirical study. Psychological journal, 4(2), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.31108/2018vol12iss2pp9-22 Boe, O. (2015a). Building Resilience: The Role of Character Strengths in the Selection and Education of Military Leaders. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience, 01(04). https://doi.org/10.4172/1522- 4821.1000301 Boe, O. (2015b). Character in Military Leaders, Officer Competency and Meeting the Unforeseen. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 190, 497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.033 Breivik, G., Sand, T. S., & Sookermany, A. M. (2020). Risk-taking attitudes and behaviors in the Norwegian population: the influence of personality and background factors. Journal of Risk Research, 23(11), 1504–1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1750455 Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2015). Risk propensity within the military: a study of Swedish officers and soldiers. Journal of Risk Research, 18(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.879489 Chu, C., Stanley, I. H., Hom, M. A., Lim, I. C., & Joiner, T. E. (2016). Deployment, Mental Health Problems, Suicidality, and Use of Mental Health Services Among Military Personnel. Military Behavioral Health, 4(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2016.1153533 Escolas, S. M., Pitts, B. L., Safer, M. A., & Bartone, P. T. (2013). The Protective Value of Hardiness on Military Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms. Military Psychology, 25(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094953 Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.687 Forstmeier, S., & Ruddel, H. (2008). Measuring Volitional Competences: Psychometric Properties of a Short Form of the Volitional Components Questionnaire (VCQ) in a Clinical Sample. The Open Psychology Journal, 1(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350100801010066 https://doi.org/10.31108/2018vol12iss2pp9-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.033 https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2016.1153533 https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350100801010066 The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 76 Delahaij, R., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Soeters, J. M. L. M. (2006). Stress Training and the New Military Environment. In Human Dimensions in Military Operations – Military Leaders’ Strategies for Addressing Stress and Psychological Support (pp. 17A-1 – 17A-10). Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-HFM-134, Paper 17A. RTO. Gayton, S. D., & Kehoe, E. J. (2015). Character Strengths and Hardiness of Australian Army Special Forces Applicants. Military Medicine, 180(8), 857– 862. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00527 Griffith, J. (2010). When Does Soldier Patriotism or Nationalism Matter? The Role of Transformational Small-Unit Leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1235–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00617.x Heckhausen, H. (1991). Volition: Implementation of Intentions. In H. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivation and Action (pp. 163–188). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75961-1_6 Hrytsiuk, V. M., Pashkova, O. O., Pokotylo, O. I., Seheda, S. P., & Skriabin, O. L. (2019). Informatsiyno-dovidkovi materialy shchodo khronolohiyi podiy 2014–2019 rokiv, yaki vidbuvalysya v Avtonomniy Respublitsi Krym ta pid chas provedennya antyterorystychnoyi operatsiyi / operatsiyi Obyednanykh syl na Skhodi Ukrayiny [Information and reference materials on the chronology of events of 2014- 2019, which took place in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and during the anti-terrorist operation / Joint Forces operations in eastern Ukraine] (p. 21). bit.ly/34IeU6k Johansen, R. B., Laberg, J. C., & Martinussen, M. (2014). Military Identity as Predictor of Perceived Military Competence and Skills. Armed Forces & Society, 40(3), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X13478405 Kaikkonen, N. M., & Laukkala, T. (2016). International military operations and mental health – A review. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 70(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2015.1048718 King, A. (2006). The Word of Command. Armed Forces & Society, 32(4), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X05283041 Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1 Kokun, O., Agayev, N., Pischko, I., & Stasiuk, V. (2020). Characteristic Impacts of Combat Stressors on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Ukrainian Military Personnel Who Participated in the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 20(3), 315–326. https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen20/num3/554/characteristic-impacts-of- combat-stressors-EN.pdf Kolesnichenko, O. S., Matsegora,Y. V., Prykhodko, I. I., Lyman, A. A., Timchenko, O. V., Yurieva, N. V., & Horelyshev, S. A. (2019). Psihologichna gotovnist do https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75961-1_6 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1 https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen20/num3/554/characteristic-impacts-of-combat-stressors-EN.pdf https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen20/num3/554/characteristic-impacts-of-combat-stressors-EN.pdf BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 77 riziku viyskovosluzhbovtsiv Natsionalnoyi gvardiyi Ukrayini [Psychological readiness to risk of the military personnel of the National Guard of Ukraine]. NANGU. Krebs, R. R., & Ralston, R. (2020). Patriotism or Paychecks: Who Believes What About Why Soldiers Serve. Armed Forces & Society, 0095327X2091716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20917166 Leontev, D. A., & Rasskazova, E. I. (2006). Test zhiznestoykosti [Hardiness test]. Smysl. Maddi, S. R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3), 173– 185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.54.3.173 Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619609 Maddi, S. R. (2007). Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to the Military Context. Military Psychology, 19(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701323301 Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (1994). Hardiness and Mental Health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_6 Melnyk, Y. B., Prykhodko, I. I., & Stadnik, A. V. (2019). Medical-psychological support of specialists’ professional activity in extreme conditions. Minerva Psichiatrica, 60(4), 158−168. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0391- 1772.19.02025-9 Meyer, E. G. (2015). The Importance of Understanding Military Culture. Academic Psychiatry, 39(4), 416–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-015-0285-1 Momen, N., Taylor, M. K., Pietrobon, R., Gandhi, M., Markham, A. E., Padilla, G. A., Miller, P. W., Evans, K. E., & Sander, T. C. (2010). Initial Validation of the Military Operational Risk Taking Scale (MORTS). Military Psychology, 22(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995601003638942 Myrseth, H., Hystad, S. W., Säfvenbom, R., & Olsen, O. K. (2018). Perception of specific military skills – the impact of perfectionism and self-efficacy. Journal of Military Studies, 9(1), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2018- 0002 Nash W. P. (2007). Combat stress injury: Theory, research, and management. In C. R. Figley & W. P. Nash (Eds.), Combat stress injury: Theory, research, and management. Routledge. Nindl, B. C., Billing, D. C., Drain, J. R., Beckner, M. E., Greeves, J., Groeller, H., Teien, H. K., Marcora, S., Moffitt, A., Reilly, T., Taylor, N. A. S., Young, A.J., & Friedl, K. E. (2018). Perspectives on resilience for military readiness and preparedness: Report of an international military physiology https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2018-0002 https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2018-0002 The Psychological Readiness Model of Military Personnel to Take Risks during a … Ihor PRYKHODKO, et al. 78 roundtable. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(11), 1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.05.005 Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49(3), 197–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055737 Pitts, B. L., Safer, M. A., Russell, D. W., & Castro-Chapman, P. L. (2016). Effects of Hardiness and Years of Military Service on Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in U.S. Army Medics. Military Psychology, 28(4), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000106 Pols, H., & Oak, S. (2007). War & military mental health: the US psychiatric response in the 20th century. American Journal of Public Health, 97(12), 2132– 2142. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.090910 Prykhodko, I., Matsehora, Y., Bielai, S., Hunbin, K., & Kalashchenko, S. (2019). Classification of Coping Strategies Influencing Mental Health of Military Personnel Having Different Combat Experience. Georgian Medical News, 12(297), 130−135. Prykhodko, I. I., Bielai, S. V., Hrynzovskyi, A. M., Zhelaho, A. М., Hodlevskyi, S. O., & Kalashchenko, S. I. (2020). Medical and psychological aspects of safety and adaptation of military personnel to extreme conditions. Wiadomości Lekarskie, 73(4), 679–683. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202004110 Prykhodko, I., Matsehora Y., Kolesnichenko, O., Stasiuk, V., Bolshakova, A., & Bilyk, O. (2021). Psychological First Aid for Military Personnel in Combat Operations: The Ukrainian Model. Military Behavioral Health, 9(3), 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2020.1864530 Serkin, V. P. (2008). Metody psihologii subektivnoj semantiki i psihosemantiki [Methods of psychology of subjective semantics and psycho-semantics]. Psichea. Shamlyan, K. (2020). Volitional organization of personality as a subject of empirical research. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 6(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20152.257.267 Siebold, G. L. (2007). The Essence of Military Group Cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X06294173 Stasiuk, Y. (2018). Ukrayinski dobrovolchi formuvannya yak unikalne yavyshche nezalezhnoyi Ukrayiny [Ukrainian volunteer units as a unique phenomenon of independent Ukraine]. Viyskovo-istorychnyy merydian, 2(20), 17–29. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Stoklasová, J. (2019). Semantic differential for the twenty-first century: scale relevance and uncertainty entering the semantic space. Quality & Quantity, 53(1), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0762-1 Yehuda, R., Vermetten, E., McFarlane, A. C., & Lehrner, A. (2014). PTSD in the military: special considerations for understanding prevalence, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.090910 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Prykhodko%20I%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=32011308 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Matsehora%20Y%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=32011308 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bielai%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=32011308 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hunbin%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=32011308 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kalashchenko%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=32011308 https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202004110 https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2020.1864530 BRAIN. Broad Research in September, 2021 Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Volume 12, Issue 3 79 pathophysiology and treatment following deployment. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25322. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25322 https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25322