Betrayal experiences in the military linked to difficulty dealing with the military-to-civilian transition for veterans

A leader assures a subordinate that certain protections, support or opportunities will be in place but doesn’t come through when it’s needed. A subordinate raises a concern through formal channels and is ignored or minimized. Decisions made by leaders or institutions prioritize expediency or efficiency over the well-being of the people affected.

The above scenarios are betrayals that can pop up in many professional settings. But in the military, they are experiences that violate expectations of trust, mutual obligation and loyalty built into the fabric of daily life.

New research from the University of Michigan finds betrayal experienced by military service members is a strong predictor of stress-related symptoms and reintegration difficulties during the transition into civilian life—remaining significant even after accounting for combat exposure. The work is published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress.

“I think the thing that surprised me most about the research results was how consistently betrayal stood out,” said Walter Sowden, a lecturer in management and organizations at U-M’s Ross School of Business and corresponding author of the study.

“I went into the project expecting betrayal-related experiences to be associated with stress-related symptoms and reintegration difficulties, but I did not expect them to consistently be the strongest predictor among the others we modeled.”

Sowden and colleagues, Roland Hart and George Bonanno of Columbia University, analyzed surveys completed by 719 U.S. Army veterans conducted about 6 months before and after their service ended. The soldiers were identified by the U.S. Department of Defense and invited to participate. Data collection occurred between March 2021 and October 2022 as part of the Military-to-Civilian Transition Project.

Across the analysis, betrayal-related, potentially morally injurious events—a term used to describe a person’s exposure to events that violate deeply held moral beliefs—emerged as the most consistent predictor of negative outcomes during the military-to-civilian transition. Such betrayal experiences predicted higher stress and higher levels of difficulty reintegrating into civilian life—even after accounting for baseline post-traumatic stress, combat exposure and other factors.

Exploratory analyses suggest somewhat stronger effects among men and individuals in committed relationships.

Importantly, these experiences don’t typically involve perceived dramatic or overt misconduct, Sowden says. More often, they are experienced as a gradual erosion of trust or compounded misgivings.

“As a recently separated veteran, I’ve learned firsthand that leaving the military is about more than just changing careers,” he said. “It’s a real lifestyle overhaul that significantly impacts identity, self-concept and how you see the world.”

Sowden says he has experienced “how powerfully the military acculturation process shapes expectations.” The tight bonds, clear hierarchy and emphasis on trust and shared responsibility “are incredibly adaptive while you’re serving.”

“They help people perform under pressure and rely on one another in meaningful ways,” he said. “But those expectations don’t just switch off at separation. When people feel that close others, leaders or institutions failed them, that sense of betrayal often carries forward into the transition and can quietly color how hard everything else feels in civilian life.”

Veterans might encounter a disconnect between promises made about a support system awaiting them in the civilian world and the reality of barriers, delays or confusing processes trying to access that support. They may feel betrayed due to expectations the system will “take care of their own.”

Sowden notes such betrayals and their ramifications aren’t limited to people who have served. They can affect those in civilian organizations that espouse or rely on strong norms, hierarchies and trust and show up most strongly during periods of major change, such as layoffs, reorganizations or leadership transitions “when the psychological impact can be disproportionate.”

To that end, Sowden is developing what he calls the “Betrayal-Transition Stress Model,” which aims to help anticipate when and why transitions become difficult—even when external stresses seem manageable. One reason, he says, is that past experiences of betrayal can carry forward into later transitions, shaping how people interpret what is going on now and how they feel moving into a new role or environment.

He sees the model “as a bridge between research and practice,” which connects individual experiences of betrayal with larger social, organizational and institutional dynamics.”

“My hope is that it ultimately informs better screening, prevention and support strategies across a range of settings,” Sowden said.