Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present project contributes to the literature on firefighters and spousal relationships through consideration of life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and couple conflict for a sample of Canadian firefighters. Thirty four firefighter/spouse dyads completed measures of satisfaction, mental health, and conflict. Our results showed that firefighters self-reported more hostility than their spouses, but that there was no significant difference between firefighters and spouses with respect to life of marital satisfaction. Firefighters and spouses also differed in expression of dissatisfaction, in that firefighters were more likely to express dissatisfaction through physical or indirect expressions of aggression, and spouses were more likely to express dissatisfaction through anger. Understanding alternative presentations of dissatisfaction may be helpful to both the spousal couple, in terms of understanding one another, and also in therapeutic relationships where emotional expression may be interpreted.

Keywords

firefighter spouses hostility life satisfaction marital satisfaction conflict

Introduction

Firefighters, along with police officers, emergency medical technicians and other first responders, are individuals trained to respond to crises and other emergency situations. Although various professions within the emergency services appear to share commonalities among distinct fields of activity, details of day-to-day routines and duties, responsibilities in the workplace, and skill sets required to perform the job differ according to each occupational group. Firefighters have a specific mandate to protect safety at the population and community level. Through performance of occupational duties, firefighters are often challenged to face and respond to crisis situations, shocking and traumatic realities, and life-threatening events. Their work requires contact and interaction with people in crisis and disturbing situations, with a substantial likelihood of being challenged by interactions that can be adversarial and unpredictable in nature. As a result, the ever-present threat resulting from the direct interaction with individuals facing emergency situations emphasizes the complexity and difficulty of this type of work (Griffin and Bernard, 2003; Wagner, McFee, and Martin, 2010).

Occupational Stress for Firefighting Work

The literature considers factors predicting stress and burnout among firefighters or police officers (Beaton, Murphy, Johnson, Pike, and Corneil, 1999; Carey, Al-Zaiti, Dean, Sessanna, and Finnell, 2011; Kim et al., 2019; Wagner et al., 2010), explores the impact of work-family conflict on the job satisfaction of firefighters (Moreno–Jiménez et al., 2009; Morman, Schrodt, & Adamson, 2019), discusses personality traits and mental health of firefighters and recruits (Heinrichs et al., 2005; Wagner, Pasca, and Crosina, 2016) and analyzes the response of organizations to the recommendations following a study about stress among firefighters (Murphy, Beaton, Pike, and Johnson, 1999; Rajabi et al., 2020). For example, in a dual-site longitudinal prospective study, Murphy et al. (1999) synthesized the main factors leading to stress in the case of firefighting work. Each of the following factors was directly correlated to stress and burnout: organization of departments, exposure to repetitive and frequent trauma, change in firefighter duties, changes in fire service demographics, and, due to the very hierarchical paramilitary structure of the fire departments, lack of control over and decision-making regarding how work is performed. However, Beaton et al. (1997) reported that social support at work was inversely correlated with stress symptomatology: the stronger the support and bonding at work, the lower the occupational stress perceived by the firefighters. This is not to say that only work environment and work characteristics have a role in determining the health and wellbeing of individuals working in the firefighting field; work-family interaction is another interface that may influence this relationship. The complex and psychologically demanding nature of firefighting, with long hours and/or lack of flexibility in scheduling work shifts, could contribute to conflict and distress at the family level.

Professional and Social Factors

Studies linking professional prestige and social and community integration demonstrate that work quality and social recognition are significant motivators for individuals to become actively involved in community work (Wickrama, Lorenz, Conger, Matthews, and Elder Jr., 1997). Firefighters’ service to the community is not only highly valued and appreciated, but also fully visible at the community level and to individual community members; firefighting work is often featured in the media, presented at charitable campaigns in supporting good causes not related to their line of work, and actively involved in educational and instructional activities advocating for diverse social issues regarding both adults and children (Miller, 1995). This positive image of the social status and professional prestige attached to the firefighting job may be among the main reasons for choosing a career as a firefighter. In addition, this community engagement may play a significant role in promoting wellbeing and overall satisfaction among these individuals (Wickrama et al., 1997).

Work and Home Stress

As work and its characteristics play a vital role in the way people perceive the quality of their lives, it is also important to discuss the interrelationship and overlap between work and non-work domains (Hammer, Saksvik, Nytrø, Torvatn, and Bayazit, 2004; Judge, Ilies, and Scott, 2006; Smith, DeJoy, Dyal, and Huang, 2019; Turner, Hershcovis, Reich, and Totterdell, 2014). The boundaries between the domains are permeable, allowing stress to spillover from one sphere into another. As such, family conflict can be created by excessive accumulation of stress at work due to over-challenging or unrewarding work, overwork, or lack of support in the workplace. Related work-family stress can then generate tension and discomfort at home, high levels of dissatisfaction with family, and less time fulfilling family roles. Conversely, satisfaction with job and work environment can create a positive climate at home resulting in quality family time and successfully fulfilling family roles (Kendall and Muenchberger, 2009; Moreno–Jiménez et al., 2009; Sironi, 2019).

Melzer (2002) supported the idea that dangerous male-dominated occupations, such as firefighting, have the potential to spill over and influence the level of dissatisfaction and conflict at the family level. Consequently, according to the situation, spouses would partake in the distress and dissatisfaction of firefighters, or, conversely, share the satisfaction of a rewarding job. Partaking in positive or negative work experiences, gives the couple the opportunity to provide beneficial support to each other (Judge et al., 2006; Marchand, Demers, and Durand, 2005), thus attenuating the impact of work-related stressors on overall satisfaction with job, life, and family. However, there are situations when it to pass the dissatisfaction and/or lack of fulfillment resulting from work issues may be passed on to family members and significant others, creating conflict at home and potentially hurtful actions towards an intimate partners or family members (Anderson and Lo, 2011; Burke, 1994; Jackson and Maslach, 1982; Judge et al., 2006); this spillover can create hardship on the couple, debilitating the marital relationship, and increasing adversity and alienation at the couple level.

Conceptual Framework

Numerous theories exist explaining the link between work-related stress factors and health. However, Social Ecology Theory, as proposed by Stokols (1992), is one of the frameworks used in occupational stress research. This theory focuses on both the person and the environment, and suggests that individual dispositions, resources, and characteristics shape perceptions of how employment influences health (Ettner and Grzywacz, 2001) by taking into consideration not only the workplace environment but also social, family/marital context, and individual characteristics. It provides the opportunity to analyze mutual associations and interactions between individual or collective behavior and the surrounding environment thus providing a comprehensive framework for understanding how individual characteristics, dispositions, and resources may influence the way employment is perceived as having a positive or negative impact on personal health, family interaction, and overall wellbeing.

Due to its multidimensional approach, this theoretical framework has recently gained popularity and has been employed in health promotion programs and health related practices used for both large scale preventative strategies of public health, as well as for individual level behavioral strategies. Current research suggests the importance of considering not only multiple dimensions when studying the fit between the individual and their environments, but also considering multiple levels related to individuals, groups, or organizations/communities, and also the characteristics of the situations in which they are involved on a day-to-day basis (Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Stokols, 1992). The model originates its view on three main assumptions.

The first assumption considers the fact that individuals are both influenced by their environments and have an influence on the way their environments evolve and change around them; there is a mutual influence between person and environment that needs to be taken into consideration when analyzing the relationships that exist among these elements. For instance, individuals who score high on the hostility trait may report poor health, poor family and social relationships, and poor coping skills. This can be a result of personal genetic characteristics but can also be attributed to the influences of the work environment, family relationship, educational, and social contexts. Similarly, stressful and highly demanding work environments can be altered to promote a healthier environment through individual and collective actions of the participants in that environment.

Secondly, a comprehensive analysis of health should include multidimensional and multilevel approaches considering individuals, environments, and the quality of the person-environment fit. In the case of individuals, such approaches should look into personal attributes, resources, skills, and abilities that will assist the individual to cope and adjust to their physical and social environment. For example, empirical evidence suggests that being happily partnered and being meaningfully employed may translate into better health and engagement in healthy lifestyle (Grzywacz and Fuqua, 2000). Happilypartnered people spend time with their family members, share ideas with their group, help and rely on each other when in need or crisis, and socialize more. This supportive milieu may have a positive influence on lifestyle choices, perception of satisfaction, and overall wellbeing. Similarly, taking into consideration individual traits, personality characteristics may play an important role in how health, satisfaction, and wellbeing are perceived by each individual. Research has demonstrated that extraversion fosters positive emotions and energy that may translate into positive perceptions of health, whereas neuroticism has been linked to negative perceptions of health (Ettner and Grzywacz, 2001; Gallo and Smith, 1998; Hart and Hope, 2004; Widiger and Oltmanns, 2017). However, it is expected that other environmental and social layers of interaction, such as a supportive family environment, would positively mitigate any negative effects due to personal characteristics and individual traits. At the organizational and work environment level, a multidimensional, multilevel approach will seek to analyze objective and subjective qualities of physical and social environments (e.g., high vs. low demand and control work environment, high vs. low risk, family-friendly vs. authoritarian work arrangements, organizational clarity and workplace support), their independent attributes (e.g., location, space arrangement, size, and noise), or their scale and proximity to individuals and groups. Nonetheless, organizational theorists argue that support in the workplace and family-friendly work environments are highly regarded and valued by workers and are conducive to a positive perception of health and wellbeing (Stokols, 1992). This is not to say that well-designed ergonomic workplaces promoting health and safety do not provide important characteristics in the work environment; however, these physical attributes may be overlooked and disregarded when the collective and interpersonal work relations are conducive to conflict and disengagement.

The social ecological analysis expands beyond the biopsychosocial model by considering the joint influence of multiple life domains and settings. Although the biopsychosocial framework recognizes the combined influence of genetic and psychosocial environment on wellbeing, the social ecology framework brings into light the importance of adding individual social and physical surroundings when analyzing health (Ettner and Grzywacz, 2001; McLaren and Hawe, 2005; Stokols, 2000; Wong, Na, Regan, and Whooley, et al., 2013).

Current Hypotheses

The present study asked the way in which firefighters and their significant others perceive the spousal relationship in relationship to work. Based upon the previously cited research by Judge et al. (2006), it was expected that spouses would report higher levels of dissatisfaction and domestic conflict when compared with their partners, and that firefighters and their spouses would express dissatisfaction in different ways. This research question would be investigated as a function of dyad type, linked through a socially significant relationship (i.e., spouse/firefighter).

Methods

Participants

Data for this study was collected as part of a larger study that included full-time paid-professional firefighters in the province of British Columbia, Canada. The initial sample included nine new recruits reporting less than 1 month’s work experience, resulting in a final sample size for the parent sample of 177. For the larger firefighter sample, data was collected during work hours with each participant asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, as well as several psychological, physical, and employment related measures. The completion of the battery of questionnaires lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes, on average.

During data collection visits, firefighters were invited to engage their romantic partners in the subsequent phase of the research, looking at how overall satisfaction and work stress might impact intimate relationships; the confidentiality of responses was emphasized. Supplementary data was subsequently collected from the spouses of firefighters (N = 39) for couples interested in participating, with 34 dyads (N = 34) providing complete data. After obtaining informed consent, spouses were provided with a survey package and were given the option of completing the surveys at their convenience, for subsequent collection by the researcher. Data was collected and analyzed as paired (dyad-level) data.

Measures

The demographic questionnaire asked for information regarding participant marital status, date of birth, ethnicity, education, employment status, occupation, and length of employment. Both firefighters and their spouses/partners participating in the project completed this questionnaire.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin, 1985) was included as a measure of how satisfied the participants were with their lives, overall. This short five item questionnaire asked the participants to mark, on a 7-point scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), how fully they supported various statements about their life satisfaction (α = 0.80 and test-retest reliability = 0.76–0.82; (Pavot and Diener, 1993).

The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss and Perry, 1992) α = 0.72–0.89), a self-administered questionnaire containing five aggression factors: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, Hostility, and Indirect Aggression. This is a self-report questionnaire that provides a self-ranked reflection regarding personal feelings and expressions of agression.

The ENRICH Marital Scale (Fowers and Olson, 1993; Olson, Fournier, and Druckman, 1987) α = 0.86–0.90) was used to assess marital adjustment and satisfaction.

The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised© (Derogatis, 1994); α = 0.89) was used to evaluate levels of reported symptoms on nine different symptom scales (somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism). This scale is a 90-item scale that can be completed in 15 minutes.

Results

Participant Demographics

From the larger sample, firefighter ages ranged from 26 to 60 years (M = 41.22, SD = 8.3) with most were married or in a marital-like relationship (88.1%), with 6.8% reporting being separated/divorced and 4.5% single/never married. Most firefighters were born in Canada (98.9%), with only 2.3% declaring their ethnic background as “other” as compared to Caucasian. Responses showing the highest level of education achieved indicated that most of the fire rescue personnel had completed trades/technical education (24.3%), some university training (22%), college diploma (18%) or university degree (18.6%).

Spousal responses to a demographic questionnaire indicated that the majority of significant others were born in Canada (99%), with only 1% declaring their ethnic background as “other” in comparison to Caucasian. Responses showing the higher level of education achieved indicated that 27.5% of the spouses completed university, 22.5% graduated with a college diploma, with the rest completing trades/technical, high school or other training. The median number of children per couple was 2.02 with 50% of the couples reporting two children and 22.5% reporting three children per family. Spouses’ length of employment ranged from 1 to 34 years (M = 11.67, SD = 8.4) with an average of M = 34.62 hours worked per week. The age of spouses ranged from 29 to 58, with a mean of M = 41.38. The responses indicated all spouses were in their first marital relationship, and in heterosexual relationships with all spouses being female.

Hostility, Couple Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction, and Domestic Conflict

Hypotheses about differences or similarities in perceiving marital satisfaction and/or domestic conflict as a function of dyad type (spouse1/spouse2) were addressed by statistically comparing group differences. Prior to conducting the analyses, assumption testing was conducted. The assumption of sufficient sample size was tested following Tabachnick and Fidell (2005) recommendation; as such, in order to meet the assumption of sufficient sample size, a minimum of 20 sets of scores was required for each level of the independent variable (e.g., gender with two levels female and male with 34 cases for each group). There were no outliers identified in the data set; the Mahalanobis distance had a value of 13.31 that was lower than the maximum of 16.27. The assumption of multivariate normality was tested using the Shapiro Wilks test and indicated that, for the Couple Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction, there was a non-normal distribution. As such, data was transformed using a log₁₀ function. After transformation, a normal distribution was observed for all dependent variables in terms of skewness and kurtosis. All values were between the acceptable parameters (skewness: between −3 and +3; kurtosis between −5 and +5). This does not violate the rules of normality as stated by Tabachnick and Fidell (2005). Finally, the assumption of absence of multicolinearity and singularity was not violated.

Repeated Measures MANOVA analyses were conducted to test the effect of hostility on firefighter-spouse marital satisfaction as a function of dyad type. These analyses examined the associations between couple satisfaction and hostility as within-subjects variables. Before proceeding with further analyses, correlations were computed in order to determine whether conflict (physical, verbal, anger, hostility, and indirect aggression) and couple satisfaction were inter-correlated. The results indicated that the variables were significantly inter-correlated (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Inter-Correlations Between Conflict and Couple Satisfaction.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
Physical	-	.387**	.546**	.212**	.324**	.001
Verbal	—	-	.536**	.411**	.411**	−.162
Anger	—	—	-	.393**	.355**	.311
Hostility	—	—	—	-	.340**	−.202
Indirect	—	—	—	—	1	−.205
Couplesat	—	—	—	—	—	-

**p < .05.

The relationship between hostility and couple satisfaction was analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA. An alpha level of 0.05 was applied for all statistical tests. The means and SDs for the conflict for firefighters and spouses are presented in Table 2. Results revealed a significant difference for hostility (F [1, 33] = 82.02, p < .05, eta-squared = .713), no significant effect for couple satisfaction (F [1, 33] = .828, p = .37), and no interaction for hostility and couple satisfaction (F [1, 33] = .064, p = .80). A similar analysis was run to explore the association between hostility and life satisfaction. Results revealed a significant effect for hostility (F [1, 33] = 217.77, p < .05), no significant effect for life satisfaction (F [1, 33] = .471, p = .49), and no interaction for hostility and life satisfaction (F [1, 33] = .009, p = .92).

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Conflict (Hostility vs. Couple Satisfaction) for Firefighters and Spouses.

Variable		M	SD	n
Hostility	Firefighters	47.65	8.6	34
Hostility	Spouse	46.88	7.5	34
Couple satisfaction	Firefighters	67.18	9.8	34
Couple satisfaction	Spouse	65.59	13.4	34

The differences with respect to groups (firefighters and spouses) and domestic conflict and their interaction was analyzed by repeated measures MANOVA. An alpha level of 0.05 was applied for all statistical tests. The means and SDs for the conflict for firefighters and spouses are presented in Table 3. The results indicated a marginal effect for group (F [1, 33] = 3.258, p = .08, eta-squared = .09), no significant effect for conflict (F [4, 30] = .940, p = .454), and a significant interaction between group and conflict (F [4, 30] = 5.227, p < .05, eta-squared = .411). These results indicate that the two groups will express their dissatisfaction with couple disagreements differently. Firefighters reported expressions of frustration with couple conflict through physical aggression or indirect aggression, whereas spouses self-reported the of use anger as a way to express dissatisfaction.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Conflict (Hostility vs. Life Satisfaction) for Firefighters and Spouses.

Variable		M	SD	n
Hostility	Firefighters	47.65	8.6	34
Hostility	Spouse	46.88	7.5	34
Life satisfaction	Firefighters	28.68	3.8	34
Life satisfaction	Spouse	28.15	4.4	34

Further, a SPSS MANOVA was used to conduct the two-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance to compare the two groups with respect to their levels of perceived satisfaction with life and couple relationship. The independent variable for the analyses was Groups: firefighters and spouses. The first MANOVA was conducted on two dependent variables, life satisfaction and couple satisfaction, to identify significant differences between the two groups (firefighters vs. spouses) with regard to life satisfaction and couple satisfaction. With the use of the more conservative Pillai’s Trace criterion, due to the non-normal distribution detected for both dependent variables, the combined dependent variables were not significantly different by Group, (F [2, 65] = .182, p = .834). The results reflected no association between Group scores (firefighters vs. spouses) and the combined dependent variables. Therefore, the two groups did not differ in the way they perceive their satisfaction with life and their partner and marital relationship.

The second MANOVA was conducted on five dependent variables: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, hostility, and indirect aggression. There were no outliers in the data set. The assumption of multivariate normality was tested using Shapiro Wilks test and indicated that for the Physical, Verbal, Hostility and Indirect Aggression the assumption of normality was not violated, although for Anger, the test indicated a non-normal distribution. A normal distribution was observed for all dependent variables in terms of skewness and kurtosis. Finally, the assumption of absence of multicolinearity and singularity was not violated. With the use of the more conservative Pillai’s Trace criterion due to the non-normal distribution detected for Anger, the combined DVs were significantly affected by the Groups, (F [5, 62] = 5.393, p < .001). Firefighters had significantly higher scores on Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Indirect Aggression, and Hostility, but not on Anger. The responses collected from spouses indicated significantly higher scores on Anger. Overall, the group differences were significantly higher on Indirect Aggression and Physical Aggression, followed by Anger. The results reflected a modest difference between Group scores (firefighters vs. spouses) and Physical Aggression, (F [1, 66] = 5.054, p < .005, partial η² = .071), as well as between Group scores (firefighters vs. spouses) and Indirect Aggression, (F [1, 66] = 8.661, p < .005, partial η² = .116).

To further investigate the impact of each main effect on the individual dependent variables, a Roy–Bargmann stepdown analysis was performed on the prioritized dependent variables. As the dependent variables were correlated, they were considered reliable to warrant stepdown analysis. As such, the highest priority dependent variable (indirect aggression) was tested in univariate ANOVA, with appropriate adjustment of alpha. The rest of the dependent variables were tested using a series of ANCOVAs in the following order: anger, physical aggression, hostility, and verbal aggression. Each successive dependent variable was tested with higher priority dependent variables as covariates to see what, if anything, it added to the combination of dependent variables already tested. Homogeneity of regression was achieved for all components of the stepdown analysis—Box’s Test of equality of covariance matrices was not significant. Results of this analysis are summarized in the Table 4.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations for Conflict for Firefighters and Spouses.

Variable		M	SD	n
Firefighters	Physical	50.32	8.527	34
	Verbal	49.18	8.861	34
	Anger	47.91	7.481	34
	Hostility	47.05	8.623	34
	Indirect	49.91	5.895	34
Spouse	Physical	46.09	6.925	34
	Verbal	47.06	8.499	34
	Anger	49.62	6.462	34
	Hostility	46.88	7.535	34
	Indirect	44.74	8.393	34

A unique contribution to predicting differences between firefighters and spouses was made by indirect aggression, stepdown (F [1, 66] = 8.6608, p < .01, η² = .116). For the indirect aggression, firefighters showed a higher tendency to express anger in actions that avoided direct confrontation (M = 49.91, SD = 5.9) than their spouses (M = 44.73, SD = 8.5). A significant difference was also found when the next DV (anger) was entered in the stepdown analysis, stepdown (F [1, 65] = 5.42, p < .01, η² = .015). Spouses scored higher on irritability, frustration, emotional lability, and temperamental gesturing (M = 49.61, SD = 6.5) when compared with firefighters (M = 47.91, SD = 7.5). The third DV entered in the stepdown analysis that displayed differences in the independent variable Groups was physical aggression, stepdown (F [1, 64] = 10.18, p< .01, η² = .071). Firefighters reported a higher tendency to express negative emotion through physical representation (M = 50.324, SD = 8.5) than their spouses (M = 46.088, SD = 6.9). Although hostility and verbal aggression were also introduced into the stepdown analyses, these variables did not reveal significant differences (Table 5).

Table 5.

Roy–Bargman Stepdown F—Tests.

Variable	Hypoth. MS	Error MS	StepDown F	Hypoth. DF	Error DF	Sig. of F
Indirect	455.52941	52.59626	8.66087	1	66	.004
Anger	220.24719	40.6338	5.42029	1	65	.023
Physical	401.87659	39.44497	10.18828	1	64	.002
Hostility	2.84948	54.89600	.05191	1	63	.821
Verbal	29.48200	51.56980	.57169	1	62	.452

**p < .05.

Discussion

Hypotheses about couple satisfaction and domestic conflict as a function of dyad type were partially supported. For the first hypothesis, looking at the differences in levels of satisfaction with life and marital relationship, it was expected that spouses would report lower satisfaction levels when compared to their significant others. In contrast to our hypotheses, the results indicated that both groups reported high levels of satisfaction with life and marital relationships, with no significant differences in the levels of satisfaction with life and couple relationship between groups. These results confirm previous research on firefighters that indicated that spouses would work together as partners to balance the family responsibilities with the challenges of the firefighting shift schedule (Sommerfeld, Wagner, Harder, and Schmidt, 2017). Although some aspects of firefighting work may be challenging for the couple, such as adjusting roles and responsibilities around shift work, parenting, spending family time together, health and safety while on the job, or spillover effect from work to home, other aspects turn out to be very beneficial. For example, job and financial stability, strong professional status and recognition within the community, flexibility with child care arrangements, strong support network from the organization and other families of firefighters, are just a few of the benefits (Sommerfeld et al., 2017). In addition, in reasoning the results of our results, recent research has demonstrated that sharing positive events with others induces a state of happiness for those who share, as opposed to those who prefer to keep these events for themselves (Judge et al., 2006). When we translate this to the tight-knit firefighter group, sharing positive family stories with co-workers or positive work stories with family members will lead to positive spillover from family to work or work to family, which, in turn, will lead to increased satisfaction with work and family, thus confirming our results. However, due to the fact that spouses participating in our study were the ones invited by the firefighters, we might assume that only individuals confident with the status of their intimate relationship might have volunteered their spouse for the study. Therefore, our results should be interpreted with caution due to potential selection bias.

The second hypothesis analyzed the group differences in perceiving aggression and domestic conflict. Results indicated significant differences between the two groups—firefighters and their spouses—when all five variables (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, hostility, and indirect aggression) were entered into the equation at once. Not surprisingly, firefighters self-reported higher on indirect aggression, physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility; whereas, their partners self-rated higher on anger. These results are supported by the literature with males self-reporting higher on physical, verbal, and indirect aggression, but not on anger (Buss and Perry, 1992).

Further analyses indicated that firefighters and their spouses are more likely to use different ways to express aggression and, therefore, domestic conflict. As such, according to our results, indirect and physical expressions of aggression were often reported by firefighters in interpersonal transactions. Indirect aggression refers to the tendency to express frustration and irritation in actions that avoid direct confrontation, whereas physical aggression focuses on the use of physical expressions of anger and frustration (Fatima, 2019). Previous research hypothesizes that men may express more aggression than women, with explanations of biology, gender roles, and cultural and societal influences contributing to these differences (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Buss and Perry, 1992). However, previous research has demonstrated that, under provocation in intimate relationships, men and women behave equally in terms of aggressive behavior (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Graham and Wells, 2001). Further, the current results suggests that the effects are likely more nuanced than simple gender differences in amount of agression alone, and are potentially better explained by differences in expression of agression.

The results of the present study indicated that the gender difference was significantly larger for indirect aggression as opposed to physical aggression or verbal aggression as demonstrated by the empirical literature. In the case of the outcomes presented in this study, it appears that firefighters would be more likely to use indirect aggression in order to react to frustrations and irritability. As indicated by previous research, some of the indirect aggression actions expressing avoidance of conflict could be ignoring one’s partner, withholding affection, or intentionally embarrassing the partner in front of others (Buss and Perry, 1992). Due to the fact that this approach does not always resolve the conflict, individuals using this type of approach to express their negative emotions are more likely to suffer chronic frustration; hence, this might explain the elevated level of perceived hostility in firefighters. In order to further consider this possibility, one might look into the relationship that exists between firefighters and their support network. Although support originates from different sources, it seems that support from family and significant others is particularly valued by firefighters, with support from co-workers and organization coming on second (Sommerfeld et al., 2017). As such, in cases of domestic disagreement, due to the fact that firefighters greatly value their support network, they may be more likely to limit their frustration to indirect aggression, thus avoiding direct conflict with their spouses, rather than imposing their opinion through physical or verbal expression of aggression. This approach to conflictual situations prevents escalation and relationship deterioration, and likely helps to maintain the support network around the firefighter. By the same token, firefighters may be more likely to employ indirect aggression at work as well, thus maintaining good relationships within the sister/brotherhood, not altering the social support offered by their co-workers, in addition to following the workplace norms, and respecting the hierarchy. It has been argued that persons bound by strict societal norms may more consciously inhibit and/or regulate their aggression (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Hammer et al., 2004). The firefighting profession comes with strict norms, professional prestige, and a highly regarded social status. Thus, indirect aggression might seem the covert way to express aggression and deal with angry feelings while maintaining the good image at work and in the community.

On the other hand, the results of the present study indicated that spouses reported a tendency to express their frustration through anger, translated by negative emotions, irritability, and emotional lability. Although research suggests that this way of expressing aggression may be explained through social ecological models, and cultural and social influences (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996), the complex nature of firefighters’ family relationships and dynamics may also have a significant influence on the way spouses express their anger. In addition to the worries and fears for partner health and safety while on the job, the impact of shift work on spouses and on household dynamics would likely represent significant factors adding to the daily stress and frustration of spouses. Not being able to attend family events together as a couple due to work schedule or work commitments, or not having their partner share family responsibilities or spend less time fulfilling parenting roles, may trigger frustration and irritability that could be more likely to be vented through anger. However, the support from the organization and family or friends was mentioned in research as an alleviating factor for stress at the family level and contributed to spouse and family satisfaction (Sommerfeld et al., 2017).

Recommendations

Recommendations from the present findings suggest the need for expanding research on the uniqueness and significance of the social support of firefighters. Spousal support and the sister/brotherhood are presumed to play a very important role in mitigating the effects of the stressful work environment of firefighting. Future studies following a longitudinal design would be beneficial to investigate the importance of family and social support for firefighters.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the union executive and management of the participant fire department for their ongoing support and engagement with this research. Also, we would like to very gratefully acknowledge the participation of the fire service members who shared their personal experience with us. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of Elyssa Krutop, Jessica Soderstrom, and Jennifer Tippett who worked with us on aspects of the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Northern British Columbia grant number Research Project Award.

ORCID iD

Shannon L. Wagner

Data Accessibility Statement

Data can be accessed through connecting with the corresponding author.

References

Anderson

A. S.

C. C.

(2011). Intimate partner violence within law enforcement families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1176–1193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510368156

Beaton

Murphy

Johnson

Pike

Corneil

(1999). Coping responses and posttraumatic stress symptomatology in urban fire service personnel. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024776509667

Beaton

R. D.

Murphy

S. A.

Pike

K. C.

Corneil

(1997). Social support and network conflict in firefighters and paramedics. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 19(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394599701900303

Bettencourt

B. A.

Miller

(1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422.

Burke

R. J.

(1994). Stressful events, work-family conflict, coping, psychological burnout, and well-being among police officers. Psychological Reports, 75(2), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.2.787

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Carey

M. G.

Al-Zaiti

S. S.

Dean

G. E.

Sessanna

Finnell

D. S.

(2011). Sleep problems, depression, substance use, social bonding, and quality of life in professional firefighters. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 928–933. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318225898f

Derogatis

L. R

. (1994). Symptom Checklist - 90 - R [SCL-90-R] administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

10.

Ettner

S. L.

Grzywacz

J. G.

(2001). Workers’ perceptions of how jobs affect health: A social ecological perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.2.101

11.

Fatima

(2019). Indirect aggression. In Shackelford

T. K.

Weekes-Shackelford

V. A.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. (pp. 1–3). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

12.

Fowers

B. J.

Olson

D. H.

(1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.176

13.

Gallo

L. C.

Smith

T. W.

(1998). Construct validation of health-relevant personality traits: Interpersonal circumplex and five-factor model analyses of the Aggression Questionnaire. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0502_4

14.

Graham

Wells

(2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45(9), 595–622. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014811624944

15.

Griffin

S. P.

Bernard

T. J.

(2003). Angry aggression among police officers. Police Quarterly, 6(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611102250365

16.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Fuqua

(2000). The social ecology of health: Leverage points and linkages. Behavioral Medicine, 26(3), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964280009595758

17.

Hammer

T. H.

Saksvik

P. Ø.

Nytrø

Torvatn

Bayazit

(2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: Workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.83

18.

Hart

K. E.

Hope

C. W.

(2004). Cynical hostility and the psychosocial vulnerability model of disease risk: Confounding effects of neuroticism (negative affectivity) bias. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.007

19.

Heinrichs

Wagner

Schoch

Soravia

L. M.

Hellhammer

D. H.

Ehlert

(2005). Predicting posttraumatic stress symptoms from pretraumatic risk factors: A 2-year prospective follow-up study in firefighters. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(12), 2276–2286. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2276

20.

Jackson

S. E.

Maslach

(1982). After-effects of job-related stress: Families as victims. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030030106

21.

Judge

T. A.

Ilies

Scott

B. A.

(2006). Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 779–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00054.x

22.

Karasek

Theorell

(1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

23.

Kendall

Muenchberger

(2009). Stress at work: Using a process model to assist employers to understand the trajectory. Work, 32(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2009-0812

24.

Kim

Bae

Chang

S.-J.

Yoon

J.-H.

Jeong

D. Y.

Hyun

D.-S.

Ryu

H.-Y.

Park

K.-S.

Kim

M.-J.

Kim

2019). Effect of burnout on post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among firefighters in Korea: Data from the Firefighter Research on Enhancement of Safety & Health (FRESH). Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 52(6), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.19.116

25.

Marchand

Demers

Durand

(2005). Do occupation and work conditions really matter? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress experiences among Canadian workers. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(5), 602–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00458.x

26.

McLaren

Hawe

(2005). Ecological perspectives in health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018044

27.

Melzer

S. A.

(2002). Gender, work, and intimate violence: Men’s occupational violence spillover and compensatory violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 820–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00820.x

28.

Miller

(1995). Tough guys: Psychotherapeutic strategies with law enforcement and emergency services personnel. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 32(4), 592–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.32.4.592

29.

Moreno-Jiménez

Mayo

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

Geurts

Rodríguez-Muñoz

Garrosa

(2009). Effects of work–family conflict on employees’ well-being: The moderating role of recovery strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016739

30.

Morman

M. T.

Schrodt

Adamson

(2019). Firefighters’ job stress and the (un)intended consequences of relational quality with spouses and firefighter friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(4), 1092–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519886355

31.

Murphy

S. A.

Beaton

R. D.

Pike

K. C.

Johnson

L. C.

(1999). Occupational stressors, stress responses, and alcohol consumption among professional firefighters: A prospective, longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 6(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021934725246

32.

Olson

D. H.

Fournier

D. G.

Druckman

J. M.

(1987). Counselor’s manual for PREPARE/ENRICH (rev. ev.). Minneapolis, MN: PREPARE/ENRICH.

33.

Pavot

Diener

(1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164

34.

Rajabi

Molaeifar

Jahangiri

Taheri

Banaee

Farhadi

(2020). Occupational stressors among firefighters: Application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)Techniques. Heliyon, 6(4), e03820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03820

35.

Salari

S. M.

Baldwin

B. M.

(2002). Verbal, physical, and injurious aggression among intimate couples over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X02023004004.

36.

Sironi

(2019). Job satisfaction as a determinant of employees’ optimal well-being in an instrumental variable approach. Quality & Quantity, 53(4), 1721–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00835-3

37.

Smith

T. D.

DeJoy

D. M.

Dyal

M.-A.

Huang

(2019). Impact of work pressure, work stress and work-family conflict on firefighter burnout. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 74(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2017.1395789

38.

Sommerfeld

Wagner

S. L.

Harder

H. G.

Schmidt

(2017). Behavioral health and firefighters: An intervention and interviews with Canadian firefighters. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2017.1284515

39.

Stokols

(1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.47.1.6

40.

Stokols

(2000). Social ecology and behavioral medicine: Implications for training, practice, and policy. Behavioral Medicine, 26(3), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964280009595760

41.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2005). Using Multivariate Statistics. USA: Pearson.

42.

Turner

Hershcovis

M. S.

Reich

T. C.

Totterdell

(2014). Work–family interference, psychological distress, and workplace injuries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12071

43.

Wagner

S. L.

McFee

J. A.

Martin

C. A.

(2010). Mental health implications of fire service membership. Traumatology, 16(2), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765610362803

44.

Wagner

Pasca

Crosina

(2016). Hostility in firefighters: Personality and mental health. International Journal of Emergency Services, 5, 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJES-09-2015-0021

45.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Lorenz

F. O.

Conger

R. D.

Matthews

Elder

G. H.

Jr (1997). Linking occupational conditions to physical health through marital, social, and intrapersonal processes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/2955431.

46.

Widiger

T. A.

Oltmanns

J. R.

(2017). Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 144–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20411

47.

Wong

J. M.

Regan

M. C.

Whooley

M. A.

(2013). Hostility, health behaviors, and risk of recurrent events in patients with stable coronary heart disease: Findings from the Heart and Soul Study. Journal of the American Heart Association, 2(5), e000052. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000052

Firefighters and Spouses: Hostility,Satisfaction,and Conflict

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Occupational Stress for Firefighting Work

Professional and Social Factors

Work and Home Stress

Conceptual Framework

Current Hypotheses

Methods

Participants

Measures

Results

Participant Demographics

Hostility, Couple Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction, and Domestic Conflict

Discussion

Recommendations

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Accessibility Statement

References