Dynamic resilience and adaptation among Chinese military veterans: risk and protective factors during transitional periods

Abstract

Aim:

This study aimed to construct a dynamic, stage-based model of resilience development among Chinese military veterans and to analyze the evolving mechanisms of risk and protective factors across phases of post-service reintegration.

Methods:

Thirty-seven veterans participated in the study. Using grounded theory, qualitative data from 25 in-depth interviews with Chinese veterans were coded and analyzed via NVivo 12.0 to construct stage-based resilience models. Theoretical saturation was tested with 12 additional cases, ensuring the validity of emergent categories and dynamic patterns of risk and protection.

Results:

The study revealed a five-phase dynamic mechanism of veterans’ resilience, encompassing Identity Separation, Adaptation Conflict, Readaptation and Reshaping, Resilience Leap, and Societal Reintegration. Each phase is marked by distinct risk trajectories, ranging from identity rupture and social detachment to cultural dissonance, role ambiguity, and fluctuations in belonging during reintegration. Protective factors evolve across these phases, shifting from relational anchors such as family and comrades to structural supports provided by institutional guidance and peer mentorship, and ultimately to an internalized sense of agency expressed through goal setting and civic responsibility. This phased structure underscores resilience as a temporally layered, identity-centered, and interaction-driven process rather than a fixed trait. The mechanism highlights transitional challenges, including unstable group belonging, emotional instability, limited access to policy resources, and difficulties in achieving social recognition during reintegration. These findings indicate that resilience development relies on cumulative interactions between risk and protection, identity fluidity, and adaptive growth, while also exposing gaps in sustained resource integration and societal validation that can compromise the stability of long-term reintegration.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrates that veterans’ resilience is a multi-phase, structurally evolving process shaped by shifting psychosocial risks and layered protective forces. By integrating grounded data into a stage-based model, the research provides conceptual clarity and practical guidance for targeted interventions. The findings reveal the necessity of stage-specific policy design, multi-level support integration, and sustained post-transition monitoring. This work contributes to advancing resilience theory in post-service contexts and offers a culturally relevant framework to enhance long-term social reintegration of veterans.

1 Introduction

Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the veteran population has grown to approximately 57 million (Shi, 2025). Compared with the general adult population, veterans represent a high-risk group (Bonanno et al., 2012; Bonanno et al., 2011). A substantial body of research indicates that the transition from military to civilian life constitutes a comprehensive life-course transformation that spans structural, interpersonal, cultural, and identity-related domains (Ackerman, 1945; Hunter-Johnson et al., 2020). This shift involves profound realignments of daily routines, support networks, modes of participation, value systems, life purposes, role identities, lifestyle patterns, skill sets, and self-concept. Collectively, these elements make this transition one of the most significant and challenging transformations an individual can undergo (Ackerman, 1945; Mobbs and Bonanno, 2018; Saleem et al., 2020). Empirical studies further demonstrate that many veterans experience considerable psychosocial stressors during the reintegration process, which often manifest as psychological distress, emotional instability, and behavioral conflicts (McDaniel et al., 2024). Simultaneously, the erosion of military culture, the disruption of self-identity, and the loss of life goals frequently trigger acute psychological and emotional dissonance, as well as maladaptive behavioral patterns (Romaniuk et al., 2024; Cramm et al., 2020). In the Chinese context, researchers have identified several pressing challenges associated with veterans’ reintegration. Veterans commonly face gaps between their expectations for social security and the actual availability of benefits, alongside heightened job insecurity, economic hardship, and a lack of transferable skills. These issues collectively exacerbate their vulnerability to financial marginalization and social exclusion (Hu and Wu, 2021). Furthermore, many veterans report feeling a lack of societal recognition for their service contributions, as well as inconsistencies in policy implementation across localities (Diamant and O’Brien, 2015; Yang, 2024). These interconnected challenges diminish veterans’ sense of belonging and social integration. In certain cases, they contribute to collective grievances or adverse social behaviors, which in turn present broader risks to social cohesion (Hu and Wu, 2021).

The transition from military service to civilian life exposes veterans to a spectrum of psychosocial stressors while simultaneously activating their intrinsic resilience (King et al., 1999). Resilience is conceptualized as an individual’s capacity to initiate adaptive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes in response to external challenges, thus facilitating recovery and growth in the face of adversity (Ungar, 2018). In combination with related protective constructs such as gratitude, a strong sense of purpose, and social connectedness, resilience serves as a critical protective mechanism. It mitigates the onset of mental health disorders and reduces physical health risks associated with the disruptions of military-to-civilian transition. Empirical evidence indicates that veterans with higher resilience levels demonstrate more effective recovery from substance use difficulties, superior management of deployment-related traumas and life course disruptions, and enhanced capacity to cope with transition-related demands. Collectively, these adaptive outcomes promote sustained psychological wellbeing and contribute to long-term health stability (Fogle et al., 2020).

Resilience involves two fundamental components, namely the exposure to risk or adversity and the subsequent demonstration of positive adaptation or competence in response to these adverse conditions (Luthar and Cushing, 1999). It is further conceptualized as an equilibrium achieved between individual strengths or protective factors and vulnerabilities or risk factors following experiences of adversity or traumatic events (Eshel and Kimhi, 2016). Risk factors refer to various influences that increase the probability of initial onset, progression toward greater severity, or the persistence of maladaptive states, as described by Kirby and Fraser (1997). These factors originate from discrete traumatic incidents, multiple concurrent life stressors, or the cumulative burden posed by personal and environmental pressures, as outlined by Tusaie and Dyer (2004). In contrast, protective factors reduce the likelihood of engaging in problematic behaviors through direct personal or social control mechanisms, such as strong religious commitment or consistent parental sanctions, through encouraging participation in activities inherently incompatible with risky behaviors, including organized family or church group involvement, and through fostering commitments to conventional social institutions, such as educational systems or adult societal roles (Jessor et al., 1995). Protective influences, therefore, can be categorized into individual dimensions, including courageous coping strategies, hope, and spiritual perspectives; family dimensions, such as supportive family atmospheres and available familial resources; and social dimensions, exemplified by accessible health services and integration within social network (Ahern et al., 2006). Collectively, these conceptual frameworks emphasize that resilience arises from the dynamic interaction between adversity exposure and the activation of protective mechanisms, thereby highlighting the necessity for an integrated examination of vulnerability and strength within empirical resilience research.

Resilience is increasingly conceptualized not as a fixed trait but as a dynamic, stage-dependent process that captures the capacity of systems or individuals to absorb disturbances, adapt to evolving conditions, and ultimately transform into more robust configurations. At the systemic level, resilience comprises a resistance phase in which systems withstand shocks while maintaining core functions, followed by an adaptation phase characterized by reorganization in response to perturbations, and subsequently a transformation phase in which fundamental structural or functional shifts establish new equilibria (Bousquet et al., 2016; Freitas and Downey, 1998). Parallel scholarship has demonstrated that individual resilience similarly unfolds through distinct temporal stages, including initial disruption, adaptation, recovery, growth, and reintegration, with each stage marking shifts in coping strategies and developmental trajectories (Conz and Magnani, 2020). Critically, risk and protective factors are neither static nor uniform. Their composition, salience, and impact evolve across these stages, thus requiring continual cultivation of protective assets and strategic mitigation of vulnerabilities (de Terte et al., 2014). Within this framework, risk factors are defined as situational or dispositional characteristics that heighten susceptibility to adverse outcomes, and their influence varies depending on timing and contextual exposure. In contrast, protective factors, such as social support networks, self-efficacy beliefs, and inherent physiological robustness, can be systematically developed and reinforced over time, reflecting the complex interplay between biological maturation and environmental resources (Vella and Pai, 2019). Given that individual resilience involves cognitive restructuring, active adaptation, and proactive coping strategies, the resilience of veterans is similarly conceptualized as a dynamic and multi-phase process (Ungar and Theron, 2020). Veterans have indicated that their experiences of resilience involve adaptability when confronted with adversity, and such adaptability develops progressively over time. This developmental trajectory is responsive to psychological and social support interventions, indicating that resilience is not merely a static trait but can be fostered through deliberate practices and modifications of the environment (Merali, 2023).

Effective support for military veterans’ transitions must be grounded in an understanding of the dynamic characteristics of resilience, accompanied by the implementation of appropriately tailored measures. By clearly identifying differentiated structural features of resilience factors and effectively leveraging the inherent dynamism within resilience processes, support initiatives can be strategically designed to facilitate veterans’ smooth reintegration into civilian contexts. Although substantial research has examined veteran resilience, studies that investigate stage-specific attributes of resilience and corresponding support mechanisms designed according to these temporal characteristics remain sparse. Particularly, systematic analyses of the differentiated interplay between risk and protective factors across distinct resilience phases are lacking.

In the Chinese context, empirical investigation into the resilience processes of veterans has not yet begun. Scholars have identified various transitional challenges confronting military veterans, and the State has established a dedicated Ministry of Veterans Affairs and issued policy documents such as the “Opinions on Promoting Employment and Entrepreneurship for Veterans in the New Era” (《关于促进新时代退役军人就业创业工作的意见》), the “Guiding Opinions on Comprehensively Improving the Education and Training Work for Demobilized Soldiers” (《关于全面做好退役士兵教育培训工作的指导意见》), and the “Work Standards for Assisting and Supporting Veterans in Difficulty” (《困难退役军人帮扶援助工作规范》) to facilitate their transitions. Nevertheless, the conceptualization and practical operationalization of resilience remain absent from current academic discourse and policy implementation. As a result, existing policy frameworks risk adopting a uniform approach rather than providing interventions aligned with veterans’ evolving resilience trajectories. Such gaps restrict the practical effectiveness of current support mechanisms and impede the optimal implementation of relevant policies.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Research method

This study used grounded theory to systematically analyze extensive qualitative data, delineate veterans’ evolving resilience stages, and identify the distinct risk and protective factors associated with each phase. As a rigorous qualitative methodology, grounded theory generates multifaceted conceptual frameworks directly from systematic data collection and iterative analysis (Pan et al., 2023). Unlike deductive approaches, it forgoes predetermined hypotheses and instead relies on an inductive procedure that continuously compares new data with emerging concepts. In practice, grounded theory is particularly well suited to complex social phenomena because it keeps researchers receptive to unanticipated patterns in participants’ narratives and interactions, allowing theories to remain deeply rooted in empirical materials and responsive to lived complexity.

In resilience research, grounded theory demonstrates particular effectiveness by conceptualizing resilience as a dynamic process influenced by continuous interactions between encountered challenges and available resources, as highlighted by Nilakant et al. (2014). By enabling concepts derived inductively from veterans’ own accounts to surface, this approach provides a detailed depiction of individuals’ adaptive strategies, emotional regulation, and resource mobilization in response to adversity. Furthermore, grounded theory fosters a richly contextualized understanding of coping mechanisms and elucidates the synergistic interactions between risk exposure and protective supports within specific cultural and institutional contexts, as discussed by Ilias et al. (2019). Consequently, grounded theory offers significant theoretical depth and practical applicability, providing scholars and practitioners with a comprehensive framework for examining and enhancing resilience trajectories among diverse veteran populations.

This study specifically adopted the Straussian variant to inductively derive a staged model of veterans’ resilience while maintaining analytic rigor through constant comparison, theoretical sampling, and memoing (Corbin and Strauss, 2014). Following the initial–axial–selective coding sequence, we first conducted initial (open) coding to fracture transcripts line by line, naming incidents and specifying properties and dimensions; we then undertook axial coding to reassemble categories using the Straussian paradigm, thereby linking phase specific risks and protective processes into coherent explanatory relations; finally, selective coding integrated all major categories around a core category that captures the dynamic, multi-phase trajectory of resilience and its identity mechanisms.

2.2 Participants

Participants in this study were recruited through purposive sampling and snowball sampling implemented via the researchers’ social networks. These recruitment strategies were employed to facilitate the establishment of rapport and trust, thereby enabling participants to disclose comprehensive and candid accounts of their personal circumstances and to convey authentic emotional responses. The demographic and background characteristics of the participants are provided in Table 1.

2.3 Data collection and processing

All data were collected by the full author team through face to face, semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions. The interview protocol was carefully developed to align with the research objectives and with a particular focus on capturing dynamic changes in adaptive capacity. Open-ended prompts were designed to elicit detailed, narrative-style accounts of participants’ personal experiences. To ensure clarity, relevance, and logical flow, the guide was piloted with three veteran participants. Their feedback informed targeted refinements to the wording and sequencing of questions. After these revisions, formal interviews were carried out, during which respondents described the pivotal events and transitional experiences that shaped their resilience trajectories. The specific contents explored in these interviews are summarized in Table 2.

All volunteers received a comprehensive briefing about the study and were provided with 6 days to reflect before taking part in the interviews. They retained the right to withdraw at any point without consequence. To collect rich and contextually grounded data, in-depth interviews were conducted in quiet and standardized settings, most commonly in meeting rooms. During these sessions, researchers produced detailed handwritten notes and simultaneously recorded high-quality audio. Each interview lasted between 60 and 120 min and concluded when participants ceased to provide new insights, which indicated thematic saturation. All audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and stored securely in compliance with institutional data protection requirements. Transcripts from 37 interviews that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed thematically using NVivo 12.0. Of these, 25 were randomly selected for initial coding, and the remaining 12 were used to confirm data saturation and strengthen the reliability of the emergent coding framework.

3 Results

3.1 Open and axial coding process for veterans’ resilience stages

Following a rigorous process of qualitative data analysis, 168 statements were selected for open coding after multiple rounds of careful screening and verification to ensure both representativeness and analytical relevance. The research team carried out iterative, line by line coding to extract the core meanings and recurring patterns embedded within the raw data. Through continuous comparative analysis and refinement, semantically similar and thematically convergent codes were systematically consolidated, resulting in a total of 102 distinct initial categories that capture the nuanced characteristics of veterans’ resilience development. In the subsequent axial coding phase, these initial categories were further conceptualized and organized into coherent sub-categories that correspond with the dynamic stages of resilience progression. The hierarchical structure linking the main categories, sub-categories, and the corresponding initial categories is systematically presented in Table 3.

3.2 Open and axial coding of risk and protective factors across resilience stages

A total of 514 discrete statements were analyzed through open coding. The research team conducted multiple rounds of iterative comparison, categorization, and theoretical sensitivity refinement, systematically synthesizing semantically and conceptually similar units. This process resulted in 236 distinct initial categories. The procedure preserved the richness of the data while improving the conceptual clarity and consistency necessary for grounded theory development. Axial coding was then applied to further organize and refine these initial categories by establishing logical linkages and causal relationships among them. This stage-specific integration provided a dynamic understanding of how diverse micro-level experiences aligned with the broader trajectory of resilience formation. The resulting primary categories and their associated initial categories are presented in Table 4, which illustrates the layered complexity and stage-sensitive characteristics of the resilience mechanisms identified.

3.3 Selective coding and theoretical integration of the dynamic mechanism of veterans’ resilience

Based on the results derived from open and axial coding of veterans’ resilience across its dynamic stages, together with the associated risk and protective factors at each phase, a clear pattern of continuous evolution emerges, characterized by a dynamic interplay of reduction, transformation, and regeneration. Throughout these phases, risk and protection do not function as static entities but as interwoven and dialectical forces. During the initial stage of identity rupture, the sense of disorientation and identity fragmentation is partially alleviated by emotional support from family members and comrades. In the subsequent re-adaptation phase, the pressures of environmental and role adjustments are mitigated through the gradual emergence of new social belonging and acceptance. As veterans enter the growth transition phase, anxiety surrounding competition and self-expectations coexists with the progressive development of competencies and goal orientation, ultimately culminating in the advanced integration of personal identity and societal contribution. This dynamic trajectory highlights how risk factors act as catalysts for behavioral adaptation, compelling veterans to engage in coping strategies, while protective factors reinforce resilience and foster upward developmental momentum. These factors operate within a continuous feedback loop in which each exerts influence on the other. The selective coding of this dynamic mechanism is presented in Table 5, which delineates a five-stage framework grounded in the core trajectory of risk and protection. This structure reflects the transitions and evolving relationships between risk exposure and protective reinforcement across the stages of resilience development.

Anchored in the five-stage evolutionary framework, this model systematically integrates both risk and protective factors, along with their respective sources, into a coherent temporal trajectory of veterans’ resilience development. By delineating the specific triggering mechanisms that initiate each stage and the transformation mechanisms that drive progression to subsequent stages, the model captures the complex and dynamic interplay between vulnerability and adaptability throughout the resilience-building process. This analytical structure provides a comprehensive representation of how veterans navigate transitions from initial disruption through phases of adaptation, recovery, and growth, culminating in a state of advanced integration defined by identity reconstruction, social reintegration, and value contribution. The resulting dynamic mechanism diagram visually illustrates this transition from a predominantly risk-oriented phase to a mature stage of resilient integration, offering a theoretically grounded and empirically informed depiction of the resilience trajectory in the veteran population, as depicted in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Here we present two typical life history narratives that illustrate the developmental linkage and transformation mechanisms across the five phases which are Identity Separation, Adaptation Conflict, Readaptation and Reshaping, Resilience Leap, Societal Reintegration of veterans’ resilience.

Case 8. Following demobilization, he entered the Identity Separation stage in which an abrupt rupture of role identity and career direction left him briefly considering outside employment before local persuasion led him to remain and serve his village. During the subsequent Adaptation Conflict stage his early reinsertion revealed gaps in legitimacy and procedural norms and limited trust from villagers, creating situational strain and pressures on his credibility. Supported by family and comrades and through sustained immersion in daily village affairs he progressed into the Readaptation and Reshaping stage, rebuilding routines and cultivating a situated sense of belonging. A clear Resilience Leap occurred when the village committee collectively financed a pilot camellia project; the project produced visible yields and mobilized external support, which together converted local skepticism into a shared sense of efficacy. Over successive seasons camellia revenues broadened participation and improved living standards, and his personal achievement became closely linked to community welfare, marking Societal Reintegration in which identity reconstruction, external recognition, and place-based value contribution converged into a stable social position. Taken together this life history exemplifies a reduction, transformation, and regeneration dynamic in which early disorientation and distrust catalyze adaptive problem solving that, when reinforced by protective resources, culminates in durable and socially validated confidence.

Case 9. On returning to civilian life, he underwent Identity Separation as the abrupt loss of military routines undermined daily anchors of identity and required a reconfiguration of personal purpose. Entering the Adaptation Conflict stage, his move into agricultural entrepreneurship confronted chain closure and marketization challenges that demanded both successful production and successful sales, thereby intensifying capability environment frictions. He then adopted a periodized strategy that constituted the Readaptation and Reshaping stage by framing a difficult 3–5 years startup period followed by a 5–10 years development cycle; this temporal structuring stabilized goals and provided a framework for competency consolidation. By leveraging institutional linkages such as interest subsidized financing and targeted policy programs he initiated a Resilience Leap that compressed transactional frictions and converted uncertainty into growth momentum. Accumulating recognition allowed him to diffuse disciplined, military honed execution norms into enterprise practice and to assume a teaching role at the district Party school for successive cohorts of veterans, reflecting Societal Reintegration in which confidence is grounded in system level endorsement rather than solitary struggle. This trajectory traces the full five stage mechanism and demonstrates how iterative interactions between risk exposure and protective reinforcement progressively reconfigure vulnerability into a stable identity of contribution and leadership.

3.4 Assessment of saturation

We assessed conceptual coverage by conducting a theoretical saturation exercise aligned with grounded theory procedures. After performing open and axial coding on 25 interviews to develop the codebook and the preliminary model, we constructed a saturation grid that mapped all emergent initial concepts, categories and inter-category relationships to specific cases. Applying the constant comparison method, we then coded an additional set of 12 interviews held aside for saturation testing, resolved coding discrepancies through consensus meetings and preserved a complete audit trail. For case selection the research team actively sought and examined negative and deviant cases via theoretical sampling to test emerging propositions and probe boundary conditions, and these cases were explicitly compared with the developing paradigm linkages. Across the saturation set no new initial concepts emerged, no existing categories required modification or further subdivision and no novel relationships between categories were identified, with all data accommodated within the established coding framework. Analytic memos recorded increasing conceptual density and redundancy and our a priori stopping criterion of two consecutive interviews yielding no additional codes or links was met within the saturation sample, indicating that thematic saturation at the group level had been achieved.

4 Discussion

4.1 Dynamic structure of risk and protection within veterans’ resilience mechanisms

The resilience of veterans during their reintegration into civilian society is not a linear phenomenon but a complex and dynamic process that evolves across multiple stages. Drawing on grounded theory analysis and a five-stage coding model comprising Identity Separation, Adaptation Conflict, Readaptation and Reshaping, Resilience Leap, and Societal Reintegration, this study constructs a theoretical framework that explains how risk factors and protective factors interact within each stage and collectively shape the trajectory of veterans’ resilience.

In the Identity Separation stage, veterans often experience an abrupt break from military norms that causes emotional instability, role ambiguity, and disconnection from institutions. “When I suddenly lost contact with my comrades in arms, I felt lost and unsettled” (case 23). “Suddenly, my goals don’t feel so clear anymore” (case 7). “When I was about to be discharged, just thinking about what I could do back home got me all worked up; I didn’t know what kind of job I could do” (case 9). “The skills learned in the army are all military skills, which are basically not usable in study or work” (case 21). These risks undermine a veteran’s sense of belonging and routine competence. They also make it hard to navigate civilian institutions when administrative procedures and campus rhythms no longer match prior military experience. Protective resources reduce these threats through close relationships and targeted supports. “Overall, it’s the family that has offered more care and also some financial support” (case 11). “With former comrades, we used to talk a lot while serving; after returning to our local communities, we keep communicating and exchanging with each other” (case 4). “A veteran who had been discharged before me rode his bike and took me here and there; although he was a stranger, he made me feel very warm” (case 15). In sum, the stage is risk-dominant: identity disruption and resource gaps drive the process, while family support, comradeship, and campus networks act as stabilizing buffers that prevent psychological breakdown and help veterans move gradually toward later reintegration phases.

The Adaptation Conflict stage appears when veterans face clear role dissonance and trouble readjusting everyday routines. It builds on the ruptured sense of belonging and the procedural opacity seen in the Identity Separation stage. In this phase, friction grows between the rigidity of military discipline and the flexibility required by civilian life. Stress comes from identity uncertainty, mismatched daily rhythms, and cultural barriers. At the same time, protection increasingly comes from intentional strategies and social supports that help gradual reintegration. “To fit in, I need to set aside my former identity as a soldier and accept society’s standards” (case 17). “Sometimes I’m still unsure whether I’m an ordinary civilian or a veteran, there’s a bit of identity blur” (case 18). These accounts show how ambiguous role positioning and unclear labels create psychological strain. “After coming back, for quite a long time my routines didn’t align with those of my family and friends, and people would wonder whether I was keeping my distance from them” (case 9). This example demonstrates how different daily rhythms and habits can block peer integration. Veterans also adopt deliberate learning and use social resources to manage tensions. “Others can finish learning it in a day; I often need a day and a half, but as long as I make up for it little by little, I keep moving forward” (case 19). “In the Camouflage Association, those who returned in the same year are more familiar with one another; everyone is very warm and we help each other” (case 16). “We veterans take part in trainings to learn more new knowledge, which makes us more confident in our work” (case 8). These examples illustrate proactive skill remediation, mutual assistance, and targeted training that increase self-efficacy and turn procedural help and information into steady progress despite ongoing role conflict and cultural adaptation pressures.

In the Readaptation and Reshaping stage, veterans still face structural pressures while internal dynamics begin to shift as adaptive processes take hold. Persistent academic burdens manifest as having to retake foundational courses with an overloaded timetable so that the “sophomore schedule was almost full from Monday to Friday and sometimes even on Saturdays” (case 18). Exam-related uncertainty appears when a veteran reports “failing the postgraduate entrance exam and debates whether to try again or switch to the civil-service exam” (case 16). Skills-transfer barriers remain pronounced for those who find that “military skills are not readily usable after discharge unless they re-enter specific professions such as police or firefighting” (case 21). Despite these risks, protective mechanisms emerge. Collective economic initiatives restored confidence when “pooled village funds produced a successful first harvest and people gradually regained confidence” (case 8). Structured mentorship and peer support from teachers and senior students provided guidance on academic policies and timely reminders that helped veterans navigate institutional requirements. (case 17) Informal hands-on learning strengthened practical abilities when an experienced veteran led equipment upgrades and trainees acquired strong hands-on skills. (case 5) Together, these risk and protective factors show how ongoing external demands interact with growing personal efficacy, social linkage, and role adaptation, converting continual stressors into opportunities for learning and identity reconstruction even though full social integration has not yet been achieved.

The Resilience Leap stage represents a nonlinear acceleration in capacity development and intrinsic motivation. Veterans at this stage translate stabilized routines and growing self-efficacy into proactive, future-oriented initiatives. Risks here arise less from basic adaptation needs and more from fluctuating motivation, capability bottlenecks, and intensified competition for scarce resources. For example, some veterans report an insufficient sense of achievement that undermines sustained effort. One veteran stated, “At the moment I haven’t achieved much of anything” (case11). Others describe vague goal definitions that limit directional progress. A veteran observed, “When it comes to setting goals, I do have goals, but they’re not clearly defined” (case20). Capability barriers further constrain advancement. As one veteran admitted, “My learning ability has declined. Secondly, I need to improve capabilities and qualities” (case1). Resource competition amplifies pressure when platforms and opportunities are perceived as limited. One veteran noted, “First, perhaps there aren’t enough platforms… we need to build platforms to bring in government and grassroots social organizations” (case10). Protective processes counterbalance these risks. Veterans consolidate leadership and practical skills. One shared, “You have to rally the villagers, nothing gets done by fighting alone” (case16). Others embrace active, iterative learning. For example, a veteran said, “At the beginning I learned from experienced colleagues and asked whenever I didn’t understand… over the years I’ve become quite proficient” (case3). Clear goal orientation and honor-driven civic motivation also provide protection. One veteran explained, “I’m someone with very clear goals” (case4). Another added, “Many veterans join volunteer work to give back to society, driven by a soldier’s sense of duty” (case10). Together, these risk and protective patterns signal a shift from mere coping toward structured self-actualization. Targeted support for goal clarity, capability upgrading, and platform access can transform emerging vulnerabilities into durable growth pathways.

In the Societal Reintegration stage, veterans face persistent challenges related to identity reintegration, uneven social recognition, and ongoing service obligations. These pressures become apparent in veterans’ own accounts. Case 17 illustrates identity tension: “You have to integrate into the environment, let go of the former identity.” Case 18 highlights limited social engagement channels: “Have you interacted with local community organizations? No… There isn’t a way to get in touch, no channel to connect.” Case 5 shows material and logistical strains from routine public duties: “Carrying out many tasks even requires us to pay out of pocket.” Protective processes that support resilience emerge through intentional identity reconstruction and institutional recognition. Case 4 captures this: “Since I joined the village committee in 2018, I’ve received county and city level awards almost every year. That is the government’s recognition of our work, and these results spur us to work even harder.” Experiential mentorship and knowledge transfer also play a role, as in case 16: “When younger students ask about enlisting, I answer warmly and share what I know.” Finally, sustained family encouragement provides support, exemplified by case 25: “My family, there’s a lot of encouragement and help from them.” Taken together, these risk and protective factors suggest that resilience at this stage arises not solely from individual adaptation, but from the alignment of multiple social identities, accessible channels for contribution, and tangible recognition. Veterans who experience this alignment report greater wellbeing, more stable social returns, and a consolidated, advanced state of resilience.

4.2 Core features of the veterans’ resilience development pathway

Unlike prior studies that primarily corroborate the roles of social support, identity reconstruction, and resource accessibility in veterans’ resilience (e.g., Li et al., 2023; Pietrzak and Cook, 2013), the veterans’ resilience development pathway in this study departed from a purely confirmatory account and reinterprets phase specific functioning across Identity Separation and Societal Reintegration. Building on rigorous empirical investigation and a systematically developed grounded theory approach, we specify how early relational buffering, especially from family, peers, and institutions, mitigates identity detachment during initial disorientation, and how later protective processes shift toward social achievement, relational restoration, and multi-role integration during reintegration. On this empirical and theoretical basis, the study advances existing frameworks by proposing three distinctive mechanisms that refine rather than merely align with prior theory: (1) policy exposure as an identity validating resource, whereby institutional contact confers symbolic recognition that stabilizes role identity beyond instrumental support; (2) peacetime demobilization induced identity rupture within a collectivist cultural context, in which organizational withdrawal and value dissonance, rather than combat trauma, constitute the primary stressors that shape the temporal evolution of protective factors; (3) role backlash among high functioning veterans after reintegration, capturing paradoxical pressures such as anxiety about sustaining contribution, emotional fatigue, and dissonance between achievement and recognition that persist beneath outward success. Together, these mechanisms extend phase-specific resilience theory by clarifying how protective resources transform across transitions and by identifying previously under theorized identity processes in collectivist settings.

Different from traditional general resilience models that conceptualize resilience as a static personality trait or as a linear process of returning to a pre-crisis equilibrium (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten, 2001), resilience among veterans is described as a temporally structured and multi-phase developmental trajectory that is rooted in identity shifts and ecological interactions. A distinctive characteristic of veterans’ resilience lies in its phase specific delineation of risks, progressing from early identity dislocation and social withdrawal, through mid-phase cultural dissonance and role ambiguity, and culminating in late phase pressures associated with social contribution and symbolic recognition. This dynamic risk structure differs from previous models, which often classify adversity as acute or chronic without fully accounting for transitional variability. Protective factors are also presented as evolving across these phases. They begin as relational anchors such as family and comrades, extend into structural scaffolds including institutional mentoring and policy support, and ultimately develop into internalized capacities such as civic engagement and future-oriented planning. Crucially, our findings refine existing theory by showing how policy exposure functions as identity validation: the visibility and accessibility of reintegration policies transform external scaffolds into internalized commitments, positioning adversity as a catalyst for identity expansion and psychosocial growth rather than as a fixed psychological threat. The Societal Reintegration phase thus extends beyond individual adaptation to highlight relational reconstruction, civic reintegration, and pluralistic identity integration. This interpretation foregrounds the policy system’s identity-validating function within the institutional ecology, thereby effecting a substantive extension of existing theory.

Veteran-specific resilience literature, predominantly from American, Canadian, and Israeli contexts, typically defines resilience either as an outcome such as the absence of PTSD or stable employment, or as a latent psychological trait such as grit or emotion regulation (Mobbs and Bonanno, 2018; Pietrzak and Cook, 2013; King et al., 1999). These perspectives are largely derived from post-traumatic models focused on combat-intensive populations. In contrast, this framework reconceptualizes resilience as a longitudinal identity transformation that is shaped by phase-specific psychosocial dynamics. It partially aligns with ecological and adaptive models (Ungar, 2011) but extends them by placing emphasis on reconstruction, integration, and contribution across sociocultural and institutional transitions, which remain underexplored in current theories. Distinctively, in a collectivist cultural context where military belonging is symbolically and institutionally reinforced, peacetime demobilization produces an identity rupture that is not rooted in combat trauma but in the abrupt withdrawal of organizational structures and the fragmentation of shared values. In contrast with trauma-centered models grounded in post-combat experiences (Bonanno et al., 2012; Ackerman, 1945; Mobbs and Bonanno, 2018), Chinese veterans typically demobilize under peacetime conditions. Their psychological distress arises more from institutional detachment and value dissonance than from combat trauma. Resilience is therefore conceptualized as a response to abrupt organizational withdrawal and fragmented sociocultural norms. Veterans face unfamiliar civilian expectations, weakened support infrastructures, and the uncertainties of a market-based society. This framing moves beyond trauma recovery and reflects a process of renegotiating identity and value within a civilian context. Unlike developmental or displacement frameworks, such as those addressing child development or refugee resettlement where identity remains in formation, veterans transition from rigid institutional roles to ambiguous and discontinuous civilian expectations (Demers, 2011; McDaniel et al., 2024). The findings illustrate a dynamic identity trajectory that progresses from rupture to hybrid integration, which is most apparent in the Resilience Leap and Societal Reintegration phases. This trajectory advances role theory by underscoring identity instability, rather than fixed deficits, as a principal mediator of reintegration outcomes.

While prior studies frequently treat reintegration as the final endpoint of resilience (Saleem et al., 2020; Romaniuk et al., 2024), the framework presented here identifies emerging psychosocial pressures among high-functioning veterans. These include anxiety over sustained contribution, emotional fatigue, weakened peer relationships, and dissonance with institutional recognition, which are collectively referred to as role backlash. This concept reflects a paradox in which veterans who appear socially successful may privately experience psychological strain and relational challenges. Our model therefore extends existing theory by introducing role backlash as a late-phase vulnerability that can be precipitated by rapid upward mobility and heightened expectations in civic and occupational arenas. Such post-reintegration vulnerabilities challenge the prevailing assumption that external success equates to inner resilience and reveal the need for ongoing, identity-validating policy exposures that convert achievement into durable belonging. They expand theoretical and policy perspectives on resilience beyond trauma recovery by emphasizing the necessity of sustainable identity validation and enduring support mechanisms.

4.3 Areas requiring strengthening within the dynamic development of veterans’ resilience

Government policies for veterans in China are disproportionately concentrated on the initial phases of transition, including Identity Separation and Adaptation Conflict, where risks are most apparent and politically sensitive. These policies primarily involve subsidies, employment guidance, and similar measures. However, mechanisms of support for subsequent phases, including reintegration and identity reconstruction, remain significantly insufficient. This situation reflects the absence of a comprehensive full-cycle support framework and the lack of mechanisms for long-term risk tracking. In the absence of continuous institutional involvement, veterans entering the Resilience Leap and Societal Reintegration phases frequently encounter a shortage of psychological guidance, social empowerment, and recognition of their roles. Consequently, this can result in developmental stagnation, persistent ambiguity in social and personal roles, or even regression into maladaptive coping strategies, despite the fact that early-stage support had previously demonstrated effectiveness.

Across all five stages of resilience development, protective factors are primarily derived from the individual level, including self-discipline, willpower, and personal planning, while the contributions of families, communities, and broader social networks remain comparatively limited. This pattern underscores that external buffering and collective responsibility are relatively insufficient within veterans’ processes of social adaptation. The limited involvement of familial and societal actors not only exacerbates psychological isolation but also contributes to deficiencies in identity validation and social recognition. Over time, veterans may begin to perceive resilience as an individual burden, which can ultimately result in emotional fatigue and relational withdrawal.

Currently, mental health interventions for veterans remain reactionary. Structured psychological education is lacking, particularly in addressing emotional fluctuations and role transitions across the different stages of resilience development. No institutional framework has yet been established to deliver stage-specific psychological services that respond to the diverse needs arising throughout resilience progression. As a result, many veterans, especially during the Resilience Leap phase, are left without structured coping mechanisms for managing contribution pressure, identity ambiguity, or uncertainties regarding social belonging. Over time, this absence of guidance contributes to underdiagnosed psychological distress and inadequate emotional support for growth and sustainable reintegration.

Veteran support structures are fragmented across multiple administrative bodies, including the Veterans Affairs Bureau, Civil Affairs, Education, and Employment departments, without cohesive channels for coordination or information exchange. As veterans move through successive resilience stages, the absence of continuity and interdepartmental data sharing results in repeated eligibility screenings, inconsistent service provision, and diminished overall efficiency and accessibility of intervention measures.

Even after achieving surface-level reintegration, numerous veterans continue to grapple with internal uncertainty, social misalignment, or role fatigue. Current systems seldom monitor or address these late-stage risks. Mechanisms for evaluating long-term role satisfaction or alignment with social contribution expectations remain scarce. In the absence of post-integration follow-up, veterans who outwardly appear well-adjusted may nonetheless encounter role dissonance, unmet emotional needs, or disengagement from civic service. These unaddressed challenges can result in a gradual erosion of resilience and undermine the sustainability of prior support efforts.

4.4 Policy implications for strengthening veterans’ resilience

Veteran support policies need to cover the entire resilience cycle. This requires the development of a modular support system designed around five development stages, which are Identity Separation, Adaptation Conflict, readjustment, Resilience Leap, and reintegration. At each stage, policy measures should incorporate tailored psychological services, structured social mentorship networks, and clearly defined reintegration benchmarks. Government agencies are expected to coordinate their actions through a unified digital system that enables continuous risk monitoring and ensures timely transitions of support across stages. Such a full-cycle framework minimizes points of disengagement and maintains the adaptive progression of veterans throughout the reintegration process.

The long-term development of veterans’ resilience depends on the embeddedness and operational effectiveness of grassroots service networks. Local governments are advised to strengthen existing community level veteran service stations and neighborhood committees so that they function as frontline actors in resilience building. These grassroots platforms need to evolve from mere administrative contact points into multi-functional service hubs. Beyond managing formal documentation, these stations should be equipped to provide psychological counseling and emotional support. Incorporating peer veterans who have successfully transitioned into service delivery enhances credibility and allows guidance to be delivered in a relatable manner. Partnerships with local communities and civic organizations can further integrate veterans into broader support networks, thereby alleviating social isolation. Reinforcing grassroots service ecosystems ensures that resilience development remains closely aligned with local conditions and that interventions are sustained through relational trust and continuous engagement in daily community life.

Many resilience breakdowns originate from the absence of anticipatory guidance during the transition from military to civilian life. The Ministry of Veterans Affairs should incorporate structured resilience curricula into pre-discharge training programs. These curricula should include training on stress management, strategies for adaptive role transition, and psychoeducation focused on emotional regulation. The programs should be tailored according to service duration, specific military position, and anticipated civilian role. Providing cognitive behavioral training and workshops on narrative identity reconstruction prior to discharge can alleviate emotional turbulence and establish realistic psychological expectations for civilian life.

Fragmented access to services remains a significant barrier, but China’s ongoing integrated e-government reforms offer a feasible pathway for policy expansion. In line with the State Council’s 2018 “Guiding Opinions on Accelerating the National Integrated Online Government Service Platform” (《国务院关于加快建设全国一体化政务服务平台的指导意见》), veteran-related resources can be gradually federated, rather than immediately centralized, through existing “one-stop” government portals that support cross departmental data sharing and workflow collaboration, including unified identity/authentication, electronic certificates, and data exchange. In practice, several localities are already piloting veteran focused “one-stop” service packages within provincial or municipal portals, demonstrating a scalable pathway from localized pilots to broader implementation based on local readiness. Instead of mandating rigid biannual checks or creating an entirely new cross departmental system, we propose a staged integration approach: (1) map veteran service items already required under the “2018 Employment and Entrepreneurship Support Opinions” (《关于促进新时代退役军人就业创业工作的意见（2018）》), including training, educational benefits, and job-matching, into existing portals; (2) introduce optional self-assessment modules aligned with the five stages resilience framework; and (3) leverage analytics on service utilization patterns to identify early risk signals for local follow up, consistent with the e-government principles of process traceability and data sharing.

Evidence from China’s current veteran policy mix indicates an expanding grassroots service infrastructure and increasing attention to health and psychological support. According to the Ministry of Veterans Affairs’ task briefs (2019) and provincial “Service Center/Station Construction Guides,” counties, townships, and communities are establishing standardized service stations capable of routine outreach, satisfaction surveys, and referrals functions that naturally facilitate lightweight, periodic follow-ups without requiring a new national mandate. Based on such documents, we recommend piloting confidential role satisfaction surveys, employer and family feedback channels, and targeted mental health consultations embedded within existing stations. These measures should be iteratively refined using real world feedback. Institutionalized yet proportionate monitoring can provide continuous, locally adapted support and reduce the risk of late-stage vulnerabilities being overlooked.

5 Limitations

This study presents a comprehensive and process-oriented model of resilience development among veterans, grounded in qualitative data and informed by grounded theory. Several limitations should be noted to contextualize the scope and applicability of the findings. Although the five-stage resilience model was rigorously derived through extensive coding of interview transcripts and institutional documents, it remains largely interpretive. The framework enhances conceptual clarity, yet quantitative validation is required to determine the relative effects of various risk and protective factors at each stage. Future research may employ longitudinal survey data or mixed-methods approaches to test causal relationships and confirm the temporal sequencing outlined in this study.

While the model provides a structured understanding of stage-specific resilience dynamics, it does not currently include real time monitoring or assessment tools for practical use. Future work could focus on developing resilience stage indices or digital intervention systems to help veterans and policymakers identify vulnerabilities and act proactively. Further investigation into how institutional and social ecosystems can be systematically aligned with stage-specific needs remains essential for achieving translational impact.

6 Conclusion

This research contributes to the expanding literature on veteran reintegration and resilience by constructing a dynamic, stage-sensitive model tailored to the post service context. It demonstrates that veterans’ resilience is neither a static trait nor a mere return to pre-disruption functioning, but rather a long-term transformation driven by identity, characterized by fluid risks, shifting support structures, and evolving personal and institutional demands. The proposed five-phase model, which spans Identity Separation, Adaptation Conflict, Resocialization, Resilience Leap, and Societal Reintegration, provides an explanatory framework that integrates psychological, social, and policy dimensions.

The study emphasizes the misalignment between concentrated early-stage policy support and the emergence of risks in later stages, revealing institutional deficiencies in sustaining resilience cultivation. It further identifies the imbalance between individual-centered resilience efforts and the insufficient development of community and family support systems. By connecting these findings with tangible policy shortcomings such as fragmented inter-agency coordination and the lack of consistent post-integration feedback, the study outlines actionable directions for system level reform. Overall, this research not only advances theoretical understanding of the complex resilience trajectories of veterans in peacetime but also lays a solid foundation for targeted interventions, innovative policy design, and comparative international studies.

References

• 1

  AckermanN. W. (1945). Psychiatric disorders in servicemen and veterans.Am. J. Orthopsychiatry15352–360. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1945.tb04950.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AhernN. R.KiehlE. M.Lou SoleM.ByersJ. (2006). A review of instruments measuring resilience.Issues Comprehens. Pediatric Nurs.29103–125. 10.1080/01460860600677643

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BonannoG. A.ManciniA. D.HortonJ. L.PowellT. M.LeardMannC. A.BoykoE. J.et al (2012). Trajectories of trauma symptoms and resilience in deployed US military service members: Prospective cohort study.Br. J. Psychiatry200317–323. 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096552

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BonannoG. A.WestphalM.ManciniA. D. (2011). Resilience to loss and potential trauma.Ann. Rev. Clin. Psychol.7511–535. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104526

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BousquetF.BottaA.AlinoviL.BarreteauO.BossioD.BrownK. (2016). Resilience and development: Mobilizing for transformation.Ecol. Soc.21:40. 10.5751/ES-08754-210340

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  ConzE.MagnaniG. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A systematic literature review and a framework for future research.Eur. Manag. J.38400–412. 10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  CrammH.SmithR. G.SamdupD.WilliamsA.RühlandL. (2020). Charting a course to support military families navigating service systems for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A qualitative study.J. Military Veteran Family Health.650–59. 10.3138/jmvfh-2018-0047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  de TerteI.StephensC.HuddlestonL. (2014). The development of a three part model of psychological resilience.Stress Health30416–424. 10.1002/smi.2625

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  DemersA. (2011). When veterans return: The role of community in reintegration.J. Loss Trauma16160–179. 10.1080/15325024.2010.519281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  DiamantN. J.O’BrienK. J. (2015). Veterans’ political activism in China.Modern China41278–312. 10.1177/0097700414533631

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  EshelY.KimhiS. (2016). Determinants of individual resilience following missile attacks: A new perspective.Personal. Individ. Differ.95190–195. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  FogleB. M.TsaiJ.MotaN.Harpaz-RotemI.KrystalJ. H.SouthwickS. M.et al (2020). The national health and resilience in veterans study: A narrative review and future directions.Front. Psychiatry11:538218. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.538218

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  FreitasA. L.DowneyG. (1998). Resilience: A dynamic perspective.Intern. J. Behav. Dev.22263–285. 10.1080/016502598384379

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  HuJ.WuT. (2021). Emotional mobilization of Chinese veterans: Collective activism, flexible governance and dispute resolution.J. Contemp. China30451–464. 10.1080/10670564.2020.1827356

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  Hunter-Johnson, Y.NiuY.SmithS.WhitakerB.WellsR.CharkasovaA. (2020). The veteran employees: Recruitment, career development, engagement, and job satisfaction of veterans transitioning to the civilian workforce.New Direct. Adult Continuing Educ.166139–150. 10.1002/ace.20389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  IliasK.CornishK.ParkM. S. A.ToranH.GoldenK. J. (2019). Risk and resilience among mothers and fathers of primary school age children with ASD in Malaysia: A qualitative constructive grounded theory approach.Front. Psychol.9:2275. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02275

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  JessorR.Van Den BosJ.VanderrynJ.CostaF. M.TurbinM. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change.Dev. Psychol.31923–933. 10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  KingD. W.KingL. A.FoyD. W.KeaneT. M.FairbankJ. A. (1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of female and male Vietnam veterans: Risk factors, war-zone stressors, and resilience-recovery variables.J. Abnormal Psychol.108164–170. 10.1037/0021-843X.108.1.164

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  KirbyL. D.FraserM. W. (1997). “Risk and resilience in childhood,” in Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective, ed.FraserM. W. (Washington, DC: NASW Press).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  LiH.ZhangN.ZhangJ.XieT.HeR.JiangY.et al (2023). The role of military service in preventing depression in China: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal survey.BMC Public Health23:2447. 10.1186/s12889-023-17317-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  LutharS. S.CushingG. (1999). “Measurement issues in the empirical study of resilience: An overview,” in Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations, edsGlantzM. D.JohnsonJ. L. (New York, NY: Plenum), 129–160. 10.1007/0-306-47167-1_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  LutharS. S.CicchettiD.BeckerB. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work.Child Dev.71543–562. 10.1111/1467-8624.00164

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  MastenA. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.Am. Psychol.56227–238. 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.227

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  McDanielJ. T.HensonH.DeRuntzB.BrownD.Hunter-JohnsonY.AlbrightD. L. (2024). Rural military veterans of color and STEM occupational outcomes.Armed Forces Soc.50913–930. 10.1177/0095327X231152265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  MeraliA. (2023). “Resilience is expected in the Forces”. A qualitative study to explore what military veterans understand resilience to mean. dissertation/doctor’s thesis, Colchester: University of Essex.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  MobbsM. C.BonannoG. A. (2018). Beyond war and PTSD: The crucial role of transition stress in the lives of military veterans.Clin. Psychol. Rev.59137–144. 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  NilakantV.WalkerB.van HeugenK.BairdR.De VriesH. (2014). Research note: Conceptualising adaptive resilience using grounded theory.New Zealand J. Employment Relat.3979–86. 10.3316/informit.676517104077333

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  PanX.ZhaoX.ShenH. (2023). The concept, influence, and mechanism of human work interruptions based on the grounded theory.Front. Psychol.14:1044233. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1044233

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  PietrzakR. H.CookJ. M. (2013). Psychological resilience in older U.S. veterans: Results from the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study.Dep. Anxiety30432–443. 10.1002/da.22083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  RomaniukM.Saunders-DowE.BrownK.BatterhamP. J. (2024). Feasibility, acceptability, and initial outcomes of a psychological adjustment and reintegration program for transitioned military veterans.BMC Psychol.12:597. 10.1186/s40359-024-02097-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  SaleemJ. J.MoonB.BrossE.AndersS.ConwayB.WilckN. R.et al (2020). Understanding veteran attitudes, interests, and needs around virtual care applications.Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergonom. Soc. Ann. Meet.64731–735. 10.1177/1071181320641169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  ShiJ. (2025). How population ageing drives up China’s military spending: A securitization framework analysis.China Inform.393–29. 10.1177/0920203X241300395

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  TusaieK.DyerJ. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of the construct.Holistic Nursing Pract.183–8; quiz 9–10. 10.1097/00004650-200401000-00002.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  UngarM. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct.Am. J. Orthopsychiatry811–17. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  UngarM. (2018). Systemic resilience: Principles and processes for a science of change in contexts of adversity.Ecol. Soc.23:34. 10.5751/ES-10385-230434

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  UngarM.TheronL. (2020). Resilience and mental health: How multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes.Lancet Psychiatry7441–448. 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30434-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  VellaS. L. C.PaiN. B. (2019). A theoretical review of psychological resilience: Defining resilience and resilience research over the decades.Arch. Med. Health Sci.7233–239. 10.4103/amhs.amhs_119_19

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  YangK. (2024). Demobilizing veterans: Campaign-style stability maintenance in China.Modern China50469–497. 10.1177/00977004231209992

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar