Military training often deliberately exposes recruits to stress through yelling, harsh criticism, intimidation, physical exhaustion, frustration, or public correction. These practices are commonly justified as ways to build resilience, discipline, and the ability to function under pressure.
From a psychological perspective, however, I’m interested in how we can distinguish controlled stress exposure with a legitimate training purpose from emotionally abusive treatment.
For example, would factors such as predictability, proportionality, a clear training objective, instructor emotional control, supervision, psychological safety, and post-exercise debriefing make an important difference? Conversely, would humiliation for its own sake, arbitrary punishment, expressions of contempt, or an instructor’s genuine loss of emotional control be psychologically different even if they occur within a stressful training environment?
More specifically, is there empirical research showing that interpersonal stressors such as yelling or humiliation improve resilience or performance under later high-stress conditions, rather than primarily producing compliance or habituation to authority?
I’m interested in psychological research on stress inoculation, resilience training, learning, occupational psychology, or military psychology that could help establish where productive stress ends and psychologically harmful treatment begins.