The Role of Religion in Military Socialisation: Toward an Integrative Model

Abstract

This study examines religion as a potent pre-socialisation factor in modern military socialisation, exploring how sacred roots and transcendent anchors influence the formation of military identity. By synthesising Ecological Systems Theory, the Religion–Military Model, and an Integrative Model, the analysis frames religiosity as a multidimensional construct that shapes integration across macro (societal), meso (organisational), and micro (individual) levels. The research reveals the dualistic nature of religious influence. On the one hand, religious pre-socialisation instils a habitus defined by normative commitment, sacrificial ethics, and ritual familiarity. These elements facilitate Person–Organisation fit and act as catalysts for identity fusion, where personal agency is united with the group’s strength. On the other hand, the study identifies a critical theological and psychological vulnerability: moral injury. When absolute religious commandments—such as the sanctity of life—collide with the lethal demands of combat, an irresolvable normative conflict arises, mirroring historical tensions between the Christian conscience and the sacramentum. By identifying strategic intervention points for chaplaincy and leadership, the study demonstrates that integrating the religious dimension is not only an ethical duty but a prerequisite for maintaining triadic equilibrium, resilience, and institutional stability.

1. Introduction

Military culture, characterised by strong and distinctive features, and the military profession itself, shape the values, beliefs, and behavioural patterns of service members (Sachdev and Dixit 2024). Military culture is defined by a collectivist outlook, self-sacrifice, masculinity, duty fulfilment, honour, obedience, loyalty, and patriotism (Collins 1998). However, the structure of these values and the unconditional commitment they demand possess roots that are not only organisational but also deep, and often sacred. The distinct characteristics of this organisational culture are closely intertwined with the high-risk potential inherent in military roles. Tasks that pose a threat to physical and mental health necessitate the cultivation of values (such as self-sacrifice and duty fulfilment) and behavioural patterns that enable effective functioning under extreme conditions. The acquisition of these values and behavioural patterns takes place through the process of military socialisation.

Military socialisation plays a central role in transmitting organisational culture, preparing individuals for high-risk tasks, and transforming civilian identity. It serves a pivotal function in achieving organisational goals, ensuring daily operations, and mitigating risk factors affecting personnel. At the individual level, the training period creates an environment characterised by extreme stressors, compelling the individual towards psychological adaptation (Novaco et al. 1983). The isolation of trainees, the necessity of cognitive coping (Novaco et al. 1983), and the confrontation with a ‘total institution’ (Goffman 1958) generate a powerful socialisation setting (Darr 2011). In this context, individuals’ coping strategies undergo transformation: cognitive reappraisal, coping self-statements, sequential coping, and social support become more intensely activated and functionally integrated into the behavioural repertoire. This process serves a dual purpose: on the one hand, it ensures organisational effectiveness and group cohesion; on the other, it functions as a protective factor for the individual’s mental health, reducing the risk of long-term psychological damage (Sachdev and Dixit 2024). Within this protective mechanism, modern research attributes increasing significance to transcendent anchors that provide meaning to suffering.

Beyond the transformation of coping strategies, military socialisation also influences the manifestation of personality traits. Regarding this influence, scholarly opinions diverge significantly on the depth of personality trait change. While some authors argue for profound structural changes in core personality traits due to military conditioning, others conceptualise the change as merely an amplification or suppression of specific behavioural responses. In the present study, I interpret the extent of this change dynamically, linking it directly to the duration of the individual’s career trajectory.

Within this framework, the military environment, acting as a ‘strong situation’ with clear rules, consequences, and restricted behavioural latitude, constrains the expression of individual differences (Meyer et al. 2010). In this context, traits compatible with the profession (e.g., conscientiousness, discipline) become more predictive of performance, whilst the manifestation of incompatible traits (e.g., openness, individuality) is suppressed. Socialisation thus shapes the behavioural repertoire and the expression of personality traits (Darr 2011). The values, norms, and behavioural patterns internalised during socialisation, and subsequently throughout the career, also manifest in civilian life. These may be expressed in interpersonal relationships, habits (rituals), communication, specific practical skills, and the need for belonging (McCaslin et al. 2021). Overall, the impact of the military profession is extensive and complex: it is not confined to the work environment and task execution but permeates broader dimensions of the individual’s identity and way of life. This ‘total’ demand functionally parallels the nature of religious communities, where the believer’s identity likewise overrides individual preferences.

The changes detected at the individual level also serve the realisation of organisational goals. The formation of a military identity increases the individual’s willingness to execute high-risk tasks. Recent research attributes this to the phenomenon of identity fusion, which motivates individuals to channel their personal agency into group behaviour (Swann et al. 2012). The psychological mechanism of fusion parallels the intensity of religious commitment: in both cases, sacrifice for the ‘sacred cause’ and the group interest becomes the paramount norm. The degree of identity fusion influences functionality. Where the intertwining of the individual and the organisation is stronger, helping behaviour within the group and task-oriented behaviour appear more frequently and intensely (Hart and Lancaster 2019). To this end, the armed forces employ extensive and intensive socialisation tactics (Dufour and Andiappan 2023). These specific tactics can be divided into two subgroups, depending on which aspect of civilian identity they intend to transform. The cluster comprising extreme physical strain, isolation, and the standardisation of processes aims to limit self-reflection and enable the emergence of a military identity. Concurrently, continuous group interactions and contact with instructors serve to establish trust in the organisation and group cohesion (Dufour and Andiappan 2023). The ideal outcome of this strong socialisation situation (Meyer et al. 2010)—namely, the achievement of identity fusion—impacts task execution and, indirectly, the realisation of organisational goals (Swann and Buhrmester 2015).

It is important to emphasise, however, that despite the strong socialisation situation, the process frequently proves unsuccessful: the formation of a military identity fails to occur. This failure is often attributed to prior experiences, the fundamental structures defining personality, and values acquired during primary socialisation. Despite military socialisation tactics, individual agency persists (Thornborrow and Brown 2009). The soldier retains the capacity for individual judgement and freedom of action even under strict organisational control. This subsequently manifests in ambiguous (combat) situations, instances of normative conflict, the maintenance of alternative community memberships, and identity fragmentation (Manekin 2017). Further impediments to the development of identity fusion include the absence of shared experiences, rumination, social isolation and alienation, as well as competing attachments (e.g., the role of family and primary groups) (Reese and Whitehouse 2021). Among these competing attachments, religious conviction may play a prominent role; it can act simultaneously as a facilitator of integration and—in cases of normative conflict—as a source of moral injury. The common thread across the cited studies is that they account for the individual’s civilian socialisation experiences, the influential role of primary groups, and the strength of personal values and convictions. These studies identify risk in the value discrepancy between the individual and the military organisation, and question the durability of identity formation built upon shared trauma during training. The question thus arises: what are the specific pre-socialisation experiences that predispose an individual’s psychological adaptation to be favourable to the armed forces (Novaco et al. 1983); where coping strategies transform to support integration (Sachdev and Dixit 2024); and where military socialisation tactics can be successfully applied (Dufour and Andiappan 2023)? Furthermore, how can those mechanisms with sacred roots be identified that form the basis of loyalty and resilience even within modern, secular armed forces? This study seeks to answer these questions by exploring the role of religion as a latent socialisation resource within the framework of an integrative model.

2. Sacred Roots and Psychological Functions: A Comparison of Historical, Theological, and Religious-Psychological Aspects of Military Socialisation

Military culture exhibits universal, and in a certain sense, supranational characteristics (Sachdev and Dixit 2024). One reason for this is that the roots of the military value system trace back to ‘pre-state’ institutions such as religion. The legal philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, points out that religion, as a community of values, is established on the basis of natural law (lex naturalis), thus ontologically preceding state legislation (Marshall 2016). Religion established the fundamental concepts of human coexistence, such as sacrifice and fidelity to the transcendent (Marshall 2016), upon which the state later built (Nock 1952). Historical examples demonstrate that the state, and as part of it the armed forces, not only readily built upon religious foundations (Stoll 2007) but also further developed certain concepts to serve its own interests (Shean 2010). The Roman army serves as a prime example of this transformation and development, as it consciously utilised religion as an instrument of military socialisation and loyalty-building. The introduction of the official military calendar (Feriale Duranum) and the mandatory veneration of state gods (Jupiter, Mars) served the purpose of imperial unity (Nock 1952). An even deeper level of embeddedness is demonstrated by the institution of the sacramentum (military oath). The state transformed what was originally a sacred vow into a legal and disciplinary binding force. The annual ritual renewal of the oath continuously ‘re-forged’ the sacred bond between the soldier and the Emperor (Shean 2010). A similar mechanism can be observed in the elevation of military virtues to a sacred level. Loyalty (Fides), courage (Virtus), and victory (Victoria) appeared in camps and on standards (signa) not merely as abstract concepts, but as deities. On the latter, alongside certain attributes (e.g., the eagle), the Emperor’s image (imago) was displayed, intending to emotionally bind the individual to the state and the commander (Hekster 2007).

The historical examples cited above (the sacramentum, the Feriale Duranum, or the symbolism of the standards) were not merely isolated religious elements. In practice, the intertwining of religion and the armed forces manifested at a systemic level across three interconnected dimensions, which merit separate examination.

At the state level, religion served as an instrument of imperial integration and governability. One of the most significant characteristics of the Roman army was its pragmatic management of religious diversity. Emperors and the military leadership recognised that the loyalty of soldiers from diverse ethnic backgrounds could be secured not through religious uniformity, but through a form of integrative tolerance. Provided that the soldier adhered to the official state cult (religio castrensis), the military leadership permitted—and indeed integrated within the camp—the veneration of the soldiers’ own native gods, thereby ensuring the peaceful military coexistence of the Empire’s diverse peoples (Stoll 2007).

At the organisational level, the connection was established through shared rituals that transformed the civilian mass into a unified military body. Here, religion functioned not as a matter of faith, but as a community-organising force. The previously mentioned sacramentum (oath) (Shean 2010) and the festivals of the Feriale Duranum (Stoll 2007) were not merely directed at the gods; they served the sacred reinforcement of comradeship and unity, providing a structural framework for daily military life (Shean 2010).

At the individual level, religion manifested as part of the soldier’s personal identity and motivation. Historical sources (such as votive altars and tombstones) testify that, alongside the official cult, soldiers maintained an intense personal religious life, in which the relationship with protective deities carried the hope of survival (Stoll 2007).

The Edict of Milan and, subsequently, the establishment of Christianity as the state religion fundamentally transformed the relationship between religion and the armed forces. Official integration replaced earlier persecution, a shift which also raised new theological questions within the military context. Whilst Roman polytheism primarily provided a ritual framework (e.g., sacramentum), the emergence of Christianity brought about a fundamental ethical transformation. The emphasis shifted from ritual to moral justification and matters of conscience. The writings of the early Church Fathers reflected the tension inherent in reconciling military service with faith. This is exemplified by Tertullian’s De Corona militis, in which he addressed the ambivalence between faith and military service. He rejected military service on account of its pagan elements (idolatry, the imperial cult); however, he acknowledged the existence of Christian soldiers, whom the strength of faith had socialised into steadfastness (Tertullianus: De Corona militis 1844 (PL 2, coll. 79–112)).

In contrast, St. Augustine, in his correspondence, discussed the ethical integration of service rather than its rejection. This is exemplified by his letter to Boniface, the Roman commander fighting against the Vandals (Augustinus: Epistula 189 ad Bonifacium 1841 (PL 33, coll. 846–60)), in which he defines military service as a legitimate Christian vocation, provided it is undertaken for the restoration of peace. St. Augustine established the theoretical foundations of just war (bellum iustum), resolving the crisis of conscience amongst commanders and soldiers torn between duty and the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Atkins and Dodaro 2001; Mattox 2006). According to Augustine, war is just if it is waged in self-defence or for the restoration of order, and if the soldier’s internal intention (right intention) is the restoration of peace. The soldier kills not out of personal vengeance but by the order of a legitimate power (competent authority); thus, moral responsibility rests with the commander. Beyond the justification of military service, the religious framework of the period had further practical implications. This was validated through episcopal correspondence: ecclesiastical leaders, utilising tenets of faith, provided guidance to communities torn between the dilemmas of survival, self-defence, and mercy (Allen and Neil 2013).

The role of religion in the armed forces was re-evaluated under the influence of Christian thinkers. Beyond strengthening collective identity, it also exerted an influence on individual decision-making in acute situations (casus necessitas). Under the pressure of battlefield stress and the imperative of automatic decision-making, the religious value system (particularly the imperatives of self-sacrifice and comradeship) served as a moral compass. According to contemporary anthropological approaches, religion in this context is defined as the extension of social relationships beyond the human sphere. For the soldier, faith is not abstract theology but action and interaction with the transcendent amidst chaos (Horton 1960). This mechanism explains why the core values of military culture continue to exhibit a strong overlap with religious virtues (Collins 1998; Sachdev and Dixit 2024).

Historical experience thus confirms that the role of religion in military socialisation was not incidental but systemic (Shean 2010; Stoll 2007). Moreover, it provides evidence of a psychological mechanism that remains operative today. It is important to establish that the philosophy of religion approach and the psychological perspective complement one another. To understand the role of faith in modern military socialisation, it is instructive to examine the phenomenon within the frameworks of the philosophy of religion (Ferré 1970) and psychology (Allport 1950), as well as at their intersection. The philosophy of religion (specifically the Ferré model) interprets religion along two axes that are also relevant to psychology: intensity (strength of commitment) and dimension (depth of theological knowledge) (Ferré 1970). In the military context, a particular paradox is frequently observed: soldiers’ theological knowledge (dimension) may be shallow, yet their commitment (intensity) remains high due to the life-threatening, high-risk situations inherent to their profession (Collins 1998). The psychology of religion identifies the latter as functional religiosity (Allport 1950), whilst empirical research in the military context refers to it as the phenomenon colloquially known as ‘foxhole religion’ (Wansink and Wansink 2013). One of the fundamental tenets of the former concept is the distinction between religiosity and religion. Religiosity is the source: the direct, personal relationship of the human soul with God. It is an action and inner desire that continuously seeks to renew the connection with the divine (Buber 1923). In Ferré’s (1970) theory, this corresponds to the intensity axis. In contrast, religion is the objectified form of religiosity. The source experience is organised into a system, an institution. Its purpose is to preserve religiosity, yet it often suppresses it, as rules and structures stand between the individual and God (Buber 1923). This institutionalised structure corresponds to the dimension (knowledge) axis in Ferré’s model (Ferré 1970).

In summary, it can be established that the faith manifested in military life is primarily not passive theological knowledge, but rather an active interaction with the supernatural for the sake of survival—namely, prayer (Wansink and Wansink 2013)—in which intensity compensates for the lack of dimension. This psychological mechanism enables the utilisation of values and rituals with sacred roots within military socialisation. Religion, through shared values, can contribute to the individual’s successful integration and the internalisation of elements of military culture. Furthermore, analogous to the Roman example, certain rituals and customs can facilitate an understanding of organisational functioning and the profession. For the armed forces, religion can establish a vital foundation, as it provides spiritual grounding for the execution of high-risk tasks.

3. Methods

The aim of the present study is to explore the role of religion as an identity-forming and pre-socialization factor within the process of military socialization. The analysis employs an interdisciplinary approach, synthesizing theoretical models from organizational psychology, social psychology, and military ethics to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of military identity formation. By conceptualizing religion as a pre-socialization factor, the study bridges the gap between organizational mechanisms and the individual’s internal moral processes.

The investigation focuses on the role of religion as a pre-socialization factor and the mechanism of identity fusion within military socialization. The methodological foundation of the study is a critical integrative review, designed to facilitate the systematic exploration, critical evaluation, and theoretical synthesis of relevant literature (Torraco 2005). Within this framework, theoretical modeling is undertaken: variables from the sociology of religion and social psychology are deductively integrated into the Integrative Organizational Socialization Model (Barna 2025).

The research strategy employs a deductive approach. Its theoretical framework is provided by the Integrative Model (Barna 2025), into which variables from the sociology of religion and social psychology are systematically incorporated. Within this approach, military identity formation is conceptualized not as an isolated psychological process but as a multifactorial system embedded within organizational dynamics. This comprehensive view is facilitated by the model’s temporal phasing and the dynamic interpretation of the triadic relationship between Person, Organization, and Job (P-O-J). Specifically, the study examines:

• The role of the ‘P’ (Person) dimension and religion as an indirect influencing factor during the T1 phase (recruitment and selection);
• process dynamics and identity fusion during the T2 phase (socialization and integration).

Regarding religion as an indirect influencing factor, the analysis examines the pre-socialisation character of religion—that is, the influencing effect of internalised values (e.g., sacrifice, respect for authority) on the process of military socialisation. It assumes that values derived from religiosity establish the foundation of military socialisation on the P side, facilitating P-O fit.

By examining process dynamics, the research elucidates the relationship between the attainment of the ‘acceptance criterion’—as defined in the integrative model—and group cohesion, as well as their connection to identity fusion. Additionally, the study assesses the psychological constraints that may impede the development of identity fusion (e.g., moral injury).

Data collection adhered to a defined screening protocol; the study is based on the analysis of peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly publications. The search strategy focused on the following keywords and their intersections: ‘integrative socialization models, ‘religious pre-socialization, ‘identity fusion in the military,’ and ‘moral injury.’ During the synthesis of sources, the Ecological Model (Bronfenbrenner 1994), the Religion–Military Model (Hassner 2016), and the Integrative Model (Barna 2025) served as the structural framework for organizing the data.

During the literature review, 66 sources relevant to the topic, predominantly scientific publications, were analysed. The search strategy primarily focused on the Web of Science, Scopus, and APA PsycNet databases. This was supplemented by searches in Google Scholar to identify relevant monographs. The temporal scope of the reviewed literature ranges from ancient foundational texts to contemporary research, with modern sources spanning the period from the 1950s to 2025. Approximately 70% of the sources originate from this latter period. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, the analysed material comprised 43 peer-reviewed journal articles, 19 books and book chapters, two ancient sources, one doctoral dissertation, and one research report.

4. The Dimensional Approach to Religiosity

Investigating the relationship between religion and military socialization necessitates a precise definition of religiosity. This study conceptualizes religiosity as a multidimensional psychosocial construct. The aim of this approach is to identify cross-religious characteristics that exhibit functional parallels with elements of military culture, irrespective of denominational content. Consequently, for the purposes of this analysis, religion is not viewed as a uniform, homogeneous entity, nor is it limited merely to institutional affiliation (e.g., denominational membership).

The dimensional analysis of religiosity builds upon classical models from the sociology and psychology of religion. The starting point is the five-dimensional model (Glock and Stark 1965), which distinguishes between the belief (ideological), practical (ritual), experiential (experience-based), knowledge (intellectual), and consequential dimensions. To integrate the Glock elements into a dynamic system, the two-dimensional philosophy of religion approach (Ferré 1970) offers a complementary framework. The two axes of the Ferré model are also interpretable within a psychological context. The strength of commitment (intensity) and the depth of theological knowledge (dimension) can be aligned with modern motivational and competence theories. The psychological equivalent of intensity corresponds to intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000), affective commitment (Buchanan 1974), or indeed identity fusion (Swann et al. 2012)—which is considered the optimal outcome of military socialisation. Conversely, the equivalent of dimension comprises knowledge, competence (Kristof-Brown 1996), cognitive complexity (Bieri 1955), and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). This structure is similarly reflected in the situational leadership model (Hersey and Blanchard 1969), where the readiness of subordinates is determined by the dynamic interplay of these same two axes: competence (as dimension) and commitment (as intensity).

The Feriale Duranum and the sacramentum, previously discussed in the context of the Roman army, may be regarded as historical precursors to these psychological mechanisms. The structural aspect of dimension is discernible within the institutional framework of the Feriale Duranum. The soldier was required to know and adhere to prescribed sacrificial rituals—analogous to modern drill regulations—irrespective of internal conviction (Nock 1952). In contrast, the sacramentum aligns with intensity (affective commitment). Through this oath, the soldier bound his soul (and his life) to the Emperor and his comrades, fostering fides (loyalty) and commitment (Shean 2010). This duality indicates that the dynamic between rule-compliance (dimension) and commitment (intensity) constitutes a universal element of military socialisation. Moreover, this distinction remains significant within the modern military context. This is exemplified by the ‘foxhole religion’ phenomenon (Wansink and Wansink 2013), which demonstrates that despite a low level of dimension, intensity can be heightened in high-risk situations. This phenomenon also aligns with Pargament’s theory of religious coping: in crisis situations, religion functions as a stress-management resource, even where the level of theological knowledge is minimal (Pargament 1997).

This is complemented by the distinction between intrinsic (internally motivated, lived) and extrinsic (instrumental, utilitarian) religiosity (Allport and Ross 1967). Extrinsic orientation utilises religion—and, by analogy, military service—as an instrument to achieve individual goals (e.g., security, status, or communal benefits). In contrast, within an intrinsic orientation, the internalisation of the value system—namely, religion or the service itself—constitutes the primary goal. This further differentiation of religiosity (Allport and Ross 1967) (or intensity (Ferré 1970)) facilitates an understanding of the depth of individual motivations within the socialisation process. Consequently, the success of military socialisation, in psychological terms, can be gauged by the individual’s ability to transform extrinsic, rule-compliant behaviour into intrinsic, value-driven commitment.

The previously mentioned religious coping model by Pargament (1997) serves as a practical application of the structural framework outlined above. This theory provides a framework for examining how faith functions as a stress-management resource in crisis situations.

To define religiosity, it is also essential to clarify conceptual boundaries. Within this framework, the scope of the investigation excludes:

• Specific theological doctrines (e.g., dogmatics, soteriology), as these are denominationally specific, whereas socialization mechanisms are more universal;
• The equation of religiosity solely with institutional affiliation, as formal membership does not necessarily reflect an internalized value system;
• Religious fundamentalism: While the study acknowledges that mechanisms (e.g., identity fusion) may operate similarly in extreme cases, they manifest in a destructive capacity.

Instead, the focus is placed on those dimensions that demonstrate functional equivalence with the objectives of military socialisation. Drawing on Horton’s (1960) anthropological approach, religion is here functionally interpreted as an extension of social relationships; in the military context, this signifies the transcendent dimension of comradeship. These dimensions operate independently of specific denominational content and exert a direct influence on the individual’s capacity for integration.

Table 1. Dimensions of Religiosity, Their Military Counterparts, and Their Effects on the Socialization Process.

Dimension of Religiosity (Ferré 1970; Glock and Stark 1965)	Theoretical and Historical Background	Military Values and Norms	Impact on Socialization Process
Belief (Ideological) Dimension	St. Thomas Aquinas: Lex naturalis (Principles of Just War/Bellum Iustum)	Sense of Mission, Patriotism (Vocational Clarity)	Imbues service with meaning; increases resilience during ‘reality shock’ (T2).
	Ancient Rome: Cult of Jupiter and the Emperor (Civil Religion)
Practical (Ritual) Dimension (Dimension, Structure)	Pargament: Religious Coping (Ritual as a Coping Mechanism)	Formalities and Ceremonies Routines and Regulations	Maintaining Predictability and Order; Anxiety Reduction (Coping) and the Structuring of Stress.
	Nock: Feriale Duranum (Mandatory Ritual System)
Experiential Dimension (Intensity, Commitment)	Ryan and Deci: Intrinsic Motivation	Comradeship, Loyalty (Fides) Self-Sacrifice (Selfless Service)	Establishing Emotional Attachment (Affective Commitment); Catalyst for Identity Fusion.
	Shean: Sacramentum (Sacred Oath)
Intellectual (Knowledge) Dimension (Dimension, Competence)	Nonaka and Takeuchi: Explicit Knowledge	Professional Knowledge Competence	Increasing Self-efficacy; Ability to Execute the Task.
	Hersey and Blanchard: Readiness (Ability/Competence)
Consequential (Normative) Dimension	Allport: Extrinsic to Intrinsic shift	Discipline Obedience (Followership)	Internalisation: Transforming external compulsion (extrinsic compliance) into internal conviction (intrinsic value system).
	Kristof-Brown: P-O Fit (Person–Organization Fit)

summarises these relevant dimensions of religiosity, their military counterparts, and their consequent effects on the socialisation process.

5. Theoretical Framework: Integrative Model

To examine the role of religion in military socialization, the study draws on the Integrative Organizational Socialization Model (Barna 2025) as its theoretical foundation. This theoretical framework offers a system-level explanation for the workforce retention and integration challenges specific to the modern all-volunteer force. It is grounded in earlier organizational socialization models, synthesizing research findings from recent decades. The model diverges from traditional, linear socialization theories, which often conceptualize the process as a unidirectional, organization-dominated assimilation. Instead, it posits a dynamic (Buchanan 1974), and interactive process (Schein 1978) centered on the triadic relationship between the Person (P), Organization (O), and Job (J) (Memon et al. 2015). The theoretical underpinning of the concept is Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1994), which facilitates the simultaneous analysis of macro- (societal), meso- (organizational), and micro-level (individual) variables. The model’s structure is organized along two primary dimensions: temporal phasing (Moreland and Levine 2001) and the system of influencing factors.

Within the latter, a distinction is made between direct and indirect factors (Barna 2025). Indirect factors—such as family background (Cohen-Scali 2003), educational environment (Ginzberg et al. 1951), and prior socialization experiences (Lawson et al. 2015)—latently shape the individual’s value system and expectations prior to organizational entry. Direct factors, in contrast, comprise elements controlled by the organization, such as recruitment communication (Ganesan et al. 2018), training intensity (Dalenberg and Op den Buijs 2013), and leadership behavior (Saks 2006).

The first phase of the socialisation process is the T1 stage (recruitment and selection), where the initial interaction between P and O occurs (Wanous 1992). The aim of this stage is to assess the value and competence fit between the parties—specifically, P-O (Kristof-Brown 1996) and P-J fit (Cable and DeRue 2002). From a religious perspective, this stage corresponds to the clarification of motivations (screening for extrinsic versus intrinsic orientation (Allport and Ross 1967)), which ensures that the candidate’s values are compatible with the military ethos, thereby establishing P-O fit (Kristof-Brown 1996). According to the model, the success of T1 is indicated by the fulfilment of two criterion points: the response criterion enables the commencement of the stage, whilst the entry criterion (Moreland and Levine 2001) signifies the candidate’s positive decision to join.

The T2 stage (socialisation and integration) marks the beginning of actual organisational membership and the period of intensive identity formation. In this phase, the organisational socialisation (P-O-J) triad (Memon et al. 2015) is formed. Typically, direct organisational influences dominate, the historical analogy of which is the structuring force of the Feriale Duranum ritual system (Nock 1952). The aim of T2 is the transformation of civilian identity and the internalisation of organisational norms. A key risk factor in this stage is the discrepancy between organisational reality and the promises made during the T1 stage, and the resulting phenomenon of ‘reality shock’ or disillusionment (Griep and Vantilborgh 2018). In this critical phase, religion becomes crucial as a coping mechanism, providing meaning (meaning-making) to difficulties and supporting resilience (Pargament 1997). The outcome of a successful T2 stage is the achievement of the acceptance criterion (Moreland and Levine 2001), which signifies full organisational membership and the stabilisation of the triad. This moment, in psychological terms, is comparable to the sacramentum (oath) (Shean 2010), where commitment becomes internalised and deeply integrated (identity fusion).

Following the stabilisation of the triad, the maintenance stage (Moreland and Levine 2001) begins, which focuses on the long-term motivation and retention of already integrated personnel. The dynamism of the model in this stage is provided by the recognition of the continuous interaction between the P, O, and J elements. Any change in any element (e.g., job enlargement, organisational restructuring, or changes in the individual’s life situation) may generate a need for resocialisation. The current state of the triad can be measured through the examination of outcome variables such as job satisfaction, performance, and changes in the frequency and proportion of absences. If the equilibrium becomes (persistently) destabilised, the model predicts a state of divergence (Moreland and Levine 2001), which, in the absence of appropriate intervention, leads to exit (Barna 2025).

The temporal structure of the model is complemented by a parallel, functional layer, denoted by the M stages. The basis for the design of these stages was provided by the Jones model (Jones 1986). These represent supplementary opportunities and deliberate organisational interventions tailored to the combination of the temporal phasing of the process and the system of influencing factors. The purpose of the context-adapted use of M.I-III (Barna 2025) is to support the success of military socialisation, maintain the triadic equilibrium, and thereby prevent undesired attrition.

Overall, the integrative model interprets military socialisation as a cyclical life-course process. It incorporates the role of individual agency and brought values (indirect factors), accounting for their increased significance and the qualitative criteria of their alignment with command-and-control mechanisms. This perspective enables the extension of the model to deeper dimensions, such as the role of religion or the psychological mechanism of identity fusion. The integrative character of the model ensures that these new variables can be coherently incorporated into the existing structure without compromising its internal logic.

6. Identity Fusion Within Military Socialization: The Central Mechanism of the T2 Stage

The dimensions of religiosity discussed in the Section 4 are promoters of active psychological processes. During military socialisation, they can support the individual’s integration into the organisation. The primary aim of the T2 stage (socialisation and integration) of the integrative model is the transformation of civilian identity and the internalisation of organisational norms. However, modern social psychological research points out that the traditional concept of group identification is insufficient to explain the self-sacrifice required for high-risk operations. This deficiency can be paralleled with the distinction in the Ferré (1970) model between dimension (mere knowledge) and intensity (genuine commitment). The literature applies the concept of identity fusion to this type of attachment (Swann et al. 2012). Identity fusion can be interpreted as the psychological target state of military socialisation, in the formation of which religiosity may play a key role.

Identity fusion is a psychological state in which the boundaries between the personal and social self become permeable or porous. In contrast to traditional group identification, where the individual self recedes in favour of group norms (depersonalisation), during fusion, individual agency is retained and united with the strength of the group (Swann et al. 2012). This psychological mechanism is consistent with Horton’s definition of religion, according to which the essence of the sacred (and here: the military) experience is the extension of social relationships beyond the boundaries of the self (Horton 1960). A soldier in a state of identity fusion acts for the group because they experience the group as an extension of themselves. This mechanism explains the willingness to make sacrifices and engage in self-sacrifice. During identity fusion, psychological functioning is transformed: self-sacrifice appears not as a loss, but as the defence of the self—and thereby the group, as an integral part of the self.

In the context of the integrative model, identity fusion marks the highest level of the ‘acceptance criterion’ of the T2 stage. Its formation can be associated with two direct factors: shared (traumatic) experiences and shared rituals (Whitehouse and Lanman 2014). This mechanism shows a direct functional overlap with the previously defined ritual dimension of religiosity (see Table 1). The extreme physical and psychological strain applied during basic military training (Darr 2011) is psychologically equivalent to the intensive initiation rites known from the history of religion (Whitehouse 2018). Just as in the Roman army the sacramentum (oath) and shared sacrifices created fides (loyalty) (Shean 2010), so in the modern army it is shared hardship and trauma that create psychological kinship amongst comrades (Whitehouse 2018). The success of the T2 stage thus depends on whether the organisation is capable of creating an environment where these rituals and experiences facilitate the fusion of personal and organisational identity.

Empirical research has also confirmed the relevance of this phenomenon in the armed forces. A study conducted amongst American soldiers demonstrated that the degree of fusion shows a direct correlation with extreme willingness for self-sacrifice and pro-group action (Hart and Lancaster 2019). Similar results were obtained in a study amongst French officer cadets, where the aim of socialisation tactics was explicitly to achieve the state of ‘Now the Army is who I am’ (Dufour and Andiappan 2023). These findings confirm that identity fusion, in addition to increasing cohesion, also enhances the effectiveness of task execution in extreme stress situations.

It is crucial to emphasise, however, that identity fusion is neither automatic nor a universally successful outcome of the T2 stage. The process is vulnerable: if, during socialisation, the values brought by the Person (P)—such as intrinsic moral convictions, the religious foundations of normative commitment (Allport and Ross 1967)—are incongruent with the norms mandated by the Organization (O), a state of cognitive dissonance ensues. This internal conflict serves as a precursor to the phenomenon of moral injury, which functions as the primary psychological impediment to the development of identity fusion.

7. Moral Injury and Normative Conflict as Impediments to Identity Fusion

Identity fusion can be considered the ideal outcome of military socialisation; however, the process is not without risks. The most sensitive point of the T2 stage occurs when the core values internalised during civilian (and potentially religious) socialisation collide with the extreme demands of military service. This tension first appeared historically in Tertullian’s De Corona militis, in which he warned of the incompatibility between the Christian conscience and the military oath (sacramentum) (Tertullianus: De Corona militis 1844 (PL 2, coll. 79–112)). If this conflict remains unresolved, it leads to the phenomenon of moral injury, which represents the principal obstacle to identity fusion.

Moral injury denotes psychological and spiritual trauma that occurs when an individual commits, fails to prevent, or witnesses acts that violate their own fundamental moral convictions and expectations (Litz et al. 2009). The injury is compounded when an authority believed to be infallible (such as a commander or the organisation) betrays the moral order that the soldier has sworn to defend—for example, through unlawful orders or the unnecessary endangering of civilians (Shay 2014). In such situations, the bellum iustum (just war) framework, as defined by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, is violated. The order loses its legitimacy (competent authority), and the soldier is deprived of the moral justification necessary for their actions, which forms the basis of a crisis of conscience (Mattox 2006). This is exemplified by a study examining the limits of military socialisation through the battlefield experiences of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) (Manekin 2017). The research revealed that in ‘ambiguous’ combat situations, soldiers frequently came into conflict with the operational instructions received, such as requirements for aggressive action in densely populated civilian areas. In these cases, despite organisational expectations, individuals on several occasions acted according to their own moral convictions. They responded to ambiguous situations with the ‘underproduction of violence’ in order to preserve their moral integrity against command expectations (Manekin 2017).

Within the framework of the integrative model, moral injury is most likely to appear in the T2 stage. Its emergence may induce early divergence (Moreland and Levine 2001), which can result in the failure of the integration process. Here, the ‘reality shock’ (Griep and Vantilborgh 2018) does not stem solely from environmental factors; a deeper, normative conflict is also associated with it. A collision between P’s moral convictions and O’s combat requirements creates cognitive dissonance. If a successful reframing of norms does not occur during socialisation, the triad becomes destabilised. Instead of fusion, alienation develops; instead of loyalty, cynicism (Manekin 2017)—resulting in a state of divergence (distancing) according to the model, which ultimately leads to an exit from the organization (Barna 2025) or the deterioration of mental health.

The role of religion in this dynamic is dual. On the one hand, religiosity may appear as a risk factor. Strong religious pre-socialisation (transcendence, normative commitment) often establishes absolute moral commandments, such as the sanctity of life or the prohibition against killing. The more deeply internalised the religious norm, the more severe the experience of transgressing internal moral boundaries may be during combat actions. If the chasm between military reality and religious values is unbridgeable, it can lead to the collapse of the belief system and a severe spiritual crisis (Drescher et al. 2011).

On the other hand, religion can also function as a protective factor. The mechanisms of religious coping—such as rituals of repentance, the possibility of forgiveness, and the transcendent interpretation of suffering—can provide the soldier with tools for processing trauma (Pargament 1997). Historically, this function appeared in the practice of the churches as the institution of penance and absolution, which enabled the warrior to return to the community after bloodshed, thereby restoring disrupted spiritual peace.

Synthesizing these observations, the phenomenon of moral injury underscores that identity fusion is not a guaranteed outcome. The impact of religion as a socialisation factor is neither linear nor exclusively positive. Whilst rituals and community can support integration, rigid normative commitments can increase vulnerability. The condition for successful military socialisation is therefore not the suppression of religious values, but rather their successful integration and adaptation into the formation of the military professional identity.

8. The Role and Function of Religion as a Socialization Factor

According to the integrative model, religion and the experiences acquired within religious communities are classified as indirect influencing factors of socialization. These factors fundamentally shape the Person’s (P) value system, normative framework, and behavioral patterns prior to the T1 stage. Consequently, they exert a latent influence on the process of organizational integration (Manekin 2017). In this context, the role of religion within military socialization functions as a form of pre-socialization mechanism, capable of mitigating the severity of the subsequent entry shock (Hassner 2016).

The socialisation function of religion can be examined at multiple levels. Alongside the framework of the integrative model, the present study interprets the relationship between religion and the armed forces at the macro (societal), meso (organisational), and micro (individual) (Bronfenbrenner 1994) levels. This tripartite division is not only a modern systems-theoretical characteristic but—as we saw in the historical overview—was already discernible in the religious structure of the Roman army (state cult, emperor cult, and individual faith) (Stoll 2007; Shean 2010). This division is further corroborated by Hassner’s (2016) framework. Based on this theoretical foundation, religion manifests within military socialization across three distinct levels, structured as follows:

• At the institutional level, it plays a critical role in establishing value-based Person–Organization (P-O) fit, functioning as a decisive determinant during the T1 stage.
• At the unit level, it serves as a cornerstone for communal identity; from the T2 stage onward, this facilitates the attainment of the ‘acceptance criterion’.
• At the individual level, it constitutes a source of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), supporting resilient functioning and adaptive coping mechanisms. This resource is vital for buffering the effects of ‘reality shock’ and mitigating early divergence following organizational entry.

Although classified as an indirect influencing factor, religion plays a significant and multifaceted role in military socialization (Manekin 2017). A profound understanding of this dynamic is achieved through the synthesis of the theoretical frameworks utilized in this study. A comparative analysis of the Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1994), Hassner’s hypotheses (Hassner 2016), and the Integrative Model (Barna 2025) highlights the structural congruencies among these approaches, while simultaneously revealing their distinct functional divergences.

8.1. The Macro Level: Religion as a Societal Influencing Factor

The fundamental unifying characteristic of the three models is the adoption of a multi-level analytical framework, which conceptualizes the individual not as an isolated entity, but as an agent embedded within a stratified system. At the macro level, the Ecological Systems Theory delineates the societal norms and ideologies that condition general socialization (Bronfenbrenner 1994). This perspective is equally critical for the armed forces: societal and cultural values not only dictate the prestige and legitimacy of the military institution (Levy and Sasson-Levy 2008) but also exert informal yet potent pressure on the organization’s goal system (Collins 1998). Within this macro dimension, the primary function of religion is to legitimize military service (Berger 1967). Societies frequently leverage religious narratives (Bellah 1967) to justify the moral obligation and purpose of martial duty (Levy 2020). In specific contexts, the civic construct of the ‘good citizen’ becomes inextricably conflated with the archetype of the ‘combat soldier’ (Levy and Sasson-Levy 2008). The nexus between religion, civic duty, and the armed forces is significantly reinforced by state-sanctioned commemorative rituals (e.g., War Heroes’ Remembrance Days (Marvin and Ingle 1996), Holocaust memorializations conveying the ‘Never Again!’ imperative (Levy and Sasson-Levy 2008), and wreath-laying ceremonies). These rituals, being widely accepted and socially endorsed within the nation-state, hold profound symbolic significance (David and Bar-Tal 2009). These modern ceremonies are functionally equivalent to the state rituals of Roman civil religion (Bellah 1967), whose purpose was likewise the sacred legitimation of communal sacrifice (Stoll 2007). Within Hassner’s framework, these processes are situated at the institutional level. The armed forces do not operate as a hermetically closed system; rather, they serve as an interface for the interplay of the state, society, and religion. At this level, religious issues primarily manifest through legal, constitutional, and resource allocation dimensions (Hassner 2016). In both contexts, the ethos of protection and the sacrifice undertaken for the community transcend the scope of military socialization interpreted merely at the individual (P) or organizational (O) level. As integral components of societal values, these elements are classified as macro-environmental influencing factors. Functioning as independent variables, they determine the societal prestige and moral gravity of service from the perspectives of both P and O, thereby exerting a formative influence on the T1 stage of the integrative model (Barna 2025).

8.2. The Meso Level: Religion as a Bridge Between Subsystems

Within the ecological framework, the meso level constitutes the arena for interaction between microsystems. This level comprises distinct microsystems—including the family, religious communities, military subunits, and the barracks environment (as a social setting), as well as peer groups (comrades)—which interact dynamically at the systemic level (Bronfenbrenner 1994). This conceptualization functionally corresponds to and complements the unit level of Hassner’s framework. The primary objective at this level is the generation and sustenance of group cohesion and morale (often referred to as esprit de corps), wherein religion assumes a pivotal bridging role (Hassner 2016). According to the model, religion serves to modulate the quality of interactions between these microsystems. Consequently, the presence and regularity of rituals function simultaneously as a unifying force, a psychological protective factor, a facilitator of integration, and a potent motivational tool (Hassner 2016). Using a historical analogy: this level corresponds to the ritual system of the Feriale Duranum, which functioned not as a matter of faith but as a structuring and community-forming force in the life of units (Nock 1952). It is crucial to acknowledge, however, that this interpretation may be unidimensional. Empirical research has demonstrated (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023) that the ‘strong situation’ inherent in military formations significantly increases Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), which frequently leads to the derogation of ‘outgroups.’ Under the pervasive influence of the military environment, respect for hierarchy and authority intensifies, often accompanied by a rise in prejudice and the rejection of outgroup members (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023). Notably, the referenced study did not directly examine the role of religion, as the authors characterized the Belgian context as highly secular. Consequently, measurement was conducted using the VSA (Very Short Authoritarianism) scale developed by Bizumic and Duckitt (2018). Unlike the original Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale (Altemeyer 1998), this instrument deliberately excludes religiously loaded items. However, these findings provide a critical nuance to the understanding of military socialization, demonstrating that the process is not inherently inclusive. Traditional forms of camaraderie and group cohesion are often predicated on homophily (similarity), a dynamic that can impede the integration of personnel possessing characteristics that diverge from the majority norm (e.g., ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation) (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023). To fully evaluate the role of religion as an influencing factor, it is therefore essential to scrutinize the items omitted from the RWA scale. This is particularly salient within the European context, where specific ethnic minorities (e.g., individuals of Moroccan or Turkish heritage (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023)) exhibit a significant demographic overlap with the Muslim religious minority (Huijnk 2019). Consequently, what such studies (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023) quantify as ethnic prejudice may, in practice, represent an intersection with—or a conflation of—religiously motivated prejudice (i.e., Islamophobia).

The cited examples illustrate the divergent dynamics operating at the meso level. While religion can serve as a pillar of military socialization, it may simultaneously function as a basis for marginalization, manifesting directly at the unit level. To reconcile these seemingly contradictory outcomes, the integrative model is applied. Unlike static descriptive frameworks, this model explicitly accounts for the temporal evolution of the socialization process. The divergent dynamics observed at the meso (Bronfenbrenner 1994) or unit (Hassner 2016) level are conceptualized as inherent characteristics of the T2 stage. Within this context, the attributes of religion—whether they foster inclusivity (Hassner 2016) or precipitate marginalization (De Roeck and Resteigne 2023)—are treated as manageable influencing factors, provided they are identified in a timely manner. According to the model, the Organization (O) endeavors to leverage religion as a strategic resource at this level, utilizing both direct command channels and peer interactions. The ultimate objective is to optimize Person–Organization (P-O) fit, stabilize the P-O-J triad (Barna 2025), and achieve identity fusion (Swann et al. 2012). It is in this state that the internalization of rituals and shared norms consummates the transformation from civilian to soldier.

8.3. The Micro Level: The Impact of Religiosity on P’s Integration and Coping

The relationship between religion and military socialization constitutes a significant influencing factor at the Person (P) level. The micro level (Bronfenbrenner 1994)—which encompasses the individual’s intrapsychic domain and immediate environment—aligns with the individual level of analysis, characterized by personal faith, mental health status, and religious coping mechanisms (Hassner 2016). Within the architecture of the integrative model, this stratum corresponds directly to the ‘P’ dimension of the triad (Barna 2025). This is the locus where critical constructs such as Person–Organization (P-O) fit (Cable and DeRue 2002), resilience (Hassner 2016), and individual agency (Thornborrow and Brown 2009) converge. Specifically, at this level, the religious belief system functions as a vital protective buffer, shielding the individual against the destabilizing effects of ‘reality shock’ (Griep and Vantilborgh 2018) and acute operational stressors.

Collectively, the three models converge to support the premise that an individual’s religious socialization significantly contributes to the efficacy of military socialization. Religious pre-socialization instills behavioral patterns that are strikingly analogous to the structural characteristics of the military organization. The habitus of the believer is frequently defined by unconditional obedience to a transcendent authority (the Divine) and the rigorous adherence to a codified set of commandments. This ingrained predisposition for hierarchical submission and disciplined compliance is equally indispensable for the effective performance of military service. This dimension of primary socialization (Golo et al. 2019) establishes the cognitive scaffolding necessary for seamless integration into the military hierarchy and deference to authority (Levy 2020). Structural parallels are equally evident regarding regulatory systems. Religious praxis is characterized by strict regimentation (encompassing dietary restrictions, dress codes, temporal discipline, and ascetic observances), all of which demand a high degree of self-discipline and impulse control. The armed forces similarly prioritize these psychological attributes as core competencies. Furthermore, the ascetic disposition cultivates endurance, while participation in communal rituals reinforces a collectivist ethos. Within the religious value system, the welfare of the community supersedes individual autonomy; consequently, sacrifice is reframed not as a deprivation, but as a binding moral imperative (Levy 2020). This internal attitudinal shift corresponds to the transformation of extrinsic motivation into intrinsic motivation (Allport and Ross 1967), and this establishes the psychological seriousness of the sacramentum (oath) (Shean 2010). Finally, primary socialization experiences imbued with religious values and normative systems play a pivotal role in the facilitation of identity fusion. Empirical research has substantiated that participation in collective rituals—and particularly shared dysphoric (or traumatic) experiences within the community—fosters a profound attachment to the group. In this state of fusion, the boundaries between the personal self and the social self become porous, significantly increasing the propensity for self-sacrificing, pro-group behavior (Whitehouse and Lanman 2014). Consequently, religiosity manifested at the individual level (Hassner 2016)—within the ‘P’ construct—exhibits a distinct structural and functional isomorphism with the demands of military service. Functioning as a robust pre-socialization mechanism, it primes the individual for the seamless internalization of the military organization’s norms, regulatory frameworks, and axiomatic value systems.

The multi-level analysis of religion’s role in military socialization underscores the profound significance of this factor. While the three analytical models exhibit structural overlaps, their distinct functional perspectives render them mutually complementary. The Ecological Systems Theory delineates the broad contextual strata (Bronfenbrenner 1994) within which socialization processes unfold. Hassner’s framework populates this structural void with domain-specific content, specifically focusing on the nexus between religion and the armed forces. It advances specific hypotheses regarding the functional dynamics of religion (e.g., the cohesive power of rituals and faith as a vital resource for coping) (Hassner 2016). In contrast to these predominantly static frameworks, the Integrative Model introduces a dynamic temporal perspective and an outcome-oriented approach. This model examines the triadic relationship of the socialization actors (Person–Organization–Job, or P-O-J) as a longitudinal process, tracing the trajectory from Recruitment (T1), through Integration (T2), to the Career Phase (Barna 2025).

9. Discussion: Synthesis of the Theoretical Frameworks

The comparative analysis of the literature and the synthesis of the three models underscore that religiosity constitutes a significant influencing factor within the process of military socialization (Manekin 2017). The relationship between these domains extends beyond the conventional interpretation of religion as a static demographic variable (Glock and Stark 1965). The frameworks of the Ecological Model (Bronfenbrenner 1994) and the Religion–Military Model (Hassner 2016) have demonstrated that religion functions as a primary socialization factor (Golo et al. 2019), serving as a bridge (Hassner 2016) that extends into and manifests within secondary socialization contexts (Cohen-Scali 2003). Complementing these approaches, the Integrative Model (Barna 2025) contributes by elucidating the temporal dynamics of this process. Within this analytical perspective, religion is conceptualized as an indirect influencing factor that nonetheless exerts an active and formative influence on military socialization.

The analysis, grounded in the three selected models, reveals significant structural congruencies between specific dimensions of religiosity and the foundational elements of military culture. Of particular significance is the Person’s (P) predisposition toward normative commitment and fixed rituals, cultivated during religious upbringing. Functioning as pre-socialization factors, these elements facilitate the development of military discipline and the internalization of ceremonial protocols (Levy 2020). This perception of environmental familiarity can establish the foundation for Person–Organization (P-O) fit as early as the recruitment (T1) stage (Kristof-Brown 1996). Furthermore, religious pre-socialization fosters specific behavioral attributes (e.g., deference to authority, self-restraint) that constitute fundamental prerequisites for military service (Hassner 2016).

Building upon this foundation, the role of religiosity becomes particularly salient in the development of identity fusion during the Integration (T2) stage. The religious background significantly contributes to this psychological bonding process. Shared attributes—such as the predisposition towards self-sacrifice and a deep-seated familiarity with communal rituals—serve as catalysts for the emergence of strong organizational identification. Furthermore, the ‘imagistic’ elements inherent in religious practice, combined with a commitment to transcendent goals, facilitate the cognitive reframing of the adversities encountered during military training, thereby significantly bolstering individual resilience (Whitehouse and Lanman 2014).

Beyond the supportive role of religion, the analysis also addresses the potential for moral injury as a critical adverse outcome. In such scenarios, religiosity functions not as a facilitator but as an impediment to integration into the armed forces. This friction generates profound cognitive dissonance, which frequently culminates in premature attrition (within all-volunteer forces) or manifests as counterproductive behavior (in conscripted service) (Griep and Vantilborgh 2018). When an irresolvable normative conflict arises between the lethality inherent in military service (e.g., the use of violence) and deeply internalized religious imperatives (e.g., the sanctity of life), the socialization process reaches an impasse at the Integration (T2) stage. Psychologically, this fracture is conceptualized as moral injury, which stands as a primary predictor of divergence (or psychological distancing) among religious personnel (Drescher et al. 2011).

Grounded in the synthesis of the three models and the findings derived from them, potential strategic intervention pathways can be outlined, and practical considerations can be delineated. The sequential stages identified within the models should be operationalized as specific points of intervention. As a critical complementary perspective, the ‘M’ stage of the Integrative Model provides specific mentoring modalities tailored to the military demographic. These targeted interventions are essential for safeguarding the stability of the Person–Organization–Job (P-O-J) triad (Barna 2025).

• During Selection (T1): Religiosity should be treated not as a basis for exclusion, but as a predictive indicator of the candidate’s habitus and value system. The strategic recognition of competencies stemming from religious socialization (e.g., disciplined adherence to rules, collectivist orientation) has the potential to significantly improve selection efficacy (Hassner 2016).
• During Training and Integration (T2): The mandate of military chaplaincy services warrants expansion beyond traditional liturgical duties towards preventative mental health support. Chaplains serve as pivotal actors in calibrating the soldier’s ‘moral compass’ and in processing experiences of moral transgression (such as guilt and shame), thereby contributing essentially to the prophylaxis of moral injury (Pargament 1997).
• At the Leadership Level: Commanders must recognize that religious conviction constitutes a potent motivational foundation (facilitating identity fusion), yet simultaneously represents a specific point of vulnerability. To mitigate the effects of ‘reality shock’ (Griep and Vantilborgh 2018), ensuring the moral legitimation of orders is critical. For religious personnel, the effective framing of tasks and sensemaking are indispensable for maintaining psychological stability (Shay 2014).

A comprehensive understanding of the relationship between religion and military socialization extends beyond the mere optimization of military effectiveness; it inevitably precipitates profound ethical inquiries. How can the absolute moral imperatives of religious faith be reconciled with the lethal exigencies of military service? Moreover, what constitutes the scope of the organization’s responsibility in safeguarding the moral integrity of its religious personnel? Ultimately, these questions transcend the immediate military context, resonating with broader societal dilemmas that concern the complex interplay between religion, individual identity, and institutional loyalty. The search for answers leads us back to the reconsideration of classical theological frameworks such as the just war doctrine (bellum iustum), which for centuries has offered a moral compass for those torn between the dilemmas of armed service.

10. Conclusions

The primary objective of this study was to examine the role of religion in modern military socialization within an interdisciplinary framework. The analytical premise was founded on the recognition that religiosity cannot be conceptualized merely as a static demographic variable. The central hypothesis posited that religion exerts an active and formative influence on the outcome of the socialization process.

The utilization of the three theoretical models (Ecological, Religion–Military, and Integrative) facilitated a comprehensive, multi-level, and dynamic exploration of this phenomenon. Based on the synthesis of the extant literature, it is evident that a functional equivalence (or isomorphism) exists between religiosity and military service. The historical analysis confirmed that the precursors of modern socialisation mechanisms were already present in the sacred institutions of the Roman army (sacramentum, Feriale Duranum), providing a structural and motivational pattern for the present day. Specifically, religious pre-socialization cultivates competencies and behavioral dispositions that are arguably indispensable for the armed forces.

The literature review reveals that, beyond the positive influence of religion, it is essential to account for its potentially inhibiting effects on military socialization. On one hand, religion functions as a catalyst for the development of identity fusion, significantly enhancing group cohesion and the propensity for self-sacrifice under conditions of extreme stress. This deep psychological attachment corresponds to intensity in the theological sense, which transforms mere rule-following into internal conviction. Conversely, the analysis identified a critical point of vulnerability within the process: moral injury. If an irresolvable normative conflict arises between military reality and internalised religious commandments—or the principles of just war (bellum iustum)—this can lead to the stalling of the socialisation process, psychological crisis, and ultimately early exit from the organisation.

The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in the integration of religion into the process model of military socialization, explicitly delineating both its protective mechanisms and associated risk factors. The study acknowledges certain limitations, notably the absence of primary empirical data and the model’s contingency upon specific cultural contexts (e.g., secular versus religious societies) and force structures (all-volunteer versus conscripted forces). Future research should prioritize the empirical validation of the theoretical relationships presented. Particular attention must be directed toward investigating the identity fusion patterns of personnel from diverse denominational backgrounds and quantifying the prevalence of moral injury. The application of the Integrative Model in this domain offers novel perspectives for enhancing the efficacy of military human resource management and psychological support systems. Ultimately, religion emerges not as a passive background variable but as an active, dynamic force that shapes military identity and, by extension, influences the future trajectory of the modern armed forces.