Newell, Adrian

Rayner, Charlotte Ann Louise

English

Name not available

1 
An investigation into the development of mental toughness in the British Army 
 
Adrian Newell and Charlotte Rayner 
 
Introduction 
This study examines the development of mental toughness through the experience of 'tough' 
environments and reward/punishment regimes. It has long been recognised that success on 
the battle field is dependent on the 'human element' as well as tactics and physical 
equipment superiority (ARTD, 2009). Screening, developing and testing for physical 
aptitude is relatively straight forward; however the measurement and development of mental 
robustness is less well understood (Jones, Hanton and Connaughton, 2002). Military 
discipline is a 'bedrock' where discipline highlights and eradicates undesirable behaviour and 
(crucial to this paper) is believed to contribute to the development of mental toughness 
(Director General Leadership, 2014) through coping with the threat of punishment. This 
study seeks a closer understanding of the relationship between punishment and mental 
toughness in the British Army. 
 
The Literature 
Competitive sport holds a large proportion of focused mental toughness research. Mental 
toughness has been described as one of the most used, but least understood phrases in 
sport psychology (Jones, Hanton and Connaughton, 2002). Although no agreed definition of 
mental toughness exists, there is consensus that it is a dispositional construct enabling 
individuals to deal with obstacles, distractions, pressure and adversity from a wide range of 
stressors (Clough & Strycharczyk, 2012). Hardy, Bell and Beattie (2013: 1) defined it as "the 
ability to achieve personal goals in the face of pressure from a wide range of different 
stressors" which is adopted for this study. 
 
Within sports, mental toughness is rated as one of the most important psychological 
characteristics in determining competitive success, e.g. Sheard, 2010; McGraw et al., 2012. 
Research has found mental toughness is related to coping with testing circumstances 
(Kaiseler, Polman and Nicholls, 2009), greater pain tolerance (Crust and Clough, 2005) and 
achievement (Bell et al, 2013). A number of qualitative studies have attempted to understand 
how mental toughness develops, e.g. Bull, Shambrook, James and Brooks (2005). Whilst 
genetics may play a part, social environmental influences have a role (Crust and Clough, 
2011). Given the apparent benefits, the discovery of techniques for mental toughness 
development is attractive. 
 
Repeatedly practicing tasks whilst subjected to mild levels of anxiety can help prevent 
mistakes when levels of anxiety are increased (Oudejans and Pijpers, 2010). Systematic 
desensitization training is a behavioural therapy technique used to help individuals cope in 
stressful and anxiety related conditions (Deffenbacher and Suinn, 1988). Exposure to the 
threat of negative consequences and the development of strategies to avoid such 
consequences is central. In order for the negative threat to be credible, a genuine negative 
consequence attached to poor performance is needed (ibid) and this might be punishment 
(Hardy et al 2013). 
 
Kazadin (1975) conceives punishment as the presentation of something undesirable or the 
removal of positive outcomes such as a restriction of privilege. Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff 
and MacKenzie (2006) conducted a meta-analysis into the relationship between leader 
operant behaviours and subordinate attitudes, role perceptions and performance. Noncontingent 
reward held no effect. Contingent reward had the strongest relationship with 
subordinate satisfaction. Non-contingent punishment had the strongest negative relationship. 
It is agreed that punishment can elicit negative emotions in subordinates and that 
administering punishment contingently and fairly by those that are trusted can mitigate these 
effects (Podsakoff et al., 2006). Research continues, for example Rubin, Bommer, and 
Bachrach, (2010) found that contingent punishment had a positive effect on subordinate trust 
and OCB, while non-contingent punishment had a negative effect on both trust and OCB. 
2 
In the military, Attwater, Cambreco, Dionne, Avolio and Lau (1997: 147) reported the effects 
of reward and punishment in an all male military college. Perceptions of leader effectiveness 
were highly correlated with contingent reward. Then (as now) “non-contingent punishment is 
regarded as being useful for building stress and frustration tolerance”, but they found a 
significantly higher emotional response (mainly anger) by subordinates experiencing noncontingent 
punishment. Links to performance were unclear, and mental toughness untested. 
We seek to explore these issues as the practice of non-contingent punishment continues to 
exist within the British Army. 
 
Study design 
There are limited empirical studies on mental toughness (Gucciardi, Gordon and Dimmock, 
2009) or valid measurement tools. The invalidity of self-reporting mental toughness is 
convincing (Hardy et al., 2013). The recently developed Military Training Mental Toughness 
Inventory (Arthur, Fitzwater, Hardy, Beattie, & Bell, under review) provides a useful tool for 
measurement of mental toughness by an independent person. 
 
We were fortunate to gain access to the Infantry Battle School which delivers rank-specific 
courses in order to acclimatise personnel for leadership in arduous field conditions. 
Physically and mentally demanding, successful course completion is a prerequisite for 
promotion. The arduous nature of the training presents instructors with the opportunity to 
practice punishment and reward combinations. These factors helped set the conditions for a 
unique and challenging academic opportunity. 
 
Resource constraints (time and access to a sample group) meant that a cross-sectional 
design was required. This investigation sought to explore associations between experience, 
performance, punishment/reward and mental toughness to provide pointers for future 
research. 
 
Specifically, this research aimed to establish: 
1. The relationship between mental toughness, contingent/ non-contingent punishment 
2. and performance. 
3. The effect of operational deployment on mental toughness. 
 
Measures 
Determination of mental toughness in The British Army employs the Military Training Mental 
Toughness Inventory (MTMTI). The questionnaire consists of 6 items using a 7 point scale: 
1 (never), through 4 (sometimes), to 7 (always). 
 
Punishment and reward were measured using the Leadership Reward and Punishment 
Questionnaire (LRPQ; Podsakoff and Todor, 1984). The non-contingent reward items were 
removed as previous research has consistently revealed that non-contingent reward neither 
positively or negatively contributes to performance or satisfaction (e.g. Rubin et al., 2010). 
Without the non-contingent reward items the questionnaire comprised 20 questions using a 
scale anchored at 1 (never) to 5 (always). Performance during the course was measured 
using the final course grade awarded by an independent panel of directing staff and is based 
on a range of competencies tested throughout the course. 
 
Procedure and participants 
This research employed an observer-rated mental toughness inventory to examine the 
relationship between (non) contingent punishment, reward and mental toughness. Cohorts of 
officers, sergeants and corporals (N =316) undergoing training at the British Army’s Infantry Battle 
School undertook testing at the end of their 7-12 week courses. An observer-rated mental 
toughness inventory MTMTI) was employed to examine the relationship between (non) 
contingent punishment, reward and mental toughness. Cohorts of officers, sergeants and 
corporals (N =316) undergoing training at the British Army’s Infantry Battle School undertook 
testing at the end of their 7-12 week courses. Involvement was voluntary and 87% of trainees 
agreed to participate: 316 male Army infantry officers, sergeants and corporals (Mage = 26.3, 
3 
SD = 3.1). Courses were rank-specific; officers, sergeants and corporals and cohorts are 
described below. 
 
The officer cohort (n = 90, Mage = 24.3, SD = 1.7) averaged 1.4 years (SD = 1.1) in the Army 
and most had recently passed basic officer training. Most (92%) had degree education. 
 
The sergeant cohort (n = 126, Mage = 28.4, SD = 2.9) averaged 10 years service (SD = 2.1) 
and were the most operationally seasoned of the cohorts having led sections (8 men) or 
platoons (26 men) whilst on operations. They will have completed the corporals' course. 
 
The corporals cohort (n = 100, Mage = 25.5, SD = 2.3) averaged 6.3 years service (SD = 1.9). 
Holding some experience of operational deployment, most tasks would have been 
undertaken with close supervision and with limited leadership opportunities. The corporals 
were the most junior rank of the three cohorts. 
 
Findings 
Although the measures used in the study had all been validated during previous research, 
CFA was conducted. The MTMTI demonstrated an excellent factor structure (χ2 (9)=19.54, 
RMSEA=0.03, SRMR=0.02, NNFI=1.0, CFI=1.0). After removing 3 items, contingent reward 
(LRPQ) resulted in a satisfactory factor structure (χ2 (14) = 38.10, RMSEA=0.06, 
SRMR=0.03, NNFI=0.99, CFI=0.99). One item was removed in contingent punishment 
resulting in a good factor structure (χ2(2)=1.71, RMSEA=0.00, SRMR=0.02, NNFI=1.0, 
CFI=1.0). Non-contingent punishment demonstrated a very good factor structure (χ2 (2)=0.23, 
RMSEA=0.00, SRMR=0.00, NNFI=1.0, CFI=1.0). Descriptives, correlations and alpha coefficients 
are displayed in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, zero order correlations and alpha coefficients (diagonal) 
 
 
 
Bivariate correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between mental 
toughness and performance in all three cohorts (corporals: r.58, p >.01; sergeants: r .48, 
p>.01; officers: r.69, p>.01). Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in 
mental toughness between ranks (F=1.72, p =.181). 
 
Correlations and moderated hierarchical regression revealed no significant effects for 
4 
contingent punishment in the whole group or any cohort. Non-contingent punishment had a 
significant negative correlation with course performance and mental toughness. 
 
Independent sample t-test also revealed significant differences in observer-rated mental 
toughness between high performing students who achieved a distinction, instructor 
recommendation, or both (n=41) and those who performed satisfactorily and achieved a 
generic pass (n=275) (t(60.18) = 9.39, p>.01). 
 
Independent sample t-test revealed significant differences in mental toughness between 
those who had served in Afghanistan (n=208) and those who had not (n=108) (t(314) =2.27, 
p=.02). However, no significant differences were revealed between those who had served in 
Iraq (n= 110) and those who had not (n=206) (t (314) =.30, p=.23). 
 
When all of the data were simultaneously entered into the analysis, stepwise regression 
revealed that the behaviour exhibiting the greatest variance in performance was noncontingent 
punishment in the corporal (r²=.05, β =-.23, p=.02) and sergeant cohorts (r²=.05, 
β=-.23, p=.01). 
 
Discussion 
Results revealed significant correlations between mental toughness and performance in a 
British Army context which confirms the importance of mental toughness as a construct of 
value. Consistent with previous research in other contexts was the significant negative effect 
of non-contingent punishment. This finding is important for the British Army which embeds 
non-contingent punishment within Military Discipline practice, and these findings would 
suggest such practices are reviewed as to their purpose as their effect on performance and 
mental toughness appears to be negative. Including non-contingent punishment in military 
discipline may be counterproductive for a fighting force. With a future dependence on 
Reservists, punishment regimes in such difficult-to-recruit groups could be critical to their 
success. 
 
The second of the specific requirements of this study was to analyse the effect of operational 
deployment on mental toughness. Deployment to Afghanistan is recognised as a stressful 
operation and those who had deployed scored significantly higher on the MTMTI than those 
who had not. Deployment to Iraq did not reveal any significant difference in mental 
toughness. It is possible that the contribution of experience to mental toughness degrades 
over time, or the nature of the deployment was different or both (Mulder, 2008). However 
recent deployment into a hostile environment remains a primary indicator for mental 
toughness and aligns with previous research. Given the lack of difference between the ranks 
in mental toughness scores, and that sample officers will have had limited deployment 
experience, further research is needed as the officers achieved a mental toughness score 
without deployment. Social background and education (Crust and Clough, 2011) officer 
training and other variables may have complex bearing on an individual’s level of mental 
toughness. It is possible officer selection and basic training embeds useful components not 
present in corporal and sergeant training, or other demographic factors are involved. 
 
Given the statistical robustness of the MTMTI, its use earlier in the course as well as on exit 
may detect if mental toughness develops during training at the Battle School. Longitudinal 
studies could be straightforward to administer at various officer and other rank training 
establishments. With women taking a prominent position on the front line, gender specific 
research is needed to understand differences in mental toughness development. Greater 
reliance on Reservists would indicate a need to explore how mental toughness can be 
developed in those who only conduct a comparatively short period of time in training. 
 
References: 
ARTD (2009). A guide to leadership in the ARTD. Booklet issued to all permanent training 
staff in the Army Recruiting & Training Division. AC: 71928. 
 
5 
Arthur, C., Fitzwater, J.P.J., Hardy, L., Beattie, S., & Bell, G. (under review). Military 
Training Mental Toughness Inventory. 
 
Attwater, L. E., Cambreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., & Lau, A. N. (1997). Effects of 
rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness and follower reactions. 
Leadership Quarterly, 8:133-152. 
 
Bell, J., Hardy, L., & Beattie, S. (2013). Enhancing mental toughness and performance under 
pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2 year longitudinal intervention. Sport, Exercise, and 
Performance Psychology, 4: 281-297 
 
Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brookes, J. E. (2005). Towards an 
understanding of mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport 
Psychology, 17:209-227 
 
Clough, P., & Strycharczyk, D. (2012). Developing mental toughness: Improving wellbeing 
and positive behaviour in others. London: Kogan Page Ltd. 
 
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical 
endurance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 100:192–194. 
 
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2011). Developing mental toughness: from research to practice. 
Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2:1, 21-32. 
 
Deffenbacher, J. L., & Suinn, R. M. (1988). Systematic Desensitization and the reduction of 
Anxiety. The Counselling Psychologist, 16:9-30. 
 
Director General Leadership. (2014). Developing leaders: A British Army guide. Royal 
Military Academy Sandhurst. AC64547. 
 
Hardy, L., Bell, J. J., & Beattie, S. J. (2013). A neuropsychological model of mentally tough 
behavior. Journal of Personality, (in press). doi: 10.1111/jopy.12034. 
 
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental 
toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 
14:205–218. 
 
Kaiseler, M., Polman, R., & Nicholls, A. (2009). Mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, 
coping and coping effectiveness in sport. Personality and Individual Differences, 47:728– 
733. 
 
Kazadin, A. E.(1975) Behaviour modification in applied settings. Homewood, 111, Dorsey 
McGraw, L., Pickering, M. A., Ohlson, C. & Hammermeister, J. (2012). The influence of 
mental skills on psychosocial characteristics of Stryker Brigade Soldiers. Military Medicine, 
177:77-84. 
 
Mulder, L. B. (2008). The difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral 
concerns in social decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44:1436- 
1443. 
 
Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking 
under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11:44–50. 
 
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). 
Relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviour and subordinate attitudes, 
perceptions, and behaviours: A meta-analytic view of existing and new research. 
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 99:113-142. 
6 
 
Rubin, R. S., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. (2010). Operant leadership and employee 
citizenship: A question of trust? The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 400-408. 
 
Sheard, M. (2010). Mental toughness: The mindset behind sporting achievement. 
London: Routledge. 


An investigation into the development of mental toughness in the British Army

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)

A guide to leadership in the ARTD. Booklet issued to all permanent training staff in the Army Recruiting & Training Division.

A neuropsychological model of mentally tough behavior.

Developing leaders: A British Army guide. Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Developing mental toughness: from research to practice.

E.(1975) Behaviour modification in applied settings.

Effects of rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader effectiveness and follower reactions. Leadership Quarterly,

Enhancing mental toughness and performance under pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2 year longitudinal intervention.

Mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, coping and coping effectiveness in sport. Personality and Individual Differences,

Mental toughness: The mindset behind sporting achievement.

Operant leadership and employee citizenship: A question of trust?

Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance. Perceptual & Motor Skills,

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviour and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours: A meta-analytic view of existing and new research. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,

Systematic Desensitization and the reduction of Anxiety. The Counselling Psychologist,

The difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral concerns in social decision making.

Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety.

What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers.

http://eprints.port.ac.uk/id/document/41826

An investigation into the development of mental toughness in the British Army

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)