Research purpose: The purpose was to compare selected and not-selected candidates in terms of their sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy and to explore what they considered important for success in the selection process.

Motivation for the study: Because of high attrition rates in Special Forces selection, the evaluation of the role of motivation and coping resources in terms of possible predictive utility could benefit the organisation from a logistical, financial and efficiency point of view.

Research design, approach and method: A mixed-method cross-sectional survey design was used to assess an all-male candidate group (N = 73). The selected and not-selected groups were compared with regard to their sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy mean scores.

Main findings: No statistically significant differences were found between the mean scores of the two groups concerning the quantitative measures used.

Practical/managerial implications: The quantitative measures generally showed acceptable coefficient alpha reliabilities. Although no statistically significant mean differences were found between the groups, candidates showed high levels of sense of coherence, high levels of self-efficacy and average levels of hardiness and internal locus of control. The qualitative data confirmed the relevance of the quantitative constructs and pointed to additional aspects already considered in preparation for and during the selection process.

Contribution/value-add: The results provide information regarding the constructs and measures used in a military context.

Positive psychology refers to the ‘… scientific study of what is “right about people” – as opposed to the traditional focus on the healing of psychological pain or trauma’ (Molony & Henwood, 2010, p. 15). Top military leaders have recognised the importance of psychological fitness (Casey, 2011) and that stress has a negative impact on performance. The US Army has therefore launched a large-scale project involving positive-psychology measures and training programmes (Cornum et al., 2011) in seeking to use the science of positive psychology to enhance resilience amongst the entire army community (Casey, 2011). The comprehensive soldier fitness (CSF) programme of the US Army is aimed at promoting wellbeing, developing psychological resilience and preventing problems by adopting a holistic, integrated, preventive and proactive approach (Casey, 2011; Cornum et al., 2011). Individuals with higher hardiness and better coping skills generally cope better with stressful circumstances and show fewer stress symptoms (Escolas, Pitts, Safer & Bartone, 2013), These constructs can therefore be applied practically in the selection of military employees as those with higher coping resources are also likely to cope better with the stressors of the military context (Casey, 2011).

Changing times, the diverse demographics of candidates and the new demands of modern-day warfare served as motivation for the exploration of the role of positive psychological constructs within the context of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) Special Forces. This is in line with modern trends internationally where a number of wide-scale studies have been undertaken to evaluate the role of positive-psychology constructs within the broader military context (Seligman & Fowler, 2011) as well as in the Special Forces context (Bartone et al., 2008). Due to the extreme physical and mental challenges that individuals in the Special Forces context often have to deal with, aspects such as physical and emotional resilience; physical, emotional and mental strength; grit; tenacity and perseverance have been the focus of a growing conversation around the profiling, screening and selection and training of these individuals (Bartone et al., 2008; Gruber et al. 2009; Hunt et al., 2013).

The Special Forces represent a specialised elite group within the military, and candidates are subjected to rigorous multi-faceted selection procedures, representing extremely stressful conditions (Bartone et al., 2008; Hunt et al., 2013). Special Forces selection in South Africa represents a situation that is stressful at a physical, cognitive, emotional and interpersonal level – similar to elite military selection processes in other countries (Bartone et al., 2008; Hystad, Eid, Laberg & Bartone 2011; Hunt et al., 2013). The selection process is specifically designed to be challenging on various levels as peak physical and mental performance during extremely stressful conditions is what the subsequent work context will demand (Bartone et al., 2008; Gruber et al., 2009; Hunt et al., 2013).

The selection process is known to have high fall-out rates with a high proportion of candidates starting with the selection process being unsuccessful – which adds to the logistical and financial burden on the military (Hunt et al., 2013). It is therefore important to try to identify other factors that may help to lower the attrition rate. Candidates who participate in the Special Forces selection are physically prepared beforehand by means of a rigorous training program. According to Hunt et al. (2013, p. 623) nonphysical reasons for withdrawal or failure ‘may lie in the candidate’s cognitive and psychological state’, and preventing potentially unsuccessful candidates from commencing with selection would lower the financial and logistical burden associated with the selection. It would also increase the success rate.

Special Forces members are expected to function in small groups, to be extremely adaptable and to withstand demanding and dangerous circumstances on a physiological, mental, interpersonal and emotional level whilst functioning in different cultural contexts (Bartone et al., 2008; Gruber et al., 2009), all of which represent stressors of different kinds. During the selection process, candidates are exposed to lack of sleep and extreme physical challenges in combination with constant pressure at individual and team level as well as constant monitoring of behaviour and performance (Maddi, Matthews, Kelly, Villarreal & White, 2012). The present study was aimed at determining whether coping skills – in the form of a sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy – were significant factors in success or failure, given the extreme conditions of stress which the Special Forces selection process pose.

Considering both quantitative and qualitative data of the candidates involved in the selection process could contribute towards improved understanding of the psychological and other factors that contribute to success despite the highly stressful demands involved. Constructs such as sense of coherence, hardiness, internal locus of control and self-efficacy that have been associated with coping under stressful circumstances and challenges (Escolas et al., 2013; Maddi, 2013) could therefore also shed light on the factors that may contribute to success in the Special Forces selection process. Better insight into these factors within the particular context could be used to improve training and preparation or to improve or refine the selection and training programmes (Bartone et al., 2008) to help decrease attrition rates. The evaluation of the psychometric properties of these measures and comparisons of selected and not-selected candidates in a Special Forces selection process would provide information that could be used in this regard. Because of the high costs associated with the selection and training of elite soldiers (Gruber et al., 2009; Stark et al., 2011), reducing fall-outs and retaining those selected for the foreseeable future will optimise both cost and functionality within the military.

The selection process for the Special Forces within the SANDF includes assessment of physical, cognitive, motivational, personality and interpersonal aspects. Although the constructs considered can be linked to dimensions of positive-psychology constructs such as sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy, these have not been measured specifically or separately. The research question posed was the following: Do those who are selected differ significantly, as far as these constructs are concerned, from those who are not selected? Standardised measures for the different constructs were used to obtain the quantitative data to answer this question. From a qualitative perspective, the question posed was the following: What factors do candidates consider important for success in the selection process? The data obtained for this part of the study were the written responses provided by the candidates to an open-ended question on the factors they considered important in promoting or hindering success in the selection process. As a first step, the reliability values of the different positive psychology measures used were evaluated for this sample group. Secondly, the mean scores of the selected and not-selected candidates on the different measures were compared to determine whether statistically significant differences were evident.

Due to the small size of the available sample, the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was used to compare the mean scores of the selected and not-selected candidate groups (Field, 2009). The qualitative data was explored by means of content analysis, and the framework of dimensions and sub-dimensions of the quantitatively measured constructs was used to link the two datasets and to illustrate how the different quantitative constructs manifest – in the words of the candidates – within the particular selection context.

Escolas et al. 2013; Kobasa & Pucetti, 1983; Maddi, 2013; Marais, 1997; Strümpfer, Eiselen, Meiring & Phalatse, 2010).

Sense of coherence, according to Antonovsky (1987), comprises three dimensions, namely:
• Comprehensibility – being able to make cognitive sense of stressors.
• Manageability – perceiving resources as available to cope with the demands of the environment.
• Meaningfulness – believing challenges to be worthy of investment and engagement and being able to emotionally identify and commit effort to the handling of these demands.

Research on sense of coherence spans more than 30 years, and results support its utility and its being statistically significantly associated with performance (Strümpfer, Danana, Gouws & Viviers, 1998), work engagement (Rothmann, Jorgensen & Hill, 2011), work satisfaction (Strümpfer & De Bruin, 2009), occupational stress (Van der Colff & Rothmann, 2009) and burnout (Wiese, Rothmann & Storm, 2003). Wong (2011, p. 74) suggested that ‘without a sense of coherence, life is incomprehensible, unpredictable, and unsettling’. These sub-constructs and the overall main construct has been well researched internationally as well as in the South African context and is relevant for evaluating the coping profile of individuals who are required to perform in stressful work environments such as police officers, members of the special task force of the police and rescue-team members in mines (Bekwa & De Beer, 2009; Strümpfer et al., 2010). In a military context, SOC has been associated positively with regard to psychosocial and risk factors (Ristkari et al. 2005), adjustment and lower posttraumatic stress disorder and depression (Luutonen, Sohlman, Salokangas, Lehtinen & Dowrick, 2011) and thus seems to serve a protective function. This construct was therefore deemed important to include in the high-stress, Special Forces, military context of the present research project.

Hardiness was extensively researched in a 12-year, longitudinal study involving the Illinois bell telephone (IBT) company where employees were tested each year for six years prior to and for another six years subsequent to a major deregulation of the industry which led to about 50% of staff being retrenched (Maddi, 2013). Whilst about two-thirds of the employees in the sample group did not cope with the forced changes – suffering from physical, emotional and social fallout symptoms, the other third showed surprising resilience – not only surviving but actually thriving in these stressful conditions (Maddi, 2013).

Research within the military context has shown hardiness to act as a stress buffer and to be a good long-term predictor of adaptability and performance of military leaders Bartone et al. 2013).

Three sub-dimensional dispositions make up the overall hardiness construct:

• Commitment refers to actively involving oneself and showing curiosity in people, activities and things (Kobasa, Maddi, Pucetti & Zola, 1985), which contributes to a general sense of purposiveness and engagement. Those strong in commitment believe that, however bad things get, it remains important to stay involved – rather than becoming detached and alienated (Maddi, 2013).
• Control refers to a belief in one’s own influence rather than experiencing helplessness in the face of difficulties (Kobasa et al. 1985). Those high on control are convinced of the need to turn potential disasters into possible growth opportunities (Maddi, 2013).
• Challenge refers to individuals experiencing changes and responding to unexpected events as positive challenges rather than as threats – thereby showing an accepting, transformative, growth-oriented attitude rather than protective conserving or maintenance-oriented attitude towards challenges (Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn, 1982). Those high on challenge are likely to see stressful changes as opportunities to grow (Maddi, 2013).

Hardiness has been hypothesised as protecting individuals from the effects of stress (Eschleman, Bowling & Alarcon 2010). According to Maddi (2013), any two of the three sub-dimensions without the third one would limit hardiness whilst Bartone et al. (2013) showed that they can operate differently in terms of important outcomes. The total of these three scores provide an overall index of hardiness.

Hardiness was extensively researched in industry (Maddi 2013) and has also been applied in nursing (Hochwälder & Forsell, 2011) and military contexts (Bartone et al. 2013; Maddi et al. 2012). With regard to the military application, hardiness significantly predicted admission into military-officer schools, with selected candidates in Norway obtaining significantly higher hardiness scores than non-selected candidates (Hystad et al. 2011). Hardiness has also been shown to predict in a statistically significant way the successful completion of military training – specifically in the Special Forces context (Bartone et al. 2008) and has predicted adaptability of military leaders in real-world contexts over time (Bartone et al. 2013). Results showed that hardiness scores of course graduates in the Special Forces are significantly higher compared to non-graduates – confirming hardiness to be ‘an important construct associated with stress tolerance and successful performance in highly demanding occupations’ (Bartone et al. 2008, p. 78). It therefore seems to be a potentially valuable personality style in Special Forces (Bartone et al. 2008) as it has been shown to be associated with greater psychological well-being and lower levels of stress (Skomorovsky & Sudom, 2011).

Since hardiness is learned, hardiness training can enhance performance and decrease illness symptoms (Maddi & Harvey, 2006). Therefore, if hardiness is shown to be a statistically significant predictor of selection and/or training results in the military and Special Forces context, programmes for hardiness training could be considered to better equip those exposed to the challenges of this context (Bartone et al. 2008). Hystad et al. (2011) recommended that research on hardiness should also be expanded to and replicated for multicultural groups.

• Internal locus of control refers to reinforcement and situational control being perceived as contingent upon own actions and under the individual’s own control.
• External locus of control refers to reinforcement and situational control being perceived as not being entirely contingent upon the individual’s own actions but rather seen as the result of or dependent on luck, chance, fate or powerful others.

According to Greenspoon and Saklofske (2000), an internal locus of control can help individuals to cope in demanding situations. The construct of locus of control is associated with an individual’s motivational disposition as it reflects whether individuals perceive the outcome of events as contingent on their own behaviour or as being under the control of powerful others (Rotter, 1989). In the research by Al-Turkait and Ohaeri (2008, p. 939), individuals with an external locus of control showed significantly higher scores on psychopathology, anxiety, depression and avoidance compared to individuals with an internal locus of control, and in their view, contributed to ‘the perpetuation of PTSD’. In a military context, locus of control has shown significant association with accident involvement (Hunter & Stewart 2012). Locus of control has been found to be a good predictor of training and performance outcomes in a military context (Bradley & Nicol, 2006). It was argued that participants with higher internal locus of control were more likely to hold views that their personal effort was directly linked to their performance (Bradley & Nicol, 2006), which in turn may play a role in selection success. For this reason, this construct was included in the present study.

Empirical findings have shown that self-efficacy is negatively related to perceived stress and psychological distress (Gruber et al. 2009). Self-efficacy has been positively associated with motivation and performance by Chen, Gully and Eden (2001). According to Rimm and Jerusalem (1999), general self-efficacy relates to subjective confidence in mastering stressful demands. They further reported that ‘a strong sense of personal efficacy is related to better health, higher achievement and more social integration’ (Rimm & Jerusalem 1999, p. 329). Individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are in general better able to deal with stressful demands and show better adjustment whilst those with lower levels of self-efficacy are likely to be more prone to self-doubt and anxiety when faced with stressful situations (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999).

Self-efficacy facilitates coping with stress from the early phases of cognitive appraisal of the stressors (Jerusalem 1992). In the military context, self-efficacy has been shown as a statistically significant predictor of successful completion of Special Forces assessment and selection (Gruber et al. 2009), providing support for its inclusion in this study.

The aim of the present study was to explore the utility of the positive-psychology constructs of sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy within the context of a Special Forces selection process involving very high physical, mental and emotional demands. In this regard, selected and not-selected individuals were compared on their mean scores of sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy to determine whether statistically significant differences were evident.

The research question posed with regard to the quantitative part of the research was: Are there statistically significant differences between the mean sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy scores of the selected and not-selected groups in a Special Forces selection context?

The hypothesis tested was:

Hypothesis 1: There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the selected and not-selected groups respectively concerning sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy.

A statistical significance level of .05 was chosen.

In terms of the qualitative part of the research, the questions posed before the start as well as after the completion of the selection process related to the factors and personal characteristics that candidates deemed important in helping or hindering their success during the Special Forces selection. These questions were aimed at exploring the factors that the candidates considered important to be successful in the Special Forces screening and selection process and whether these had any bearing on the constructs measured quantitatively. The project focus was on whether the combination of quantitative and qualitative data using a mixed-methods approach could lead to a better understanding of the chosen constructs within the specific context (Creswell & Garrett, 2008).

The race distribution of the group is broadly representative of the South African population although white members are somewhat over-represented (17.8% from the population representation of around 8.8%) and members from the mixed-race community are somewhat under-represented (2.7% from the population representation of 9%) (Statistics South Africa [StatsSA], 2012). In the general population, people of Indian descent represent 2.6% of the population, and in this sample, there was no candidate of Indian descent. It was not expected that the spread of first languages of the candidates in this sample group would be representative of South African official languages. Except for English, which was over-represented, and isiZulu, which was under-represented, most of the other languages were represented within 5% of their official proportion when one compares them to the official language distribution in South Africa based on the latest census information (StatsSA, 2012) (see Table 1).

All candidates in the applicant group met the minimum educational requirement of Grade 12 with a small percentage (16.9%) having higher-level qualifications. On average, they had been employed by the SANDF for just over three years (3.25 years on average).

The relevant population consists of SANDF Special Forces soldiers, and although the current sample group could be considered reasonably similar to other groups involved in similar selection processes, their voluntary participation and the convenience sample that they represent limits broader generalisation from the current study.

Measurement of sense of coherence: The 29-question version of the Orientation to Life Questionnaire (OLQ) of Antonovsky (1987) was used to measure the sense of coherence of the candidates. Sub-scores on comprehensibility (11 items), manageability (10 items) and meaningfulness (8 items) can be calculated with the sum of the three scores providing the overall sense of coherence score. Coefficient alpha reliability of the measure has been reported as ranging between 0.83 and 0.93 (Antonovsky, 1993).

The questionnaire was administered to measure the sense of coherence and the sub-dimensions of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness of the available convenience sample group involved in a Special Forces selection process. This group was too small to allow for factor analysis and a decision was taken to use the standard questionnaire without any changes to allow for comparison with other published results – despite some researchers having questioned the quality of some of the items (Van Schalkwyk & Rothmann, 2008).

Measurement of hardiness: Kobasa’s (1979) 50-item Personal Values Scale (PVS) Questionnaire was used to measure hardiness. It comprises three sub-scales of commitment (15 items), control (17 items) and challenge (18 items) with the collated score reflecting overall hardiness. These statements are presented to participants to indicate the extent to which the possible answers ranging from zero (not at all true) to three (completely true) are applicable to the individual.

Hardiness has been reported as moderating stress with internal consistency reliability values ranging between 0.68 and 0.85 (Kobasa, 1979). The scoring was adjusted so that higher scores overall could be associated with a higher levels of hardiness.

Measurement of locus of control: Rotter’s 29-question Locus-of-Control Questionnaire was administered to the sample group in its original and standard form. Strümpfer (1990) reported coefficient alpha values of between .74 and .84 for various local studies. The scoring determines the external locus of control score, which is then used to determine the internal locus of control score as the scores always have to add up to a total of 23.

Measurement of self-efficacy: Two different self-efficacy questionnaires were included in this study, namely the New General Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (Chen et al. 2001) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Rimm & Jerusalem 1999). The statements in these questionnaires are all positively phrased, so no reverse scoring was required.

The two questionnaires respectively consisted of:

• The eight-question New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE) (Chen et al., 2001) rated on a five-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain/undecided, agree to strongly agree).

• The ten-question General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999), which uses a four-point scale (not at all true; hardly true; moderately true; exactly true), showing internal coefficient alpha reliability of between 0.75 and 0.91 (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999).

Qualitative data gathering: For the qualitative component of the study, the researchers wanted to explore what the candidates deemed important for success in the selection process and to reflect on and elucidate the degree of alignment of the qualitative content to the quantitative constructs measured. Open-ended questions were included when the paper-and-pencil questionnaires were completed and were posed in written format and required written responses from participants the day before as well as after completing the screening and selection process.

After voluntarily agreeing to participate and after signing a consent form, participants completed the questionnaires. Although none of the candidates withdrew on a voluntary basis, there were some who did not complete the open-ended questions, and there was also some missing data in the quantitative sections of the questionnaire. This accounts for varying sample sizes in the reporting of the results. The quantitative and qualitative responses to the questionnaires were captured for further statistical and qualitative analysis. Numbers instead of identifiable personal detail were used to identify participants, and files were protected with passwords.

The questionnaire administered to the candidate group before commencing with the selection process contained a consent form, biographical questionnaire, the quantitative measures and the open-ended questions. A similar process of informing participants of their rights, signing of consent forms and obtaining their willing participation in the research was followed on completion of the selection process. At that stage, the participants knew whether or not they had been successful. During this second phase of data gathering, only biographical and open-ended questions were posed.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests (Field 2009) were used to test the normality of the distribution of the variables, and based on the mixed results and the small sample size, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test for comparing the mean scores of independent samples was used to compare the mean scores of the selected and not-selected groups on the different variables (Field, 2009). Statistical comparisons of the mean scores for the selected and the not-selected groups were done for the different dimensions and sub-dimensions and are also reported in Table 2 with inclusion of r-values for effect sizes (Cohen, 1992).

Qualitative data analysis: The qualitative data obtained by means of written responses to open-ended questions prior to and on completion of the selection process were captured electronically and analysed by means of thematic content analysis (Terre Blanche, Durrheim & Kelly, 2009). The written responses of candidates to the questions about what they considered most important in either helping or hindering success in the selection process were used as data to explore how the constructs measured quantitatively manifest in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The written responses were generally short. The first phase of familiarisation and immersion (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Terre Blanche et al. 2009) was followed by coding, identifying, reviewing and, where appropriate, naming themes in line with the framework provided by the quantitative constructs and their sub-dimensions.

Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 4, 6) referred to thematic analysis as ‘a foundational method for qualitative analysis’ for reporting ‘patterns (themes) within data’. The data was read several times in order to understand the whole, and codes were labelled (primarily, though not exclusively) in line with the relevant dimensions and sub-dimensions that were measured quantitatively. Codes were grouped into broader themes in a further attempt to generate deeper understanding of the candidates’ experiences (Johnson & Waterfield 2004). From the perspective of essentialism or realist thematic analysis ‘which reports the experiences, meaning and reality of the participants’ (Braun & Clarke 2006, p. 9), a process of mapping a framework onto qualitative descriptions (Griffiths, Ryan & Foster, 2011) was followed from the theoretical position of the positive-psychology constructs used in the quantitative measurement with the aim to provide a more detailed explication of the constructs involved. The codes and identified themes were reviewed by the second researcher, and they were discussed and revised with the aim of ‘confirmability’ and peer review of themes emerging from the data rather than ‘verification’ (Graneheim & Londman 2003, p. 110; Johnson & Waterfield, 2004).

Whilst the definitions of the constructs and their sub-dimensions were used to form a basic framework for coding and eliciting themes, thematic analysis was not restricted to these. Codes and themes outside of this framework were also noted.

With the exception of the locus-of-control measure, acceptable coefficient alpha reliability values were found for all the other standardised quantitative measures – indicating that they could be considered for use within the military and Special Forces contexts. Reliability evidence is, however, a first step only, and evidence in support of validity need to be obtained in time when data from different samples can be collated to increase the available sample size. The descriptive results for the different measures are reported in their standard scales for comparison with other reported research results.

Descriptive results: In terms of sense of coherence, the overall mean score was 167.53 (SD 26.04) whilst the different sub-score means for this sample group were as follows: comprehensibility mean score: 57.56, SD 12.75; manageability mean score: 59.51, SD 9.45 and meaningfulness mean score: 50.26, SD 7.56.

The hardiness mean total score (102.31, SD 13.39) and the internal locus of control mean score of 14.61 (SD 2.90) were higher than the mean external locus of control score of 8.39 (SD 2.90), but low reliability of this measure precludes the use and interpretation of these scores.

The general self-efficacy mean score on the GSE for the current group was 35.33 (SD 3.96) whilst the mean score for the NGSE scale was 36.88 (SD 2.76) (see Table 2).

The qualitative data, analysis, results and interpretation were peer reviewed by the second researcher. The main themes extracted and alignments made to the theoretical framework were confirmed. Additional themes outside of the original framework identified by the second researcher were discussed and incorporated.

The thematic content analysis emphasised the overlap of the qualitative data with the quantitative constructs measured (see Table 3).

Additional themes identified outside of the framework of positive-psychology constructs covered by the quantitative measures were the level of motivation (‘it’s a very tough job and without the right motivation you will not succeed’; ‘if you cannot motivate yourself, you will never make it’), teamwork (‘to work as a team (unity) even in difficulties’; ‘mainly it was about endurance and dedication to the team’; ‘you have to be trustworthy so that your comrades can have confidence in your abilities’), physical ability (‘I believed that I could get through it on pure physical strength but was sadly mistaken’), religion (‘I believe it was God’s will that I participated in selection. However God may open the door for you to selection, but He can’t walk the kilometres or carry the big bag for you. He opened the door, I simply lacked the motivation to walk through it’; ‘I knew what I wanted and mostly trusting in God‘) and environmental factors (‘weather is the most important especially for the first exercise, it is hot’; ‘weather conditions – it is important to be adaptable to the weather conditions of that place because if you are not you might encounter problems like dehydration‘).

As displayed in Table 3, the personal descriptions provided in the qualitative part of the study illuminate how the real experiences and perceptions of the participating candidates embody the quantitative constructs within the Special Forces selection context.

From the perspective of the current study, the lack of statistically significant differences on all of the standardised measures between the selected and non-selected groups was unexpected as these results were contrary to other local and international results in which statistically significant differences were found between other contrast groups (selected and not-selected individuals and individuals working in normal versus more stressful circumstances within similar contexts (Hystad et al. 2011; Strümpfer et al. 2010). One possible reason could be that the entire group went through a 12-week preparatory phase during which they were guided and trained to prepare themselves both physically and psychologically for the selection process. The intensity and duration of the preparation just prior to the selection process may have resulted in more homogeneity in the total group with regard to these self-report scores. Furthermore, these candidates were all applying to work in the same stressful context and could be more similar than groups who work in different contexts.

The sense-of-coherence scores for this group (mean 167.53) were higher than the scores reported for any other South African samples that used the same measure. Some of the higher mean sense-of-coherence scores reported in other studies were 156.74 (N = 200) for a group of managers (Cilliers & Coetzee, 2003), 154.48 (N = 434) for a group of police trainees (Bekwa & De Beer, 2009) and 157.7 (N = 33) and 150.62 (N = 42) respectively for a group of Proto-team members in a mine and a group of Police Task Force members (Strümpfer et al. 2010).

The hardiness mean total score (mean 102.31) was slightly lower than that of a group of senior managers (mean 108.03, SD 13.88, N = 39) reported on when the Kobasa hardiness measure was used (Marais 1997).

The general self-efficacy mean score on the GSE for the current group (mean 35.33) was slightly higher than that reported for a local group of students (mean 30.39; N = 550, reported in Wissing & Van Eeden 2002) and an international study (mean 27.2; N = 670) (Rimm & Jerusalem 1999).

In terms of the sense-of-coherence results in particular, it would imply that the current sample group of candidates in general:

• Would be able to perceive stressful stimuli as making sense, as being ordered, consistent, structured and clear – as opposed to being chaotic, disordered, random, accidental and unpredictable (comprehensibility).
• Would have strong views that they had the required resources available to meet the demands of set stressors by resources under their own control or the control of legitimate or accessible others (manageability).
• Could make sense of the stressors, thereby contributing to their sense of being able to commit to extending the required actions necessary to cope with the demands (meaningfulness).
• Would generally be able to cope with stressors (general sense-of-coherence).

In terms of self-efficacy, their scores indicate that they would generally feel confident in their own abilities and believe that their own behaviour will determine outcomes. Practically, this would translate to them having the belief in their capacity to mobilise resources on a cognitive level to take action and exercise control over task demands which would contribute to their ability to cope with stress (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999; Wissing & Van Eeden, 2002).

These results seem to indicate that candidates who present themselves for the Special Forces selection process show profiles high in general coping and self-belief and average in terms of hardiness. It should be kept in mind that these candidates had undergone a lengthy preparation period prior to the selection process and that the measures used in the current study were all of a self-report nature.

The themes extracted from the qualitative data analysis clearly demonstrate alignment with the quantitative constructs and emphasise the importance of general motivational and coping resources to deal with the cognitive, emotional and physical demands encountered in the Special Forces context (Bartone et al. 2008; Gruber et al. 2009). The qualitative themes (see Table 3) showed meaningful overlap with the constructs measured by means of the quantitative assessments. The themes also highlighted the importance of these aspects during selection and the roles of such coping and motivational resources in the outcome of the results. Additional themes identified can to some degree be linked to the identified framework – for example, the emphasis on religion could also serve as an example of external locus of control.

Whilst no statistically significant differences were found between the selected and not-selected candidates, the quantitative results nevertheless showed that those who participated in the Special Forces screening and selection process showed a higher level of sense of coherence overall and on its sub-scales (comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness) compared to scores reported for other groups and the theoretical mean scores of the scales. The self-efficacy scores of the group were also higher than those reported for other groups. These elevated scores indicate that those applying for the Special Forces selection would generally seem more capable than most to cope with the physical, mental and emotional demands that they would face during selection, while undergoing training and eventually when deployed. This finding points to the possible utility of these measures by means of minimum required levels of performance – in line with the high demands of the context.

Secondly, the qualitative results aligned with the quantitative dimensions measured with themes extracted from the qualitative data clearly aligned to the quantitative framework of the different constructs. The qualitative data allowed for a glimpse into the life-world of the candidates and what they perceived as helping or hindering their success during the Special Forces selection. The qualitative data clearly supported the focus on the dimensions and sub-dimensions of sense of coherence, hardiness, locus of control and self-efficacy.

Lee et al. (2011) recommended that more research is needed to understand how psychological factors influence various outcomes in the military context. The present study provides some empirical data within the military and Special Forces selection context.

The parallel, mixed-method survey approach allowed for both quantitative and qualitative data to be gathered within the limited time that was available, but it precluded from the qualitative perspective any probing on an individual level to elucidate and unpack the meaning of some of the aspects mentioned. The written responses of candidates to the open-ended questions tended to be somewhat cryptic, and the resulting raw data that was available was consequently limited.

The small sample size is a further limitation, which could in time be addressed by replicating this study with other selection groups. More data from the Special Forces and the wider military context would allow for comparisons to be made in terms of the basic resilience profile of these groups.

The cross-sectional nature of the study limited results to a particular point in time whilst the responses of the candidates to the self-report measures used could have been influenced by the selection context.

The continued measurement of these constructs and further exploration of their potential role within the military and Special Forces contexts are recommended.

With regard to the qualitative component of the study, the use of semi-structured interviews in which some probing would be possible would improve the quality of the available data for qualitative analysis. Although focus groups may to some degree also allow for additional information to be made available, focus groups – in particular in the formal, hierarchical and structured military context – may prevent some participants from freely sharing their ideas. Individual interviews or a mixture of individual interviews and focus groups are therefore recommended as the methods to gather qualitative data from Special Force members or candidates during future screening and selection processes.

Military-specific measures may also become available over time as it has been mentioned that, for example, military-specific hardiness could be a better predictor of psychological well-being in military personnel than general hardiness (Skomorovsky & Sudom, 2011).

The role of group characteristics – such as group sense of coherence (Antonovsky & Sourani, 1988) – could also be explored further in the Special Force context where performance as a member of a group is as important as individual performance. The effect of training on the various constructs to improve coping resources could also be explored. The recommendation of Gruber et al. (2009), that future research should continue to examine psychosocial resources and characteristics that separate successful Special Forces soldiers from unsuccessful ones, should be heeded and this initial study could serve as a starting point.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). The salutogenic perspective: Toward a new view of health and illness. Advances, 4(1), 47–55.

Antonovsky, A. (1993). The implications of salutogenesis: An outsider’s view. In A.P. Turnbull, J.M. Patterson, S.K. Behr, D.L. Murphy, J.G. Marquis, & M.J. BlueBanning (Eds.), Cognitive coping, families, disability (pp. 111–112). London: Paul H. Brookes.

Antonovsky, A., & Sourani, T. (1988). Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 79–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352429

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bartone, P.T., Kelly, D.R., & Matthews, M.D. (2013). Psychological hardiness predicts adaptability in military leaders: A prospective study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(2), 200–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12029

Bartone, P.T., Roland, R.R., Picano, J.J., & Williams, T.J. (2008). Psychological hardiness predicts success in US Army Special Forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 78–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00412.x

Bates, M.J., Bowles, S., Hammermeister, J., Stokes, C., Pinder, E., Moore, M. et al. (2010). Psychological fitness. Military Medicine, 175, 8–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00073

Bekwa, N.N., & De Beer, M. (2009). Salutogenic profile of police trainees on entry into the profession. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 19(2), 177–185.

Bradley, J.P., & Nicol, A.M. (2006). Predictors of military training performance for officer cadets in the Canadian Forces. Military Psychology, 18(3), 219–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803_3

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Casey, G.W. (2011). Comprehensive soldier fitness: A vision for psychological resilience in the U.S. Army. American Psychologist, 66(1), 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021930

Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

Cilliers, F., & Coetzee, S.C. (2003). The theoretical-empirical fit between three psychological wellness constructs: Sense of coherence, learned resourcefulness and self-actualisation. South African Journal of Labour Relations, Autumn, 4–24.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 12(1), 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cornum, R., Matthews, M.D., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Comprehensive soldier fitness: Building resilience in a challenging institutional context. American Psychologist, 66(1), 4–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021420

Creswell, J.W., & Garrett, A.L. (2008). The movement of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333.

Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. (2nd edn.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Eschleman, K.J., Bowling, N.A., & Alarcon, G.M. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of hardiness. International Journal of Stress Management, 17(4), 277–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020476

Escolas, S.M., Pits, B.L., Safer, M.A., & Bartone, P.T. (2013). The protective value of hardiness on military posttraumatic stress symptoms. Military Psychology, 25(2), 116–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0094953

Fetters, M.D., Curry, L.A., & Creswell, J.W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd edn.). London: Sage Publications.

Foureur, M., Besley, K., Burton, G., Yu, N., & Crisp, J. (2013). Enhancing the resilience of nurses and midwives: Pilot of a mindfulness-based program for increased health, sense of coherence and decreased depression, anxiety and stress. Contemporary Nurse, 45(1), 114–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/conu.2013.45.1.114

Graneheim, U.H., & Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Greenspoon, P.J., & Saklofske, D.H. (2000). Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 5, 81–108.

Griffiths, C.A., Ryan, P., & Foster, J.H. (2011). Thematic analysis of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence theory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 168–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00838.x

Gropp, L., Geldenhuys, D., & Visser, D. (2007). Psychological wellness constructs: Relationships and group differences. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(3), 24–34.

Gruber, K.A., Kilcullen, R.N., & Iso-Ahola, S.E. (2009). Effects of psychosocial resources on elite soldiers’ completion of a demanding military selection program. Military Psychology, 21, 427–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995600903206354

Hobfoll, S.E., Spielberger, C.D., Breznitz, S., Figley, C., Foklman, S., Lepper-Green, B. et al. (1991). War-related stress: Addressing the stress of war and other traumatic events. American Psychologist, 46(8), 848–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.848

Hochwälder, J., & Forsell, Y. (2011). Is sense of coherence lowered by negative life events? Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 475–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9211-0

Hunt, A.P., Orr, R.M., & Billing, D.C. (2013). Developing physical capability standards that are predictive of success on special forces selection courses. Military Medicine, 178(6), 619–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00347

Hunter, D.R., & Stewart, J.E. (2012). Safety locus of control and accident involvement among army aviators. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(2), 144–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2012.663244

Hystad, S.W., Eid, J., Laberg, J.C., & Bartone, P.T. (2011). Psychological hardiness predicts admission into Norwegian military officer schools. Military Psychology, 23, 381–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0094763

Jerusalem, M. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal process. In R. Scwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195–213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Johnson, R., & Waterfield, J. (2004). Making words count: The value of qualitative research. Physiotherapy Research International, 9(3), 121–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pri.312

Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness & health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 168–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.168

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., Pucetti, M.C., & Zola, M.A. (1985). Effectiveness of hardiness, exercise and social support as resources against illness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29(5), 525–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(85)90086-8

Kobasa, S.C., & Pucetti, M.C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 839–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.839

Lee, J.E.C., Sudom, K.A., & McCreary, D.R. (2011). Higher-order model of resilience in the Canadian Forces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43(3), 222–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024473

Luutonen, S., Sohlman, B., Salokangas, R.K.R., Lehtinen, V., & Dowrick, C. (2011). Weak sense of coherence predicts depression: 1-year and 9-year follow-ups of the Finnish Outcomes of Depression International Network (ODIN) sample. Journal of Mental Health, 20(1), 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2010.537401

Maddi, S.R. (2013). Hardiness: Turning stressful circumstances into resilient growth. Irvine: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5222-1

Maddi, S.R., & Harvey, R.H. (2006). Hardiness considered across cultures. In P.T.P. Wong, L.C.J. Wong, & C. Scott (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-26238-5_17

Maddi, S.R., Matthews, M.S., Kelly, D.R., Villarreal, B., & White, M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military Psychology, 24, 19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2012.639672

Marais, C.P. (1997). Salutogenesis as paradigm in change management. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Molony, T., & Henwood, M. (2010). Signature strengths in positive psychology. National Association of School Psychologists, 38(8), 15–16.

Rimm, H., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Adaptation and validation of an Estonian version of the General Self-Efficacy scale (ESES). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809908250481

Ristkari, T., Sourander, A., Helenius, H., Nilolakaros, G., Salantera, S., Multimaki, P. et al. (2005). Sense of coherence among Finnish young men: A cross-sectional study at military call-up. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59(6), 473–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08039480500360898

Rothmann, S., Jorgensen, L.I., & Hill, C. (2011). Coping and work engagement in selected South African organisations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), Art. #962, 11 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i1.962

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Rotter, J. (1989). Internal versus external control of reinforcements: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489–493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.489

Sarenmalm, E.K., Browall, M., Persson, L., Fall-Dickson, J., & Gaston-Johansson, G. (2013). Relationship of sense of coherence to stressful events, coping strategies, health status, and quality of life in women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 20–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.2053

Seligman, M.E.P., & Fowler, R.D. (2011). Comprehensive soldier fitness and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 66, 82–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021898

Skomorovsky, A., & Stevens, S. (2013). Testing a resilience model among Canadian forces recruits. Military Medicine, 178, 829–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00389

Skomorovsky, A., & Sudom, K.A. (2011). Role of hardiness in the psychological well-being of Canadian forces officer candidates. Military Medicine, 176, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00325

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., Drasgow, F., Lee, W.C., White, L.A., & Young, M.C. (2011). Optimizing prediction of attrition with the U.S. Army’s assessment of individual motivation (AIM). Military Psychology, 23, 180–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.550234

Statistics South Africa. (2012). Census 2011 – statistical release (revised) P0301.4. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Retrieved April 6, 2013, from http://www.statssa.gov.za

Strümpfer, D.J.W. (1990). Salutogenesis: A new paradigm. South African Journal of Psychology, 20(4), 265–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124639002000406

Strümpfer, D.J.W. (2006). The strength perspective: Fortigenesis in adult life. Social Indicators Research, 77, 11–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-5551-2

Strümpfer, D.J.W., Danana, N., Gouws, J.F., & Viviers, M.R. (1998). Personality dispositions and job satisfaction. South African Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 92–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124639802800206

Strümpfer, D.W.J., & De Bruin, G.P. (2009). Antonovsky’s sense of coherence and job satisfaction: Meta-analyses of South African data. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 1–3.

Strümpfer, D.J.W., Eiselen, R.J., Meiring, D., & Phalatse, J.S. (2010). Validating measures of psychological well-being by contrasting samples employed in hazardous and less hazardous work. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 20(1), 23–32.

Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Kelly, K. (2009). First steps in qualitative data analysis. In M. Terre Blanche, K. Durrheim & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice (pp. 320–344). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Van der Colff, J.J., & Rothmann, S. (2009). Occupational stress, sense of coherence, coping, burnout and work engagement of registered nurses in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 1–10.

Van Schalkwyk, L., & Rothmann, S. (2008). Validation of the Orientation to Life Questionnaire (OLQ) in a chemical factory. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(2), 31–39.

Wiese, L., Rothmann, S., & Storm, K. (2003). Coping, stress and burnout in the South African Police Service in KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 71–80.

Wissing, M.P., & Van Eeden, C. (2002). Empirical clarification of the nature of psychological well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(1), 32–44.

Wong, T.P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology, 52(2), 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022511