Content uploaded by Karen Reivich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen Reivich on Apr 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Master Resilience Training in the U.S. Army
Karen J. Reivich and Martin E. P. Seligman University of Pennsylvania
Sharon McBride Headquarters, Department of the Army
The U.S. Army Master Resilience Trainer (MRT) course,
which provides face-to-face resilience training, is one of
the foundational pillars of the Comprehensive Soldier Fit-
ness program. The 10-day MRT course is the foundation
for training resilience skills to sergeants and for teaching
sergeants how to teach these skills to their soldiers. The
curriculum is based on materials developed by the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, the Penn Resilience Program (PRP),
and other empirically validated work in the field of positive
psychology. This “train the trainer model” is the main
vehicle for the dissemination of MRT concepts to the entire
force.
Keywords: resilience, positive psychology, posttraumatic
growth
The U.S. Army Master Resilience Trainer (MRT)
course is a 10-day program of study that teaches
resilience skills to noncommissioned officers
(NCOs). Since the NCOs will teach their soldiers these
skills, this course also teaches the fundamentals of how to
teach these skills to others. The course serves as one of the
foundational pillars of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
program. The course includes three components: prepara-
tion, sustainment, and enhancement. The preparation com-
ponent was developed at the University of Pennsylvania’s
Positive Psychology Center and is presented in the first
eight days of the course. This component teaches resilience
fundamentals and is based on the Penn Resilience Program
(PRP) curriculum as well as on other empirically validated
interventions from positive psychology (Seligman, Ernst,
Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009; Seligman, Rashid, &
Parks, 2006; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). The
sustainment component was developed by researchers at
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and focuses on
deployment cycle training. The enhancement component
was developed by sports psychologists at the United States
Military Academy at West Point and teaches personal and
professional skills that maximize individual performance.
The MRT course is intended to serve primarily as a foun-
dation for training resilience skills (preparation) but also to
introduce other resilience concepts that soldiers will en-
counter at other points in their deployment and life cycles
throughout their careers (sustainment and enhancement).
Therefore, this article focuses on concepts included in the
preparation portion of the MRT course, as this information
represents the majority of the material covered in the
course.
Background of the Penn Resilience
Program (PRP)
Psychologists have been studying resilience since the
1970s, and research has demonstrated that there are many
aspects of resilience that are teachable (Reivich & Shatte´,
2002; Seligman, 1990). The term resilience has multiple
definitions, but the one that guides this training is a set of
processes that enables good outcomes in spite of serious
threats (Masten, 2001). In other words, resilience is the
ability to persist in the face of challenges and to bounce
back from adversity. There are a number of evidence-based
protective factors that contribute to resilience: optimism,
effective problem solving, faith, sense of meaning, self-
efficacy, flexibility, impulse control, empathy, close rela-
tionships, and spirituality, among others (Masten & Reed,
2002). The Penn Resilience Program (PRP) was developed
at the University of Pennsylvania and focuses on a subset
of the factors identified by Masten and Reed. These include
optimism, problem solving, self-efficacy, self-regulation,
emotional awareness, flexibility, empathy, and strong rela-
tionships. The PRP was originally developed as a school-
based training program for students in late childhood and
early adolescence. The preparation portion of the MRT
course incorporates key elements from the PRP (Gillham,
Reivich, & Jaycox, 2008) as well as from a parallel pro-
gram called APEX (Gillham et al., 1991; Reivich, Shatte´,
& Gillham, 2003) that has focused on preventing depres-
sion and anxiety in college students. In addition, empiri-
cally validated concepts from positive psychology, such as
identifying signature strengths (Peterson & Seligman,
2004), cultivating gratitude (Emmons, 2007), and strength-
ening relationships through active constructive responding
(Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004), are incorporated in
the MRT course. Both the PRP and the APEX program
include training that improves cognitive and social skills.
Central to the PRP and the APEX program is Albert
Ellis’s ABC (adversity– belief– consequence) model, which
Karen J. Reivich, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania;
Martin E. P. Seligman, Positive Psychology Center, University of Penn-
sylvania; Sharon McBride, Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, Headquarters,
Department of the Army, Arlington, Virginia.
Full disclosure of interests: Karen J. Reivich earns a salary for
providing training services to the Army delivering Master Resilience
Training.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mar-
tin E. P. Seligman, Positive Psychology Center, University of Pennsylva-
nia, 3701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: seligman@
psych.upenn.edu
25January 2011 ●American Psychologist
© 2011 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/11/$12.00
Vol. 66, No. 1, 25–34 DOI: 10.1037/a0021897
holds that one’s beliefs about events drive one’s emotions
and behaviors (Ellis, 1962). Students are taught to monitor
their beliefs and evaluate the accuracy of these beliefs
(Beck, 1976; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). A key
element of the Ellis model is explanatory style, which
refers to how individuals explain both positive and negative
events in their lives. Pessimists tend to attribute the causes
of negative events to permanent, uncontrollable, and per-
vasive factors (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
Depressed people are more pessimistic than their nonde-
pressed peers, and people with pessimistic styles are at
greater risk for depression than their optimistic counter-
parts (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1992;
Seligman et al., 1984). Conversely, optimists tend to at-
tribute the causes of negative events to temporary, change-
able, and specific factors. Although optimistic explanations
act as a buffer against depression, the extent to which they
are inaccurate can interfere with problem solving. So in the
PRP and the APEX program, students learn how to detect
inaccurate thoughts generated by their explanatory styles,
to evaluate the accuracy of those thoughts, and to reat-
tribute those thoughts to more accurate causal beliefs.
The PRP is one of the most widely researched depres-
sion prevention programs. To date, there have been 19
controlled studies evaluating the efficacy of the PRP (e.g.,
Gillham, Hamilton, Freres, Patton, & Gallop, 2006; Gill-
ham et al., 2007; Gillham, Reivich, et al., 2006; Gillham,
Reivich, Jaycox, & Seligman, 1995; Jaycox, Reivich, Gill-
ham, & Seligman, 1994). These studies have found that the
PRP and the APEX program both can reduce anxiety,
depression, adjustment disorders, and conduct problems. A
meta-analysis of these studies found that young people who
participated in the PRP had fewer symptoms of depression
than participants in no-intervention control conditions for
as long as 24 months following the end of the PRP training
(Brunwasser, Gillham, & Kim, 2009). Taken together,
these findings demonstrate that the skills taught in the PRP
lead to significant, measurable positive changes in youth.
The preventive effects of the PRP on depression and anx-
iety are relevant to one of the aims of the MRT course,
preventing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), since
PTSD is a nasty combination of depressive and anxiety
symptoms.
The research on the PRP has also demonstrated that
teachers who are trained in the PRP can, in turn, teach PRP
skills effectively. That is, when the Penn curriculum de-
velopers trained educators to teach PRP skills to their
students, the students showed fewer symptoms of depres-
sion and behavioral problems (Brunwasser et al., 2009; see
also Challen, Noden, West, & Machin, 2009). This dem-
onstrated efficacy with a “train the trainer” model is an
important element of the PRP and one of the key reasons
that the U.S. Army is partnering with the PRP to train
soldiers. The NCOs (sergeants) are the trainers who will
reach the soldiers, and the NCOs are taught not only
resilience skills in the MRT course but also how to teach
these skills to their soldiers.
Launching the U.S. Army MRT Course
The purpose of the MRT course is to teach NCOs a set of
skills and techniques that build resilience and that they can,
in turn, teach to other soldiers. Specifically, the primary
group of NCOs targeted to attend the MRT training course
are drill and platoon sergeants. The intent is that these
NCOs will take the skills and training taught in the MRT
course to the junior soldiers they instruct and lead. We
hypothesize that these skills will enhance soldiers’ ability
to handle adversity, prevent depression and anxiety, pre-
vent PTSD, and enhance overall well-being and perfor-
mance.
In the spring and early summer of 2009, the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania worked in collaboration with U.S.
Army personnel from the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
program to modify the PRP curriculum for a military
student population. Modifications included identifying spe-
cific soldier adversities (both professional and personal);
incorporating these into the MRT program as case studies,
examples, and practical exercises; and updating procedures
to equip NCOs with both a depth of knowledge and critical
teaching skills to impart the MRT concepts to their sol-
diers. The goal of the MRT course is to provide NCOs with
the background and skills they need to teach critical resil-
ience techniques to their soldiers. Two pilot courses were
conducted during the summer of 2009, and the MRT cur-
riculum was finished in the fall of 2009. It served as the
foundation for the first full-blown MRT training course in
November 2009, which was conducted in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, with 150 NCOs, and additional interactive,
live video teleconferencing was conducted with 30 NCOs
in Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
Karen J.
Reivich
26 January 2011 ●American Psychologist
MRT Preparation Component
The first eight days of the MRT course are spent teaching
PRP skills and represent the preparation component of
MRT training. During the first five days, NCOs attend
large-group plenary sessions where key program elements
are introduced and discussed and smaller breakout sessions
where they are taught to apply and practice what they have
learned in the large-group sessions. Each breakout session
is led by an MRT trainer and four facilitators. Both civil-
ians and Army personnel serve on breakout group facilita-
tor teams. This civilian and military mix is very effective
and well received by the soldiers.
The last three days of the preparation component
focus on teaching NCOs how to teach the skills they have
learned to other soldiers. The NCOs work through a series
of activities and drills to strengthen their knowledge of, and
competence with, the material. These activities include role
plays; checks on learning in which teams craft challenging
questions related to the content that must be answered by
another team; identifying delivery mistakes and content
confusions during mock sessions led by an MRT instructor;
and identifying the appropriate skills to teach and how to
teach them when given a specific soldier case study.
The PRP has used the five-day “learn it and live it”
plus the three-day “deepen understanding and teach it”
structure in their educational programs for the past several
years. We have found that this approach provides a better
understanding of course content and instructional training.
The preparation component includes four learning
modules and a concluding module. In each module, NCOs
are given a brief didactic presentation followed by a series
of experiential activities such as group discussions, role
plays, and application exercises. In addition, we use videos
and music to illustrate concepts and enhance engagement.
Module 1 teaches the fundamentals of resilience and clar-
ifies common misconceptions. Module 2 builds mental
skills that enable mental toughness and effective problem
solving. Module 3 identifies character strengths and fo-
cuses on using both individual and team “top strengths” to
overcome challenges and reach goals. Module 4 builds
strong relationships through communication strategies and
active constructive responding. The concluding module
focuses on identifying the key themes of the program,
consolidating learning, and completing an individual de-
velopment plan for soldiers to further master the content.
Modules 1 and 2 each take two and one half days, Module
3 takes one day, Module 4 takes one day, and the conclud-
ing module is one half of a day in length. A detailed
description of module content follows.
Module 1: Resilience
In this module, the NCOs learn about what contributes to
resilience; explore misconceptions associated with resil-
ience through a series of famous quotes and poetry; learn
six “core competencies” that the program targets to build
resilience; and explore how resilience enables them to be
effective leaders and to live the Warrior Ethos—“I will
always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I
will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” In
addition, we use video clips to highlight central themes in
resilience.
The core competencies highlighted in Module 1 are
(a) self-awareness—identifying one’s thoughts, emotions,
and behaviors, and patterns in each that are counterproduc-
tive; (b) self-regulation—the ability to regulate impulses,
thinking, emotions, and behaviors to achieve goals, as well
as the willingness and ability to express emotions; (c)
optimism—noticing the goodness in self and others, iden-
tifying what is controllable, remaining wedded to reality,
and challenging counterproductive beliefs; (d) mental agil-
ity—thinking flexibly and accurately, perspective taking,
and willingness to try new strategies; (e) character
strengths—identifying the top strengths in oneself and oth-
ers, relying on one’s strengths to overcome challenges and
meet goals, and cultivating a strength approach in one’s
unit; and (f) connection— building strong relationships
through positive and effective communication, empathy,
willingness to ask for help, and willingness to offer help.
Module 2: Building Mental Toughness
In this module, soldiers learn a series of skills that increase
the resilience competencies learned in Module 1. The skills
of Module 2 derive from the work of Aaron Beck, Albert
Ellis, and Martin Seligman and pull heavily from the field
of cognitive-behavioral therapy, as well as from our work
adapting and developing the material for use as a classroom
preventive program (Abramson et al., 1978; Beck, 1976;
Beck et al., 1979; Ellis, 1962; Gillham et al., 2008; Reivich
& Shatte´, 2002; Seligman et al., 2009). The specific skills
taught in Module 2 are presented below with examples
tailored to the military.
Martin E. P.
Seligman
27January 2011 ●American Psychologist
ABC. In this unit we teach soldiers how to identify
thoughts that are triggered by activating events and to
identify reactions that are driven by those thoughts. Sol-
diers learn to recognize an activating event (A), their be-
liefs (B) about the activating event, and the emotional and
behavioral consequences (C) of those thoughts. Soldiers
work through a series of professional (e.g., “You fall out of
a three-mile run”) and personal (e.g., “You return from
deployment and your son does not want to play basketball
with you”) activating events with the goal of being able to
separate the activating events from what they say to them-
selves in the heat of the moment and the emotions/behav-
iors their thoughts generate. After a series of practical
exercises, the soldiers look for thought patterns that are
driving adaptive outcomes and patterns that are driving
counterproductive outcomes. The goal at the end of this
module is to have soldiers distinguish activating events,
thoughts, and consequences.
Explanatory styles and thinking traps.
This unit focuses on explanatory styles and other patterns
of thinking that can either heighten leadership, perfor-
mance, and mental health or undermine them. Soldiers
learn the dimensions of explanatory style as well as other
“thinking traps” such as jumping to conclusions, and they
explore the emotional and behavioral consequences each
thinking style drives. We present a series of Army case
studies in this unit to illustrate how patterns of thinking can
help or hinder resilience.
For example, to illustrate the thinking trap of over-
generalizing (the tendency to judge a person’s worth, mo-
tivation, or ability on the basis of a single action), we
present the following scenario to the soldiers:
A soldier in your unit struggles to keep up during physical
training and is dragging the rest of the day. His uniform looks
sloppy and he makes a couple of mistakes during artillery prac-
tice. You think to yourself, “He’s a soup sandwich! He doesn’t
have the stuff of a soldier.”
The NCOs are asked to describe the thinking trap and
discuss the effects this has on the sergeant and the soldier
the sergeant is leading. After completing this exercise, one
sergeant commented:
I hate to admit it, but I think that way a lot. I tend to write people
off if they screw up. I guess I’m not big on second chances
because I think you can judge a person’s character through their
actions. If that guy had a strong character, he wouldn’t be drag-
ging and his uniform wouldn’t be in disarray.
These comments led to a spirited conversation about
leaders judging the worth of their soldiers on a single action
and how this overgeneralizing can undermine a soldier’s
confidence and demoralize other soldiers.
After soldiers review common thinking traps, we
present them with a series of questions that they can ask
themselves in order to identify critical information that they
may have missed because of a thinking trap. For example,
the question “How did others contribute to this situation?”
is used to help a person who has a “me” style (one focused
exclusively on how he or she brought about a problem)
consider a fuller range of causes. By the end of learning
this skill, the soldiers are able to identify their specific
thinking patterns and have practiced using specific ques-
tions to broaden the information to which they attend.
Icebergs (deeply held beliefs). In this unit,
NCOs identify their deeply held beliefs (e.g., “I can handle
whatever comes my way” or “Asking for help is a sign of
weakness”) and core values (e.g., “People should be treated
with dignity and respect” or “We should strive for forgive-
ness and mercy”), and they learn to recognize when these
icebergs are driving out-of-proportion emotion. Once the
iceberg is identified, they ask themselves a series of ques-
tions to determine (a) if the iceberg continues to be mean-
ingful to them, (b) if the iceberg is accurate in the given
situation, (c) if the iceberg is overly rigid, and (d) if the
iceberg is useful. Then the soldiers look at how these
icebergs contribute to or undermine their effectiveness in
the Army, as leaders, and in creating strong relationships.
Special attention is given to the belief “Asking for
help shows weakness” because this belief undermines the
willingness to rely on others or to ask for help from leaders,
peers, or other health care resources. Several NCOs com-
mented that this particular belief requires a lot of work to
change because historically soldiers have felt stigmatized if
they sought out help and were often ridiculed for not being
strong enough to handle their own problems. However,
many have stated that they believe the culture around help
seeking is now shifting in the Army. One NCO commented
privately,
There was a time when I would have called a soldier a [expletive]
for seeing a counselor or going to a chaplain. And if I didn’t say
it to his face, I sure would have thought it. I don’t see it that way
anymore. Multiple deployments have taught me that we’re all
going to need help from time to time and it’s the strong ones that
are willing to ask for it.
Sharon
McBride
28 January 2011 ●American Psychologist
Energy management. In this unit, soldiers
manage their energy through a variety of strategies (includ-
ing meditation, controlled breathing, and progressive mus-
cle relaxation). In addition, we discuss the need for reju-
venation to maintain resilience and share strategies that can
be used to rejuvenate oneself (including prayer, exercise,
sleep, and laughter). During the later enhancement phase of
the MRT course, the energy management techniques are
covered in more detail (e.g., controlled breathing and pos-
itive imagery).
Problem solving. This unit covers a six-step
model of problem solving used to accurately identify con-
tributing causes of a problem and identify solution strate-
gies. Soldiers learn about confirmation bias (the tendency
to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms
what one already believes) and the problem it poses for
gathering even-handed evidence. They also learn strategies
to avoid the confirmation bias. We also discuss how the
confirmation bias may undermine effective leadership.
That is, if a leader has a preconceived idea about a soldier’s
worth, readiness, aptitude, or commitment, then it is very
difficult for that soldier to overcome the preconception his
or her leader holds. At the end of this unit, NCOs are able
to identify patterns in thinking that hinder an accurate
appraisal of a problem, to use specific questions to identify
factors they previously missed, and to work around the
confirmation bias.
Minimizing catastrophic thinking. Cata-
strophic thinking is defined as ruminating about irrational
worst-case outcomes. It can drive up anxiety and paralyze
action. We use a video clip in which a soldier is unable to
contact his wife via e-mail. From this video clip, we dem-
onstrate catastrophic thinking (“She’s left me”) and explore
the effects of this style of thinking on energy, focus, prob-
lem solving, and emotions. We teach a three-step model
that includes (a) capturing catastrophic thinking, (b) gen-
erating a best-case possibility, and (c) identifying most
likely outcomes. After likely outcomes are identified, we
teach soldiers to develop a plan for coping with the situa-
tion. By the end of this unit, soldiers can distinguish
contingency planning (effective) from catastrophizing (in-
effective), and they learn to use the three-step process in
order to identify likely outcomes and then plan for them.
Fighting back against counterproductive
thoughts in real time. This unit is about how to
immediately challenge negative thoughts. Focusing on neg-
ative thoughts can lead to reduced confidence and engage-
ment, and we teach skills that reduce “mental chatter”
which, when left unchecked, compromises performance.
The three strategies used to challenge counterproduc-
tive beliefs are evidence, optimism, and perspective. Sol-
diers identify three common errors that are made when
trying to challenge counterproductive thoughts (minimiz-
ing, rationalizing, and denying) and strategies for correct-
ing these errors midstream (one time/one thing, owning the
situation, and taking appropriate responsibility).
Challenging counterproductive thoughts is not about
replacing every negative thought with a positive one.
Rather, it is a stop-gap technique that enables one to focus
on right now and not put oneself (or others) at greater risk
because of the distracting thoughts. We emphasize to sol-
diers that there is a later time and place to focus on and
discuss worries and persistent negative thoughts, because
often there is something that can be learned from them.
Oftentimes the “theme” of the negative thoughts is related
to an “iceberg” belief. For example, in one class a soldier
said that he was constantly barraged by negative thoughts
about whether his wife truly loved him and that these
thoughts often interfered with his ability to stay focused.
Following this unit, he commented that he believed the
theme of his thoughts related to his iceberg belief that “I’m
not the kind of guy women love.” Although it is important
to fight off these thoughts at certain times (e.g., when trying
to get much-needed sleep or when engaging in high-risk
maneuvers), it is also important to pay attention to these
beliefs and systematically and thoughtfully evaluate them
at more appropriate times.
Cultivating gratitude. Throughout the course,
NCOs are asked to complete a gratitude or “three bless-
ings” journal. We refer to this activity as “hunt the good
stuff,” and its purpose is to enhance positive emotions,
particularly gratitude. The research on gratitude indicates
that individuals who habitually acknowledge and express
gratitude derive health benefits, sleep benefits, and relation-
ships benefits (Emmons, 2007). Each morning of the
course, NCOs are asked to share something they “hunted”
from the day before as well as a reflection on what the
positive event or experience meant to them. Typically,
from 5 to 10 NCOs share a blessing at the start of each
class. Some examples of blessings that students have
shared with the class include “I had a great conversation
with my wife last night—I used what we learned in class,
and she said it was one of the best conversations we’ve ever
had” and “I stopped and talked to a homeless guy, and I
learned a lot from him.” Another soldier shared the com-
ment, “The owner of the restaurant didn’t charge us for our
dinner as a way to say thank you for being in the Army.”
Interestingly, as the week unfolds, the blessings become
more personal. For example, during the morning of the
final day, one NCO related the following experience:
I talked to my eight-year-old son last night. He told me about an
award he won at school, and usually I’d just say something like
“that’s nice.” But I used the skill we learned yesterday and I asked
a bunch of questions about it—Who was there when he got the
award? How did he feel receiving it? Where’s he going to hang
the award? And about halfway through the conversation he inter-
rupted me and said, “Dad, is this really you?!” I knew what he
meant by that. That was the longest we ever talked, and I think we
were both surprised by it. It was great.
Module 3: Identifying Character Strengths
In this module, soldiers identify their top character
strengths, practice identifying strengths in others, and prac-
tice using individual strengths and team strengths to over-
come a challenge and reach a goal. The material in Module
3 is drawn from the work of Chris Peterson and Martin
Seligman (2004), and in the course we link it to the Army’s
“Be, Know, Do” model of leadership. Army Field Manual
29January 2011 ●American Psychologist
6-22 states, “An enduring expression for Army leadership
has been BE-KNOW-DO. Army leadership begins with
what the leader must BE—the values and attributes that
shape character. . . . As defining qualities, they make up the
identity of the leader” (U.S. Department of the Army, 2006,
p. 1-1). We discuss the Army values (loyalty, duty, respect,
selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage) and
the “Be” of the Army leadership model in the context of
character strengths.
As part of Module 3, soldiers complete the online
Values in Action character strengths questionnaire (www
.authentichappiness.org). The survey rank orders 24
strengths and provides a brief description of characteristics
that define each of the strengths. As all the NCOs identify
their top strengths, we look for patterns among the group
and discuss what the group strength profile reflects about
who they are as leaders. We present a series of Army
quotes and video clips about leadership, and the NCOs
discuss how character strengths are reflected in the quotes
and videos.
The NCOs then explore their own profiles in small
groups. They discuss a strength they already consciously
bring to their leadership style and one that they would like
to more fully use as a leader. They are provided a series of
questions to discuss that include the following: What did
you learn about yourself by taking the Strength Survey?
Which strengths have you developed through your service
in the military? How do your strengths contribute to your
completing a mission and reaching your goals? How are
you using your strengths to build strong relationships (pro-
fessionally and personally)? What are the “shadow sides”
of your strengths, and how can you minimize these?
After discussing individual strengths, soldiers practice
identifying character strengths in others. First we show a
series of photographs of well-known individuals, and the
soldiers identify the strengths of each of the individuals.
They are encouraged to identify the obvious strength (e.g.,
humor and playfulness for Chris Rock) and also to think
about how the individual uses his or her strengths syner-
gistically (e.g., Chris Rock uses his humor and playfulness
together with curiosity and social intelligence).
Next we focus on using strengths (individually and as
a team) to overcome challenges and bring about success.
We present a case study that demonstrates how an Army
unit pulled together and, as a team, overcame obstacles in
setting up an entire support hospital. During the exercise,
NCOs identify instances from the case study in which
individuals and the unit as a whole relied on specific
character strengths to complete the mission.
Building on this activity, the soldiers go into small
groups and have a mission that they need to complete as a
unit. We instruct them to use their team’s character
strengths to complete the mission and to name the specific
behaviors that the strengths enable. Finally, the soldiers
write their own “Strength in Challenges” stories and share
these with other members of their small groups. For exam-
ple, one NCO described how he used his strengths of love,
wisdom, and gratitude to help a soldier who was acting out
and causing conflict among other soldiers. The NCO talked
about pulling on his strength of love to engage the soldier
when most others avoided the soldier because of his anger
and hostile behaviors. During their discussion, the NCO
learned that the soldier felt consumed by anger at his wife
and that his anger was interfering with his ability to get
along with other soldiers in his unit. Then, operating from
his strength of wisdom, the NCO helped the soldier to
understand the wife’s perspective and worked with him to
write a letter to his wife. In the letter, the soldier expressed
how he was feeling and also described the gratitude he feels
because his wife has had to handle so much on her own
during his three deployments.
At the end of this unit, the NCOs are aware of their
signature strengths and how they can use them as leaders
and family members. They have practiced identifying
strengths in others and using strengths in conjunction with
skills and talents to overcome challenges and complete a
mission. In addition, they have explored how a strength
focus with their soldiers (and family members) can build
stronger connections in the unit as well as with their fam-
ilies.
Module 4: Strengthening Relationships
The final module is focused on strengthening relationships
among soldiers and between soldiers and their family mem-
bers. We teach three skills: (a) active constructive respond-
ing (ACR), which is based on the work of Shelly Gable
(Gable et al., 2004); (b) praise, which is based on the work
of Carol Dweck (Kamins & Dweck, 1999); and (c) com-
munication styles (passive, aggressive, and assertive com-
munication). This module provides soldiers with practical
tools that help in building relationships and that challenge
beliefs that interfere with positive communication.
When an individual responds actively and con-
structively (as opposed to passively and destructively) to
someone sharing a positive experience, better relationships
ensue (Gable et al., 2004). We detail four styles of respond-
ing—active constructive (authentic, enthusiastic support),
passive constructive (understated support), passive destruc-
tive (ignoring the event), and active destructive (pointing
out negative aspects of the event)—and we role play each
style. Figure 1 presents examples of the four styles for a
hypothetical situation.
After each role play, soldiers identify the style of
responding portrayed. They focus on what was said as well
as body language, voice tone, and the emotion conveyed.
They also describe the effect a particular response had on
the person communicating the message and the person
responding to the message.
Following the demonstration, NCOs complete a work-
sheet to help them reflect on ways they typically respond
and to identify factors that make it hard for them to respond
actively and constructively (such as being tired or being
overly self-absorbed). The exercise also focuses on how
they can use their signature strengths to respond actively
and constructively (e.g., use the strength of curiosity to ask
questions, use the strength of zest to respond enthusiasti-
cally, or use the strength of wisdom to point out valuable
learning from the situation).
30 January 2011 ●American Psychologist
This teaching block also incorporates the work of
Kamins and Dweck (1999) on effective praise. Many of the
positive experiences soldiers share warrant praise. For ex-
ample, “I aced my PT test,” “We cleared the building
without sustaining any casualties,” or “I was promoted to
master sergeant!” We emphasize using praise that points
out a specific strategy, effort, or skill that contributed to a
good outcome as opposed to more general praise such as
“Way to go!” or “Good job!” We highlight the importance
of using praise targeted at specific details because it dem-
onstrates attention to the accomplishment that is not con-
veyed with a quick “Way to go” response. Leaders who use
effective praise with their soldiers convey (a) that they
were really watching and listening, (b) that they took the
time to identify how the soldier brought on the positive
outcome, and (c) that the praise was authentic—as opposed
to a one-size-fits-all “Good job.”
Next, soldiers practice ACR with members of their
small groups (incorporating effective praise when appro-
priate) in order to find a style that is authentic to them and
also supportive of the other person. The application of
ACR to leadership is discussed, and the ways in which
ACR might be helpful for maintaining strong family bonds
during deployments are reviewed. By the end of this sec-
tion, the soldiers are able to distinguish the four styles of
responding to good events, can craft effective praise, and
have practiced using their strengths to develop an authentic
and comfortable style of being active and constructive.
The final part of this module teaches assertive com-
munication. The soldiers work in teams to describe passive,
aggressive, and assertive communication styles. They iden-
tify the words, voice tone, body language, and pace of each
style, as well as the messages each style conveys about the
speaker and the listener. For example, a passive commu-
nication style sends the message “I don’t believe you’ll
listen to me anyway.” A critical aspect of teaching assertive
communication is to explore the deeply held beliefs and
core values (icebergs) that promote one style of communi-
cation over another. Someone who has the belief “People
will take advantage of any sign of weakness” will tend
toward an aggressive style of communicating, whereas a
person who believes “It’s wrong to complain” will tend
toward a passive communication style. Further, a person
who holds the belief “People can be trusted” is more likely
to use an assertive communication style.
Next we introduce a five-step model of assertive com-
munication: (a) identifying and working to understand the
situation, (b) describing the situation objectively and accu-
rately, (c) expressing concerns, (d) asking the other person
for his or her perspective and working toward an acceptable
change, and (e) listing benefits to the situation and the
relationship when the change is implemented. The NCOs
practice these skills by applying them to a variety of
situations such as the following: “Your battle buddy has
started drinking excessively and has been seen drinking and
driving”; “Your significant other is spending money on
things you don’t consider essential”; and “A fellow soldier
continues to take your belongings without asking permis-
sion.” For each of these scenarios, two soldiers role play
while a third gives guidance to help them remain in an
assertive style of communicating. Following the role plays,
soldiers identify a situation that they are currently confront-
ing and practice using assertive communication to address
the situation. We emphasize helping soldiers explore the
style of communication they use with family members.
Many soldiers have shared stories about how they commu-
nicate too aggressively with spouses and children because
it is difficult to transition from the fast-paced, command-
oriented world of their “day” job to a more democratic
focus in their personal lives.
After the five-day “learn it and live it” portion of the
preparation phase, three days are spent preparing the sol-
diers to teach the skills to other soldiers. These three days
involve a series of discussions, role plays, and practical
exercises designed to increase soldiers’ understanding of
the course content, allow them to practice teaching the
material, and also receive feedback about and guidance on
their ability to teach the materials.
MRT Sustainment Component
The sustainment component of the MRT course is taught
on Day 9 of the course and focuses on reinforcing resil-
ience skills over the course of a military career and apply-
ing these skills in the military-specific context. This mod-
ule focuses on sustaining resilience in leadership education
and across the deployment cycle. Soldiers are also taught
how to identify when an individual is encountering signif-
icant challenges to their resilience and how to adapt MRT
skills when the individual is referred for additional support.
Much of the material in the sustainment component is
grounded in research from the Walter Reed Army Institute
of Research documenting the importance of the military
unit in understanding resilience (e.g., Bliese, 2006; Bliese
Figure 1
Examples of Four Styles of Responding
Situation: Private Johnson tells his close friend Private Gonzales, “Hey, my wife
called and told me she got a great job on post.”
Active constructive response:
That’s great. What’s the new job?
When does she start? What did she
say about how she got it and why she
deserved it?
Passive constructive response:
That’s nice.
Passive destructive response:
I got a funny e-mail from my son. Listen
to this…
Active destructive response:
So who’s going to be looking after your
son? I wouldn’t trust a babysitter. There
are so many horror stories you hear
about baby sitters abusing kids.
31January 2011 ●American Psychologist
& Britt, 2001; Chen & Bliese, 2002) as well as the impact
of the leader on soldier well-being (e.g., Britt, Davison,
Bliese, & Castro, 2004; Castro, Thomas, & Adler, 2006;
Thomas, Bliese, & Jex, 2005) and attitudes (e.g., Wright et
al., 2009).
Predeployment and postdeployment modules are
adapted from the Army’s former “Battlemind” training
program, and they reflect the terminology and concepts
taught in the preparation phase of MRT. These modules
familiarize soldiers with what to expect in terms of psy-
chological demands and reactions at various points in the
deployment cycle and teach them communication skills
related to deployment. Three group-randomized trials have
demonstrated the efficacy of this approach (Adler, Bliese,
McGurk, Hoge, & Castro, 2009; Adler, Castro, Bliese,
McGurk, & Milliken, 2007; Thomas et al., 2007). The goal
is to ensure that resilience skills are also targeted for
specific points in the deployment cycle and, where possi-
ble, that there is empirical evidence for their use in the
military environment.
MRT Enhancement Component
The enhancement component of the MRT course is taught
on the last day of the course. Enhancement introduces
MRT soldiers to techniques that were first developed in
sports psychology and that are the foundation for the train-
ing provided by sports psychologists from the Army Center
for Enhanced Performance. The enhancement portion of
the MRT course presents an overview of the key skills
taught by sports psychologists. The skills introduced are
mental skills foundations, building confidence, goal setting,
attention control, energy management, and imagery.
Mental skills foundations involve understanding the
nature of high performance, understanding the relationship
between the training and trusting mindsets, and identifying
the connection between thoughts, emotions, physiological
states, and performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ellis &
Dryden, 1987; Krane & Williams, 2006; Ravizza, 1977;
Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2001). Soldiers explore the
difference in their psychological states during both excel-
lent and mediocre performances. Building confidence in-
volves learning effective ways to create energy, optimism,
and enthusiasm. Goal setting is a systematic process of
identifying personal aims, ambitions, and tangible action
plans that bolster a commitment to pursue and achieve
excellence (Latham & Locke, 1991). Attention control ad-
dresses the concentration demands associated with critical
military tasks. Energy management consists of practical
skills used to activate, sustain, and restore optimal levels of
energy while minimizing the negative effects of stress.
Finally, integrating imagery involves learning ways of
creating or recreating successful experiences that can en-
hance aspects of performance, including preparing, per-
forming, and recovering.
Roles and Responsibilities of MRT
Graduates
After successfully completing the 10-day MRT course,
soldiers are assigned a skill identifier that designates them
as a certified MRT. During MRT training, instructors mon-
itor the performance of soldiers and evaluate their ability to
grasp the concepts, to participate in discussions, and to
verbally communicate the skills being presented. On the
basis of these instructor evaluations, some soldiers are
selected to attend facilitator training at a later date, where
they are given additional training in order to support future
MRT classes as course facilitators.
Once NCOs complete the MRT course, they get a set
of preparation phase instructional materials: (a) They re-
ceive a PowerPoint briefing that presents an overview of
the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program and the MRT
course. This is a tool that the NCOs can use to familiarize
their senior leaders with the overall Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness program and to provide information about the roles
and responsibilities of an NCO trained as an MRT. (b) The
MRT PowerPoint slides and teaching aides are to be used
for large-group instruction and breakout-group training. (c)
An MRT skills teaching package is provided that includes
all of the materials needed to teach 12 individual core
blocks of instruction covering ABC, thinking traps, ice-
bergs, energy management, problem solving, “put it in
perspective,” real-time resilience, identifying strengths in
self and others, using strengths in challenges, assertive
communication, active constructive responding and praise,
and “hunt the good stuff.” The time required for the NCO
to teach each block varies between 30 and 120 minutes.
NCOs are instructed to work with their leadership to
identify and schedule time in the training calendar in which
they can teach a dedicated block of MRT instruction on a
regular basis. Giving MRT-trained soldiers adequate time
to teach the materials to other soldiers is critical to program
success. Teaching regularly scheduled blocks of MRT in-
struction ensures the widest dissemination of the material
within units.
Initial Feedback From NCOs
Attending MRT Training
The first official MRT course was conducted in November
2009. At the end of this course, soldiers anonymously
evaluated the program. The feedback form was completed
by 171 of 183 soldiers who participated in Philadelphia and
who participated via video teleconference from Fort Jack-
son in Columbia, South Carolina. The Fort Jackson partic-
ipants could interact with the Philadelphia training team in
real time during the full group plenary sessions but had
their own breakout group with University of Pennsylvania
training team members in Fort Jackson. Course ratings
from both the Philadelphia and Fort Jackson NCOs aver-
aged between 4.7 and 4.9 out of 5 on “learning skills
valuable to military life and personal life,” on “NCOs and
soldiers will benefit from learning these skills,” and on
almost all other aspects of the program. Representative
written comments included the following:
●“This was the best Army course that I have ever
taken. The skills I learned will help me improve my
personal life and professional life. These resilience
32 January 2011 ●American Psychologist
skills and MRT training should be mandatory for all
ranks, families, and civilians.”
●“I truly believe this is the best and most useful
training I have received in the 16 years of my
service. These skills are a foundation for all other
skills, and I can use these skills forever.”
●“This training has been the most effective and pro-
fessional training the Army has sent my way.”
●“This was no doubt the best class I’ve ever been
taught.”
●“This course has changed my life. Giving me the
knowledge that I can control my thoughts and re-
actions is crucial to having changed me.”
●“This will be an invaluable asset to my soldiers,
family members, and me. A life changer—must be
given to all leaders.”
While this initial feedback is promising, it is important
to note that these comments represent only the NCOs’
immediate evaluation of the program. Therefore, in order to
impartially evaluate the lasting effects of MRT training, the
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program is conducting a
large-scale assessment of the consequences of the training
compared to controls (Lester, McBride, Bliese, & Adler,
2011, this issue). The assessment will monitor the perfor-
mance of NCOs who have attended the course as well as
the performance of entire units that have been taught resil-
ience skills by the attendees. This wait-list control design
will assess the efficacy of the “train the trainer” element of
the MRT course by looking at the military performance,
emotional and social fitness, psychopathology, and physi-
cal health of the NCOs themselves as well as the soldiers
that they train in resilience.
Future MRT Training
The MRT training course is currently being taught in
Philadelphia by instructors from the University of Pennsyl-
vania and is supported by a cadre of civilian and military
facilitators. Courses are also being given under our super-
vision by teachers at Victory University, Fort Jackson,
South Carolina. During 2010 and 2011, courses will be
taught in Philadelphia by the University of Pennsylvania.
Starting in mid-2011, we will begin to transition the course
oversight to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com-
mand and to teachers at Victory University, Fort Jackson.
Master resilience training involving many thousands
of NCOs as teachers and 1.1 million soldiers as students is
one of the largest-scale psychological interventions ever
undertaken. It is the backbone of a cultural transformation
of the U.S. Army in which a psychologically fit Army will
have equal standing with a physically fit Army. We believe
that the field of psychology can be proud of its role in this
transformation.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 87, 49 –74. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49
Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., McGurk, D., Hoge, C. W., & Castro, C. A.
(2009). Battlemind debriefing and Battlemind training as early inter-
ventions with soldiers returning from Iraq: Randomization by platoon.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 928 –940. doi:
10.1037/a0016877
Adler, A. B., Castro, C. A., Bliese, P. D., McGurk, D., & Milliken, C.
(2007, August). The efficacy of Battlemind training at 3– 6 months
post-deployment. In C. A. Castro (Chair), The Battlemind Training
System: Supporting soldiers throughout the deployment cycle. Sympo-
sium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, San Francisco, CA.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New
York, NY: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2006). Social climates: Drivers of soldier well-being and
resilience. In A. B. Adler, C. A. Castro, & T. W. Britt (Eds.), Military
life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat: Vol. 2. Opera-
tional stress (pp. 213–234). Westport, CT: Praeger Security Interna-
tional.
Bliese, P. D., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Social support, group consensus and
stressor–strain relationships: Social context matters. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 22, 425– 436. doi:10.1002/job.95
Britt, T. W., Davison, J., Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2004). How
leaders can influence the impact that stressors have on soldiers. Military
Medicine, 169, 541–545.
Brunwasser, S. M., Gillham, J. E., & Kim, E. S. (2009). A meta-analytic
review of the Penn Resiliency Program’s effect on depressive symp-
toms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 1042–1054.
doi:10.1037/a0017671
Castro, C. A., Thomas, J. L., & Adler, A. B. (2006). Toward a liberal
theory of military leadership. In A. B. Adler, C. A. Castro, & T. W.
Britt (Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and
combat: Vol. 2. Operational stress (pp. 192–212). Westport, CT: Prae-
ger Security International.
Challen, A., Noden, P., West, A., & Machin, S. (2009). UK Resilience
Programme evaluation: Interim report (Research Report No. DCSF-
RR094). London, England: Department for Children, Schools and Fam-
ilies.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership
in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549 –556. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.87.3.549
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experi-
ences. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York, NY:
Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1987). The practice of rational-emotive therapy.
New York, NY: Springer.
Emmons, R. A. (2007). Thanks! How the new science of gratitude can
make you happier. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do
you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal
benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 228 –245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Gillham, J. E., Hamilton, J., Freres, D. R., Patton, K., & Gallop, R. (2006).
Preventing depression among early adolescents in the primary care
setting: A randomized controlled study of the Penn Resiliency Program.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 203–219. doi:10.1007/
s10802-005-9014-7
Gillham, J. E., Jaycox, L. H., Reivich, K. J., Hollon, S. D., Freeman, A.,
DeRubeis, R. J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). The APEX Project:
Manual for group leaders. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania.
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Freres, D. R., Chaplin, T. M., Shatte´, A. J.,
Samuels, B., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). School-based prevention of
depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled study of the effec-
tiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 9 –19. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.75.1.9
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Freres, D. R., Lascher, M., Litzinger, S.,
Shatte´, A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). School-based prevention of
depression and anxiety symptoms in early adolescence: A pilot of a
33January 2011 ●American Psychologist
parent intervention component. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 323–
348. doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.3.323
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., & Jaycox, L. H. (2008). The Penn Resiliency
Program (also known as the Penn Depression Prevention Program and
the Penn Optimism Program). Unpublished manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania.
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995).
Prevention of depressive symptoms in schoolchildren: Two-year fol-
low-up. Psychological Science, 6, 343–351. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1995.tb00524.x
Jaycox, L. H., Reivich, K. J., Gillham, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1994).
Prevention of depressive symptoms in school children. Behaviour Re-
search & Therapy, 32, 801– 816. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90160-0
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and
criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Develop-
mental Psychology, 35, 835– 847. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835
Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (2006). Psychological characteristics of peak
performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Per-
sonal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 207–227). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Latham, G., & Locke, E. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K
Lester, P. B., McBride, S., Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2011). Bringing
science to bear: An empirical assessment of the Comprehensive Soldier
Fitness program, American Psychologist, 66, xxx–xxx.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in devel-
opment. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.56.3.227
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In
C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology
(pp. 74 –88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Predic-
tors and consequences of childhood depressive symptoms: A 5-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 405– 422.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.101.3.405
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Ravizza, K. (1977). Peak experiences in sport. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 17, 35– 40. doi:10.1177/002216787701700404
Reivich, K., & Shatte´, A. (2002). The resilience factor: Seven essential
skills for overcoming life’s inevitable obstacles. New York, NY: Broad-
way Books.
Reivich, K., Shatte´, A., & Gillham, J. (2003). Penn resilience training for
college students: Leader’s guide and participant’s guide. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Knopf.
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M.
(2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom inter-
ventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293–311. doi:10.1080/
03054980902934563
Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy,
L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Attributional style and depressive
symptoms among children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235–
238. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.93.2.235
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psycho-
therapy. American Psychologist, 61, 774 –788. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.61.8.774
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive
psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American
Psychologist, 60, 410 – 421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2005). Interpersonal conflict
and organizational commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory
support as multilevel moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 35, 2375–2398. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02107.x
Thomas, J. L., Castro, C. A., Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., McGurk, D., Cox,
A., & Hoge, C. W. (2007, August). The efficacy of Battlemind at
immediate post deployment reintegration. In C. A. Castro (Chair), The
Battlemind training system: Supporting soldiers throughout the deploy-
ment cycle. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Department of the Army. (2006). Army leadership: Competent,
confident, and agile (FM 6 –22). Washington, DC: Headquarters, De-
partment of the Army.
Wright, K. M., Cabrera, O. A., Bliese, P. D., Adler, A. B., Hoge, C. W.,
& Castro, C. A. (2009). Stigma and barriers to care in soldiers post-
combat. Psychological Services, 6, 108 –116. doi:10.1037/a0012620
Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J. M. (2001). Cognitive techniques
for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J. M. Williams
(Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(4th ed., pp. 284 –311). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
34 January 2011 ●American Psychologist
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from American Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
