Paula Robinson and Lindsay G. Oades
This chapter introduces the concept of mental fitness and its association to mental health and well‐being, particularly in the workplace. The burden of mental illness is significant, accounting for between 3% and 16% of total health expenditure across many countries (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development; OECD, 2011). The increasing levels of mental illness are a significant concern; for example, the World Health Organization (WHO, 2012) estimates that almost half of the world’s population are affected in some way by a mental illness. Bloom et al. (2011), in his report to the The World Economic Forum, cites the global cost of mental illness at nearly $2.5 trillion in 2010, with a projected increase to over $6 trillion by 2030. This increase is also affecting organizations as is evidenced in a report by the OECD (2015) suggesting that mental illness is responsible for a significant loss of labor supply, high rates of unemployment, and a high incidence of illness, absence, and decreased productivity at work.
Since 2000 the focus has been shifting toward a proactive, preventative approach as the most obvious way to reduce the burden of mental illness, for example the European Union’s (2008) European Pact for Mental Health and Well‐Being and the WHO Report Prevention of Mental Disorders (2004). Keyes (2007) suggests there are economic and social advantages for a paradigm shift toward well‐being and mental health promotion to work in conjunction with mental illness prevention. He argues that if the strategies of governments and indeed organizations continue to focus on diagnosed mental illness alone, the best they can hope for is to reduce levels of diagnosed mental illness. Moreover, this approach does not assure a mentally healthy population or workplace. Keyes argues that mental health is a separate continuum whereby a languishing individual can function at levels similar to someone with a major depressive episode – that is, there is no diagnosed mental illness but they are not mentally healthy either.
Huppert (2009) concurs with Keyes that the primary aim should be to enhance well‐being instead of just reducing disorder, and in recent years positive psychology has made great strides forward within the well‐being paradigm (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Peterson, Park, & Castro, 2011). Seligman (2002) emphasizes that prevention is a primary purpose of positive psychology research.
In this chapter, after outlining mental health and well‐being issues at work, the concept of fitness is then described before introducing the emerging concept of mental fitness. A critical review of literature, which led to the development of mental fitness, is provided before focusing on the conceptual application of mental fitness to work. The chapter concludes with the significant future research required to further develop the empirical bases for mental fitness at work.
Given the previous statistics, providing a safe and healthy psychological workplace is becoming a big issue for organizations. Before taking into account those languishing individuals at work, research suggests that at any given time, at least 1 in 5 employees are likely to be experiencing a mental health condition (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010). Consequently mental illness is a costly component of organizational life and may be considered in terms of risk assessment, for example, costs risk, key staff risk, and work health and safety risk as follows:
Given the steady increase of mental illness and the burgeoning associated costs, the workplace is an important context when considering population‐based mental health and well‐being. Therefore, promoting a proactive approach to mental illness, particularly targeting prevention and well‐being, is becoming increasingly crucial to organizations not only as part of corporate governance and social responsibility strategies but as part of cost reduction, risk mitigation, and increasing engagement.
However, while there is evidence that positive psychology interventions reduce depression and improve well‐being (e.g., Pietrowsky & Mikutta, 2012), these interventions are more difficult to implement in an organizational setting. In today’s highly competitive business environment, companies have to go beyond fixing problems to promoting excellence. It is no longer simply a matter of getting employees to do their work, but rather how to get them to do good work, or their best work (Davis, 2010). Therefore, the management of human capital and the relationship between employee well‐being and business outcomes is a crucial area of research and practice. Boards, senior/frontline managers and leaders are only gradually becoming aware that employee well‐being and business performance are complementary components of a financially and psychologically healthy workplace.
Therefore, organizations and individuals need to allocate time, energy, and resources to well‐being research and interventions as a serious strategy to reduce mental illness and improve engagement. Research supports the notion that creating a mentally healthy workplace is good business. Examples of research to support this proposition are now described below:
If the objective of the organizational intervention is positive mental health and well‐being outcomes, then it becomes similar to any other change initiative in that the design, effective implementation, measurement, and sustainability rely first and foremost on leader and employee participation and buy‐in. This is not easily achieved, as many people still primarily view the main role of mental health interventions as one of curing psychological pathology rather than preventing it. Further to this, the conceptual and empirical evaluation and development of well‐being outcomes are to date not well understood by organizations. Well‐being is often perceived to be associated with “soft skills” and/or issues of mental health and illness. As a result, the design, delivery, and maintenance of mental illness prevention, positive mental health promotion, and well‐being strategies and practices are often sporadic and tokenistic within government and organizations.
Stigma and conceptual confusion surrounding mental health are significant barriers to mental illness prevention, mental health promotion, and engagement in positive mental health activities and practices. For example, a comprehensive review by Cheverton (Cheverton & The Queensland Alliance for Mental Health, 2009) suggests that the stigma attached to mental ill health prevents most people from disclosing. Lawyers are a notable example. Research in the United States by Benjamin, Darling, and Sales (1990) on over 11,000 participants and across 100 occupations revealed that lawyers had the highest prevalence of depression of all the workers. There are estimates that the incidence of chemical dependency is between 15% and 18% in the legal profession, compared to 8–10% of the general population (Resner, 2006). The nature of the legal profession is cited as being adversarial and conflict‐driven, with attributes shared by lawyers including perfectionism and pessimism. However, it is difficult not to see these and other negative attributes present in many 21st‐century organizations.
Cheverton emphasizes that the longer people leave seeking help, the more significant their ultimate call on health and associated services will be. They note that because of stigma and conceptual confusion, a broader prevention and promotion agenda is required to assist in advising the steps that individuals, organizations, governments, and communities can take to build the resources and competencies to keep them mentally healthy.
The barriers of stigma and conceptual confusion exemplify the clear and urgent need for mental health and well‐being interventions, and for programs that are easy to understand, have overarching community acceptability and face validity, and that cut through multiple contexts. Theoretical and empirical innovation is required to ensure that positive mental health research and practice is understood and adopted. New, inventive approaches and conceptual frameworks are now more than ever essential to capture the attention of individuals, organizations, and governments to decrease the incidence of mental illness and increase positive mental health education and activities. Keyes (2007) emphasizes that promotion of positive mental health strategies and activities is a crucial component of any mental health initiative. Seligman (2002) emphasizes that there is very little focus on how to educate, promote, and engage people in proactive positive mental health activities to prevent mental illness. Luthans (2002, 2012) argues that there is a need for new positive core concepts, provided they have good theoretical and empirical foundations, that particularly lend themselves to development and application in multiple settings. The question is how to promote and engage individuals to be proactive and enjoy the development of their own positive mental health and well‐being and to get involved in their own regular, targeted intentional activities, without the stigma of mental ill health? The concept of fitness is now discussed as one possible way forward.
WHO use the term fitness in their evidence paper on mental health promotion (see Naidoo & Wills, 2000) by stating that “health can mean the absence of disease or disability but, just as often, may refer to a state of fitness and ability or to a reservoir of personal resources that can be called on when needed” (p. 17). There is no dissection of mental and physical fitness in the meaning of fitness in the above definition, suggesting fitness is a holistic term that encompasses both mental and physical components.
“Physical fitness is a combination of qualities that enable individuals to be at their full potential in performing vigorous physical activities and involve (but are not limited to) endurance, strength & flexibility” (Physical fitness, 2004). This definition suggests that physical fitness activities are an enabler toward realizing one’s potential by way of performing a range of intentional physical activities. Physical fitness interventions have, over recent years, been utilized by governments, organizations, and the medical profession as an invaluable preventative measure in the fight against disease. For example, individuals are able to go to a medical practitioner or a reputable assessment center to ascertain their general physical fitness level and then be advised about options for improving it; governments and organizations too have many and varied physical fitness interventions to improve the health of their citizens, leaders, and staff.
While obviously physical illness is still treated after it occurs, the concept of physical fitness has provided a proactive and preventative strategy to support higher levels of physical health. Physical fitness is also a simple concept to promote. Most would be aware that millions of dollars are already spent on promoting fitness and the average person already understands this term. Primarily, fitness promotion focuses on assessment and intervention programs and healthy exercise routines utilizing equipment, fitness centers, books, apps, and so on. Additionally, personal trainers and coaches who come from a range of fields, for example, medicine, sport, psychology and health, offer to improve your fitness using an array of frameworks and methodologies, some scientifically validated and some not.
The concept of fitness is a term that has central meaning and understanding within the wider community and emphasizes the dynamic nature of levels of optimal functioning, competitive edge, and the understanding that achieving fitness requires effort and motivation over time and is based on regular activities and practices. This is the communication that needs to be conveyed for mental fitness too so that it becomes part of a total fitness strategy. The term mental fitness aligned to physical fitness can create a total fitness approach for individuals, organizations, governments, and the wider community. By using the term “mental” prior to fitness, mental fitness can be seen as analogous to physical fitness. Physical fitness is a better‐known domain and it can be used to enable people to grasp potential meanings of mental fitness.
The alignment of positive mental health assessment, activities, and practices to a fitness analogy can assist in mental health promotion because fitness is proactive, preventative, and easily understood, without stigma. Individuals already understand fitness and know that it is essential to engage in regular and targeted exercises with the primary goal of improving their physical health and well‐being.
A mental fitness strategy aligned to the concept of physical fitness is already recognized as part of a positive health approach. For example, from 1948 to the present day WHO’s definition of health has had a holistic approach by including physical and mental indicators together: “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well‐being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (1948, p. 1). The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM, 2000) supports the definition of “health‐related fitness” developed by Pate (1988), who defines fitness as the demonstration of capacities that help prevent disease and promote health. Seligman (2008) argues that a scientific discipline of total health barely exists despite the fact that the fields of biology, chemistry, and medicine have validated many of the physical and mental health improvements obtained from regular physical exercise.
There is already growing evidence that mental and physical health work together to create positive outcomes (e.g., Richards, Campania, & Muse‐Burke, 2010). Further, the benefit of regular physical exercise activities on mental health is supported by numerous studies, for example, exercise alters the brain to become more resistant to stress (Schoenfeld, Rada, Pieruzzini, Hsueh, & Gould, 2013), it has a protective effect against anxiety (Smith, 2013), and is associated with relief from depression (Cooney et al., 2013).
The promotion of fitness activities and practices to increase adoption and in turn positive economic and health outcomes is a big challenge. For example, there is an increase in sedentary lifestyle behaviors and most mental health professionals will admit that one of their greatest challenges is to motivate their clients to regularly practice their prescribed mental health activities for longer periods of time. Therefore, an urgent need exists for more cooperative and integrated approaches between the physical and mental health domains by organizations and governments (e.g., Ory, Smith, Mier, & Wernicke, 2010).
Just as the physical fitness literature indicates, there is also growing evidence that specific activities and practices have a beneficial effect on well‐being outcomes. Positive psychology and neural plasticity research has become a promising area for positive mental health activities across multiple contexts, with evidence suggesting that throughout the lifespan individuals are able to learn and grow (Greenwood & Parasuraman, 2010; Shaw & McEachern, 2001; Sin and Lyubormirsky, 2009).
While twin studies by Lykken and Tellegen (1996) suggest that a stable part of happiness is accounted for by heredity, the amount of variance would decide the extent to which happiness is changeable. Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade (2005) examined the role of heredity and found that three major factors may govern a person’s chronic happiness level: set point or potential range (i.e., genetic predisposition, heredity), life circumstances (e.g., race, age, disability), and intentional activities, which are defined as voluntary activities that you choose to participate in. Intentional activities include a wide variety of activities that involve how people think, feel, and behave. Approximate percentage breakdown of the variance of each factor in cross‐sectional well‐being suggests around 40% of the variance is related to intentional activities. This 40% would be the target for mental fitness activities.
Sheldon and King (2001) highlighted the need for positive psychology to reconsider how to engage “the average person to find out what is right and what needs improving” (p. 216). A meta‐analysis by Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) suggests one of the most promising areas of research to improve one’s well‐being is the use of intentional activities to decrease depressive symptoms and to improve well‐being. However, they also comment that although happiness for a population can be increased, it remains unclear how long the increase would last, that is, motivation of the individual to engage in these activities for longer period of time is a challenge. Diener and Biswas‐Diener (2008) also include engaging activities as part of the process of improving happiness. The challenge for researchers and practitioners is to identify which intentional activities to target and to discover how to motivate people to engage in these activities. The question is, as Haidt (2006) comments “how to push a person up to the top of his/her potential range” (p. 91).
The motivation to participate in intentional psychological activities regularly and over long periods of time would be advantageous to advance theory, research, and practice. This concept and practice of intentional activities aligns well with the physical fitness analogy, given the wider community already understands that to become fit, one must engage in regular and targeted activities and practices that “fit” with the person’s goals, for example, lifting weights (building strength) and running (building endurance).
The concept of mental fitness aligns well with this research on intentional activities because it is structured in a similar way to physical fitness (i.e., regular and varied intentional exercises designed to “fit” the specific criteria of each person). Moreover, the concept of mental fitness helps to address the problem of motivating people to work on their mental fitness as part of their life activities,given the analogy of physical fitness suggests that fitness is not stored – that is, fitness dissipates without the frequency and duration of workouts.
To summarize, mental fitness can be one effective solution to assist in mental health initiatives in community and workplace contexts because (1) it can utilize language already known and understood that is easy to relate to concepts such as strength, flexibility, endurance; (2) it assists in reducing stigma and conceptual confusion that exists around the concept of mental health; (3) it helps to address the need for more proactive, preventative, and holistic approaches to improved mental health that have consumer acceptability; (4) the term progresses the idea that a fit mind and body are equally important and need regular, intentional activities and practices to build sustainable habits of mind; (5) mental fitness is viewed as a process (a series of assessment and regular activities) to achieve a particular outcome, that is, improved levels of mental health and well‐being.
Although the concept of mental fitness can provide a way of explaining positive mental health theory, research, and activities in a non‐threatening, parsimonious, and proactive way, until recently the psychological literature did not have a scientific term that corresponded to physical fitness. There were no consistent theoretical foundations or standardized measures to research and replicate or for mental health practitioners to apply.
To commence the process of scientifically developing a mental fitness concept, Robinson, Oades, and Caputi (2014) examined three questions:
To examine these research questions a conceptual review and two studies were conducted: the preliminary construction of mental fitness was supported by a conceptual and critical literature review; a Delphi study assisted in formulating a definition and underlying principles by way of an international expert panel; and an empirical study revealed a multifactorial model of mental fitness underpinned by 73 items (Robinson, Oades, & Caputi, 2014). Results from this body of work are now summarized.
The term mental fitness is not new to the psychological literature. The concept was proposed by McCarthy (1964) who suggested it would “serve psychology well through the many gradations represented by the various nosological categories of clients served by community mental‐health clinics, to the well‐adjusted, spontaneous, natural, creative individuals who are coping with reality, making effective contributions to society and realising their intellectual, emotional and social potential” (p. 202). McCarthy also suggested that mental fitness formed an excellent counterpart for the late President Kennedy’s population‐based program for physical fitness, that is, a total fitness initiative combining mental and physical fitness together. In a more recent example, Seligman (2011) has incorporated the concept of fitness in a military resiliency training context known as comprehensive solider fitness.
The historical use of the term fitness commenced from the 14th century (e.g., “Fitness,” 2012). The term fitness continued through time to be viewed developmentally, suggesting it is a function and that individuals are active agents in the process by achieving the ability or capacity to change, develop, adapt, and respond to enable them to move toward a successful fit between themselves and their environment (e.g., Darwin, 1869). The term physical fitness by way of exercises was not explicitly referred to until the 1920s and then, moving into the 21st century, the term fitness became more focused on regular exercise (practice) as an enabler to achieve good health and physical fitness. There was no reference to the term mental fitness during this period.
Following the examination of the more historical meaning and use of the term fitness, the next step was to investigate and further understand the contemporary meaning and use of the term. To achieve this, Robinson, Oades, and Caputi (2014) analyzed how the English‐speaking Internet users of the 21st century view the terms fitness, physical fitness, and, specifically, mental fitness by undertaking a Google search (carried out in 2013) via their web browser. While it was virtually impossible to examine every entry, results from this search revealed a plethora of hits: fitness, 461 million; physical fitness, 86 million; mental fitness, over 17 million; and physical/mental fitness together revealed 6 million hits. These initial search results strongly suggested that the concept of mental fitness has meaning and utility in modern‐day society.
Results revealed five primary categories where the term was being utilized. The first category was coded as providing creditable information from websites that reflected a reputable genre, for instance health and psychological services; the second category contained more unreliable sources, such as individuals without qualifications, private blogs, social media, and so on; the third category was specifically advertising courses and programs from multiple sources; the fourth category contained either government or non‐government organizations; and finally there was a media category where the term appeared in published material, such as magazines.
In summary, the search clearly indicated that the concept of fitness (both mental and physical) is now widely used and suggested that the meaning still, to some degree, reflects its historical roots. For example, mental fitness (like physical fitness) requires practice and suggests that those who participate in improving their mental fitness are functioning at an optimal level and are more capable; mental fitness is a process that can be learned, indeed the primary focus across all categories was exercises and training across multiple settings, such as work, life, school. Additionally, personal trainers and coaches who came from a range of fields, for example, medicine, sport, psychology, and health, offered to improve physical and/or mental fitness using a vast array of frameworks and methodologies including fitness centers, DVDs, and self‐help books. Moreover, it was evident that considerable amounts of money and time are spent on promoting mental fitness in much the same way as physical fitness.
Essentially the analysis revealed the primary focus was assessment and intervention programs and tools across multiple contexts. The search also indicated that, by way of private blogs and social websites dedicated to sharing information and experiences of mental fitness, there is a growing level of interest in the concept among Google users. However, while there were commonalities between the historical and popular interpretations of mental fitness, the five categories showed differing usage of the term with no evidence of a scientifically generated definition, measure, or evidence‐based development activities.
The next phase of the analysis was to search the psychological literature to ascertain if this reflected the historical and popular conceptualizations. The search was carried out in 2013 in the database PsycInfo. Results suggest mental fitness is not a robust scientific endeavor in the psychological literature (only 60 results in total). However, salient themes suggested some congruence with the historical and popular searches, specifically: (1) mental and physical health and fitness often appear together and involve learned, changeable skills and regular exercises to practice; (2) evolutionary theory, the process of adaptation, is prominent; (3) mental fitness includes cognitive, affective behavioral components; (4) mental fitness can be domain‐specific, that is, work, life, and social; (5) mental fitness is a process with well‐being outcomes; (6) mental fitness involves psychological resources, such as resilience; (7) mental fitness also assists in the reduction of some mental illnesses, such as anxiety, anger, and depression – there are treatment and prevention components; (8) mental fitness can be intentional and goal‐directed; (9) there are numerous mental fitness tests and indicators but they vary in explanation and content. Consistent with the popular literature search, there were no reliable and valid measures nor a consistent definition.
In summary, the above review explored the concept of mental fitness within the historical, popular, and psychological literatures. Based on these findings, an initial definition and four guiding principles were formulated to influence future research and practice (see the results of the Delphi study below).
Following the conceptual review of the term mental fitness, Robinson, Oades, and Caputi (2015) conducted a Delphi study to engage an international expert panel (n = 25) to evaluate the proposed definition and four guiding principles of mental fitness; expert consensus was achieved. Results provided a definition of mental fitness as being “the modifiable capacity to utilize resources and skills to flexibly adapt to challenges or advantages, enabling thriving.” Results for the four guiding principles were: (1) fitness is a positive term without connotations of illness implied by mental health or mental illness; (2) mental fitness could be understood by the wider community in a similar way to physical fitness; (3) mental fitness is measurable; and (4) mental fitness can be improved, in a similar way to physical fitness. The panel also offered valuable, qualitative input and recommendations for future research and practice.
Below is a brief summary of the four guiding principles supported by the expert panel.
Principle 1 is based on the assumption that the term physical health is understood by individuals and the wider community as absence of physical disease and is without stigma. However, the term mental health is understood as absence of mental illness and is largely stigmatized. The conceptual review of the literature by Robinson, Oades, and Caputi, (2014) suggested that the term mental fitness is not stigmatized.
As previously stated, Microsoft Encarta Reference Library (Physical fitness, 2004) suggests physical fitness involves (but is not limited to) endurance, strength, and flexibility. The term mental fitness could transpose components from one context to another (psychological strength, flexibility, and endurance) as they already have meaning and relevance for the wider community.
The expert panel also suggested the formulation of individual definitions for the components of a mental fitness resource index (strength, flexibility, endurance). These were drawn from the Merriam‐Webster Online Dictionary (“Endurance,” 2014; “Flexibility,” 2014; “Strength,” 2014) to reflect a broad, “layman’s” understanding of the labels. Strength is defined as “the quality or state of being strong: capacity for exertion or endurance”; Flexibility is defined as “a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements”. Endurance is defined as “the ability to withstand prolonged hardship or adversity.”
Principle 3 suggests that a mental fitness model would be helpful in generating items by synthesizing key theories, research, and practices that remain largely disconnected within the psychological literature relating to positive mental health. For example, meaning, purpose, strengths knowledge and use, resiliency, positive emotions, mindfulness, acceptance are all related to well‐being and featured prominently in the positive mental health research.
Principle 4 suggests that mental fitness can be learned via developmental intentional activities, exercises, and regular practice to “fit” the assessed needs, thus creating positive psychological habits or rituals.
The Delphi study expert panel concurred that an alignment of the physical fitness paradigm is easy to understand, preventative, and proactive and has good face validity that provides a way of explaining positive mental health theory, research, and activities that could be easily understood by the wider community, without stigma. The panel endorsed development of a holistic model of mental fitness as a worthy field of study. The panel also advocated that a mental fitness strategy creates the opportunity to develop workplace community‐based programs and suggested that mental fitness activities could be developed to simultaneously work on mental and physical fitness, but must be targeted based on accurate assessment.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) emphasized the need for more conceptual and empirical tools to craft and evaluate interventions. There is also growing interest in the investigation of a smaller set of higher‐order constructs that examine, within a single study, multiple components that are enablers of well‐being outcomes (Sheldon & Hoon, 2007; Staats, 1999). Although there are several multidimensional models that measure multiple positive mental health variables together in different contexts (e.g., Luthans, 2012; Ryff, 1985; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) more research is needed given that the majority of past research on positive mental health has predominantly measured the correlates and predictors of well‐being in isolation.
Robinson, Oades, and Caputi (2014) have developed a theoretical model to underpin empirical investigation of mental fitness. The aim has been to (1) ascertain whether a smaller set of higher‐order dimensions would emerge from the analysis to validate a structure that best represents mental fitness, and (2) to determine whether there is an overarching factor of mental fitness that subsumes the dimensions. Results from this study are now being finalized for publication.
The theoretical construction of mental fitness must be supported by psychological literature encompassing items reflecting important psychological resources that research suggests are developmental. There are many published psychological theories, constructs, and measures related to positive mental health outcomes that could be considered as an important psychological resource for inclusion in a mental fitness model. The Delphi study had several suggestions, as does previous multi‐measure research: for example, the variables must be identified in peer review literature and be measurable, and they must be developmental and have associated interventions and intentional activities that can be utilized across multiple contexts. These variables would then be incorporated into a preliminary conceptual framework analogous to that for physical fitness – that is, strength, flexibility, and endurance – to ensure a familiar language that is easy to explain.
Given the holistic nature of mental fitness and the interest in examining multiple variables together in a single study, several examples of proposed higher‐order theories and methodologies are provided below. The combining in one study of the items associated to these variables offers the opportunity to simplify and categorize a large number of variables into a more manageable resource index. This would be particularly beneficial to the concept of mental fitness and the guiding principles, and relevant to the workplace and community contexts.
SDT is a theory of motivation that has evolved over the past three decades (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Sheldon, 2002). SDT is an approach to human motivation driven by the assumption that humans are inherently proactive and have the potential to master their inner forces (drives and emotions) and the external forces (environment). A review of SDT research and application supports the theory that the mental fitness concept given autonomous motivation would be crucial to engagement and sustainability. SDT also supports the premise that individuals are active participants intrinsically interested in their own development via autonomous self‐regulation.
The regulation of emotion has been defined as the ability to respond to the ongoing demands of experience with a range of emotions in a manner that is socially tolerable and sufficiently flexible to permit spontaneous reactions and to delay spontaneous reactions as needed (Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994). For example, broaden‐and‐build theory asserts that positive emotions evolved as psychological adaptations that increased our human ancestors’ odds of survival and reproduction (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Research suggests positive emotions widen the array of thoughts and actions compared to negative emotions. The benefits of broadened mindsets is that they build a variety of personal resources – for example, social connections, coping strategies, environmental knowledge, creativity, and innovation – reserves that can also be drawn on to manage threats or stressors. There is growing scientific evidence in relation to interventions that reliably increase positive emotions and overall happiness and well‐being. Longitudinal studies suggest that positive emotions are important in the development of long‐term psychological and personal resources, for example resilience (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009; Fredrickson, 2004). Further, Kok et al. (2013) showed that cardiovascular health improved by increasing positive emotions.
There are a number of theories that are linked to the importance of social support; for example, coping theory, social exchange theory, and social comparison theory (see Williams, Barclay, & Schmied, 2004). Positive relationships are associated with numerous positive mental and physical health outcomes (e.g., Dutton & Ragins, 2007; Uchino, 2009). A review of cross‐national studies found that positive relationships were the one factor that consistently predicted subjective well‐being in every country studied (Diener, 2005).
Stress and coping theory suggests that social support fosters adaptive appraisal and coping. Evidence for this is found in studies that observe stress‐buffering effects following perceived social support. Relational regulation theory suggests that the link between social support and mental health is driven by individuals regulating their emotions via conversations and shared activities. Given the plethora of research on social support and its developmental opportunities, it is viewed as an essential component of mental fitness.
Psychological resilience has a large number of theoretical frameworks and definitions. For example, The American Psychological Association (2014) generally defined resilience as an individual’s ability to properly adapt to stress and adversity. It is further defined as “good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development” (Masten, 2001, p. 238). Resilience is thought to promote protective factors that support positive outcomes. In the past resilience was viewed as a trait, however, more recently it is also considered to be a process defined by two factors: (1) exposure to stressors or risks, and (2) demonstration of competence and successful adaptation (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000).
Seligman and Matthews (2011) suggest resilience can be enhanced and developed within an individual. Well‐being research also suggests positive emotions are more common among high‐resilient individuals (Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006). A comprehensive literature review on resilience suggests resilience needs to be put into action with the focus not on resilience per se, but on the capabilities and assets that are associated to the outcome of resilience (Martin‐Breen & Anderies, 2011). There is evidence to support that individuals are able to learn and develop resilience (e.g., Connor & Davidson, 2003; Luthans, Norman, & Hughes, 2006).
One of the most prominent of this array of attention and awareness theories is mindfulness. There has been much research on the benefits of cultivating mindfulness which is defined as “the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown and Ryan, 2003, p. 822). Research suggests that training in mindfulness techniques enables a number of positive mental and physical health and well‐being outcomes (Kabat‐Zinn, 1990; Piet & Hougaard, 2011).
Evidence supports physiological and psychological benefits of self‐regulating human functioning for those who practice mindfulness by way of intervening with habitual, automatic thoughts and evaluating them in relation to the best response for an individual’s primary goals and objectives (Alexander, Langer, Newman, Chandler, & Davies, 1989; Levesque & Brown, 2007; Rosch, 1997). Thus, the self‐awareness and self‐regulating nature of mindfulness and its well‐documented interventions suggest mindfulness would be an important component of mental fitness.
The emergence of acceptance is prominent in the psychological literature (e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2011; Linehan, 1993; Segal, Teasdale, & Williams, 2002). Hayes (1994) has defined psychological acceptance as one of the most crucial contextual change strategies. Wong (1998) concurs in his implicit theory of the good life, but argues that the adaptive value of acceptance is not widely recognized in positive psychology. Ryff (1985) features self‐acceptance in her psychological well‐being scale, as do Keyes and Magyar‐Moe (2003) in their model of social well‐being. Kashdan and Ciarrochi (2013) provided a rare and integrated review of mindfulness, acceptance, and positive psychology, and consider how these concepts are utilized via a number of effective intervention strategies.
The prominence of the concepts and development of meaning and purpose in life and positive human functioning have become a core element within traditional and positive psychology (e.g., Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964; Frankl, 1963) and therefore highly congruent with mental fitness. Damon (2008) suggests that purpose in life forms the answer to the “why” question, McKnight and Kashdan (2009) suggest purpose is a protective factor for well‐being. Purpose in life also relates to creating authentic life goals. (See King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso, 2006; Schulenberg, Hutzell, Nassif, & Rogina, 2008; Wong & Fry, 1998.)
The concept of meaning in life has been positively associated with hope, faith, love, health, happiness, resilience, coping skills and empowerment, and inversely related to depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, drug and alcohol use, materialism and experiential avoidance (see Morgan & Farsides, 2009; Schulenberg, Baczwaski, & Buchanan, 2013; Schulenberg, Schnetzer & Buchanan, 2011; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006; Wong 2012). Meaning research suggests meaning is developmental and that stability is important (e.g., Kim, Sun, Park, Kubzansky, & Peterson, 2013; Steger & Kashdan, 2013).
The concept of self‐efficacy is central to Albert Bandura’s influential and highly researched social learning theory. According to Bandura, self‐efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in a particular situation; it is an essential part of Bandura’s self‐system and can be learned and developed. As Bandura and other researchers have demonstrated, self‐efficacy can have an impact on psychological states, behavior, and motivation (see Bandura, 1977, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2006). Conner and Norman (2005) found that decisions affecting health are associated with the level of self‐efficacy, for example, smoking and physical exercise. Gist and Mitchell (1992) found that individuals with high levels of self‐efficacy deal better with difficulties and are more likely to persist in the face of failure, a valuable asset for achieving mental fitness.In summary, the strength, endurance, and flexibility conceptual dimensions of the mental fitness model are drawn from existing theories, research, and associated measures. As the concept of mental fitness is innovative and exploratory, the formation of a nomological network as identified by Cronbach and Meehl (1955) at this stage of development would be premature. However, the conceptual framework in Table 10.1 shows examples of the previously reviewed concepts as part of a mental fitness resource index and their relevance to a workplace context. The term “resource index” is used, as it suggests that each domain of mental fitness (e.g., strength) has a set of resources. This example resource index shows how the subcomponents might be categorized and map onto intentional activities/practices under the physical fitness analogy. It provides an exploratory framework for empirical modeling.
Table 10.1 Mental fitness domains and workplace relevance.
Source: Author.
| Subdomain | Utility in a work context | |
| Strength | Meaning | People feel more connected when there is congruence between their role and their work values and the organizational contribution to the greater good. |
| Purpose | People understand their life goals and how these relate to their work. | |
| Social support | People like good relationships with work colleagues and in their teams. | |
| Strengths | Knowing and using one’s strengths at work can help people feel more engaged and assist with recruitment, role clarity, and task delegation. | |
| Flexibility | Mindfulness | Being able to focus attention for longer and choosing work distractions mindfully can be valuable to people in a multi‐tasking work environment that requires agility. |
| Positive emotions | Positive emotions can assist to improve creativity, innovation, and team performance, important attributes in a 21st‐century workplace. | |
| Endurance | Self‐efficacy | Individuals and teams who have confidence and belief in themselves and their colleagues can do what is required of them/their team. |
| Competence | People at work are more motivated when they feel mastery over what they do. | |
| Autonomy | People in a work environment that offers and supports as much choice as possible are more motivated. | |
| Resilience | Resilient people can adjust and adapt better when experiencing challenging work conditions such as change initiatives. |
The examples in Table 10.1 suggest that individuals who are functioning well psychologically would have the capacity to utilize one or more of the previously reviewed psychological resources. While there is growing interest from researchers and practitioners to simultaneously measure a more comprehensive range of positive mental health determinants, there is a paucity of studies examining multiple variables together within a single study (e.g., Sheldon & Hoon, 2007; Staats, 1999).
Examples of published models and constructs that do measure multiple variables together in a single study are the Psychological Well‐being Scale, a generic measure containing six subscales of eudaimonic well‐being (e.g., Ryff, 1985); PsyCap, primarily developed for the organizational context, which measures four aspects of positive mental health – self‐efficacy, resiliency, optimism, and hope (e.g., Luthans, 2002); and The Global Assessment Tool, currently being used in resilience training for the U.S. Military, which measures four dimensions of positive mental health, emotional, social, spiritual, and family (Peterson, Park, & Castro, 2011). These are examples of multiple component measures that have offered valuable research and insights into positive mental health utilizing several variables within a single study. While there are similarities and differences between these and other models, more research is needed to understand how these multiple variables interrelate and predict positive mental health outcomes. In relation to the criteria of mental fitness, which variables together would (or would not) constitute an overarching construct of mental fitness is yet to be finalized empirically.
The concept and model of mental fitness provides a conceptual framework analogous to physical fitness to engage and promote to individuals, organizations, and the wider community as a proactive and preventative approach to mental health, without the stigma sometimes associated with terms like mental health. In addition, it can promote an understanding that mental fitness, as with physical fitness, requires the motivation to regularly practice intentional activities to create positive psychological habits predicting positive outcomes that can be scientifically investigated, for example, well‐being, engagement, hope, social/emotional intelligence, and flow.
There are many possibilities and a great need for future research on a mental fitness model. Future research in mental fitness at work is needed across the following domains:
The concept, measurement, and development of mental fitness can assist individuals, schools, organizations, communities, and governments to understand that the road to optimal mental health requires engagement, motivation, commitment, self‐awareness, and self‐management based on reliable and valid measures and intentional activities performed on a regular basis and tailored to individual needs. Physical fitness regimes at work guide and assist the employees toward optimal levels of physical health and mental fitness regimes could do the same for mental health if designed and delivered utilizing scientific rigor together with evidence‐based engaging practices and activities.