1. 1
2016-03-01
DRDC-RDDC-2016-L051
Produced for: Col Darrell Russel, Director Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre
Terms of Release: This Scientific Letter is a documentof Defence Research and DevelopmentCanada and is for
internal use and limited external use,in accordance with the original distribution list.Further distribution ofthis
documentor information contained herein is prohibited withoutthe written approval of the clientfor whom itwas
written.
Scientific Letter
EX BOLDQUEST 2015: An Assessment of Tactical Level
Coalition Ethos and Cohesion
Background
1. Exercise Bold Quest (EX BQ 15) is a large-scale operational demonstration, with
participation from 16 allied countries; the overall emphasis of EX BQ 15 is interoperability.
The BQ demonstration and assessment currently examined core competencies in the area
of combat identification, friendly force tracking, digitally aided close air support, joint fires,
integrated air and missile defence, and coalition intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance. Building on previous work conducted on trust within a coalition environment
for CALWC (Thompson, Jobidon, & Flemming, 2014), the Canadian Army Land Warfare
Centre contribution to EX BQ 15 consisted of two separate but related lines of investigation:
an assessment of ethos (Cotton, 1979; Flemming, 1989) and of cohesion between
sections/squads within a dismounted platoon.
Ethos
2. Contemporary military missions highlight the importance of human aspects in military
operations and interventions (Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). Depending on the
organization, a variety of constructs (e.g., human factors, human domain, human dimension)
and a myriad of variables (e.g., resiliency, trust), that operate within complex spheres are
deemed to be important (e.g., social, political, cultural, psychological, etc.) in achieving and
assessing campaign success. Although consensus regarding the key constructs and
variables to investigate is lacking, the human domain has been identified in the Integrated
Capstone Concept as the vital factor within the operating environment (DND, 2009). The
Canadian Army (CA) has declared that the centre of gravity for tomorrow’s soldier is the
command environment; to meet the demands of the scope and depth of full spectrum
engagement, the CA must field soldiers exhibiting a broader body of knowledge, skills and
tactical proficiencies, while retaining traditional “soldier” capabilities. Many now describe the
current and future soldier as a warrior, a diplomat, and scholar (DND 2003; Defence
Management Studies, 2011). In line with this anticipated future identity, six major themes
have been postulated to capture the human dimension for the Army of Tomorrow:

2. 2
professionalism and ethics; morale; cohesion and trust; decision making; and resilience
(DND, 2007).
3. Culture may be defined as patterns of behaviour that members of an organization or group
are encouraged to follow; it establishes a set of standards (rules) that members are
expected to follow (Winslow, 1999). Ethos is the characteristic spirit of a culture, and has
been operationally defined as a soldier’s examined beliefs and expectations, and values
about duty, loyalty, integrity and courage about military service (Cotton, 1979). With respect
to the professionalism and ethical dimension, the intent is to collect a baseline measure of
current coalition ethos, and assess if the attitudes of soldiers are influenced (i.e., temporarily
change) as a function of the behaviors enacted in a particular environment, or if they are
relatively fixed features of a soldiers’ orientation to service.
Cohesion
4. For decades, military personnel have acknowledged unit cohesion, (also known as social
cohesion), that is the degree to which unit personnel feel connected to their group, as a key
component of effective military group functioning. For example, cohesion has been viewed
as increasing one’s resistance against battlefield stressors and enhancing performance
(Cox, 1995). Empirical research has credited cohesion as a primary mechanism that
enables group maintenance and enhances performance. However, the construct is complex
and the relationship between cohesion and effective performance is not as straightforward
as it would seem. A cursory review by this document’s author of the cohesion concept in
both the military and academic literature demonstrates that there are numerous methods for
defining and measuring it, thereby obscuring the relationship. The following is an overview
of the theories and research examining cohesion to a) clarify the different types of cohesion,
and b) identify how each type impacts military performance.
5. The degree to which a unit is connected and its importance with respect to operational
success has been a truism. Data collected from WWII soldiers showed that intimacy among
group members and strong leadership enables effective performance. Indeed, the
maintenance of cohesion in combat is recognized as a crucial element in the production of
combat power in both tactical units and in resiliency enhancement (Cox, 1995). It is often
credited as holding organizations together in difficult conditions, enabling effective teamwork
toward unit goals (Wong et al., 2003).
6. To examine the success of U.S. forces in the Iraq war, researchers interviewed U.S. combat
troops and Iraqi prisoners of war (Wong, et al., 2003). The researchers examined the
interpersonal relationships among members and beliefs in democracy as a force in group
perseverance in dangerous battle situations. Following discussions with Iraqi regular army
soldiers, researchers concluded that the sections had little to no cohesion. A common theme
that emerged from the interviews with Iraqi troops was motivation by coercion. Iraqi troops
emphasized they feared punishment if they were found to be avoiding combat. Wong et al.
(2003) claim Iraqi soldiers appeared to be primarily concerned with self-preservation and
maintaining familial relationships during battle. In contrast, a common response from U.S.
soldiers when asked about their perseverance during battle was upholding responsibilities
among fellow group members. Interviewed U.S. troops claimed that the training prior to
deployment began to strengthen relationships among the unit. Bonds between soldiers were
maintained during combat, and during mundane periods due to boredom. The qualitative
data revealed evidence that suggested that a strong emotional relationship among group
members was necessary for success. Social cohesion among U.S. troops was said to be the

3. 3
motivation to achieve group success. Based on this research, Wong et al. (2003) argued
that effective unit performance is determined by strong social cohesion. Yet, a meta-analysis
conducted by MacCoun & Hix (2010) show that the authors ignored vast amounts of
empirical experimental research in order to demonstrate a link between social cohesion and
‘success’ in Iraq. In particular, the recent meta-analysis provides evidence that task
cohesion, defined as the degree to which members of a team are focused on an objective, is
both distinct from social cohesion and is directly linked to performance, and that social
cohesion, while related to task cohesion has no direct bearing on operational effectiveness.
7. The benefits of cohesive groups cannot be understated (Epps, 2008). However, there
remains misperception concerning the effects of cohesion on group performance. In part,
this stems from confusion in the literature as a result of grouping terms like mutual friendship
and interpersonal attraction with concepts such as teamwork and coordination. Further,
disparate definitions in the literature suggest that the variable can take on different
meanings depending on the context. Importantly, this becomes problematic when
operationalizing the construct for research purposes. The intent of this research is to begin
to understand the impact of task and social cohesion on group performance of dismounted
infantry and whether this changes over time. Based on previous findings, it is expected that
task cohesion will increase over the course of the exercise independent of social cohesion.
That is, if the social bonds between the sections are weak or in fact lessen, it will have no
impact on the task cohesion that is necessary for mission success.
AssessmentObjectives
8. a) Collect a baseline measure of dismounted coalition infantry ethos using the Military Ethos
Scale.
b) Assess if ethos changes over the course of the exercise.
c) Track the evolution of cohesive-relevant measures on dismounted infantry.
d) Examine the relationship between ethos and cohesion.
Participants
9. Approximately forty Canadian, Danish and American Army personnel from 4 dismounted
infantry sections/squads participated as part of a regular tasking in EX BQ 15.2; the exercise
was conducted over a two week period at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas (FBTX) in September
and October of 2015.
Methodology
Pretest
10. Initially, items were pilot tested for readability and usefulness by personnel from all three
countries during BQ15.1 which was conducted jointly with the US Army Expeditionary
Warrior Experiment (AEWE) series of Dismounted Squad Capability Demonstrations that
focused on the improvement of situational awareness, joint fires and decision making
through an integrated series of non-material, live-virtual (simulation) education and training
initiatives focused at infantry squad, platoon and company echelons. Feedback from the
pilot test revealed that question type and wording was appropriate for non-native English
speakers.

4. 4
Procedure and Measures
11. At the beginning of BQ15.2 participants received a short introduction to the exercise and
were asked to read the information letter and consent form. Following this, each voluntary
participant was assigned a unique subject identification number. Soldiers were briefed on
how to use the online data collection tool and completed a set of demographic items and the
Pre-EX survey items that appear in Annex A. These items assess expectations about social
and task cohesion prior to working together with the soldiers from their own as well as the
other countries, and to collect a baseline measure of military ethos (Cotton, 1979). In
addition, perceptions of fairness concerning workload distribution, trust defined here as
perceived value of soldiering skills and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) were
assessed at all time points, in order to account for factors that may have influenced ethos,
social cohesion and task cohesion.
12. Each morning, soldiers rehearsed a combat mission using virtual battlespace (VBS3)
simulation equipment (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Canadian soldiers conducting virtual mission rehearsal.
In the afternoon soldiers moved out into the training area to conduct the tactical mission
rehearsed in the morning. The training area was a mock village complex which allowed the
troops to practice tactics, techniques and procedures required of a dismounted infantry
platoon (see Figure 2). For example, soldiers practiced how to approach and clear a
compound that potentially housed insurgents. Although the same village was used for all but
the last day, each day soldiers were presented with a different mission (e.g. approach from a
different location, clear a different compound, and so on). On the last day, the soldiers
conducted a mission in a different but similarly structured village.
13. Three times during the exercise following high intensity combat missions, participants
completed the questionnaire. For the first two data collections, participants completed the
surveys using the QUEST (questionnaire for Utility Evaluation and Survey Tool) that was
loaded onto portable laptops set up in a building close to the village that was used for most
of the training. For the third data collection (T3), the soldiers moved to a difference training
area which did not allow for the setup of the laptops. For this collection, paper forms were
used. One final point is that at time two (T2), the dismounted infantry sections were mixed
with persons from each of the three countries. This is a unique contribution to the literature
as no other military research has done this.

5. 5
Figure2: Mock villages in the training area.
Limitations
14. On the final day, the soldiers moved to a different village to conduct the tactical operation.
This location did not allow for the setup of the laptops and consequently data was collected
through paper and pencil means. Moreover, rain occurred on the final day of the experiment.
As a result, this collection method yielded far less data; many soldiers only completed
questions on one side of the form. Due to this, the data from the third Mid-Ex collection
period was not used for the analysis.
Findings1
15. Three measures of ethos were assessed over the course of the exercise. Prior to training
together as a tactical unit, all ethos measures were high. Interestingly, scores for CAN
soldiers were significantly higher than USA soldiers at PreEx and Mid Ex2; Danish scores
were in the middle. There were no other statistically significant differences between the
three countries. Over the course of the exercise, measures of ethos remained high but as a
whole did not differ over time. The ceiling effect of the initial high scores may have made it
difficult to detect any differences over time if in fact there were to be any. It is more likely that
ethos is a relatively fixed feature of a soldier’s orientation to service. It is positive to note that
the esprit de corps is strongly inculcated into the dismounted troops representing the
different nations.
16. Social cohesion scores followed a similar pattern. Pre-Ex measures were well above the
midpoints of the scale and remained high over the course of the exercise. Again, the high
initial scores may have made it difficult to detect any changes over time. Nevertheless, the
strong positive scores suggest that it held the sections/squads and the platoon as a whole
together in difficult conditions.
17. Pre-EX task cohesion scores were also high; however CAN and DMK soldiers reported
significantly higher initial task cohesion scores relative to USA soldiers. The assessment of
task cohesion over time revealed a significant positive effect. That is, the initial differences
between the sections/squads were eliminated over time and an overall increase in task
1
The full statistical analysis is presented in Annex B.

6. 6
cohesion emerged for all sections. This may suggest that working together on shared
superordinate goals resulted in a greater commitment to achieving mission success.
18. Initial measures of a lack of perceived fairness were evident prior to working together.
However, this effect disappeared over the course of the exercise. In fact, perceptions of
fairness significantly improved. Further, trust also increased over the exercise. For the
training variable, only USA soldiers reported that they felt they required more training
relative to other troops across all assessment points. This could be an indicator as to why
there were initial differences in the measure of ethos. If USA soldiers perceived that they
required more training, it could have negatively impacted the degree to which they
internalize the feelings of pride, fellowship, and loyalty shared among the group. There was
no evidence to suggest that TTPs had an effect on the soldiers’ ability to work as a coalition
platoon.
19. Finally, the relationships between ethos, social and task cohesion was examined. Ethos was
not related to social cohesion but was positively related to task cohesion which is empirically
identified as important for mission success. Social and task cohesion at each assessment
time were positively correlated, although only task cohesion increased over time.
Nonetheless, the strong positive scores suggest that social cohesion held the sections and
the platoon together high intensity conditions, enabling effective teamwork towards the unit
goals.
Conclusionsand Recommendations
20. Prior to the exercise, some cohesion differences between nations were evident; however,
these effects disappeared over the course of the exercise. Even when sections/squads were
mixed with soldiers of different nations, this did not negatively impact ethos or cohesion
measures. Because the sample sizes for this assessment were small, one must be careful
of making large-scale generalizations of the findings. However, the fact that significant
effects were found on such a small sample suggests that the effects may have been
magnified had there been more data points. The data also suggested no loss in perceptions
of ethos, social or task cohesion when assessments were made concerning units comprised
of members from different nationalities. These findings suggest that cultural barriers to
interoperability may be reduced through collective coalition training that may produce
stronger commitments to the task cohesion necessary for successful tactical operations.
Prepared by: Dr. Katherine Banko DRDC – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis and
Sarina Trac, University of Waterloo.
This Scientific Letter is a publication of Defence Research and Development Canada. The reported results, their interpretation, and
any opinions expressed therein, remain those of the authors and do not necessarily represent, or otherwise reflect, any official
opinion or position of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Department of National Defence (DND), or the Government of Canada.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016
© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2016

7. 7
References
Adams, B. D., Bruyn, L. E. & Chung-Yan, G. (2004). Creating Measures of Trust in Small Military Teams,
DRDC Report No. CR-2004-077. Toronto: DRDC.
Blais, A.-R., & Thompson, M. (2009). The trust in teams and trust in leaders scale: a review of their
psychometric properties and item selection. DRDC Toronto Technical Report. TR 2009-099. Toronto:
DRDC
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup Relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Clark, T & Moon, T (2001). Interoperability for joint and coalition operations. Australian Defence Force
Journal, 151, 23-36.
Cotton, C. A. (1979). Military attitudes and values of the Army in Canada. Canadian Forces Personnel
Applied Research Unit, Report 79-5.
Cox, A. (1996). Unit Cohesion and Morale in Combat: Survival in a Culturally and Racially Heterogeneous
Environment. Fort Leavenworth: United States Army Command and General Staff College.
Defence Management Studies. (2011). Toward Army 2040: Exploring Key Dimensions of the Global
Environment. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University.
Department of National Defence. (2003). Duty with Honour: The Professions of Arms in Canada.
Canadian Defence Academy – Canadian Forces Leadership Institute.
Department of National Defence. (2007). Land Operations 2021: Adaptive Dispersed Operations. The
Force Employment Concept for Canada’s Army of Tomorrow. Directorate of Land Concepts and Design.
Department of National Defence. (2009). Integrated Capstone Concept, Chief of Force Development.
Directorate Land Concepts and Design (2011). Designing Canada’s Army of Tomorrow: A Land
Operations 2021 Publication. Kingston, ON: Department of National Defence.
Epps, G. (2008). Relooking unit cohesion: A sensemaking approach. Military Review, 88(6), 102-103.
Flemming, S. B. (1989). The hearts and minds of soldiers in Canada: The Military Ethos Scale (MES) in
retrospect. Operational Research and Analysis Establishment Directorate of Social and Economic
Analysis, Staff Note, 1/89.
MacCoun, R. J., & Hix, W. M. (2010). Cohesion and performance. In National Defense Institute (collective
authorship), Sexual orientation and U.S. military policy: An update of RAND's 1993 study. Santa Monica:
RAND. 137-144.
Murphy, P. J. & Farley. K. M. J. (2000). Morale, Cohesion, and Confidence in Leadership: Unit Climate
Dimensions for Canadian Soldiers on Operations. In C. McCann & R. Pigeau (Eds.), The Human in
Command: Exploring the Modern Military Experience (pp. 311-332). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Siebold, G. L. (1999). The evolution of the measurement of cohesion. Military Psychology, 1, 5-26.
Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33, 287-290.
Wong, L., Kolditz, A.T., Millen, A. R., Potter, M. T. (2003). Why they fight: Combat motivation in the Iraq
war. The Strategic Studies Institute. 1-25.

8. 8
Annex A: Questionnaire
Ethos - Pre and Mid Exercise
1. I am seen as a soldier first and foremost.
2. My work as a soldier is satisfying.
3. What members of the forces do in their private life should be of concern to their
supervisor/commander. (R)
4. Military service is a way of life.
5. I feel strong loyalty to the Coalition Forces.
6. Military personnel should perform their operational duties regardless of the personal or family
consequences.
7. Military service is just a job. (R)
8. Personal interests must take second place to operational requirements for military personnel.
Social and Task Cohesion, Fairness, Trust - Pre-exercise
9. I expect that there will be a positive social atmosphere between the sections. (social)
10. I will spend time during the exercise getting to know the members of the other sections. (social)
11. I will spend time during the exercise getting to know the members of my section. (social)
12. The coalition nations will share the same degree of commitment to the overall goals. (task)
13. I expect the other sections to take the mission tasks seriously. (task)
14. The work for each section will be distributed fairly. (fairness)
15. Coalition partners value the capability of my Army. (trust)
16. The training of my Army is at least equal to that of the other countries. (trust)
Social and Task Cohesion, Fairness, Trust, TTPs - Mid Exercise
17. There is a positive social atmosphere between the sections. (social)
18. I spent time during the exercise getting to know the members of the other sections. (social)
19. I spent time during the exercise getting to know the members of my section. (social)
20. I will miss the members of my section when the exercise ends. (social)
21. There is a negative social atmosphere in my section. (R) (social)
22. Other sections were acting in isolation. (R) (task)
23. On this exercise, nations shared the same degree of commitment to the overall goals. (task)
24. The platoon’s success is more important than the success of my section/squad. (task)
25. My actions during the exercise are more important than those actions of others. (R) (task)
26. The sections in my platoon worked poorly together. (R) (task)
27. The other sections took the mission tasks seriously. (task)
28. My section was more focused on completing the task than were the other sections. (R) (task)
29. My section had little to do. (R) (fairness)
30. My section had much more work to do than other sections. (R) (fairness)
31. My individual skills were valued.
32. My section needed more training. (R)
33. The work done in my section was valued by the other nations.
34. Coalition partners valued the capability of my Army.
35. The training of my Army is at least equal to that of the other countries.
36. The other sections needed more training. (R)
37. Tactics, techniques and procedural differences made it challenging to work with sections from other
nations. (R)

9. 9
Annex B: Full StatisticalAnalysis
Ethos
Eight items that assessed ethos were combined to form a composite variable. Ethos was
assessed three times over the course of the exercise. Descriptive statistics for each time appear
in Table 1. The eight items were combined to form a composite variable. To assess ethos over
time, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the three
assessments. There was no significant effect of changes in ethos over time, F(2, 26) = .37,
p = .696, Wilks’ Λ = .973, partial η2
= 0.03. However, there were statistically significant
differences at T1 and T3 as a function of country. CAN soldier ethos ratings were significantly
higher than USA soldier ratings at both times; there were no other significant differences.
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for each Measure of Ethos as a Function of Country.
Ethos Pre Ex Ethos Mid Ex 1 Ethos Mid Ex 2
Country M SD M SD M SD
CAN (10) 8.06a 1.40 7.82 1.20 8.08b 1.30
DMK (7) 7.50 0.60 7.23 0.60 7.10 0.80
USA (22) 6.60a 1.70 7.22 1.40 6.90b 1.10
Note. Means with the same subscript differ significantly at p < .05.
Social Cohesion - Pre-EX Assessment
Three items attempted to tap into the perceptions of social cohesion of the mixed platoon prior
to the exercise: I expect that there will be a positive social atmosphere between the sections, I
will spend time getting to know the members of the other sections, I will spend time during the
exercise getting to know the members of my section. An ANOVA conducted on each item
revealed no significant differences between the groups, all ps > .05. While the USA averages
were somewhat lower than platoon members from the other two countries, all means were well
above the midpoint on the scale presented and are in Table 2.
Table 2: Means and Standard deviation of Social Cohesion items as a Function of Country.
Item Country M SD
Positive Social Atmosphere between Sections CAN 8.2 1.6
DMK 8.0 1.5
USA 6.6 2.0
I will get to know the members of the other sections CAN 7.9 1.8
DMK 8.7 1.3
USA 7.1 2.8
I will get to know the members of my section CAN 8.7 1.8
DMK 8.0 1.0
USA 6.5 2.4

10. 10
Social Cohesion Mid-EX 1 and 2 Assessments
Five items assessed social cohesion (see appendix A items 9-13). These items were combined
to form a composite variable. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant effect
between time points, F(1, 29) = 0.37, p = 0.547, Wilks’ Λ = 0.987, partial η2
= 0.13, (MT1 = 7.56,
SE = 0.29; MT2 = 7.78, SE = 0.24).
Task Cohesion - Pre-EX Assessment
Two items assessed pre-exercise task cohesion: The coalition nations will share the same
degree of commitment to the overall goals, and I expect the other sections to take the mission
tasks seriously. ANOVAs conducted on each item revealed statistically significant differences
between the groups; F(2, 36) = 4.13, p = .024 and F(2, 37) = 7.65, p = .002, respectively. Post
hoc analysis on the commitment to the overall goals item showed that CAN soldiers reported a
higher degree of commitment to the overall goals relative to USA soldiers (M = 8.6, SD = 1.59;
M = 6.5, SD = 2.4, respectively). For the ‘take mission task seriously’ item, soldiers from CAN
and DMK reported a significantly higher expectation that mission tasks would be taken seriously
(M = 9.5, SD = 1.1; M = 9.3; SD 0.8 respectively) relative to USA (M = 7.0, SD = 2.4).
Task Cohesion - Mid-EX 1 and 2 Assessments
Seven items assessed task cohesion (see Appendix A, items 14 – 20). These items were
combined to form a composite variable. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant
effect between time points, F(1, 29) = 9.02, p = 0.005, Wilks’ Λ = 0.763, partial η2
= 0.24, (MT1 =
6.71, SE = 0.22; MT2 = 7.56, SE = 0.24).
Fairness and Trust Pre-EX Assessment
Three items were intended to tap into perceptions of fairness and trust: The work for each
section will be distributed fairly (fairness), coalition partners value the capability of my army
(trust), and the training of my army is at least equal to that of the other countries (trust).
ANOVAs were conducted on each item revealing statistically significant effects for all three
measures. For the workload item, F(2, 37) = 3.9, p = .028; for the capability item, F(2, 37) =
4.56, p = .017; for the training item, F(2, 37) = 4.02, p = .026. Post hock tests revealed that,
prior to the exercise, DMK soldiers had a higher positive expectation for all three items
compared to USA (M = 8.4, SD = 1.6; M = 6.8, SD = 2.7 and M = 8.7, SD = 1.2; M = 6.2, SD =
2.8; and M = 9.7, SD = .7; M = 7.4, SD = 2.8 respectively). There were no other significant
differences.
Fairness Mid-EX Assessment
Two items were used to assess perceived fairness: My section had more work to do than the
other sections (reversed scored), my section had less work to do than the other sections. These
items were combined to produce a composite variable. A repeated measures ANOVA was
conducted to compare the effect of country on perceived fairness. There was a significant
difference in perceptions of fair workload distribution between time points, F(1, 30) = 12.33, p =
.001, Wilks’ Λ= .709, partial η2
= 0.29, (MT1 = 4.35, SE = 0.33; MT2 = 2.95, SE = 0.31).

11. 11
Trust Mid-EX Assessment
Six items assessed trust among the sections. Because there was no accepted empirical bases
for combining these items, a principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted
which yielded a two factor solution. Four items (appendix A: 24, 26-28) loaded onto Factor 1
and relate to the perceived value of soldiering capability. This was labelled “Soldiering
Capability”. Two items (25, 29) loaded onto Factor 2 and relate to perceived levels of training;
this was labelled “Training”. Items for each factor were combined to create composite variables.
A repeated measures ANOVA comparing the effect of country on soldiering capability revealed
a significant effect between time points, F(1, 30) = 4.94, p = 0.034, Wilks’ Λ = 0.859, partial η2
=
0.14, (MT1 = 7.02, SE = 0.40; MT2 = 7.85, SE = 0.30). A repeated measures ANOVA comparing
the effect of country on training over time revealed a significant effect as a function of country,
F(1, 31) = 3.81, p = 0.033, Wilks’ Λ = 0.803, partial η2
= 0.06. Over time, USA soldiers reported
they needed more training relative to both DMK and CAN soldiers.
Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs)
One item assessed the extent that TTPs made it challenging to work with the sections from
different nation. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of country
on TTPs. There was no significant effect of country, F(1, 31) = .15, p = .702, Wilks’ Λ = .995,
partial η2
= 0.85.
Cohesion and Ethos Relationship
A bivariate correlation was conducted on all composite measures of Ethos, Social Cohesion and
Task Cohesion. The results are presented in Table 3. All three intercorrelations of ethos were
statistically significant. Intercorrelations of social cohesion and task cohesion at T1 and T2 were
statistically significant. Pre Ex Ethos is significantly associated with Task Cohesion T1, Task
Cohesion T2 is correlated with Ethos T2 and Ethos T3. There were no other statistically
significant intercorrelations.
Table 3: Intercorrelations for Ethos, Social Cohesion, and Task Cohesion Measures.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Pre EX Ethos --
2. Ethos Mid Ex 1 .66** --
3. Ethos Mid Ex 2 .79** .75** --
4. Social Cohesion Time1
(mid) .13 .16 .17 --
5. Social Cohesion Time2
(mid) .13 .34 .22 .34
--
6. Task Cohesion Time1
(mid) .33* .26 .43* .45** .18 --
7. Task Cohesion Time2
(mid) .33 .37* .47** .00 .45** .24 --
*p <.05, **p <.01. Note: Pre-Ex Social and Task Cohesion not included