This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 10 July 2012, At: 07:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

Mental toughness in sport: A review

a
Lee Crust
a
York St. John University, Lord Mayor's Walk, York, YO31 7EX,
United Kingdom Phone: 01904 876307 E-mail:

Version of record first published: 28 Feb 2011

To cite this article: Lee Crust (2007): Mental toughness in sport: A review, International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5:3, 270-290

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
 IJSEP, 2007, 5, 270-290
© 2007 West Virginia University

Mental Toughness in Sport: A R eview

Lee Crust
York St. John University, York, United Kingdom,

Abstract
Athletes, coaches, and applied sports psychologists have consistently referred to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

mental toughness as one of the most important psychological characteristics related

to outcomes and success in elite sport, although researchers have, until recently,
devoted little time to studying this concept. This review considers some of the emerg-
ing definitions and conceptualizations, and examines how mental toughness might
be developed in performers. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to the study
of mental toughness are evaluated, and developments in measuring this important
concept are discussed. Research that has examined the relationship between men-
tal toughness, performance, and perception are also reviewed. Future directions for
research are offered.
Keywords: Adversity, coping, hardiness, perseverance, resilience.

With an increasing number of athletes and coaches attributing outcomes in sport to men-
tal toughness, or a lack of it (Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002; Gould, Hodge, Peterson, &
Petlichkoff, 1987), and an apparent increase in demand from players and coaches for
procedures to develop mental toughness (Clough, et al., 2002), it is surprising that there
has been little attention given to the scientific study of this important concept (Thelwell,
Dalzell, & Sadler, 2004; Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, & Perry, 2004a). Progress
has been especially slow given that it has been almost twenty years since Gould et al.
(1987) found that 82% of wrestling coaches rated mental toughness as the most important
psychological characteristic in determining competitive success. One result of minimal re-
search attention is that mental toughness is one of the most overused but least understood
terms within applied sport psychology (Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002). Although
problems with conceptual clarity, wide-ranging definitions, and inadequate measurement
instruments still exist, recent research concerning mental toughness has shown advance-
ments in all of these areas (cf. Jones et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a).
Emerging research (Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a;
Thelwell, Weston, & Greenlees, 2005) has led to a better understanding of what mental
toughness is, what attributes characterize mentally tough performers, and the relation-
ships that exist between mental toughness and other variables such as performance and

Corresponding author: Lee Crust, York St. John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York, United Kingdom, YO31
7EX. Tel. 01904 876307, l.crust@yorksj.ac.uk

270

IJSEP 5-3.indb 270

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

a plethora of psychological characteristics. At this point, a review of current theoretical

developments and research evidence would seem appropriate in order to evaluate the
state of present knowledge, consider the applied implications of research, and galva-
nize and direct future research investigations.

E arly P erspectives
During his seminal and extensive work on personality, Raymond Cattell (Cattell, 1957;
IPAT Staff, 1979) identified tough-mindedness as one of the 16 primary source traits
measured by his Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Although the 16PF is
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

embedded in psychological theory and there is a wealth of data to support its applica-
tion in many fields (Bartram, Anderson, Kellett, Lindley, & Robertson, 1995), the 16PF
has not been used to study mental toughness in sport. One of Cattell’s 16 primary source
traits (Factor I) assesses tough-mindedness (Harria) as opposed to tender-mindedness
(Premsia). Cattell defines individuals who score high in tough-mindedness as being:

tough, realistic, down-to-earth, independent, responsible, but sceptical

of subjective cultural elaborations. They are sometimes unmoved, hard,
cynical, smug. They tend to keep a group operating on a practical and
realistic, no-nonsense basis.
(IPAT Staff, 1979, p.23).

In contrast, tender-minded individuals are described as being emotionally sensitive,

day-dreaming, temperamental, dependent, and fussy. Cattell (1957) clearly saw tough-
mindedness as an important dimension of personality, and other researchers followed
this lead (Werner & Gottheil, 1966, Kroll, 1967). While applied sport psychologists
(Goldberg, 1998; Loehr, 1982; 1986; 1995) have proposed definitions of mental tough-
ness and have developed approaches to “enhance” mental toughness, it is apparent
that this work is not grounded in sound theoretical and scientific investigation. More
recently, researchers have emphasized the importance of developing conceptualizations
and measures of mental toughness that reflect the unique demands of sport and have
sufficient theoretical underpinning (Clough et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a).

Defining M ental Toughness

Despite researchers having identified that, at one time or another, virtually any positive
and desirable psychological characteristic that has been associated with success has
been labelled as mental toughness (Jones et al., 2002), it is important to acknowledge
that certain themes recur in the extant literature. Researchers and theorists have defined
mental toughness in terms of coping effectively with pressure and adversity so that per-
formance remains little affected (Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Loehr, 1995;
Middleton et al., 2004a; Williams, 1988), recovering or rebounding from setbacks and
failures as a result of increased determination to succeed (Clough et al., 2002; Gold-
berg, 1998; Jones et al., 2002), persisting or refusing to quit (Goldberg, 1998; Gould
271

IJSEP 5-3.indb 271

 L. Crust

et al., 1987; Middleton et al., 2004a), being competitive with self and with others (Bull,
Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005; Clough et al., 2002), being insensitive or resilient
(Bull et al., 2005; Clough et al., 2002; Goldberg, 1998; Gould et al., 2002), having
unshakeable self-belief in controlling one’s own destiny (Clough et al., 2002; Jones et
al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a), thriving on pressure (Bull et al., 2005; Jones et al.,
2002; Thelwell et al., 2005) and possessing superior mental skills (Bull, Albinson, &
Shambrook, 1996; Golby, Sheard, & Lavallee, 2003; Loehr, 1995).
Unfortunately, while the existence of recurring themes helps in the development of a
general understanding of mental toughness, and certainly suggests the construct is mul-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

tidimensional (Middleton et al., 2004a), the vast number of related attitudes, behaviors,
personal characteristics, and skills listed above does little to enhance a more scientific
definition and conceptualization. Indeed, most researchers who have studied mental
toughness (e.g. Jones et al., 2002; Golby et al., 2003; Loehr, 1995) have provided inad-
equate definitions. For example, Jones et al. (2002) reported characteristics of mentally
tough athletes and defined mental toughness in terms of what it enables athletes to do,
rather than what exactly mental toughness is (Middleton et al., 2004a). Furthermore, in
studies such as Thelwell et al. (2004), participants were not uniform in their perceptions
of what represents mental toughness. Thelwell et al. found that the entire sample of six
professional soccer players reported that mental toughness was characterized by having
total self-belief at all times, having the ability to react to situations positively, ignoring dis-
tractions, and having the ability to hang on and remain calm under pressure. However,
only half of the sample felt mental toughness was associated with enjoying the pressure
of performance.
Middleton et al. (2004a) conducted one of the few studies that attempted to un-
derstand the theoretical underpinning of mental toughness. These researchers used a
grounded theory approach following semi-structured interviews with elite athletes and
coaches in order to learn from participants. The emerging data, which included the
identification of 12 components of mental toughness, allowed Middleton et al. to build
upon earlier definitions of mental toughness and define the construct as “an unshakeable
perseverance and conviction towards some goal despite pressure or adversity.”

Developments in Conceptualizing Mental Toughness

A number of recent studies have provided more rigorous attempts at conceptualizing
mental toughness (Bull et al., 2005; Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Middleton
et al., 2004a). Jones et al. used a qualitative approach, placing their work in the context
of Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory. This theory focuses on both the uniqueness
of the individual and the processes common to all people. Personal construct theory pro-
poses that individuals strive to understand, interpret, anticipate, and control the world of
experience in order to deal effectively with it (Kelly, 1955).
Jones et al. (2002) used a three-stage procedure to generate a definition of mental
toughness and to identify what ten elite sports people (from a diverse selection of sports)
regarded as attributes of the ideal mentally tough performer. First, this involved a focus
group that contained three elite sports people who were required to brainstorm and
272

IJSEP 5-3.indb 272

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

discuss a definition of mental toughness and associated attributes. While focus groups
are regarded as appropriate ways to obtain rich, descriptive data, there are potential
limitations (Gibbs, 1997). These include the drive to reach consensus agreement, which
can ignore more diverse opinions, issues of confidentiality, and lack of researcher con-
trol (Gibbs, 1997). The authors also acknowledge the use of only one focus group of
three individuals as a potential limitation. Indeed, one of the primary strengths of focus
group research is the interaction that is generated between participants, which can
often prompt individuals to challenge one another, as-well-as reconsider and reevaluate
their own positions in order to move beyond individual interpretations (Kitzinger, 1995).
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

It is for this reason that most researchers recommend group sizes of between 6 and 10
participants (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001; Gibbs, 1997). Since the focus
group data that was generated in stage one of this study had implications for stage two
(individual interviews) and stage three, this small sample appears to be a concern. The
definitions of mental toughness were reviewed, and the participants were individually
asked to rank the 12 emerging attributes of mental toughness in terms of their impor-
tance. Jones et al. (2002, p. 213) suggested that:
Mental toughness is having the natural or developed psychological edge that en-
ables you to:
• Generally, cope better than your opponents with the many demands (competi-
tion, training, lifestyle) that sport places on a performer.
• Specifically, be more consistent and better than your opponents in remaining
determined, focused, confident, and in control under pressure.

Jones et al. (2002) also identified 12 attributes of mentally tough performers, which
covered self-belief, desire/motivation, dealing with pressure and anxiety, performance-
related focus, lifestyle-related focus, and pain/hardship factors. The top three ranked
attributes were found to be: (1) having an unshakeable self-belief in your ability to
achieve your competition goals, (2) bouncing back from performance setbacks as a
result of increased determination to succeed, and (3) having an unshakeable self-belief
that you possess unique qualities and abilities that make you better than your opponents.
This approach clearly moves from the macro components (i.e., confidence,) to the more
detailed micro components of mental toughness, but the attributes that were revealed
resembled many of those already present in the literature (Bull et al., 1996; Fourie &
Potgieter, 2001; Golberg, 1998).
More recent work by Thelwell et al. (2005) aimed to confirm the findings of Jones
et al. (2002), using a sample of professional soccer players. These researchers reported
two studies, the first of which involved 6 professional soccer players who were inter-
viewed in order to define mental toughness and examine the characteristics of mentally
tough soccer players. The second study used 43 professional soccer players to confirm
the definitions and attributes of mental toughness that were generated by the first study.
The results of this work essentially supported the definition and attributes of mental tough-
ness forwarded by Jones et al. (2002). Having total self-belief at all times that you will
achieve success was found to be the top-ranked attribute of the mentally tough soccer
273

IJSEP 5-3.indb 273

 L. Crust

player. Two worthy additions to the literature (which are discussed in more detail shortly)
were made by Thelwell et al. First, the importance that participants attached to their
environment and experiences during their formative years in regard to the development
of mental toughness. Second, players reported the need to have “a presence that affects
your opponents,” which appears to imply self-presentational strategies and behavioral
attributes.

F rom H ardiness to M ental Toughness

In contrast, Clough et al. (2002) attempted to bridge the gap between theoretical re-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

search and applied practice in the study of mental toughness. These researchers placed
great emphasis on ecological validity and as such consulted elite athletes and coaches
and drew upon their own applied work in order to gain an applied perspective on
mental toughness. Clough et al. also acknowledged the theoretical work of existential
psychologists (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi, & Khan, 1982) in the field of health psy-
chology and used the related concept of hardiness to transpose research into a more
sport specific setting. According to Clough et al., hardiness fails “to capture the unique
nature of the physical and mental demands of competitive sport” (p. 37).
Previous researchers have reported hardiness to be a sub-component of mental
toughness (Fourie & Potgieter, 2001). It would appear that both hardiness and mental
toughness are characterized by resiliency, perseverance, effectively coping with pres-
sure or adversity, motives to achieve success (predominantly intrinsic), and a deep sense
of purpose and thus involvement in activities and personal encounters. While finding dis-
tinct similarities between coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of mental toughness and the
hardiness construct, Clough et al. (2002) highlighted that confidence, an integral part
of coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of mental toughness, which emerged from their
own applied work with elite rugby league players, is not explicitly or distinctly part of
previous hardiness models. Indeed, confidence, self-belief, and self-efficacy have been
consistently found to characterize mental toughness in emergent research definitions and
conceptualizations, both before and after the work of Clough et al. (e.g. Fourie & Potgi-
eter, 2001; Jones et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a; Thelwell et al., 2005).
Research into the stress-illness relationship eventually led to the discovery of hardi-
ness, which was conceptualized as a constellation of personality characteristics that op-
erate as a resistance resource during confrontations with stress (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa
et al., 1982). Kobasa (1979) found that executives who were exposed to high levels of
stress and remained healthy could be distinguished from those who were exposed to cor-
responding levels of stress but became ill, by the hardy personality. In particular, Kobasa
et al. (1982) emphasized that personality dispositions contain both cognitive appraisal
(meaning of the perceived stimuli) and action aspects (deciding on a response). Kobasa
et al. (1982) stated:
The position taken here is that personality dispositions can also influence
coping processes and that this may be the mechanism whereby personal-
ity exercises a buffering effect on stressful events (p. 169).

274

IJSEP 5-3.indb 274

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

Kobasa (1979) suggested that hardiness comprises the three distinct but interrelated
attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge. According to Kobasa, commitment (in
contrast to alienation) reflects the tendency to become deeply involved in what one is
doing. This investment in their social relationships make committed persons less likely to
give up in pressurized situations. In general, commitment is seen as reflecting active, ap-
proach-type behaviors rather than passivity and avoidance (Kobasa, 1979).
“Control” refers to a belief that individuals can remain influential (as opposed to be-
ing powerless or helpless) during confrontations with stress. Kobasa (1979) maintained
that this is not a naïve expectation of complete determinism, but rather the exercise of
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

using imagination, knowledge, skill, and choice to reduce the potential jarring effects
of stress. This appears consistent with Gould, Eklund, and Jackson (1993), who found
coping in Olympic wrestlers to be a dynamic, complex process that was not limited to
particular strategies or single approaches to dealing with particular stressors.
Finally, challenge is expressed as the belief that change rather than stability is
normal in life (Kobasa, 1979). An individual high in the challenge dimension is likely to
appraise change as an opportunity to learn, a chance to develop and grow rather than
a threat, and as such, mitigate the potential stressfulness of events by viewing adjustment
as stimulating.
Individually, the three dimensions of hardiness are important, but Maddi (2004) re-
jected any emphasis on one or other of these three as being more important. To Maddi,
it is the combination of high scores in these three attitudes that characterize the hardy
personality. Maddi (2004, p. 288) suggested that “the stronger the 3 C’s of hardiness,
the greater were the signs of surviving and thriving” in potentially stressful and change-
able circumstances.
Although some researchers have investigated hardiness in sport settings (Golby
et al., 2003; Maddi & Hess, 1992), Clough et al. (2002) highlighted one major draw-
back to this, namely the unique characteristics of sport and sports settings. Initial work
by Clough et al. provided support for the 3 C’s of hardiness but also revealed the
importance of a fourth dimension (confidence) to reflect the transposition of the related
construct of hardiness into the more sport-specific concept of mental toughness. As such,
Clough et al. proposed that commitment, control, challenge, and confidence represent
the 4 C’s model of mental toughness. Despite this, Clough et al. did not fully justify the
transposition of hardiness to mental toughness given that what is conventionally meant
by confidence may be considered implicitly covered by the 3 C’s of commitment, control,
and challenge. However, Clough et al. defined mental toughness in terms of character-
istics that individuals possess.
Mentally tough individuals tend to be sociable and outgoing; as they
are able to remain calm and relaxed, they are competitive in many situ-
ations and have lower anxiety levels than others. With a high sense of
self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they can control their own des-
tiny, these individuals can remain relatively unaffected by competition or
adversity (p. 38).

275

IJSEP 5-3.indb 275

 L. Crust

By placing mental toughness in the theoretical foundations of hardiness, Clough et al.

(2002) clearly view mental toughness as a personality dimension. However, as Kobasa
(1979) points out, personality dispositions are likely to influence coping processes, and
as such this suggests that some individuals will “naturally” possess or develop a range
of effective coping strategies that can be employed to combat stress when required. This
is not incongruent with Jones et al. (2002) who use the terms “natural” or “developed”,
and leave open the possibility, or indeed the likelihood, that coping strategies can be
learned with the help of sport psychologists. In addition, individuals could learn to be
more aware or familiar with potentially stressful events and use this awareness to respond
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

or behave more effectively. Indeed, Middleton et al. (2004a) suggested that familiarity or
experience can lead to increased mental toughness. In their research, athletes reported
specific events, such as major tournaments, and specific adversities, such as injury, were
easier to deal with the second time around. Despite this, it remains possible that negative
experiences could also negatively influence mental toughness when faced with the same
circumstances for a second time. Also, Thelwell et al. (2005) suggested that learning to
present the image of being mentally tough might actually be an important skill as a sense
of presence might affect opponents’ performances. Such approaches avoid the unhelp-
ful and misleading dichotomy of “nature versus nurture” when clearly both inherited and
acquired factors are important in the study of mental toughness.
The work of both Jones et al. (2002) and Clough et al. (2002) provided a starting
point from which future researchers could begin to scientifically examine and understand
mental toughness. Unfortunately Jones et al. gave little attention to background theory,
and Clough et al. failed to provide a sufficient rationale as to why mental toughness was
a sport-specific form of hardiness. However, more recently, researchers have begun to
understand mental toughness by combining qualitative findings and established theory
in order to move toward a conceptual model.
Middleton et al. (2004a) used data collected from semi-structured interviews of 25
current and former elite athletes, and eight expert coaches from a plethora of sports
to move beyond pure description, toward a multidimensional, hierarchical, conceptual
model of mental toughness. Twelve characteristics of mental toughness emerged: self-
efficacy, mental self-concept, potential, task-specific attention, perseverance, task fa-
miliarity, personal bests, task value, goal commitment, positivity, stress minimization,
and positive comparisons. Importantly, these researchers used existing theory that had
parallels with the emergent 12 characteristics of mental toughness (e.g., self-concept
theory, attentional styles, self determination theory, etc.) in order to develop a prelimi-
nary conceptual model. The proposed model of mental toughness (Middleton et al.,
2004a) appears similar in structure to the model of self-concept proposed by Shavelson,
Hubner, and Stanton (1976). The mental toughness model separates mental toughness
orientations such as personality characteristics (e.g., self-belief, goal commitment) that
appear to be more stable, from mental toughness strategies (actions), like task-specific
attention and emotion management, that might be more malleable.
The preliminary model, proposed by Middleton et al. (2004a), presents an overall
description of mental toughness, rather than a prescribed route to acquiring mental
276

IJSEP 5-3.indb 276

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

toughness. These researchers have suggested that there are various ways of achieving
mental toughness and that, to be mentally tough, an individual will not necessarily re-
quire all of the 12 identified components. It is more likely that different combinations will
be required for different sports, although a core set of essential components might be
identifiable following further research. This makes intuitive sense when considering that
some characteristics of mental toughness have appeared more frequently in the research
literature than have others. The relative contribution of each of the 12 components of
mental toughness to overall mental toughness has not yet been established.
Despite the progress made by researchers such as Middleton et al. (2004a), it is
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

clear that a consensus definition and conceptualization of mental toughness is still some
way off (Bull et al., 2005). Some researchers have attempted to study mental toughness
by examining only the perspectives of athletes (Bull et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2002;
Thelwell et al., 2005), while others have incorporated the views of coaches (Fourie
& Potgieter, 2001; Middleton et al., 2004a), but most have failed to proceed from
relevant theories of personality or development. Although some researchers who have
employed qualitative methods have found relatively consistent themes, there are many
characteristics that appear less frequently. Fourie and Potgieter (2001) analyzed written
responses of a large sample of elite athletes and expert coaches and also identified
12 characteristics of mental toughness: these were motivation level, coping skills, confi-
dence maintenance, cognitive skill, discipline and goal directedness, competitiveness,
possession of pre-requisite physical and mental requirements, team unity, preparation
skills, psychological hardiness, and ethics. One reason for some of the inconsistencies
might be the choice to study mental toughness as a general concept that is equally ap-
plicable to all athletic populations or from a sport-specific perspective that focuses on
participants and coaches from just one sport. For example, Middleton et al. (2004a)
used participants from a diverse range of sports, which included archery, track and
field, basketball, cricket, rugby union, boxing, mountain climbing, and disability sport. In
contrast, researchers such as Bull et al. (2005) and Thelwell et al. (2005) studied mental
toughness in cricket and soccer respectively.

General and Specific A pproaches

Thelwell et al. (2005) suggested that some inter-sport variance in mental toughness is
likely. These researchers essentially applied the definitions of Jones et al. (2002), which
were derived from participants in a multitude of individual and team sports, to a specific
football context. Although broadly agreeing with the findings of Jones et al.(2002),
Thelwell et al. reported some more specific attributes of the mentally tough soccer player
such as wanting the ball at all times. When mental toughness is considered in relation
to specific sports it seems reasonable to propose that some characteristics or attributes
of mental toughness are going to be more or less relevant as a consequence of task
demands. For example, Jones et al. (2002) suggested a distinction between emotional
pain resulting from failure (probably a generic factor across all sports) and physical pain
(which is likely to be more specific to certain sports). For example, mental toughness in

277

IJSEP 5-3.indb 277

 L. Crust

rowing may be more related to tolerating and coping with physical pain, characteristics
that are not likely to be important attributes of the mentally tough snooker player.
Bull et al. (2005) suggested that different “types” of mental toughness are likely to
exist. These researchers make the important observation that “final-putt” mental tough-
ness in golf is likely to be more related to mind-set and perhaps coping skills, whereas
the mental toughness of a racing car driver taking calculated risks in a dangerous sport
requires a somewhat different form of mental toughness. Furthermore, according to Bull
et al., an aspiring Olympic swimmer would need to show yet another form of mental
toughness to endure high volumes of training and peak in a one-off event (in contrast to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

season-long sports) in order to achieve his or her goals. The focus on a general or spe-
cific approach to the study of mental toughness is not only important from a conceptual
and theoretical perspective, it also has implications for the development of measurement
instruments.
Middleton et al. (2004a) proposed a model of mental toughness and measurement
instrument that suggest mental toughness has broad relevance, that it is not necessar-
ily restricted to sports, but possibly inclusive of other performance settings such as the
performing arts, military, business, etc. There has been little debate on this issue, but
theoretically it is difficult to conceive why mental toughness is a construct relevant only in
sport, rather than a characteristic that more broadly allows individuals to effectively deal
with stress and adversity in a wide range of circumstances. What might be needed is
research to identify the broad, core components of mental toughness and a mapping of
the more peripheral components to the requirements of particular sports or performance
settings. From an applied perspective, that would allow greater specificity in tailoring
interventions to target specific components of mental toughness that an individual might
be lacking. As such, the approach taken by Middleton et al. and Clough et al. in de-
veloping measures of both overall mental toughness and recognizable sub-components
appears to be most appropriate.

M easuring M ental Toughness

The predominant methodological approach to the measurement of mental toughness has
been via the use of questionnaires. A number of studies (Golby et al., 2003; Lee, Shin,
Han & Lee, 1994; Shin, Kim & Lee, 1993) have employed the Psychological Performance
Inventory (PPI; Loehr, 1986) as a measure of mental toughness. This questionnaire was
developed to operationalize Loehr’s (1982) definition of mental toughness, which sug-
gested mentally tough athletes had learned or developed two important skills: first, the
ability to increase their flow of positive energy when faced with adversity or a crisis; and
second, to think in ways that promote the right attitudes to solve problems, or to deal
with pressure, mistakes, or competition. This definition appears to be less precise (i.e.,
terms such as positive energy) than more recent definitions of mental toughness (Clough
et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002, Middleton et al., 2004), and this is also reflected in the
PPI. The PPI contains 42 items and measures mental toughness via the seven subscales of
Self-confidence, Negative Energy, Attention Control, Visualisation and Imagery Control,

278

IJSEP 5-3.indb 278

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

Motivation, Positive Energy, and Attitude Control. Each subscale contains six items, each
scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with scores for each subscale ranging from 6 to 30, and
for total mental toughness ranging from 42 to 210.
Recently, evidence has emerged to assess the psychometric properties of the PPI.
Middleton et al. (2004) tested the construct validity of the PPI by subjecting the respons-
es of 263 student-athletes to both confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory factor
analysis. These researchers found the PPI to have inadequate psychometric properties
and concluded that it was not a sound measure of mental toughness. Additionally, given
that the PPI does not appear to have been developed within the context of a sound theo-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

retical framework or a clear conceptualization of mental toughness, its application as a

measure of mental toughness in scientific investigations appears unjustified.
In contrast to the PPI, Clough et al. (2002) developed the Mental Toughness 48 In-
ventory (MT48) to operationalize their own 4 C’s model of mental toughness. The MT48
contains 48 items that are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly
agree to (5) strongly disagree, with an average completion time between 10 and 15
minutes (Crust & Clough, 2005). The MT48 has an overall test-retest coefficient of 0.9,
with the internal consistency of the subscales (Control, Commitment, Challenge and
Confidence) found to be 0.73, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.8 respectively (Clough, et al., 2002).
In testing the construct validity of the MT48, Clough et al. (2002) found significant rela-
tionships with optimism, self-image, life satisfaction, self efficacy, and trait anxiety (cf.
Crust & Clough, 2005 for further details). Clough et al. (2002) also found support for
the criterion validity of the MT48, with participants who had high as opposed to low
mental toughness, reporting lower ratings of exertion during a 30-minute cycle ride at
70% VO2 Max. Further support for the criterion validity of the MT48 was achieved by
Crust and Clough (2005), who found significant correlations between mental toughness
and physical endurance using a standardized (relative) isometric weight-holding task.
Despite such findings, some concerns about the MT48 remain. First, Clough et al. (2002)
offered no sufficient rationale for the association with hardiness that ultimately is the
basis for the subscales of the MT48. Second, the various stages of statistical procedures
necessary in the development and validation of the MT48 are not adequately reported.
Recently, Middleton et al. (2004b) piloted a questionnaire that operationalized
their own definition and conceptualization of mental toughness. The Mental Toughness
Inventory (MTI) is a 67-item instrument that measures 12 components of mental toughness
alongside global mental toughness. This instrument appears to have been developed
from a sound theoretical base and has been evaluated via a construct validity frame-
work. The MTI appears to possess strong psychometric properties (see Middleton et al.,
2004b) and reflects an important stage in the development of measurement instruments
in this area. From an applied perspective, the multidimensional nature of the MTI might
eventually enable intervention programs to be specifically designed to target particular
components of mental toughness. However, the use of participants from just one elite
sports high school does appear to be rather limiting, and future testing of the MTI is
needed in order to determine whether the inventory does successfully discriminate be-
tween different populations, such as elite compared to non-elite athletes.
279

IJSEP 5-3.indb 279

 L. Crust

The development of the MT48 and more recently the MTI is potentially very impor-
tant for researchers wishing to investigate mental toughness more objectively. Impor-
tantly, the MT48 and the MTI have been developed from both a theoretical and applied
base, and they initially appear to possess adequate psychometric properties (which
have been somewhat absent from other mental toughness instruments). However neither
questionnaire has been extensively used, and both would benefit from additional testing
of validity and reliability. Although the MT48 does have some research support (relative
to performance and perceptions), supplementary published details concerning the devel-
opment of the MT48 appear warranted. Furthermore, since the key correlates used in the
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

development of the MTI were all self-report measures (i.e., flow, self-concept), additional
analysis appears necessary to include performance data (as evident in the development
of the MT 48) and observational analysis (Middleton et al., 2004b) to further test the
construct validity of the MTI. Further testing of these questionnaires should allow the more
precise measurement instrument to emerge.
Finally, Davis and Zaichkowsky (1998) used a form of observational analysis to
assess the mental toughness of ice-hockey players. Five scouts, the general manager,
the coach, and two assistants were involved with rating players mental toughness (via
their on-ice performances) in relation to: (1) adversity response (i.e., increased work
rate), (2) over-achievement (exceeds usual performance under stress), (3) effort (consis-
tency), (4) enthusiasm (encourages teammates), and (5) skill (subjective assessment of
demonstrated ability). Unfortunately, no justification for the five categories listed above
was given, and no standardized performance/behavioral checklists were produced to
allow a form of quantifiable analysis. The subjectivity of such ratings calls into question
the findings of this research, which contradict much of the extant literature by finding a
relationship between mental toughness and pessimism, and clearly the approach taken
lacks scientific rigor. Observational analysis may prove to be an innovative way of as-
sessing mental toughness, but much work is needed to ensure the validity and reliability
of this approach. To enhance this approach it would appear necessary to identify overt
behaviors that are ascribed the construct mental toughness. For example, while Bull et al.
(2005) referred to behaviors that appear alongside “tough thinking” there is no attempt
to describe exactly what behaviors are associated with mental toughness.

Developmental I ssues of M ental Toughness

A related question that arises from such wide-ranging definitions concerns the acquisi-
tion or development of mental toughness; specifically, is mental toughness an inherited,
innate personality characteristic, is it related to environmental factors, or can it be devel-
oped through training? Gould et al. (2002) are quick to note that in another related area
(talent development) the issue of learned versus inherited characteristics is the point of
some contention. For example, while Ericsson (1996) proposed that extensive deliberate
practice is the primary mechanism by which talent is developed, others such as Howe
(1998) argued that inherited traits play a more important role. With no research atten-
tion being given to this issue by sport psychologists (Gould et al., 2002) the contention

280

IJSEP 5-3.indb 280

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

is set to continue. Although some researchers would contend that mental toughness is
a dimension of personality (Cattell, 1957; Kroll, 1967), the existence of a significant
body of work concerning the notion of developing mental toughness (Bull et al., 1996;
Gibson, 1998; Goldberg, 1998; Loehr, 1995) would appear to suggest that applied
sport psychologists believe mental toughness to be at least partially subject to change.
Gordon (2005) suggested that there is an inestimable amount of mental toughness that
is “caught” through social experiences, but that at least some aspects of mental tough-
ness could be “taught.” However, Gordon suggested that future research is needed to
determine what needs to be taught and how.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

Despite research by Thelwell et al. (2005) reporting that some elite soccer players
believed varying environments and experiences during their formative years contributed
to the development of mental toughness, few researchers have attempted to understand
mental toughness from a developmental perspective. One notable exception to this is the
recent work of Bull et al. (2005), who interviewed 12 elite English cricketers, identified
as among the mentally toughest players during the previous 20 years. These researchers
attempted to develop greater insight into mental toughness in cricket, but more specifi-
cally were trying to understand how to develop mental toughness systematically, and to
provide practical recommendations of how coaches could influence mental toughness
and performance. This work resulted in the authors forwarding a mental toughness pyra-
mid that emphasizes the critical role of the environment in the development of mental
toughness.
The foundation level or base of the three-dimensional mental toughness pyramid
represents environmental influence, with both upbringing (i.e., parental influence, child-
hood background) and transition into an appropriate cricket environment (early part of
a junior playing career) cited as key factors. Bull et al. suggested that the environment
sets a base from which “tough character,” “tough attitudes,” and “tough thinking” de-
velop. The apex of the mental toughness pyramid represents tough thinking (i.e., retain-
ing self-confidence, thinking clearly when under pressure) and appears to be the most
peripheral category, which is the area that most sport psychology services (mental skills
programs) are focused upon (Bull et al.).
In contrast, tough character (comprising of independence, self-reflection, resilient
confidence, etc.) is posited as primarily determined by environmental influences and
represents the personality component of mental toughness. The “never say die” and “go
the extra mile” attitudes are reflective of the tough attitudes category. The depth dimen-
sion of the mental toughness pyramid reflects the range of experiences participants are
exposed to. Although this model appears to have implications for both applied practitio-
ners and research perspectives, it certainly requires empirical testing. Bull et al. appear
to view the development of mental toughness from the base of the pyramid upwards (i.e.,
environmental influence, tough character, tough attitudes, and tough thinking), although
one important question is whether mental toughness can be developed in the opposite
direction. For example, could mental skills training create a “filtered down” approach
where the development of tough thinking could influence “tough attitudes” and eventu-
ally develop “tough character”? The work of Bull et al. suggests that in future, more
281

IJSEP 5-3.indb 281

 L. Crust

attention should be paid to creating tough environments so participants can “learn from
their experiences” rather than from formal mental skills training, although more research
is needed to support this position. Furthermore, mentally tough participants reported a
sense of “being an outsider” (i.e., playing cricket in a foreign country) to be important in
the development of mental toughness.
Jones et al. (2002) apparently rejected any dichotomous approach to understanding
mental toughness by acknowledging that athletes may possess inherited characteristics
that relate to a “natural” mental toughness, while proposing that developing mental tough-
ness through learning new skills is also possible. This would appear to fit with recent
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

evidence concerning a prototypical form of hardiness training that was found to increase
coping skills, job satisfaction, and performance, while decreasing stress, anxiety, and
blood pressure when compared to a control group (cf. Maddi, 2004). Although there are
some similarities between hardiness training and the traditional mental skills training that
are evident in sport psychology, it is also obvious that the approach to hardiness training
that is described by Maddi appears to be more comprehensive and holistic.
Furthermore, in a study of the development of psychological characteristics in elite
athletes, Gould et al. (2002) found that mental skills of the elite develop over long pe-
riods of time and are influenced by a wide range of individuals (i.e., teachers, parents,
coaches, etc.). Mental characteristics appeared to develop in both formal and infor-
mal settings. This is consistent with recent qualitative research in which soccer players
claimed their mental toughness developed from experiences and varying environments
during their formative years (Thelwell et al., 2005). Bull et al. (2005) stressed the many
idiosyncrasies that are evident in how individuals develop mental toughness.

M ental Toughness and P erformance

Since researchers and applied sport psychologists have noted the importance that ath-
letes and coaches place on mental toughness as a variable that can influence perfor-
mance (Clough et al., 2002; Gould et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002), it is not surprising
that this aspect has received significant attention in the literature. Clough et al. (2002)
investigated the ability of participants to “bounce back” or show resilience following
negative feedback; this appears to be a common theme in the mental toughness litera-
ture. These researchers manipulated feedback to 79 participants following performance
of motor tasks. The objective measure of performance was a cognitive planning task that
was completed immediately following either positive or negative feedback. Overall, par-
ticipants with higher mental toughness performed better on the cognitive planning task.
More interesting than this, was a significant interaction effect (p < 0.05) that showed that
participants with high mental toughness performed consistently, regardless of feedback,
while those with lower levels of mental toughness performed significantly worse follow-
ing negative feedback. Unfortunately, no mean data is presented to reflect the mental
toughness scores of those classified as high or low in mental toughness, and no informa-
tion on participant characteristics is given.

282

IJSEP 5-3.indb 282

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

One recent study has extended the testing of the criterion validity of the MT48 by
assessing the relationship between mental toughness scores and isometric endurance.
Crust and Clough (2005) had 41 undergraduate male sports students hold a relative
weight (1.5% of body weight) suspended with their dominant arm for as long as pos-
sible. The overall mean MT48 scores for the participants was 3.6 (SD = 0.3). Pearson
correlations showed significant relationships between endurance times and overall men-
tal toughness (r = 0.34), control (r = 0.37), and confidence (r = 0.29), but not between
endurance times and challenge or commitment.
Taken together, these studies (Clough et al., 2002; Crust & Clough, 2005) provide
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

support for the MT48, and for the existence of a relationship between mental toughness
and performance. Also worthy of note is a study by Maddi and Hess (1992) who found
that seven out of eight performance measures correlated with the related concept of har-
diness following a longitudinal investigation of basketball performance. However, with
methodological limitations that have been highlighted and relatively small relationships
found between mental toughness and performance (cf. Crust & Clough, 2005) there is a
need for further, more rigorous investigations (see future research directions).
In one study that evaluated the psychological skills associated with ten-pin bowling
prowess, Thomas, Schlinker, and Over (1996) provided an interesting insight into the
relationship between mental toughness and performance. In this study the definition
of mental toughness appeared heavily weighted toward concentration, focus, coping
with anxiety, and resilience. Amongst a series of comparisons, Thomas et al. studied
differences in psychological variables between more highly skilled (current average ≥
170 pins) and lower skilled (current average ≤ 135 pins) ten-pin bowlers. Higher skilled
bowlers reported significantly higher mental toughness, more planning and evaluation,
greater confidence in equipment and technique, fewer attributions to luck (i.e., internal
locus of control), and more competitiveness. Thomas et al. reported that these variables
yielded 89% accuracy in classifying respondents as having either a high or low aver-
age performance score. Interestingly, the high and low skilled bowlers did not differ in a
number of characteristics that have been included in definitions of mental toughness such
as commitment, visualization, and negative emotions and cognitions.

M ental Toughness and P erceptions

Clough and Earle (2002) reported an experimental study that was used to test the crite-
rion validity for their own MT48 questionnaire. Twenty three participants were initially
tested to determine VO2 Max. (maximum oxygen uptake), and then performed a 30-min-
ute cycle task on three occasions that represented low (30% VO2 Max.), medium (50%
VO2 Max.) and high (70% VO2 Max.) workloads. During the cycle tasks, participants
reported perceived physical demands, perceived mental demands, and overall effort at
5, 15, and 25 minutes during the task. A median split was used to classify participants
into high and low mental toughness groups on the basis of MT48 scores.
The results indicated no significant differences in perceived exertion between high
and low mental toughness groups at the low and medium workloads, although a trend

283

IJSEP 5-3.indb 283

 L. Crust

for those high in mental toughness to report lower perceived physical and mental de-
mands and less overall effort was noted at the medium intensity. At the higher workload,
a significant difference was found between the high and low mental toughness groups
in perceived physical and mental demands and overall effort. It appears that when the
intensity of the exercise increased beyond moderate levels that a type of perceptual aug-
mentation or reduction operated with mental toughness acting as a moderator variable.
With the higher mental toughness group reporting lower rating of perceived exertion
at high-intensity work, Clough et al. (2002) concluded this is evidence that the cliché
“As the going gets tough, the tough get going” holds true in scientific investigation. Ad-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

ditionally, this finding also suggests that mental toughness might only be observable, in
stressful/adverse situations.
However, there are some limitations with this research. First, characteristics of par-
ticipants are not reported, and without further details of the participants the results are
difficult to extrapolate to different groups. This also leaves open the possibility that some
other confounding variable (e.g., exposure to mental skills training—learned coping,
experience, gender effects, etc.), rather than mental toughness, is responsible for the
observed results. Second, no statistics (means, standard deviations, tests of difference)
are reported for high and low mental toughness groups. For example, it could be argued
that any differences in regards to the use of a median split might not represent an ac-
curate reflection of high and low mental toughness groups (this will depend on the range
and dispersion of scores obtained, as some individuals may obtain very similar MT48
scores, but be classified into different mental toughness groups, and with a relatively
small sample, this is likely to be even more problematic). A better option would have
been to assess mental toughness in around 50 individuals and then select the high-
est and lowest 15 scores (thus scores that are closely bunched around the mean and
represent moderate levels of mental toughness are removed from the analysis). Thirdly,
although differences are noted between the high and low toughness groups at the high
workload, it is not clear whether this is due to those who possess high levels of mental
toughness under-rating the demands of the task, the low mental toughness group over-
rating, or a combination of the two. In short, without clearly defining low, moderate, and
high mental toughness, the reasons for the reported differences are unclear.
Despite the limitations, the work of Clough and Earle (2002) certainly provided
some interesting results that future researchers should further explore in order to deter-
mine how mental toughness exerts an influence on performance. The results suggest
perceptual differences between individuals with high and low mental toughness. This
certainly has parallels with Rejeski’s (1985) work on perceived exertion and the develop-
ment of a parallel information processing model of pain. Rejeski (1985) suggested that
perception of exertion is an “active” rather than “passive” process, and studying percep-
tion is not simply concerned with measurement and understanding of “concrete” stimulus
conditions (Pennebaker, 1982). For example, two individuals may perceive similar pe-
ripheral physiological changes (i.e., fatigue) very differently. The “active” approach to
understanding perception of pain is concerned with learning, experience, and the psy-
chological manipulation of sensory data prior to information reaching perception and
284

IJSEP 5-3.indb 284

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

the cortex (Leventhal & Everhart, 1979). This approach is consistent with Morgan (1973)
who noted that approximately a third of the variance in perceived exertion remains
unexplained following consideration of physiological input, and it is consistent with the
importance that some researchers have attached to cognition and motivation/emotion
(cf. Pandolf, 1983) in the study of perceived exertion.
Rejeski (1985) proposed that “certain individuals” (apparently more sensitive types)
may act upon exertional cues with distress schema, which could result in either the gen-
eration of a different percept or in distress cues becoming more available to focal aware-
ness. Research by Rejeski and colleagues on sex role (Hochstetler, Rejeski, & Best, 1985;
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

Rejeski, Best, Griffith & Kenney, 1985) showed that feminine type women and men gave
higher ratings of perceived exertion than either masculine or androgynous women and
men during standardized high-intensity exercise tasks. Furthermore, Rejeski et al. (1985)
showed that perceptual differences were manifested in performance when feminine men
were found to have significantly shorter rides to exhaustion on a cycling task, than did
either masculine or androgynous men. This body of work appears to have parallels with
the study of mental toughness (i.e., the use of more or less sensitive individuals, and the
augmentation or reduction of sensory stimuli).
Since the mechanism(s) by which mental toughness influence performance remain(s)
unclear, it is necessary for future researchers to examine how mental toughness oper-
ates if applied practitioners are to successfully intervene to enhance mental toughness.
Work by Rejeski (1985) suggested that cognitive evaluation is of particular importance
to perceptions of exertion; therefore, this dimension of mental toughness would certainly
benefit from greater research attention.

F uture Directions for R esearch

While recent progress has been made toward a more precise definition and a clearer
conceptualization of mental toughness (Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Middle-
ton et al., 2004a), there is more work to be done given the existing conceptual differ-
ences (Bull et al., 2005). In essence, what is needed is a definition of mental toughness
that is derived from relevant theories of personality and development. A good example
of what needs to be done is evident from examining the development of hardiness
research, which progressed from personality theory in existential psychology, with the
subcomponents of hardiness validated in a 12-year longitudinal study of health and per-
formance. A major question that needs addressing is whether mental toughness is best
studied as a broader performance concept, sports related construct, or in specific sports
contexts. Qualitative research that investigates the definitions and attributes of mentally
tough performers from numerous specific sports settings is likely to highlight which at-
tributes are more generalized and which are more specific to particular sports.
Although a more comprehensive understanding of mental toughness is likely to oc-
cur through a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research, the recent devel-
opment of measurement instruments (MT48, MTI) potentially offers more opportunities for
quantitative approaches to the study of mental toughness to develop. Despite this, there

285

IJSEP 5-3.indb 285

 L. Crust

are still concerns over both the MT48 and the MTI (highlighted earlier) which means that
further testing and development of these measures remains a more pressing priority.
Since all self-report instruments have a number of potential validity problems (e.g.,
people are not always truthful and may even deceive themselves) this aspect of the MT48
and MTI may benefit from attention. For example, academy soccer players may perceive
the use of such a questionnaire as “evaluative information” that may be used as a basis
for retaining or releasing players from the soccer club. As such, individuals may have mo-
tives that increase the likelihood of self-presentational bias (also called impression man-
agement). Leary (1992) viewed self-presentation as neither deceptive nor manipulative,
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

and more realistically as a natural and necessary component of inter-personal human

behavior. Researchers might evaluate the extent to which participants, and significant
knowledgeable others (e.g., parents, coaches, teacher, manager, etc.) agree in rating
the mental toughness of an individual. An alternative form of measurement that warrants
greater attention is observational analysis; establishing what overt behaviors characterize
mental toughness appears to be an appropriate starting point in this regard.
If sport psychologists are going to be able to successfully intervene and enhance
the mental toughness of their clients, then knowledge of how mental toughness operates
will be required. Several research directions are possible in this regard. The existing
literature concerning physiological toughness certainly paves the way for psychophysio-
logical research into mental toughness. Researchers might firstly identify individuals who
possess high and low levels of mental toughness. Secondly, baseline levels of adrenaline
(performance-related correlate) and cortisol (an important biomarker of stress) may be
recorded before participants are exposed to a standard stress test (e.g., Trier Social
Stress Test). Measures should be recorded (certainly for salivary cortisol) every 10 min-
utes over the period of one hour in order to assess any differences in the pattern of
response noted for participants (Clow, 2004). On the basis of non-human research (cf.
Dienstbier, 1989), it may be hypothesized that mentally tough individuals who deal
with stressful circumstances more effectively would have sharper catecholamine spikes
and a quicker return to base rate than less tough individuals. Also cortisol levels might
be expected to show greater increases and remain elevated for longer in less mentally
tough participants.
Research that evaluates differences in coping strategies between participants with
high and low mental toughness is also required. Research from outside sports has shown
high (as opposed to low) levels of hardiness in managers to be associated with differ-
ent coping strategies and appraisals of stress (Hamilton & James, 2004). Hardiness
has been found to be related to positive-intrusive thoughts and problem-focused coping
(Nowack, 1989), active coping, planning, positive reinterpretation, and growth (Carver,
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989), seeking social support, compartmentalizing problems,
and achieving a work-life balance (Hamilton & James, 2004) and has been negatively
associated with avoidance coping (Williams, Wiebe, & Smith (1992). Hardiness re-
search also suggests that rather than a simple focus on managing stressful encounters,
hardiness is more generally related to individuals who manage their lives particularly
well (Hamilton & James, 2004). Hardy individuals experience less stress due to their
286

IJSEP 5-3.indb 286

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

cognitive appraisal of stress, and these individuals aim to prevent stress rather than to
cope with it by managing their environment (Hamilton & James, 2004).
Future researchers might also consider assessing the relationship between mental
toughness and cognitions. This work appears to have begun with Bull et al. (2005) iden-
tifying patterns of “tough thinking.” Given that researchers found remaining positive and
making positive comparisons to others (e.g., Jones et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a)
important characteristics of mental toughness, then one obvious test of such claims would
be to examine the content and patterns of athletes’ self-talk when faced with pressure
or adversity. Do athletes with high as opposed to low levels of mental toughness exhibit
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

more instructional, motivational, positive, or negative self-talk? Another aspect of tough

thinking that certainly requires attention concerns the ability to think clearly and make
effective decisions when under pressure. This could be tested via experimentation by
inducing stress/adverse conditions and using decision-making tasks as a performance
measure (similar to the approach taken by Clough et al., 2002).
One obvious limitation in evaluating cognitions that is evident in the existing litera-
ture is the reliance on retrospective information, based upon past reflections. An alter-
native approach might be to evaluate the cognitions of athletes “in situ.” Such method-
ologies will require careful planning and implementation, but similar approaches have
been successfully employed in sports-related research (Blackburn & Hanrahan, 1994;
Schomer, 1986). While this type of approach will not be appropriate for use in interac-
tive team sports such as football or basketball, it may be employed during long-distance
endurance events or during training.
Longitudinal, developmental approaches may also yield new perspectives on men-
tal toughness. Researchers at York St. John University are currently in the final stages of
a two-year study that used the MT18 (shorter version of the MT48) to monitor changes
in mental toughness in youth soccer players who have been exposed to the potentially
challenging/stressful environment of an elite, professional soccer club’s youth academy.
This research will enable the relative stability or changeability of mental toughness, and
the effects of environment factors on the development of mental toughness to be evalu-
ated. Finally from an applied perspective, studies that evaluate the effects of intervention
strategies (i.e., attention strategies, anxiety control, exposure to pain in training) on
participants’ levels of mental toughness will not only allow for better applied practice
but also for evaluation of which aspects of mental toughness can be trained and are
most important. Middleton et al. (2004a) found that familiarity (i.e., previous exposure
to adversity) emerged as a component of their mental toughness model. On this basis,
the use of imagery to create or recreate stressful circumstances or adverse conditions
might theoretically benefit an individual who wishes to develop mental toughness. More
specifically, since Martin, Moritz, and Hall (1999) identified the content of motivational
general mastery imagery (MG-M) as imagery representing effective coping and mas-
tery of challenging situations (including imagining being mentally tough), then research
that tests the application of this type of imagery to self-perceived mental toughness and
performance would appear relevant.

287

IJSEP 5-3.indb 287

 L. Crust

Conclusion
A body of evidence concerning the potentially important concept of mental toughness
is beginning to emerge. Although both qualitative (Bull et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2002;
Middleton et al., 2004a; Thelwell et al, 2005) and quantitative approaches (Clough et
al., 2002; Crust & Clough, 2005) have been used to understand mental toughness, and
some differences of opinion are evident in regards to conceptual issues and measure-
ment, some areas of agreement are also apparent. Mental toughness appears to be
multidimensional and most often associated with unshakeable self-belief, the ability to
rebound after failures (resilience), persistence or refusal to quit, coping effectively with
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

adversity and pressure, and retaining concentration in the face of many potential dis-
tractions. Most contemporary researchers suggest that an individual’s mental toughness
will be determined by both inherited characteristics and by learning, experience, and
environments influences (Bull et al., 2005; Gordon, 2005; Jones et al., 2002; Thelwell et
al., 2005). Research into the relationship between mental toughness and performance
has consistently shown that better performances of both cognitive and motor skills are
associated with higher levels of mental toughness (Clough et al., 2002; Crust & Clough,
2005) and that elite athletes have higher mental toughness than lower level performers
(Golby et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 1996). One of the key advances toward a greater
understanding of mental toughness appears to be the development of valid and reliable
measurement instruments. Although self-report measures of mental toughness are cur-
rently available, there are still concerns regarding the validity and reliability of existing
measures. The effects of mental toughness training on both self-reported mental tough-
ness and performance are currently unclear, but research concerning the related con-
cept of hardiness suggests successful interventions might be possible (cf. Maddi, 2004).
To this end, research from a broad range of perspectives (e.g., cognitive-behavioral,
psychophysiological, developmental, etc.) is likely to advance the understanding of men-
tal toughness and its importance in sport. If practitioners are to intervene effectively and
enhance athletes’ mental toughness, then a better understanding of how mental tough-
ness develops and operates is necessary.

R eferences
Bartram, D., Anderson, N., Kellett, D., Lindley, P., & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.) (1995). Review of person-
ality assessment instruments. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Blackburn, M. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (1994). Evaluation of procedures for monitoring athletes’
thoughts during exercise. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 26, 36-41.
Bloor, M. B., Frankland, J. L., Thomas, M. T., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research:
Introducing qualitative methods. London: Sage.
Bull, S. J., Albinson, J. G., & Shambrook, C. J. (1996). The mental game plan: Getting psyched for
sport. Eastbourne: Sports Dynamics.
Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. E. (2005). Towards an understanding of men-
tal toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 209-227.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretical
based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.

288

IJSEP 5-3.indb 288

 Mental Toughness in Sport: A Review

Clough, P. J., & Earle, K. (2002). When the going gets tough: A study of the impact of mental tough-
ness on perceived demands. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(1), p. 61.
Clough, P. J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002) Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In
I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32-43). London: Thomson Publishing.
Clow, A. (2004). Cortisol as a biomarker of stress. Journal of Holistic Healthcare, 1(3), 10-14.
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 100, 192-194.
Davis, H., & Zaichkowsky, L. (1998). Explanatory style among elite ice hockey athletes. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 87, 1075-1080.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical
health. Psychological Review, 96(1), 84-100.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts,
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fourie, S., & Potgieter, J. R. (2001). The nature of mental toughness in sport. South African Journal
for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 23, 63-72.
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, University of Surrey. Retrieved Septem-
ber 9, 2005, from http://www.socc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19
Gibson, A. (1998). Mental toughness. New York: Vantage Press.
Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A cognitive-behavioural analysis of mental toughness
in national rugby league teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 455-462.
Goldberg, A. S. (1998). Sports slump busting: 10 steps to mental toughness and peak perfor-
mance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gordon, S. (2005, August). Identification and development of mental toughness. In T. Morris, P.
Terry, S. Gordon, S. Hanrahan, L. Ievleva, G. Kolt, & P. Tremayne (Eds.). Psychology promoting
health & performance for life: Proceedings of the ISSP 11th World Congress of Sport [CDROM].
Sydney: International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP).
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological talent and its development in
Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 177-210.
Gould, D., Eklund, R. C., & Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic wres-
tlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987). Psychological foundations of coaching:
Similarities and differences among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. The Sport Psychologist,
1, 293-308.
Hamilton, D., & James, K. (2004). Hardiness, appraisal and coping: A qualitative study of high
and low hardy managers. The Cranfield School of Management. Retrieved February 12, 2006,
from: http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/research/working_papers
Hochstetler, S., Rejeski, W. J., & Best, D. (1985). The influence of sex-role orientation on ratings of
perceived exertion. Sex Roles, 12, 825-835.
Howe, M. J. (1998). The psychology of high abilities. New York: New York University Press.
IPAT Staff. (1979). Administrator’s Manual for the 16PF. Champaign, Ill: IPAT.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness? An
investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205-218.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299-302.
Kroll, W. (1967). Sixteen personality factor profiles of collegiate wrestlers. Research Quarterly,
38, 49-57.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An enquiry into hardiness. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168-177.
Leary, M. R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 14, 339-351.
Lee, K., Shin, D. S., Han, M., & Lee, E. (1994). Developing the norm of Korean table tennis players’
mental toughness. Korean Journal of Sport Science, 6, 103-120.
289

IJSEP 5-3.indb 289

 L. Crust

Leventhal, H., & Everhart, D. (1979). Emotion, pain and physical illness. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emo-
tions in personality and psychopathology. New York: Plenum.
Loehr, J. E. (1982). Athletic excellence: Mental toughness training for sports. New York: Plume.
Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sport: Achieving athletic excellence. Lexington,
MA: Stephen Greene.
Loehr, J. E. (1995). The new mental toughness training for sports. New York: Plume.
Maddi, S. R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanis-
tic Psychology, 44(3), 279-298.
Maddi, S. R., & Hess, M. J. (1992). Personality, hardiness and success in basketball. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 360-368.
Martin, K. A., Moritz, S. E., & Hall, C. R. (1999). Imagery use in sport: A literature review and
applied model. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 245-268.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 07:03 10 July 2012

Middleton, S. C., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., & Perry, C. (2004a). Discovering
mental toughness: A qualitative study of mental toughness in elite athletes. Self Research Centre
Biannual Conference, Berlin. Available from http://self.uws.edu.au/Conferences/2004_Mid-
dleton_Marsh_Martin_Richards_Perryb.pdf
Middleton, S. C., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., & Perry, C. (2004b). Developing the
mental toughness inventory (MTI). Self Research Centre Biannual Conference, Berlin. Available
from http://self.uws.edu.au/Conferences/2004_ Middleton_Marsh_Martin_Richards_Perrya.
pdf
Morgan, W. P. (1973). Psychological factors influencing perceived exertion. Medicine and Science
in Sport, 5, 97-103.
Nowack, K. M. (1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status. Journal of Behavioural
Medicine, 12(2), 145-158.
Pandolf, K. B. (1983). Advances in the study and application of perceived exertion. In R. L. Terjung
(Ed.), Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 11, 118-158. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Spinger-Verlag.
Rejeski, W. J. (1985). Perceived exertion: An active or passive process? Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy, 7, 371-378.
Rejeski, W. J, Best, D., Griffith, P., & Kenney, E. (1985). Feminine males in exercise: Is the inap-
propriateness of activity the cause of dysfunction in cross-gender behaviour? In W.J. Rejeski,
Perceived exertion: An active or passive process? Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 371-378.
Schomer, H. H. (1986). Mental strategies and the perception of effort in marathon runners. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 41-59.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept validation of construct inter-
pretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Shin, D., Kim, S., & Lee, K. (1993). A comparison of psychological factors between top level and
average players. Journal of Sport Science, 4(1), 65-93.
Thelwell, R., Dalzell, J., & Sadler, G. (2004). Mental toughness for soccer. Journal of Sports Sci-
ences, 22(3), 313.
Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and understanding mental toughness
within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 326-332.
Thomas, P. R., Schlinker, P. J., & Over, R. (1996). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated
with prowess at ten-pin bowling. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 255-268.
Werner, A. C., & Gottheil, E. (1966). Personality development and participation in collegiate ath-
letics. Research Quarterly, 37, 126-131.
Williams, M. H. (1998). The ergonomics edge: Pushing the limits of sports performance. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Williams, P. G., Wiebe, D. J., & Smith, T. W. (1992). Coping processes as mediators of the relation-
ship between hardiness and health. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 15(3), 237-255.
Williams, R. M. (1988). The U.S. Open character test: Good strokes help. But the most individual-
istic of sports is ultimately a mental game. Psychology Today, 22, 60-62.

290

IJSEP 5-3.indb 290