Mental toughness within the use of this post will follow the construct created by Clough et al., (2002). This construct was based on the three “C”s concept of hardiness, a model taken from Kobasa’s (1979) research, which itself focused on the strength of personality as a key factor in overcoming illness. Kobasa (1979) conceptualized her hardiness model using Commitment, Control and Challenge. This model was then expanded by Clough et al. (2002) who added Confidence to the construct. This was done in order to enable their assessment tool, the mental toughness questionnaire 48 (MTQ48), to be conceptualized more accurately (Vaughan et al., 2018).
Mental toughness has been defined as “a personal capacity to deliver high performance on a regular basis, despite varying degrees of situational demands” (Gucciardi & Hanton, 2016). Prior to this definition, mental toughness was a highly valued concept, but with little detail or clarity around its real meaning (Jones et al., 2002). Through the progression of research and the need to identify the finer detail of what constitutes mental toughness, researchers are now in a position to relate this construct to professional and sports performance. Initial studies on mental toughness were based on the personal-constructs theory (Kelly, 1955), which focused on the ability of individuals to create theories developed around scenarios from their own past experiences (Jones et al., 2002). If an outcome was as expected according to its theory, then the individual will continue with this theory in that certain situation. If an outcome was observed or experienced that was contrary to expectation, then the individual will revise and alter their theory to suit the outcome (Bannister & Fransella, 1986). This then enables the performer to predict outcomes and remain composed when situations occur which they have not previously experienced (Hjelle & Ziegler, 1992).
Mental toughness is thought to be one of the main contributing psychological factors to enable consistency in performance and allows sports participants to be emotionally stable, to create strong, authentic relationships with their coaches and peers, to be rational but also remain creative, to stay focused and, finally, to perform to their highest level during training and pressured competition (Moran, 2012).Further research has consistently shown that across all the sports which were tested, the common traits which come under the umbrella of mental toughness are high self-confidence, resilience, unbreakable belief in oneself, personal motivation and upholding personal values (Vaughan et al., 2018). In a series of five research studies conducted by Gucciardi et al., (2015) a common outcome showed that being able to manage pressure and remain intelligently focused are positive traits which can be observed in those with greater levels of mental toughness among elite level sports men and women, employees, tertiary students, military personnel and student athletes. Gucciardi et al. (2020) also conducted a study of the 122 military recruits during their selection for special forces units. The levels of mental toughness were assessed using a self-report questionnaire and stress levels were measured biologically by testing for cortisol in 1.5cm hair samples. The results significantly showed that those with higher levels of mental toughness were 68% more likely to pass the elite forces selection by being more resilient, confident and self-asserted in their actions.
Initial definitions of mental toughness were of it as a one dimensional construct; but later researchers largely agreed that it is a multidimensional construct (Hardy et al., 2014) which focuses on the facilitation of the quest, development and maintenance of excellence within sports performance (McGeown et al., 2016). It is a construct which has been posited by sports coaches and sports psychologists since the turn of the 21st century, as is now collectively considered the most important psychological characteristic of an athlete’s development in top-level sport (Crust, 2011; McGeown et al., 2016). as well as the most important factor in those that display success in highly stressful environments (Gucciardi et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2002). Some research has suggested that the traits observed within mental toughness are genetic and comparable to other personality traits which can be found in athletes during their developmental years (Onley et al., 2013); this would indicate that mental toughness is a stable constant which can be malleable or altered during the developmental years through intervention or specific experience (Crust & Clough, 2011). There have been recent studies that have been conducted within a military setting (Fitzwater et al., 2018) and within sport, specifically cricket, where mental toughness appeared to increase when exposed to punishment-conditioned stimuli using a transformational leadership coaching intervention (Subhan et al., 2019). In support of the view that mental toughness can be altered and improved, the development of mental toughness in athletes from a coach’s perspective takes considerable and careful thought, and may take the form of placing them in scenarios which stretch their coping ability, to teach them to deal with adversity as and when it occurs, and to prepare them for competitive situations at the highest level (Weinberg et al., 2016). If this careful consideration is given to athletes’ training and development, it is believed that mental toughness can be improved (Weinberg et al., 2016).
The initial four-factor model construct by Clough et al., (2002) was further developed and extended into a six-factor model: the core focal point of Control were split into Life and Emotional Control, Confidence was split into Confidence in Ones Abilities and Interpersonal Confidence, in addition to the other two factors of Challenge and Commitment (Perry et al., 2013). Challenge was understood to be how the participant sees a challenge as an opportunity and Commitment was perceived as what levels of commitment were given to a set task (Posner et al., 2017). The development of the assessment tool for mental toughness began initially with the MTQ48, which is a 48 question questionnaire; each question is answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), to 5 (strongly agree) (Perry et al., 2013).
The mental toughness construct and its MTQ48 assessment has valuable implications, as it allows coaches to focus on or target specific areas of the individual whose MTQ48 assessment scores which were low. (Clough & Strycharczyk , 2015). Since there are six factors which make up mental toughness, and if weaker areas can be specifically trained and improved, then overall mental toughness can be improved. The detailed elements of the construct focus on the thought processes of the individual who are being assessed, and this differs from normal psychometric assessments that normally focus on the way individuals feel and behave (AQR, 2020). Greater levels of mental toughness have also consistently shown to have a positive effect on mental well-being (Clough et al., 2016) and the practice and coaching methods for improving mental toughness must involve positive thinking, anxiety control, attentional control, goal setting and visualization (Clough & Strycharczyk, 2015[CK1] ). All of these practices help to reduce the effect of stress and anxiety and improve the mental well-being of the individual, so that they are able to cope better with the stressors around them; the overall effect is to improve mental well-being and reducing burnout (Posner et al., 2017).
Comments