APPROVED: Trent A. Petrie, Major Professor Christy Greenleaf, Committee Member Joshua Hook, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Chair of the Department of

Psychology James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the

Toulouse Graduate School

MENTAL TOUGHNESS: AN ANALYSIS OF SEX, RACE, AND MOOD

Nicholas M. Beck

Thesis Prepared for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

May 2012

Beck, Nicholas M. Mental toughness: An analysis of sex, race, and mood. Master of

Science (Psychology), May 2012, 67 pp., 3 tables, references, 82 titles.

Mental toughness has become a focus for researchers as coaches, athletes, and others

extol its influence in performance success. In this study I examined mental toughness among

collegiate athletes, focusing on its potential relationship to different demographic variables and

to the athletes’ mood. Two hundred seventy-two student-athletes representing 12 different sports

from a southwestern NCAA Division I university, participated by completing the Sports Mental

Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), the Brief Assessment of Mood (BAM), and providing

demographic information. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) assessed differences in mental

toughness scores by sex, race, scholarship status, and starting status. Significant differences in

mental toughness emerged between Black – White, male – female, and full – partial – zero

scholarship athletes. Pearson correlations showed mental toughness was significantly related to

lower levels of anxiety, sadness, anger, confusion, fatigue, and total mood disturbance, and

higher levels of vigor.

ii

Copyright 2012

by

Nicholas M. Beck

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Mental Toughness and Performance

Mental Toughness, Gender, and Race

Mental Toughness and Mood

The Current Study 2. METHOD ................................................................................................................7

Participants

Measures

Procedure

Data Analysis 3. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................11

Mental Toughness and Demographic Variables

Mental Toughness and Mood 4. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................13

Review of Findings

Mental Toughness and Mood

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................26 REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................................................58

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page 1. Correlations between Total SMTQ and BAM Mood States ..............................................12

C.1 ANOVA Results for Mean Total SMTQ Score .................................................................55

C.2 Correlations between SMTQ and BAM Mood States by Demographic Variables ...........56

  1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Mental toughness is a term often used by coaches, the media, and even athletes

themselves to describe a team or athlete who overcomes a deficit or setback, performs at the

peak of their abilities, shows grit and determination, or has the personal and athletic qualities that

set them apart from their competition. Indeed, mental toughness is often mentioned as one of, if

not the, determining factors in any record-setting or even just winning performance.

Mental Toughness and Performance

Although various definitions of mental toughness have been proposed (see Jones,

Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002; Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, & Perry, 2004a), the most

comprehensive and applicable definition comes from Gucciardi, Gordon, and Dimmock (2009),

who grounded their conceptualization of mental toughness in personal construct psychology

(PCP; Kelly, 1991). Specifically, they suggested that mental toughness is “a collection of

experientially developed and inherent sport-specific and sport-general values, attitudes,

emotions, and cognitions that influence the way in which an individual approaches, responds to,

and appraises both negatively and positively construed pressures, challenges, and adversities to

consistently achieve his or her goals” (p. 67). Gucciardi et al. (2009) argued that there is a

difference between coping with the pressure of a #1 ranking or a winning streak (positive

circumstances) and overcoming an injury or slump (negative circumstances), and suggested that

mentally tough athletes are able to cope effectively in all types of situations.

From this perspective, there are several positive characteristics that appear to underlie

mental toughness. High self-confidence, also described as self-belief or self-esteem, is one such

attribute (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005; Fourie & Potgieter, 2001; Thelwell,

  2

Weston, & Greenlees, 2005). Two other attributes consistently associated with mental toughness

are control (e.g., attentional, emotional; Bull, Albinson, & Shambrook, 1996; Jones et al., 2002)

and consistency (e.g., attitude, motivation, effort; Bull et al., 2005; Middleton et al., 2004a).

Differing views on the exact definition of mental toughness and the most important attributes of

a mentally tough athlete reflect the inherent complexity of the construct. However, confidence,

consistency, and control could be considered the key attributes that directly influence the way in

which an athlete “approaches, responds to, and appraises both negatively and positively

construed pressures, challenges, and adversities” (Gucciardi et al. 2009, p. 67).

Various measures have been developed to assess mental toughness (see Clough, Earle, &

Sewell, 2002; Golby, Sheard, & van Wersch, 2007; Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, &

Perry, 2004b), each based on a slightly different conceptualization of the construct. Sheard et al.

(2009), believing that existing measures had psychometric and conceptual limitations, created

the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), a 3-factor, 14-item inventory that assessed

behaviors and cognitions related to confidence, constancy, and control. The SMTQ is based on a

conceptualization of mental toughness from a positive psychology “mindset” perspective,

focusing not only on an individual’s ability to overcome adversity, but also the attributes that

allow them to thrive and grow under all circumstances, which include self-belief, commitment,

perseverance, and emotion management (Sheard, 2010).

Research suggests that mentally tough athletes may be better able to maintain an optimal

mindset throughout competition (Cashmore, 2002), handle criticism, loses, and poor

performances (Clough et al., 2002), overcome or rebound from setbacks (Jones et al., 2002), take

personal responsibility for performance (Fourie & Potgieter, 2001), and remain calm and relaxed

in high pressure situations (Clough et al., 2002). Additionally, the mental toughness components

  3

of confidence, anxiety management, and concentration have all been found to positively relate to

athletic performance (Durand-Bush, Salmela, & Green-Demers, 2001; Meyers, LeUnes, &

Bourgeois, 1996; Smith & Christensen, 1995; Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1995). For

example, Smith and Christensen (1995) assessed the psychological attributes of minor league

baseball players and found that confidence and peaking under pressure were significant

predictors of a pitcher’s earned run average and that confidence and achievement motivation

were significant predictors of a player’s batting average. Given the relationship between mental

toughness and performance, I also would expect it to be related to the starting and scholarship

statuses of college athletes because it is logical to believe that those athletes who have shown

confidence, emotional control, and consistency would have earned scholarships and starting

positions. Indeed, a study assessing 108 male collegiate football players found that coping with

adversity, an important component of mental toughness, was associated significantly with

starting status (Spieler, Czech, Joyner, Munkasy, Gentner, & Long, 2007).

Mental Toughness, Gender, and Race

The relationships between mental toughness and the sex and race/ethnicity of athletes

have received scant empirical attention. In two studies that did assess sex differences, Nicholls et

al. (2009) and Sheard et al. (2009) found that male athletes scored significantly higher than

female athletes on mental toughness, confidence, and control. Confidence differences between

male and female athletes, however, have been examined before, with findings generally showing

that men are more confident in their athletic (physical) abilities than women (Katsikas, Argeitaki,

& Smirniotou, 2009; Krane & Williams, 1994; Lirgg, 1991; Todd & Kent, 2003). The reasons

for these differences are not well understood, but differing socialization processes likely play a

role, such as: (a) women are less often exposed to physically competitive environments (Bull et

  4

al., 2005; Frederickson & Harrison, 2005; (b) the bodies and actions of girls are more closely

monitored by authority figures than boys and this protectiveness throughout infancy and

childhood limits women’s physical skill development and confidence (Frederickson & Harrison,

2005); and (c) internalized gender norms, stereotypes, and expectations of women being other-

oriented and modest and men being self-focused and assertive lead to female athletes

underestimating their athletic abilities (Williams & Best, 1990).

Regarding race/ethnicity, in African American culture sport is generally given an

importance, especially for men, which is greater than that seen in Caucasian culture (Major,

1998; Spreitzer & Snyder, 1990). Not surprisingly, Black athletes, as compared to White

athletes, report experiencing greater investment in sport, greater responsibility for competition

outcomes, higher expectations for success, and a more pronounced identification as an athlete

(Anshel & Sailes, 1990; Coakley, 2008; Cox & Whaley, 2004; Spreitzer & Snyder, 1990). Not

only do Black athletes place more emphasis and importance on sport than White athletes, they

also have greater belief in their athletic abilities and potential (Cox & Whaley, 2004). Such

confidence may help them succeed under culturally added pressures that are not experienced to

the same degree by White athletes.

Mental Toughness and Mood

Although the relationship between mental toughness and mood has not been studied

directly, there is research to suggest that such a relationship may exist (e.g., Covassin & Pero,

2004; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987; Meyers et al., 1996). Low levels of “negative” mood

states (tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion) and high levels of “positive” mood states

(vigor), also referred to as an “iceberg profile” (Morgan, 1985), relate positively to athletic

performance (Covassin & Pero, 2004; Hassmén & Blomstrand, 1995; Morgan, O’Connor,

  5

Ellickson, & Bradley, 1988). Given the research on mental toughness to date, a potential

relationship between mental toughness and mood makes conceptual sense. A mentally tough

athlete is expected to have a high degree of emotional control and a mindset that facilitates

optimal performance (Clough et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002; Sheard, 2010). Therefore, mentally

tough athletes should be capable of regulating their mood such that they are in an optimal

emotional state (potentially demonstrating an iceberg profile of mood) to perform at their best.

The Current Study

The first purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between mental toughness

and the demographic variables of sex, race, scholarship status, and starting status. Based on the

aforementioned research (e.g., Coakley, 2008; Cox & Whaley, 2004; Nicholls et al. , 2009;

Sheard et al., 2009; Spieler et al., 2007), I made the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 – Male athletes would score higher than female athletes on mental

toughness, Black athletes higher than White athletes, athletes on full scholarship higher than

those on partial and no scholarship, and athletes who expect to start higher than those who do not

expect to start.

Hypothesis 2 - Given differences found in previous research (e.g., Coakley, 2008;

Nicholls et al., 2009) between male and female, and Black and White, athletes, I hypothesized an

interaction effect of race and gender with Black, male athletes scoring highest on mental

toughness and White, female athletes scoring the lowest.

The second purpose of this study was to examine the potential relationships between

mental toughness and mood state, and I made the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 – Higher scores on overall mental toughness would correlate significantly

with elevated levels of vigor and lower scores on anger, depression, fatigue, confusion, anxiety,

  6

and total mood disturbance. Additionally, as an exploratory research question, I examined the

extent to which sex, race, scholarship status, and starting status moderated the relationships

between overall mental toughness and the various mood states.

  7

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Participants

Two hundred seventy-two student-athletes (men = 142, women = 130) from a

southwestern NCAA Division I university participated. The student-athletes represented all 12

intercollegiate sports offered at the university: women’s soccer (n = 21); football (n = 99);

women’s volleyball (n = 15); men and women’s track & field (n = 43); men’s golf (n = 5);

women’s golf (n = 7); men’s basketball (n = 12); women’s basketball (n = 13); women’s tennis

(n = 5); cross-country (n = 8); softball (n = 20); and women’s swimming and diving n = 24.

Mean age was 20.10 years (SD = 1.45) for male athletes and 19.59 years (SD = 1.20) for female

athletes. In terms of race/ethnicity, 57.7% were White (men = 55; women = 102) and 42.3%

were Black (men = 87, women = 28). One hundred twenty-five (46.0%) and 89 (32.7%) of the

athletes were on full or partial scholarship, respectively; 58 (21.3%) did not receive any

scholarship aid. One hundred eighty-three (67.3%) of the athletes reported that they expected to

start for their teams, whereas the remaining 89 (32.7%) athletes expected to serve in a non-

starting role.

Measures

Demographics. Participants provided information regarding their age, sex, race/ethnicity,

sport, scholarship status, and expected playing status.

Mood states. The 6-item Brief Assessment of Mood (BAM; Dean, Whelan, & Meyers,

1990) assessed anxiety, sadness/depression, confusion, anger, vigor/energy, and fatigue. For each

mood state, which was represented by one item, participants rated how they had been feeling in

the past 30 days using a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). In addition

  8

to using each item as a single indicator of each mood state, a total mood disturbance (TMD)

score was calculated for each participant by summing the five negative mood states and then

subtracting the vigor mood state score (Morgan, Brown, Raglin, O’Connor & Ellickson, 1987).

Dean et al. (1990) reported correlations of .66 to .87 between each BAM single item mood state

and their respective full scale scores on the Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, &

Droppleman, 1992), providing support for the BAM’s validity.

Mental toughness. The 14-item Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ; Sheard

et al., 2009) assesses three dimensions of mental toughness: confidence (6 items; individuals’

belief in their ability to achieve their goals and a belief that they are different from, and better

than, their opponents), constancy (4 items; individuals’ willingness to set and adhere to training

and competition goals, the possession of an unyielding attitude and grit, and a determination to

meet performance demands), and control (4 items; individuals’ perception that they can bring

about a desired outcome and have control over their lives and their performances). Participants

rated each item, such as “I worry about performing poorly,” using a 4-point scale that ranges

from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). A total score for each dimension as well as a total mental

toughness score were represented by the mean of the respective items. Higher scores represent

greater levels of overall, or key dimensions of, mental toughness. Two studies were used in the

development of the SMTQ. Across two samples of male and female athletes from beginner to

elite competitive levels, Sheard (2009) reported Cronbach’s alphas that ranged from .79 to .80

(confidence), .74 to .76 (constancy), and .71 to .72 (control). Cronbach’s alphas for the SMTQ

for this study were .75 (total), .71 (confidence), .54 (constancy), and .52 (control). Given the low

Cronbach’s alphas for the constancy and control dimensions in this sample, only the total SMTQ

score was used for analyses. The dimensions of the SMTQ were supported through confirmatory

  9

factor analysis (Sheard et al., 2009). Acceptable divergent validity was demonstrated through

correlations between the SMTQ and the conceptually related but theoretically distinct scales,

including hardiness (rs = .14-.33; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001), optimism (rs = .23-.38; Scheier,

Carver, & Bridges, 1994), and affect (rs = .12-.49; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

Procedure

Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the university’s Institutional Review

Board for Human Subjects Research and the Associate Athletic Director and Director of Sports

Medicine at the university where data were collected. Data presented in this paper were collected

as part of a larger study on athletic injury that occurred at the beginning of the 2010 fall

semester, prior to (or within the first week of) the start of school, during the student-athletes’

mandatory NCAA compliance meetings. The compliance officer within the athletic department

introduced the researchers at the beginning of each meeting. The researchers introduced the

study and had the athletes sign consent forms. Participants then completed the previously

described questionnaires, which took approximately 15 minutes to finish. Each questionnaire

was marked with code numbers, but no other identifying information was requested of the

athletes.

Data Analysis

Initially, data were examined for missing values. It was determined that the data were

missing at random; no item had more than 1% of missing values. Expectation maximization

(EM) was used as the imputation procedure (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010), which was

considered an acceptable approach given the randomness and low frequency of missing data.

Eight participants (men = 3; women = 5) were identified as outliers based on their extreme

responses to both the SMTQ and BAM and were subsequently removed from the sample. Due to

  10

the non-normal distribution of some variables, parametric analyses (ANOVAs, MANOVAs)

were confirmed with nonparametric equivalent tests (Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney), the results

of which showed that skewness and kurtosis were not determining factors in the parametric

analyses results and thus those are presented in the results section. Based on their low internal

consistencies, the constancy and control subscales were excluded from analyses.

To examine the first set of hypotheses, I performed a two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) to assess the interaction effect of sex (i.e., male, female) and race (i.e., Black, White)

on the SMTQ total score. Subsequently, I used four one-way ANOVAs to examine the main

effects of race, sex, scholarship status, and starting status on the Total SMTQ score.

For the second set of hypotheses, I conducted a series of correlation analyses to assess the

relationships between the six mood items (plus the total mood disturbance score) and the total

mental toughness score. I conducted these correlations for the entire sample first, and then again

by the sex of the athletes, by the athletes’ race, and by the scholarship and starting statuses of the

athletes. I then compared the correlations for the male and female athletes, for the Black and

White athletes, for the full, partial, and no scholarship athletes, and for the starting and

nonstarting athletes using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation, to determine if the mental toughness –

mood state relationships varied significantly by these demographic variables. Given the high

number of correlations being performed, an a priori significance level of .01 was set for the

demographic comparisons.

  11

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Mental Toughness and Demographic Variables (Hypotheses 1 and 2)

The two-way (Sex by Race) ANOVA for the total SMTQ was not significant, F(1, 268) =

1.80, p =.181, partial 2 = .01. The one-way ANOVAs for sex, F(1, 270) = 16.09, p < .001,

partial 2 = .06, and race, F(1, 270) = 11.18, p = .001, partial 2 = .04, were significant. Male

athletes (M = 3.15, SD = .38) scored higher than female athletes (M = 2.97, SD = .37), Cohen’s d

= .46, and Black athletes (M = 3.16, SD = .42) scored higher than their White counterparts (M =

3.00, SD = .35), Cohen’s d = .41. A one-way ANOVA revealed that differences by scholarship

status in total SMTQ score were also significant, F(2, 269) = 3.60, p = .029, partial 2 = .03;

athletes on no scholarship (M = 3.17, SD = .36) scored higher than those on either full (M = 3.06,

SD = .40; Cohen’s d = .28) or partial (M = 3.00, SD = .38; Cohen’s d = .44) scholarships,

whereas the full and partial scholarship groups did not differ significantly from each other. No

significant effect for starting status was found, F (1, 270) = .14, p = .708, partial 2 = .00. See

Table C.1 for a visual representation of these relationships.

Mental Toughness and Mood (Hypothesis 3)

As expected, higher levels of overall mental toughness were associated with less negative

mood states (i.e., anxiety, sadness, confusion, anger, fatigue), lower total mood disturbance, and

higher levels of vigor (see Table 1).

  12

Table 1

Correlations between Total SMTQ, BAM Mood States, and Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) for

Total Sample (n = 272)

Total SMTQ Anxiety -.152*

Sadness -.342**

Confusion -.266**

Anger -.232**

Vigor .193**

Fatigue -.355**

TMD -.413** Note. * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Correlations between the total SMTQ score and the mood states were calculated by sex,

race, scholarship status, and starting status (see Table C.2). The comparisons between the groups

on the correlations revealed only one significant difference. The correlation between total SMTQ

score and anxiety differed significantly between male (r = -.005) and female (r = -.311) athletes,

z = 2.58, p < .01, indicating that for female, but not male, athletes, higher SMTQ scores were

associated with less anxiety. Otherwise, neither race, sex, scholarship status, or starting status

moderated the relationships between mental toughness and the athletes’ reported mood states.

  13

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine mental toughness in a sample of college

athletes to determine its relationship to certain demographic variables (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity)

and to the athletes’ mood states. As predicted, male athletes scored significantly higher than

female athletes on overall mental toughness, findings that are consistent with previous research

(Nicholls et al., 2009; Sheard et al., 2009).

There are several potential explanations for the sex differences that emerged in this study,

many of which involve differences in confidence, a characteristic considered to be one of the

most important components of mental toughness (Jones et al, 2002). First, previous studies have

shown that women are less confident about their overall physical abilities than men (Lirgg, 1991;

Todd & Kent, 2003), a finding that may be due to different socialization processes that

emphasize physical activity and competitiveness in boys but not with girls. Bull et al. (2005)

proposed that being exposed to physically competitive environments increases an athlete’s

confidence and mental toughness, and given that women are less often exposed to these

environments than men (Frederickson & Harrison, 2005), confidence and mental toughness

differences may emerge. Second, male and female athletes appear to have different sources of

their confidence. For example, Hays, Maynard, Thomas, and Bawden (2007) found that the elite

level female athletes derived their confidence from sensing a competitive advantage, such as

seeing their opponent becoming frustrated or fatigued, whereas male athletes derived their

confidence from believing that they were just overall better than their competitors. Previous

research (Lirgg, George, Chase, & Ferguson, 1996) with world-class athletes also has shown that

women tend to establish performance expectations based on situationally-dependent, external

  14

information, such as their opponent’s physical stature or psychological state, more so than men.

Female athletes who are facing a physically intimidating opponent may thus expect to not be

able to perform at their best and have lower confidence levels than male athletes in the same

situation. Further, the confidence items on the SMTQ, such as “an unshakeable confidence” and

having “qualities that set me apart from other competitors,” appear to assess the more generally

robust, ego-centric nature of male athletes’ confidence as opposed to what brings about

confidence in female athletes.

Third, gender differences in a willingness to report sport-related limitations and emotions

may also explain the observed mental toughness and confidence findings in this study. For male

athletes, traditional masculine characteristics, such as being stoic, physically and mental tough,

and supremely confident, may be internalized and lead them to not wanting to admit weaknesses

and therefore not reporting them, or potentially focusing much more on their strengths to the

extent that emotional and psychological limitations are overlooked (Messner, Adler, Coakley, &

Baldwin, 1992). Traditional feminine characteristics, on the other hand, reflect emotionality,

vulnerability, and modesty, and are not viewed as undesirable when found within women, as

they tend to be when associated with men (Williams & Best, 1990). Internalizing and self-

reporting psychological attributes in accordance with these traditional gender characteristics may

result in female athletes underestimating their abilities and male athletes overestimating theirs. In

support of this idea, Krane and Williams (1994) suggested that female athletes are more honest

than male athletes in their self-reporting of anxiety and confidence.

The Black athletes in this study reported higher levels of mental toughness than did the

White athletes, which is consistent with previous findings on racial differences in confidence

(Anshel & Sailes, 1990; Cox & Whaley, 2004). The sex and race differences in confidence levels

  15

found in this study are especially notable given that, as previously mentioned, athletes, coaches,

and sport psychologists rate high self-confidence as the most important attribute of a mentally

tough athlete (Gucciardi et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2002; Thelwell et al., 2005). There are various

potential explanations for the differences that emerged in this study and others. Generally

speaking, sport is a means through which individuals can gain respect, status, and success in

Black culture more so than in White culture (Coakley, 2008; Major, 2001),which reflects an

important cultural difference that could impact the confidence of Black athletes in a number of

ways. First, it may be that Black youth, more so than White youth, idolize professional athletes,

aspire to be like them, and are frequently validated by parents, coaches, and peers when making

statements regarding their desire to be a professional athlete one day. Black athletes who play

sport at the collegiate level may see themselves as near to achieving their childhood goal, are

positively reinforced and looked up to by other individuals in their culture (more so than White

athletes) for having reached that level of sport success, and subsequently have a great deal of

confidence in themselves and their abilities. Indeed, a study by Davis Hill (2001) showed that

77.3% of the Black athletes in her sample of male college football and basketball players

believed that they would become professional athletes, whereas only 22.7% of the White athletes

shared the same expectations. The uneven distribution of Black professional basketball and

football players compared to White players reinforces these expectations and may impact the

confidence levels of college athletes who participate in those sports specifically.

Second, but very much related, is the widely held stereotype that African-Americans are

athletically superior to Caucasians (Harrison & Lawrence, 2004: Sailes, 1993). This stereotype

may both raise Black athletes’ confidence and lower White athletes’ belief in themselves as well

as contribute to the differing career aspirations and expectations mentioned above. The majority

  16

of Black athletes in this study participated in either men’s basketball (9.6% of Black athletes in

sample, 0.6% of White athletes), women’s basketball (8.7% of Black athletes in sample, 1.9% of

White athletes) or football (52.2% of Black athletes in sample, 24.8% of White) and may feel

more confident than their White counterparts given the stereotype about Black athletic

superiority (particularly in highly physical sports such as basketball and football) and the success

of African-Americans in those sports in the United States. In sum, stereotypes regarding African-

American athletic superiority, a greater emphasis in African-American culture on sport and sport

success than in Caucasian culture, and the majority status of African-Americans in professional

basketball and football, as well as basketball and football in this sample’s population, may all

have contributed to the mental toughness differences found in this study. More research is

needed, however, to understand why the differences that emerged in this study exist between

Black and White athletes and how they might impact Black and White athletes’ experiences in

sport.

Although significant differences emerged between male and female, and Black and

White, athletes on mental toughness, a significant race by sex interaction was not found as

hypothesized. A primary reason for the finding in this study may be the uneven distribution of

participants by race and sex, which resulted in low power for the ANOVA analysis. Only 28 of

the female participants were Black compared to 102 who were White, whereas the male

participants were more evenly distributed by race, with 87 characterizing themselves as Black

and 55 characterizing themselves as White. Understanding differences in psychological profiles

of men and women from various racial groups provides a more complete picture of individuals’

experiences in sport and additional research with larger, more equally distributed groups would

allow such analyses to occur.

  17

Regarding scholarship status, those athletes who were attending school without one

reported higher levels of mental toughness than did those who were on partial or full

scholarships. This finding would appear to be counterintuitive given the fact that athletic

programs use scholarships to recruit athletes whom they view as talented and with the potential

to help the team be successful. In other words, one might expect that athletes on full scholarship

would have the highest levels of mental toughness because mental toughness is considered a key

factor in performance and players are expected to have earned a scholarship based on their past

athletic successes. Athletes with no scholarship aid on the other hand, are likely to not have

achieved the same level of athletic success as athletes on full or partial scholarship, which

potentially may have been due to lower levels of mental toughness

Although prior studies have not assessed how mental toughness might vary as a function

of scholarship status specifically, researchers have found an association between scholarship

status and intrinsic motivation (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Kingston, Horrocks, & Hanton, 2006).

Specifically, athletes on scholarship have been shown to have less intrinsic motivation than those

athletes without a scholarship, a finding that may relate to the differences in mental toughness

found in this study. Hollembreak and Amorose (2005) reported a relationship between perceived

competence and intrinsic motivation (r = .78, p < .05) in a sample of Division I male and female

athletes, which might explain why the athletes without scholarships in this study (who would be

expected to have greater intrinsic motivation than the scholarship athletes based on previous

studies) had higher confidence levels than the scholarship athletes. According to Deci (1975),

intrinsically motivated individuals engage in an activity for its own sake and as a result,

experience interest, enjoyment, and high levels of competency and self-determination.

Intrinsically motivated individuals view the causality for their behavior as being internal and thus

  18

feel a sense of confidence that they have the power to bring about certain outcomes (Deci &

Ryan, 1985), a belief that could be reflected in their responses on the SMTQ. Another

explanation is that the athletes without scholarships may be able to play with a greater sense of

freedom than the partial and full scholarship athletes because they are competing in their sport

for the intrinsic pleasure that it brings rather than because they need to keep a scholarship. This

potential freedom and intrinsic pleasure that the athletes without scholarship experience

compared to those on partial or full scholarship may have contributed to the greater mental

toughness and confidence differences found in this study because actions and decisions in the

sport arena are not weighed against the potential for losing a scholarship and thus there is less

“worry about performing poorly,” and a greater ability to make decisions with confidence and

commitment under pressure.

Unexpectedly, no significant differences were found in mental toughness between starters

and nonstarters. I expected that starters would have higher levels of mental toughnessthan

nonstarters because they had earned their starting positions by showing that they are able to

respond well under pressure, had given a consistently high level of effort in practice and

competition, and had frequently performed successfully, all attributes of a mentally tough

athlete. Few research studies have looked at differences, particularly psychological differences,

between starters and nonstarters, though Spieler et al. (2007) found that coping with adversity, an

important component of mental toughness, was a significant predictor of starting status in their

population of 108 male collegiate football players. It may be that, because the surveys were

given at the start of the academic year before competitive seasons had begun, starting positions

had not been definitively determined and therefore players’ judgments of their starting status

may not have been accurate in terms of what transpired during the season. Athletes may have

  19

based their responses on their starting status on incomplete or inaccurate data, which could have

affected these results. To further examine this question, it would be important to either take

measures of MT and starting status during the middle of a competitive season or base starting

status on coach ratings (as opposed to the self-report used in the current study).

It also may be that coaches’ decisions to start or not start particular athletes are

influenced by factors other than just ability and recent performance. For example, coaches may

start athletes who have scholarships despite subpar performances or a lack of ability to react well

under pressure because they need to justify the funds spent on those athletes. In other words, in

order to validate the time and money spent on recruiting and obtaining a certain athlete, a coach

may start that athlete even though he or she does not deserve the position based on competition

performance because doing so eases the coach’s psychological discomfort and reduces cognitive

dissonance. Finally, on certain teams there may be a lack of depth at various positions and

therefore coaches are forced to start athletes who they would prefer not to, but do not believe

they have another option. Thus, players with lower levels of mental toughness may end up as

starters, somewhat by default, and would not be in that position if the team were filled more

completely with quality athletes. A lack of previous research in this area makes it difficult to

determine whether the lack of significant differences in mental toughness by starting status in

this study are due to study-specific factors, or speak rather to broad trends in college athletics.

Research with professional athletes may shed important light on psychological differences by

starting status, as athletes at this level may have more similar physical attributes to their

teammates than do athletes at the collegiate level, and thus mental toughness may be the most

important differentiating variable in starting status.

  20

To this point, very few studies have examined demographic differences in athletes’ levels

of mental toughness. The sex differences found in this study are in line with previous research

(Nicholls et al., 2009; Sheard, 2009), supporting the hypothesis that male athletes are more

mentally tough than female athletes. Similarly, Black athletes were found to be more mentally

tough than White athletes, findings that are not surprising given previous research assessing

confidence (Anshel & Sailes, 1990; Cox & Whaley, 2004) and related research regarding

cultural differences and perceptions of sport between Black and White athletes (Coakley, 2008;

Major, 2001).

Whereas the sex and race differences found in this study were as hypothesized, the

relationships between the starting and scholarship status variables were not as expected.

Participants without scholarships were found to have the highest levels of mental

toughnesscompared to full or partial scholarship participants, a finding that would likely be

concerning to athletic programs that award tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships to their

student-athletes in hopes of having a successful, winning season. Additionally, starters and

nonstarters in this study were not found to differ in mental toughness , again an unexpected

finding given the assumption that starting athletes should be the best players, psychologically

and physically, on the team.

Unfortunately, the reasons for the demographic differences (and lack of differences) in

mental toughness levels found in this study are not entirely clear. Although differing

socialization processes may explain the differences found between male and female, and Black

and White, athletes, more research is needed to elucidate the reasons. Also, the majority of Black

participants in this study were male, whereas the majority of White participants were female, a

discrepancy that impacted the power of some analyses, particularly the two-way ANOVA

  21

assessing the interaction effects of sex and gender. Future studies should recruit more

participants in order to effectively examine the interaction effects of sex, race, scholarship status

and starting status, particularly paying attention to the distribution of racial groups by sex.

Mental Toughness and Mood

As hypothesized, overall mental toughness was significantly and inversely related to

anxiety, sadness, confusion, anger, fatigue, and total mood disturbance, and positively to vigor.

These results are in line with related previous studies, which have shown confidence to be

consistently associated with positive affect and lack of confidence to be associated with anxiety,

depression, and frustration (Mellalieu, Neil, & Hanton, 2006; Vealey, 2007). Hays, Thomas,

Maynard, and Bawden (2009) found that the 14 world-class athletes (7 men, 7 women)

interviewed in their study associated high confidence with positive affect, such as happiness and

enjoyment, and low confidence with negative affect, such as sadness and anxiety.

Although the relationships between mental toughness, and mood have not been assessed

directly in past studies, research has shown that a mood state profile marked by high levels of

energy (vigor) and low levels of anxiety, anger, confusion, sadness, and fatigue, also referred to

as an “iceberg profile” (Morgan, 1985), is related to successful performance in athletes

(Hassmén & Blomstrand, 1995; Morgan et al., 1988). A positive relationship between mental

toughness and performance also has been established (Durand-Bush et al., 2001; Smith et al.,

1995) and, although I did not examine this relationship directly in my study, it is interesting to

consider the potential interplay of athletes’ mental toughness, mood states, and performances.

Mentally tough athletes are expected to think, feel, and behave in ways that allow them to

consistently achieve their goals and perform to the peak of their abilities. An athlete who is

anxious, depressed, confused, angry, and/or fatigued would not be expected to perform at that

  22

level. Research on mental toughness suggests that an important component of the construct is

control (Bull et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2002; Middleton et al., 2004a; Sheard, 2010); specifically,

an ability to control one’s emotions regardless of external circumstances and achieve an

emotional state that facilitates optimal performance. Based on the mental toughness definition

proposed by Gucciardi et al. (2009), mentally tough athletes are able to control their emotions

and have lower mood disturbance because they perceive themselves, others, and situations in

realistically positive ways. For example, mentally tough athletes are expected to be confident in

their ability to recover from a mistake, not angered and distracted by a bad call from a referee,

and not likely to get down on themselves when a coach points out an area of weakness. Instead,

they view these situations as challenges to overcome and areas to improve on, and thus feel

energized and not sad, confused, or angry. The athletes in Hays et al.’s study (2009) for example,

said that when they were high in confidence, they interpreted “nerves” and anxiety as excitement

but when they were low in confidence they viewed their “nerves” as fear, worry, or panic. Thus,

one potential reason mentally tough athletes may be better able to perform than their less

mentally tough counterparts is that they are able to regulate their emotions such that they feel

energized and emotionally undisturbed, characteristics associated with successful athletes

(Hassmén & Blomstrand, 1995; Morgan, 1985; Morgan et al., 1988).

There was only one significant finding that emerged from the analyses assessing the

potential moderating effects of race, sex, scholarship status, and starting status on mental

toughness and mood states. Specifically, for female, but not male, athletes, higher mental

toughness was associated with lower reported anxiety. The lack of significant moderating effects

by demographic variables on the mental toughness – mood relationships suggests a consistency

in those relationships across subgroups of athletes. Although mental toughness scores differed by

  23

sex, race, and scholarship status, with one exception, the mood states of the athletes were

similarly related to their levels of mental toughness across groups. These results potentially

speak to the consistency of the mental toughness – mood relationship; even though certain

groups of athletes’ levels of mental toughness are not as high as others, inverse relationships still

exist with negative mood states and total mood disturbance, and a positive relationship with

vigor.

The results of this study suggest that there is indeed a relationship between mental

toughness and mood, and theory would suggest that an athlete’s level of mental toughness

impacts his or her mood, and not vice versa. Mentally tough, confident athletes perceive

themselves, others, and situations in ways that enable them to feel positively, possessing energy

and having minimal mood disturbance, which is consistent with previous research (Clough et al.,

2002; Gucciardi et al., 2009). Few significant differences were seen in the relationships between

mental toughness and mood by race, sex, scholarship status, or starting status in this study,

suggesting a consistency in mental toughness – mood relationships that transcend demographic

variables. However, more research is needed in the areas of mental toughness, mood, and

performance to determine how these variables interact. Additionally, although few significant

differences were found in this study, there may be differences in the ways in which male, female,

Black, or White athletes understand and express their emotions in sport, which could have

important implications for the aforementioned relationships, and which warrant further research.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations were present in this study and warrant discussion. First, although the

sample size was adequate for the analyses performed, it was comprised of all the athletes from a

mid-major NCAA Division I university, so generalizability is limited to similar samples of

  24

college athletes. In future studies, researchers may want to assess athletes representing other

levels of sport (e.g., high school, professional) as well as across multiple university athletic

programs. Additionally, the observed power of the two-way ANOVA assessing the interaction of

race and sex on the total SMTQ score was low, indicating a need for more participants across

races and genders in order for this type of analysis to potentially yield statistically meaningful

results.

A second limitation is the time at which participants were surveyed, which was at the

start of the academic year, prior to any of the teams beginning their seasons. Thus, participants’

responses to the SMTQ and the measure of mood states might be different than when the

competitive season was fully underway. Thus, researchers might want to examine mental

toughness (and mood) over the course of an athletic season to see how each one varies and

determine their temporal relationship to one another.

Third, because internal consistencies of the constancy and control subscales were so low,

all three SMTQ subscales were omitted from analyses and thus I am unable to make any specific

comments about these characteristics of mental toughness in this study. Other research studies

have found adequate reliability for the constancy and control subscales, which may be a function

of larger sample sizes. Fourth, mental toughness was measured using only one questionnaire,

which conceptualized it from a positive psychology perspective. Using additional or different

measures of mental toughness may have provided a more comprehensive assessment of the

construct in the population used. Fifth, I relied solely on self-report measures, which lends itself

to mono-method reporting biases, and the mood measure was based on responses to single items.

Researchers may want to examine potential relationships between MT and objective outcomes of

performance, which would have to be determined specifically for each sport, as well as include

  25

more extensive measures of mood to determine the extent to which the results in this study

generalize to other psychological states, such as happiness, excitement, or hopelessness.

Conclusion

The present study provides an exploration of the relationship of mental toughness to

certain demographic variables (i.e., sex, race, starting status, scholarship status) and mood. The

results with race and sex differences in mental toughness were generally consistent with previous

research assessing the same or similar constructs. Specifically, male athletes scored higher than

female athletes and Black athletes scored higher than White athletes. Differing socialization

processes, internalized stereotypes, and honesty of self-reporting may all have impacted the

findings regarding race and sex differences. The differences found by scholarship status (i.e.,

athletes without scholarships scoring higher on mental toughness than those athletes with full or

partial scholarships), and the lack of differences found by starting status, were surprising given

the assumption that athletes who are starters and/or on full scholarship were going to be the most

mentally tough, highest performing athletes.

The relationships between mental toughness and mood were also examined in this study and

significant relationships emerged, such as mental toughness being related to lower levels of

anxiety, sadness, anger, confusion, fatigue, and total mood disturbance, and higher levels of

vigor. Given the hypothesized relationships between mental toughness, mood, and performance,

understanding what factors may influence an athlete’s confidence or mood seems important for

coaches, athletes, and sport psychologists to know. Overall, the findings in this study point to

relationships with mental toughness that may have important performance implications and need

to be addressed in future studies. For example, more research is needed to understand exactly

how mental toughness impacts mood, but this study provides a solid starting point.

  26

APPENDIX A

LITERATURE REVIEW

  27

Mental Toughness: An Analysis of Sex, Race, and Mood

Mental toughness is a term often used by coaches, the media, and even athletes

themselves to describe a team or athlete who overcomes a deficit or setback, performs at the

peak of their abilities, shows grit and determination, or has the personal and athletic qualities that

set them apart from their competition. Indeed, mental toughness is often mentioned as one of, if

not the, determining factor in any record-setting or even just winning performance. In fact,

Gould and colleagues found that 82% and 73%, respectively, of their participants (i.e., athletes,

coaches, parents) cited mental toughness as one of the most important factors for successful

performance (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002; Gould, Hodge, Peterson & Petlichkoff,

1987). Not surprisingly, a recent search for “mental toughness” on a sporting news website

(www.yahoosports.com) revealed thousands of articles referencing it. One article explained

Tiger Wood’s recent lack of success on the golf course as being due to a lack of mental

toughness and not a decline in ability (Wetzel, 2010). Another article attributed a professional

hockey team’s playoff victories to mental toughness (Canadian Press, 2011). Although such

survey data and anecdotal evidence support the idea that mental toughness is considered by

coaches and athletes as a key component of performance success, methodologically sound,

empirical research still is needed to truly understand what mental toughness is, how it is

developed and manifested in athletes of all skill levels and backgrounds, and how it relates to

sport performance.

What is Mental Toughness?

Although the term mental toughness has become especially popular in mainstream

sporting culture and garnered considerable research attention in the last 10-15 years, it has a long

history of being used in reference to successful athletes and athletic performance. Over 40 years

  28

ago, Tutko, Lyon, & Ogilvie (1969) developed the Athletic Motivation Inventory (AMI) as a

sport-specific personality inventory, and included mental toughness as one of 11 personality

characteristics of superior athletes. This study, which defined mental toughness as a “tough-

mindedness” and “unyielding competitive attitude,” contained one of the first mentions of the

term in sport research and paved the way for future researchers to examine the construct. Jim

Loehr, considered by some as a forefather of mental toughness research and often credited with

popularizing the term, believed that fifty percent of success in sport is due to psychological

factors, namely mental toughness (Loehr, 1982). Based on his extensive work with athletes and

coaches, Loehr (1986) described mentally tough performers as disciplined and emotionally

controlled individuals who were able to respond productively and positively under pressured,

competitive situations. Specifically, he identified self-confidence, control (of attitude, attention,

imagery, and negative energy), motivation, and positive energy as the key attributes of a

mentally tough performer.

Although Loehr and others’ work highlighted the importance of mental toughness in

relation to sport performance, it was largely atheoretical and lacking in definitional clarity and

scientific methodology. Thus, mental toughness was not a primary focus of sport psychology

researchers, despite its popularity among coaches and athletes. In the last decade, however, there

has been a renewed, and more scientifically rigorous, interest in the definition, measurement, and

outcomes of mental toughness. For example, in a seminal article, Jones, Hanton, and

Connaughton (2002) interviewed ten international, elite athletes to determine their thoughts

about what mental toughness is. Based on their responses, Jones et al. (2002) defined it as

“…having the natural or developed psychological edge that enables you to: Generally, cope

better than your opponents with the many demands (competition, training, lifestyle) that sport

  29

places on a performer and, specifically, be more consistent and better than your opponents in

remaining determined, focused, confident, and in control under pressure” (p. 209). Although an

important starting point in defining mental toughness, Jones et al.’s (2002) work may better

describe what mental toughness allows one to do, rather than what it actually is.

In their own qualitative study, Middleton, Marsh, Martin, Richards, and Perry (2004a)

interviewed 25 current or former elite athletes and eight non-athletes (coaches, psychologists,

sport scientists) with elite level experience from a wide variety of sports to develop a definition

mental toughness. Based on the participants’ responses, they suggested that mental toughness

was “… an unshakeable perseverance and conviction towards some goal despite pressure or

adversity” (Middleton et al., 2004a, p. 6). The authors described this definition as being more

theoretically applicable than others (e.g., Jones et al., 2002) because it encompassed what mental

toughness is, the actions of mental toughness, and the characteristics orienting people to be

mentally tough. However, it is not entirely clear in the definition what characteristics cause, or

enable a person to have an “unshakeable perseverance and conviction.” Additionally, it is not

evident whether this perseverance is what mental toughness is, or whether it is an action of

mental toughness.

In addition to the previously discussed limitations, the aforementioned definitions also

appear to reflect the need for some form of negative pressure or adversity to be present as a

catalyst or prerequisite for the presence of mental toughness (Crust, 2008). To address this

definitional inadequacy, Gucciardi, Gordon, and Dimmock (2009) grounded their

conceptualization of mental toughness in personal construct psychology (PCP; Kelly, 1991).

This approach addressed the multidimensional nature of mental toughness, and provided a

mechanism to understand it in both positively and negatively construed situations. Specifically,

  30

they suggested that mental toughness is “a collection of experientially developed and inherent

sport-specific and sport-general values, attitudes, emotions, and cognitions that influence the way

in which an individual approaches, responds to, and appraises both negatively and positively

construed pressures, challenges, and adversities to consistently achieve his or her goals” (p. 67).

Gucciardi et al. (2009) argued that there is a difference between coping with the pressure of a #1

ranking or a winning streak (positive circumstances) and overcoming an injury or slump

(negative circumstances), and suggested that mentally tough athletes are able to cope effectively

with both types of situations.

Sheard (2010) proposed a slightly different conceptualization of mental toughness by

framing it within a positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) perspective where

both positive and negative circumstances are not only coped with effectively, but are viewed and

used as catalysts for growth and strengthening. The positive psychology paradigm, with its focus

on resilience, resourcefulness, character strengths, and mental and physical well-being, is

described by Sheard (2010) as being well suited for conceptualizing mental toughness, and

several other researchers agree. For example, Middleton et al. (2004a) suggested that “believing

in your own potential and capacity for growth and development” was one of 12 key mental

toughness characteristics. Jones, Hanton, and Connaughton (2007) commented on “a diverse

range of positive psychological characteristics being associated with mental toughness” (p. 244),

and indeed, many positive psychology constructs have been found to be key correlates of mental

toughness including: dispositional optimism, self-efficacy, and positive/negative affectivity (cf.

Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002; Golby & Sheard, 2006; Nicholls, Polman, Levy, & Backhouse,

2008).

  31

Although each conceptualization of mental toughness has its appeal, Gucciardi et al.’s

(2009) and Sheard’s (2010) definitions appear best suited for this research given their emphasis

on both thoughts and emotions, making the most of ability, and viewing positive and negative

events as opportunities for growth. Athletes of all ages and skills levels are continually pushed to

reach their potential, be their best, and achieve their goals. Mentally tough athletes are not just

expected to cope successfully with failure, injury, and losses, but also to commit themselves

fully to their sport, set challenging goals, and strive to be at their best every day. Athletes are

expected to be in peak physical and mental condition and demonstrate their toughness at all

times, not just during periods of adversity or strife. The positive psychology paradigm provides a

solid framework for conceptualizing mental toughness, whereas Gucciardi et al.’s (2009)

definition provides a working understanding of how mental toughness may be manifested in a

given athlete, specifically how their attitudes, emotions, and cognitions influence their

performance.

In addition to conceptualizing and defining mental toughness, many of the

aforementioned studies also served as avenues for understanding what attributes and

characteristics were associated with mental toughness or determined who was a mentally tough

performer. Through research, though, only a few positive characteristics have been consistently

identified as being important components of mental toughness. High self-confidence, also

described as self-belief or self-esteem, is one such attribute (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks,

2005; Fourie & Potgieter, 2001; Thelwell, Weston, & Greenlees, 2005). For example, Jones et al.

(2002) found elite athletes rated having “an unshakeable self-belief in your ability to achieve

competition goals” as the most important attribute of a mentally tough athlete. Similarly, Gould

et al. (2002), in their examination of the psychological characteristics of Olympic champions,

  32

reported high levels of confidence to be an essential characteristic. Accordingly, confidence

refers not only to a belief about one’s ability to do or achieve goals (i.e., self-efficacy), but also

to one’s ability to bounce back from failure and improve (i.e., potential), and be better than an

opponent mentally and emotionally (i.e., positive comparison).

Two other attributes consistently associated with mental toughness are control (e.g.,

attentional, emotional) and consistency (e.g., attitude, motivation, effort). Athletes high in

control are able to “remain fully focused on the task at hand in the face of competition-specific

distractions,” and “regain psychological control following unexpected, uncontrollable events”

(Jones et al., 2002, p. 211). Possessing a high degree of control also means being able to keep

emotions in check and remain calm and relaxed under pressure situations (Bull, Albinson, &

Shambrook, 1996). Additionally, Sheard (2010) discussed control as consisting of an element of

perceived control, or the perception that one has the ability to bring about certain outcomes in his

or her life. Athletes high in control would have an internal locus of control and look within

themselves for explanations regarding wins, losses, and poor performances rather than to

external factors such as the referees, their teammates, the weather, etc. The aforementioned

examples are just a few of the many ways in which control has been discussed in sport

psychology research, but at its core is the idea that highly controlled (i.e., mentally tough),

athletes are in complete command of their mental and emotional resources and, regardless of

external circumstances, are able to channel their energy in positive ways.

Consistently good performances are thought to result from consistent effort,

concentration, determination, and attitude. Bull et al. (2005) cited determination to make the

most of abilities, setting challenging targets for oneself, and a “never-say-die mindset” as being

essential attributes of mental toughness. Similarly, Middleton et al. (2004a) described

  33

perseverance and goal commitment as being key mental toughness components. Accordingly, a

consistent athlete always strives to perform at his or her best in practice and competition, and

thus approaches sport with an unwavering commitment to think and act in ways that enhance his

or her chances of achieving performance excellence, regardless of external circumstances. These

athletes have a “determination to meet the demands of training and competition, willingness to

take responsibility for setting training and competition goals, [and] possession of an unyielding

attitude” (Sheard, 2010, p. 77). Consistent athletes do not need to be told to set and strive for

goals, give their best effort at all times, and persevere in the face of adversity. Indeed, highly

consistent athletes would be expected to be those individuals most relied on and trusted by their

coaches and teammates because of their dependability and stability in every situation. In sum,

although a broad term, consistency is thought to accurately encompass the unwavering mental

and physical approach to optimal performance in sport that athletes and coaches desire.

Differing views on the exact definition of mental toughness and the most important

attributes of a mentally tough athlete reflect the inherent complexity of the construct. At the core

of mental toughness however, appear to be the components of confidence, consistency (e.g.,

attitude, motivation, effort), and control (e.g., attentional, emotional), which provide the bases

for how mentally tough athletes approach their sport. Out of this foundation other attributes and

outcomes emerge such as commitment, perseverance, competitiveness, and motivation. For

example, a tennis player who possesses confidence in their physical and mental abilities and has

a high degree of control over their emotions (e.g., anxiety, fear of failure, fatigue) could be

expected to show a strong competitive drive, perseverance, and motivation when attempting to

overcome a 5-1 deficit in a set. An athlete who lacks confidence and control may not be able to

muster the motivation and competitive drive to overcome such a deficit. In addition, the

  34

definition proposed by Gucciardi et al. (2009) appears best suited for understanding mental

toughness as it describes how the construct comes about, what it consists of, and outcomes that

are associated with it. Confidence, consistency, and control are considered the key attributes that

directly influence the way in which an athlete “approaches, responds to, and appraises both

negatively and positively construed pressures, challenges, and adversities” (Gucciardi et al.

2009, p. 67).

Measuring Mental Toughness

Along with understanding and explaining what mental toughness is, accurately measuring

it is necessary to advance this area of study. One of the first such measures was Loehr’s (1986)

Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI). The PPI is comprised of seven components of

mental toughness – self-confidence, negative energy control, attention control, visualization and

imagery control, motivation, positive energy, and attitude control- that were determined by

Loehr to be most indicative of mental toughness based on interviews with hundreds of athletes.

The goal of the inventory was to assess mental strengths and weaknesses and improve athlete’s

awareness and understanding of their psychological skills. Although the PPI was, and continues

to be, used in sport psychology practice, limited research has been done to establish its reliability

and validity. Golby, Sheard, and van Wersch (2007) examined the PPI’s factor structure and

found support for a 4-factor 14-item measure, which was markedly different from the 7-factor

42-item version originally proposed by Loehr (1986). Neither Golby et al.’s (2007) or Middleton

et al.’s (2004c) studies found support for the PPI’s structural validity, whereas confirmatory

factor analysis found Golby et al.’s Psychological Performance Inventory-A (PPI-A) possessed

good model fit and support for a correlated four factor model. The PPI-A assesses thoughts and

  35

behaviors related to determination, self-belief, positive cognition, and visualization as indicators

of mental toughness.

Other measures of mental toughness have been created, each one based on a slightly

different conceptualization of the construct. For example, Clough et al. (2002) conceptualized

mental toughness from a hardiness perspective, viewing mentally tough athletes as those who are

able to bounce back from adversity and are less negatively impacted by stress and competition

than less mentally tough individuals. From this perspective, they developed the 48-item Mental

Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48) to assess what they saw as the 4 C’s of mental toughness:

confidence, control, commitment, and challenge. In contrast, Middleton, Marsh, Martin,

Richards, and Perry (2004b) developed their Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI) based on an

understanding of mental toughness obtained through qualitative interviews with elite athletes in a

previous study (Middleton et al., 2004a). Their 65-item inventory assesses 12 components of

mental toughness - self-efficacy, potential, mental self-concept, task familiarity, value, personal

bests, goal commitment, perseverance, task focus, positivity, stress minimisation, and positive

comparisons - as well as global mental toughness, and is based on their definition of mental

toughness as “an unshakeable perseverance and conviction towards some goal despite pressure

or adversity” (Middleton et al., 2004a, p. 6).

Sheard, Golby, and van Wersch (2009) argued that existing measures had serious

psychometric and conceptual limitations (e.g., poor model fit, inadequate sample sizes or

populations, lack of theory informing measure). Thus, they created the Sports Mental Toughness

Questionnaire (SMTQ), a 3-factor, 14-item inventory that assessed behaviors and cognitions

related to confidence (vs. self-doubt), constancy (vs. irresoluteness), and control (vs. agitation).

The SMTQ is based on a conceptualization of mental toughness from a positive psychology

  36

“mindset” perspective, focusing not only on an individual’s ability to overcome adversity, but

also the attributes that allow them to thrive and grow under all circumstances, which include self-

belief, commitment, perseverance, and emotion management (Sheard, 2010).

In sum, various measures have been created to assess mental toughness and similar

results have been found across studies, such as more successful athletes (e.g. those at higher

competitive or achievement levels, medalists in a given competition) generally having higher

mental toughness scores than less successful athletes (e.g. Crust & Azadi, 2010; Kuan & Roy,

2007; Sheard et al., 2009). However, the conceptualization and measurement of mental

toughness laid out by Sheard (2010), that is from a positive psychology framework that

emphasizes the importance of resilience and growth at all skill and competition levels, appears to

most accurately encompass the complex, multidimensional nature of the construct. Sheard et

al.’s (2009) scale was developed based on samples of adequate size, has been shown to have

good fit for the three factor model (confidence, constancy, control), and has acceptable

psychometric properties. Future research on mental toughness may want to consider use of this

measure to represent the construct.

Mental Toughness and Performance

In conjunction with identifying the attributes that underlie mental toughness, defining the

construct, and developing ways to measure it, researchers also have focused on assessing

outcomes that may be associated with mental toughness. That is, what can “mentally tough”

athletes do that others cannot? For example, mentally tough athletes may be better able to

maintain an optimal mindset throughout competition (Cashmore, 2002), handle criticism, loses,

and poor performances (Clough et al., 2002), overcome or rebound from setbacks (Jones et al.,

2002), and take personal responsibility (Fourie & Potgieter, 2001). Clough et al. (2002)

  37

suggested that “mentally tough individuals … are able to remain calm and relaxed, they are

competitive in many situations and have lower anxiety levels than others. With a high sense of

self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they can control their own destiny, these individuals can

remain relatively unaffected by competition or adversity” (p. 38).

Do these proposed differences between mentally tough and non-mentally tough athletes

translate to actual performance differences? In other words, is there a relationship between

mental toughness and performance, and if so, what is the nature of the relationship? Most of the

initial research on mental toughness has focused on elite and super elite athletes, operating from

the assumption that they are the most mentally tough and thus a viable population to study (e.g.,

Bull et al., 2005; Fourie & Potgieter, 2001; Jones et al., 2002). Although this assumption makes

intuitive sense given the success of these athletes and the hypothesized positive relationship

between mental toughness and performance, it does not address the experiences of sub-elite

athletes and the extent to which mental toughness is related to their performance successes. Crust

(2008) suggested that successful outcomes be seen in relative, rather than absolute, terms

because, theoretically, mental toughness is a concept applicable to athletes of all skill and ability

levels. Consistent with this idea, Loehr (1995) described mental toughness as an ability to

consistently perform towards the upper ranges of one’s talent and skill, regardless of competitive

circumstances. Similarly, Bull et al. (2005) argued that a “determination to make the most of

ability” was an important component of mental toughness. Crust (2008) asserted that focusing on

elite and super elite athletes created a false understanding of mental toughness as being only

applicable to these athletic populations, when their success may in fact be due more to superior

physical and technical attributes than mental ones. Thus, mental toughness appears to be a

construct that has applicability to performers at all skill levels and may be best thought of as a set

  38

of characteristics that can assist athletes in performing consistently at the upper end of their

physical and technical abilities.

Thus, understanding the potential influence of mental toughness on performance begins

with an examination of the relationship between certain psychological skills (mental toughness

components) and performance at various levels of skill and competitive sport. Numerous

questionnaires have been created to measure psychological skills in sport including: the

Psychological Skills Inventory for Sport (PSIS; Mahoney, Gabriel & Perkins, 1987), the Athletic

Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-28; Smith et al., 1995), and the Ottawa Mental Skills

Assessment Tool (OMSAT; Durand-Bush et al., 2001). The PSIS for example, is made up of six

subscales – anxiety control, concentration, confidence, mental preparation, motivation, and team

focus – many of which have been discussed in the literature as being components of mental

toughness. In their initial study, Mahoney et al. (1987) found that elite athletes experienced

fewer problems with anxiety, were more self-confident, were more successful at concentrating,

and were more highly motivated than their non-elite counterparts. In another study using the

PSIS, Meyers et al. (1996) assessed rodeo performers and found that those who were highly

skilled reported greater anxiety management, concentration, confidence, and motivation than the

performers who were less skilled. A study by Mahoney (1989) assessing Olympic-style

weightlifters on a number of variables, including self-esteem and various psychological skills,

found that elite weightlifters – those considered to be in the top 3 in the world in their weight

class – reported being more motivated and having higher self-esteem than their peers. Similarly,

in their validation study of the OMSAT, Durand-Bush et al. (2001) found that elite athletes were

characterized by greater confidence, lower stress reactions, greater commitment, and greater

focus than less skilled athletes. They suggested that their results supported Orlick and

  39

Partington’s (1988) and Gould, Ecklund, and Jackson’s (1992) contentions that elite athletes not

only have more developed mental abilities (e.g., imagery and visualization, emotion

management, concentration) than sub-elite athletes, they also were able to employ these mental

skills more frequently and effectively.

The ACSI-28 (Smith et al., 1995) is comprised of seven subscales – coping with

adversity, peaking under pressure, goal setting/mental preparation, concentration, freedom from

worry, confidence and achievement motivation, and coachability – and also has been used

extensively with athletes. Smith et al. (1995) found that the most successful high school baseball

players scored higher on all seven subscales of the ACSI-28 than their less successful peers.

Additionally, Smith and Christensen (1995) reported that confidence and peaking under pressure

were significant predictors of a minor league pitcher’s earned run average and that confidence

and achievement motivation were significant predictors of a player’s batting average. These

studies lend support to the notion that psychological attributes such as confidence and motivation

can distinguish not only athletes at the highest competitive levels, but also successful and less

successful athletes at non-elite competitive levels.

These studies (Durand-Bush et al., 2001; Mahoney et al., 1987; Mahoney, 1989; Meyers

& LeUnes, 1996; Smith et al., 1995; Smith & Christensen, 1995) support a relationship between

various psychological attributes and skills (e.g., confidence, emotional control, concentration,

commitment, peaking under pressure, coping with adversity) and athletic performance. The

majority of these characteristics have been discussed in mental toughness research as being key

components of that construct and lend support for a mental toughness – performance

relationship. It must be noted however, that the aforementioned studies were all correlational in

design and therefore can only suggest an association between certain psychological attributes and

  40

better performances, or maybe more accurately, certain psychological attributes and higher level

athletes. However, it does seem evident that the difference between more and less successful

athletes goes beyond physical skill and physique alone and it is understandable that coaches,

athletes, and sport psychologists would cite mental toughness (or lack thereof) as an important

performance factor.

One clear way in which performance is gauged at the collegiate level is through starting

positions and scholarships. Players earn starting positions and scholarships by demonstrating in

practice and competition that they are better than the other members of their team in some

meaningful way, whether mentally, physically, or both. Given the relationship between mental

toughness and performance, it would be expected that mental toughness may also have a

relationship to starting and scholarship status. Indeed, a study assessing 108 male collegiate

football players found that coping with adversity, an important component of mental toughness,

was a significant predictor of starting status (Spieler, Czech, Joyner, Munkasy, Gentner, & Long,

2007). The relationship between mental toughness and starting and scholarship status will

therefore be a focus of this study, as will the relationship between mental toughness and other

demographic variables.

Mental Toughness and Gender

Few studies examining mental toughness have done so in relation to athletes’ sex to

determine if male and female athletes differ from one another in any meaningful way. In one

study that did consider this issue, Nicholls et al., (2009) surveyed 677 athletes (454 men; 223

women) with skills ranging from beginner through elite level using the MTQ (Clough et al.,

2002). They found that male athletes scored higher than female athletes on total mental

toughness and on challenge, control emotions, control life, and confidence ability; they offered

  41

little explanation for these differences, though, stating only that, “these differences could be due

to variations in the underlying expression of the attributes related to MT in males and females,

or, alternatively, to different socialisation processes.” (p. 74). Similarly, Sheard et al. (2009)

found that the male athletes (n = 778; club through international competitive level) scored

significantly higher than the female athletes (n = 364; club through international competitive

level) on overall mental toughness as well as on confidence and control.

In a meta-analysis, Lirgg (1991) found that male athletes reported significantly greater

confidence in their physical abilities than female athletes (effect size = .40). Lirgg (1991) also

analyzed the impact of sex-type of task on confidence, categorizing activities as masculine,

neutral, or feminine. Although there was a high degree of variability in effect sizes for the

masculine activities (e.g. leg lift d = .19, football d = 1.18), overall male athletes displayed

significantly more confidence on masculine (d = .65) and neutral (d = .50) activities than did

female athletes. Only one activity was rated as feminine (ballet), and female athletes reported

higher confidence on the task than males (d = -1.02). These findings suggest that the perception

of an athletic task plays a large role in determining how confident an individual will be in

performing that task. This appears to be particularly important for women who engage in athletic

endeavors that are stereotypically considered masculine in nature (e.g., weight lifting, basketball,

soccer).

Similar results also have been found in other studies assessing confidence differences

between male and female athletes. Krane and Williams (1994) found that male track and field

athletes had significantly higher confidence levels than female track and field athletes, as well as

lower somatic anxiety. Additionally, Katsikas et al. (2009) found that both elite and sub-elite

male track and field athletes reported higher levels of emotional control than their female

  42

counterparts. For high school athletes, boys reported significantly higher levels of athletic

competence than girls (Todd & Kent, 2003), which was congruent with findings in an earlier

study by Hagborg (1993). These sex differences in self-reported athletic competence may or may

not be indicative of actual athletic skill, but do indicate an important difference in self-

perceptions of male and female athletes.

In studies that did assess the confidence – performance relationship among men and

women, mixed results were found. Rudisill (1988) and Weinberg, Gould, and Jackson (1979)

found that college males had higher initial confidence ratings and outperformed their female

counterparts on two “masculine-oriented” tasks, dart-throwing and leg lift, respectively.

However, Gill, Gross, Huddleston, and Shifflett (1984) and Rudisill (1989) found that in their

studies using gender-neutral tasks, men had higher confidence ratings but did not outperform

women. Therefore it appears that the assertion that the higher confidence scores seen in men

being due to their greater athletic performance when compared to women is not entirely viable.

Some researchers believe that these sex confidence differences may instead be due to gender

norms, stereotypes, and expectations of women being other-oriented and modest and men being

self-focused and assertive (Williams & Best, 1990) leading to female athletes underestimating

their athletic abilities (potentially seeing success as the result of team effort and not individual

skill) and males overestimating their abilities (Messner, Adler, Coakley, & Baldwin, 1992).

Frederickson and Harrison (2005) propose a different perspective; that parents, coaches, and

others more closely monitor the bodies and actions of girls than boys and that this protectiveness

throughout infancy and childhood limits women’s physical skill development and confidence in

their physical abilities. In terms of sex differences in mental toughness specifically, Bull et al.

(2005) suggested that contact sport athletes may be more mentally tough than non-contact sport

  43

athletes because of the physically competitive nature of the sports; subsequently, female athletes

may be less mentally tough than male athletes because they are less often exposed to physically

aggressive sporting environments. Regardless, sex differences are not yet well understood and

more research is clearly needed. Unfortunately the majority of studies assessing psychological

differences by sex in sport are 10 or more years old and this is a limitation of this body of

research. Hays, Thomas, Maynard, and Bawden (2009) suggest that this lack of more recent

gender differences research is due to an increased emphasis on understanding distinct gender

socialization processes and developmental contexts rather than comparisons of men and

women’s psychological profiles.

The available research however suggests that men and women do score differently on

constructs such as confidence and control (Krane & Williams, 1994; Lirgg, 1991; Nicholls et al.,

2009). These constructs, in addition to being considered important components of mental

toughness, are also thought to play a vital role in an athlete’s ability to maintain an optimal

mindset throughout competition (Cashmore, 2002), persevere in the face of adversity (Fourie &

Potgieter, 2001; Jones et al., 2002), and effectively handle the many demands of sport (Clough et

al., 2002). Given that these traits are desirable across sex, skill level, and competition level,

understanding the psychological profiles of male and female athletes may be helpful for athletes,

coaches, and sport psychologists alike who aim to make the most out of physical ability.

Approaching a certain athletic skill or sport with confidence and control has been shown to be a

key to performance success (Durand-Bush et al., 2001; Mahoney et al., 1987; Smith et al., 1995;

Smith & Christensen, 1995), and understanding potential areas for psychological improvement

can be an important first step to achieving performance goals.

  44

Mental Toughness and Race/Ethnicity

As is the case with sex, few studies have examined potential racial differences in relation

to mental toughness or, even more broadly, psychological characteristics among athletes. Indeed,

an analysis by Ram, Starek, and Johnson (2004) revealed that only 19.86% of the manuscripts

published in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (JSEP), Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology (JASP), and The Sport Psychologist (TSP) between 1987 and 2000 included

references to race/ethnicity. Regarding mental toughness specifically, none of the initial studies

examined racial differences, nor did they mention the race/ethnicity of their participants.

Therefore, in order to understand what differences may exist on measures of mental toughness, a

broader review of the literature is needed.

Xinyi, Smith, and Adegbola (2004) examined the psychological profiles of professional

athletes from four countries (Singapore, North America, China, and Nigeria) to see if cross-

cultural differences emerged. They found significant differences between cultures on the six

mental qualities studied, including competitive trait anxiety, trait self-confidence, concentration,

mental preparations skills, achievement motivation, and leadership skills; North American

athletes scored higher on all six dimensions than the athletes from the other three countries. In

addition, the Nigerian athletes had higher scores on confidence, mental preparation, motivation,

and leadership than the Singaporean and Chinese athletes. Xinyi et al. (2004) attributed these

differences to individualistic and collectivistic backgrounds, stating that the North American

athletes may have a higher internal locus of control that could result in lower anxiety, higher

self-confidence, and higher achievement motivation. It is difficult to determine whether these

cultural differences in psychological skills result in significant performance differences, but

some individuals would argue that this in fact is the case. Sheard (2010), in his book on mental

  45

toughness, discussed the success, and sometimes dominance, that Australian national teams have

achieved in international competition over the last 20 years. He argued that their success is due

more to a “mentally tough mindset” that exceeds that of their competition than to physical

superiority. Similarly, Gordon, Gucciardi, and Chambers (2007) discussed Australian cricket

(national team was World Champions in 1987, 1999, 2003, and 2007) as consisting of a

“pervasive culture of toughness” passed down through generations of socialization, coaching,

and competition. Again, although it cannot be determined definitively whether cultural

differences in psychological skills and mental toughness result in performance differences,

examples such as the Australian national teams point to a culture of success that goes beyond

superior physical talent.

Although understanding international cultural differences is important, cultural

differences also exist between individuals at the regional, state, and local levels and can have a

strong impact on their psychological skills and experiences in sport. For example, one aspect of

sport culture that has garnered research attention is the difference in socialization to sport

between Black and White youth. Specifically, researchers have sought to understand differences

in how Black and White athletes view sport and the importance that they place on sport.

Research has shown that in the African American community sport has been widely

institutionalized as the primary path to success and, especially with African American males,

sport is what drives the culture and is seen as the main avenue for individuals to demonstrate

their competence and achievement and earn respect (Coakley, 2008; Major, 1998). Not

surprisingly, African American men and women reported being more actively (e.g., practicing

and competing) and passively (e.g., reading about, watching, and talking about) involved in sport

than their White counterparts (Spreitzer & Snyder, 1990). In addition, the African American, as

  46

opposed to the White, participants were more likely to express a positive perception of sport as a

career channel, athletes as good role models, and sports as valuable for psychosocial

development. These differences were found even with age and socioeconomic status controlled,

suggesting a distinct cultural difference in how sport is viewed. These findings also were

supported in a study by Cox and Whaley (2004), who found that male and female Black high

school basketball players indicated greater interest in basketball, believed basketball to be more

useful to them, and reported feeling basketball was more important to them than the male and

female White athletes surveyed.

Given the importance placed on sport in the African American community, it would seem

likely that African American athletes experience even greater pressure to perform well and

succeed in sport than White athletes, possibly resulting in high levels of anxiety. Unfortunately

differences in the psychological skills and experiences of Black and White athletes have not been

widely studied. In one of the only studies assessing potential psychological differences, Anshel

and Sailes (1990) surveyed 64 male collegiate athletes in order to understand the ways in which

Black and White athletes differ in their perceptions of their current sporting environment. The

results showed that the Black athletes reported feeling more accountable for competition

outcomes than the White athletes regardless of whether the team won or lost. They also tended to

attribute lack of success to low ability to a greater extent than the White athletes. These findings

are similar to those found in a study by Nation and LeUnes (1983) with college football players.

These authors found that the Black athletes believed, more than White athletes, that physical

factors dictated athletic success more so than mental factors. Not surprisingly, the White athletes

attributed more significance and focus to the mental aspects of competition than did Black

athletes. It is unclear whether these differences between Black and White athletes relate to

  47

significant performance differences, but the unique way in which sport is viewed and approached

by each race is an important factor to consider when working with these populations.

In one of the only studies looking at racial differences in perceived competency in a

sporting context, Cox and Whaley (2004) assessed male and female high school basketball

players and found that Black athletes had significantly higher perceptions of basketball

competence than the White athletes. The Black athletes, as compared to the White athletes, also

reported a stronger identity as basketball players and higher expectations for success. These

results point to the differing significance placed on basketball by the two groups, with Black

athletes feeling more invested, more positive about their current skills, and more hopeful about

their potential for success in the sport.

The lack of research regarding potential racial differences in relation to key psychological

characteristics is surprising given the high number of racial/ethnic minorities competing in

athletics. During the 2008-2009 academic year, minority athletes made up 28.6% of the male

college student-athletes and 22.2% of the female college student-athletes (Zgonc, 2010) from

NCAA Divisions I, II, and III; African Americans were the majority racial/ethnic minority. In

the two revenue-producing sports of basketball and football, African American males comprised

44.9% and 33.9%, respectively, of the student-athletes (Zgonc, 2010). Racial diversity is a

prevalent part of athletics and understanding the ways in which individuals from various racial

backgrounds differ in their perceptions of, and approaches to, sport appears to be a useful

endeavor.

The majority of research on cultural differences in the U.S. has focused on Black and

White athletes, with a few key findings emerging. In African American culture sport is generally

given an importance, especially among males, that is greater than that seen in Caucasian culture

  48

(Major, 1998; Spreitzer & Snyder, 1990). Not surprisingly, Black athletes, as compared to White

athletes, report experiencing greater investment in sport, greater responsibility for competition

outcomes, higher expectations for success, and a more pronounced identification as an athlete

(Anshel & Sailes, 1990; Coakley, 2008; Cox & Whaley, 2004; Spreitzer & Snyder, 1990). Not

only do Black athletes place more emphasis and importance on sport than White athletes, they

also have greater belief in their athletic abilities and potential (Cox & Whaley, 2004); a

confidence that may help them succeed under culturally added pressures that are not experienced

to the same degree by White athletes. Unfortunately, little information is available regarding the

psychological differences between Black and White athletes and how those differences may

relate to performance. Mental toughness research with Black and White athletes may provide

much needed information regarding how these groups approach sport and handle the emotions,

pressure, adversity, and other demands prevalent at every level of competition. Having a better

understanding of the level of mental toughness of athletes from various cultures can inform

performance enhancement work, with a focus on the psychological strengths and weaknesses

that each athlete brings to their sport.

Mental Toughness and Mood

The relationship between mood and athletic performance gained prominence when

Morgan (1985) first described the iceberg profile. This profile refers to the graphic representation

of raw scores on the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1981),

reflecting low scores on the “negative” mood states (tension, depression, anger, fatigue,

confusion) and a high score on the “positive” mood state (vigor). A positive relationship between

performance and a pronounced iceberg profile has been found among runners (Morgan et al.,

  49

1988; Morgan, O’Connor, Sparling & Pate, 1987), cyclists (Hagberg, Mullin, Bahrke, &

Limberg, 1979), and soccer players (Hassmén & Blomstrand, 1995).

In a study of male collegiate tennis players, Covassin and Pero (2004) examined

confidence, anxiety, and mood states in relation to match outcomes. They found that the winning

tennis players displayed significantly higher self-confidence, lower total mood disturbance, and

lower cognitive and somatic anxiety levels than did the losing players. More specifically,

winning players exhibited an iceberg profile on the POMS marked by having scores above

college aged males’ normative levels of vigor and below college aged males’ normative levels of

tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion. The authors discussed the potentially

moderating impact of high self-confidence, a positive mood state, and low anxiety levels, which

enabled the athletes with these traits to remain calm and relaxed under pressure and cope

effectively with negative events (e.g., double-faulting, missing an easy shot, bad line call by

opponent or referee).

Given the research on mental toughness to date, a potential relationship between mental

toughness and mood makes conceptual sense. A mentally tough athlete is expected to have a

high degree of emotional control and a mindset that facilitates optimal performance. A mood

state characterized by a high level of vigor and low levels of tension, depression, anger, fatigue,

and confusion has been found to relate positively to performance and therefore it stands to reason

that a mentally tough athlete would be capable of regulating his or her mood such that he or she

is in an optimal emotional state. Although no studies have been done assessing the relationship

of mental toughness to mood specifically, an examination of some components of mental

toughness may shed light on its potential relationship to mood.

  50

One construct that has been studied in relation to both mental toughness and mood is

optimism. Although optimism has been defined in various ways, it can be thought of simply as

the expectation of positive outcomes. Nicholls, Polman, Levy, & Backhouse (2008) assessed the

relationship between mental toughness and optimism in a sample of 677 male and female

athletes from beginner through international competitive levels and found that optimism was

correlated positively with overall mental toughness as well as the components of challenge,

commitment, control, and confidence. Nicholls et al. (2008) suggested that their findings were

consistent with Gould et al. (2002), who linked optimism, mental toughness, and peak

performance in Olympic champions, and argued that optimism could be considered a key

component of the construct of mental toughness. The relationship between optimism and mood

also has been studied. Segerstrom, Taylor, Kemeny, and Fahey (1998) found that law students

high in optimism reported more positive mood states (i.e., low anger, depression, fatigue,

confusion, anxiety; high vigor) and less perceived stress towards the end of their first semester of

school than their less optimistic classmates. Scheier and Carver (1992) found similar results in a

sample of freshman college students; the more optimistic individuals showed less mood

disturbance in their adaptation to college than their less optimistic peers.

Based on the aforementioned studies and other research on mental toughness and mood

states, it would appear that a positive relationship may exist between mental toughness and

mood. More specifically, individuals who are high in mental toughness are likely to possess a

more positive overall mood state (e.g., less total mood disturbance) given their ability to

emotionally regulate and feel confident in achieving their goals. Conversely, individuals high in

optimism and positive affectivity have been shown to have a tendency to approach challenges

with confidence and persistence (Golby & Sheard, 2004), two traits consistently discussed in

  51

mental toughness research. In sum, although the exact nature of the mental toughness – mood

relationship is not well understood, there is reason to believe that they share a positive

relationship and are both closely linked to successful athletic performance.

The Current Study

The first purpose of this study is to explore the relationships between mental toughness

and a number of demographic variables. Specifically, I will examine what differences may exist

between male and female collegiate athletes, Black and White athletes, starters and non-starters,

and full-scholarship, partial scholarship, and no scholarship athletes. The playing status,

scholarship status, sex, and race of athletes likely all play important roles in how they think about

themselves and their sport, yet psychological differences between these demographics are not

well understood. Understanding demographic differences in mental toughness appears to be a

useful endeavor given the prominence of the construct in popular sport culture and its

hypothesized relationship to peak performance (Gould et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2002: Middleton

et al., 2004a).

Given the aforementioned research, I offer a number of hypotheses. The first set of

hypotheses involves the relationships between sex, race, and mental toughness. Based on

research revealing significant differences between male and female athletes on the constructs of

confidence and emotional control (Katsikas et al., 2009; Krane & Williams, 1994; Nicholls et al.,

2009; Sheard et al., 2009), key components of mental toughness, it is expected that male athletes

in this study will score significantly higher than female athletes on overall mental toughness, as

well as confidence and control. Although less research has been done on differences between

Black and White athletes in relation to mental toughness, there are data (Coakley, 2008; Cox &

Whaley, 2004) to suggest that Black athletes may exhibit higher confidence than White athletes.

  52

Therefore, I hypothesize that Black athletes will score higher than White athletes on confidence

and overall mental toughness. A potential interaction between race and gender will also be

assessed, but this analysis will be exploratory in nature given the lack of research on this

potential relationship, and therefore no specific hypothesis can be made at this time.

The next set of hypotheses involves the relationships between starting status, scholarship

status, and mental toughness. Research on mental toughness has focused on its relationship to

performance, with results showing that athletes who score high on mental toughness are

generally more successful than those athletes who score low. Given the highly competitive

nature of Division I collegiate athletics, it is expected that the best players would be on a full-

scholarship and would be starters on the team. Therefore it is hypothesized that athletes in the

current study who indicated they are starters will have higher mental toughness scores (overall

and on the three individual components) than non-starters. Additionally, it is expected that

athletes on full scholarship will have higher mental toughness scores (overall and on the three

individual components) than those on partial scholarship or no scholarship. Potential interactions

between starting status and sex, starting status and race, scholarship status and sex, and

scholarship status and race will also be examined as exploratory analyses.

The second purpose of this study is to examine the potential relationship between mental

toughness and mood state. Separately, mental toughness and mood have been examined, but very

few studies have looked at them in conjunction. Both have been linked to successful athletic

performance (e.g., Covassin & Pero, 2004; Mahoney et al.,1987; Meyers, LeUnes, & Bourgeois,

1996) and addressing a potential relationship between them may provide clues about ideal

performance states. Understanding the link between mood state and mental toughness may

  53

provide clues for coaches, sport psychologists, and athletes about where they are psychologically

and where they need to be for peak performance.

Given research regarding the relationship between mood and peak performance in

athletes, as well as the importance of optimism and minimal mood disturbance for athletic

success, I offer the following hypotheses. First, higher scores on overall mental toughness and

the component scales of confidence, constancy, and control are each expected to correlate with

high scores on vigor and low scores on anger, depression, fatigue, confusion, and anxiety.

Second, a significant negative relationship is expected between mental toughness and total mood

disturbance with higher scores on overall mental toughness and confidence, constancy, and

control correlating with lower total mood disturbance scores. These analyses will first be

conducted with the entire sample, then separately by race, sex, and scholarship status to

determine if these demographic variables affect the strength of the relationship between mood

and mental toughness. However, these analyses are exploratory in nature and no specific

hypotheses can be made regarding these differences at this time.

54

APPENDIX C

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES

  55

Table C.1

ANOVA Results for Mean Total SMTQ Score by Sex, Race, Scholarship Status, and Starting

Status

Mean SD F Sex Male (n = 142) 3.15 .38

16.09** Female (n = 130) 2.97 .37

Race Black (n = 157) 3.16 .42

11.18** White (n = 115) 3.00 .35

Scholarship Status Full (n = 125) 3.06 .40

3.60** Partial (n = 89) 3.00 .38 No (n = 55) 3.17 .36

Starting Status Starter (n = 183) 3.07 .39

0.14 Nonstarter (n = 89) 3.05 .38

Note. * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

 

  56

Table C.2

Correlations between Total SMTQ, BAM Mood States, and Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) by Sex, Race, Starting Status and

Scholarship Status

Men Women Black White Starter Nonstarter Full Partial No n = 142 n = 130 n = 157 n = 115 n = 183 n = 89 n = 125 n = 89 n = 55

Anxiety -0.01 -0.31 -0.08 -0.20 -0.16 -0.14 0.00 -0.33 -0.23

Sadness -0.26 -0.35 -0.30 -0.35 -0.40 -0.24 -0.28 -0.45 -0.27

Confusion -0.12 -0.38 -0.23 -0.30 -0.31 -0.18 -0.14 -0.38 -0.40

Anger -0.27 -0.21 -0.34 -0.18 -0.22 -0.27 -0.21 -0.24 -0.32

Vigor 0.17 0.24 0.08 0.32 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.16

Fatigue -0.33 -0.31 -0.36 -0.32 -0.38 -0.32 -0.30 -0.32 -0.47

TMD -0.30 -0.49 -0.37 -0.44 -0.44 -0.35 -0.30 -0.53 -0.48  

 

  57

REFERENCE LIST

Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes'

gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 22(1), 63-84.

Anshel, M. H., & Sailes, G. G. (1990). Discrepant attitudes of intercollegiate athletes as a

function of race. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13(2), 87-102.

Bull, S. J., Albinson, J. G., & Shambrook, C. J. (1996). The mental game plan: Getting psyched

for sport. Eastbourne; United Kingdom: Sports Dynamics.

Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. (2005). Towards an understanding of

mental toughness in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(3),

209-227. doi: 10.1080/10413200591010085.

Canadian Press. (2011, April 22). Mental toughness helps Bruins bounce back. Retrieved from

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/39956-Mental-toughness-helps-Boston-Bruins-

bounce-back-shake-playoff-demons.html

Cashmore, E. (2002). Sport psychology: The key concepts. London: Routledge.

Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement.

In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32-45). London: Thomson.

Coakley, J. J. (2008). Sport and society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw

Hill.

Covassin, T., & Pero, S. (2004). The relationship between self-confidence, mood state, and

anxiety among collegiate tennis players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27(3), 230-242.

 

  58

Cox, A. E, & Whaley, D. E. (2004). The influence of task value, expectancies for success, and

identity on athletes' achievement behaviors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(2),

103-117. doi: 10.1080/10413200490437930.

Crust, L. (2008). A review and conceptual re-examination of mental toughness: Implications for

future researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 576-583. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.005

Crust, L. & Azadi, K. (2010). Mental toughness and athletes' use of psychological strategies.

European Journal of Sport Science, 10(1), 43-51.

Davis Hill, S. L. (2001). Career maturity and the Black college student athlete. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(4-B), 2053.

Dean, J. E., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (1990, September). An incredibly quick way to

assess mood states: The incredibly short POMS. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, San Antonio, TX.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Durand-Bush, N. N., Salmela, J. H., & Green-Demers, I. I. (2001). The Ottawa Mental Skills

Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3). Sport Psychologist, 15(1), 1-19.

Fourie, S. S., & Potgieter, J. R. (2001). The nature of mental toughness in sport. South African

Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education & Recreation, 23(2), 63-72.

Frederickson, B. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). Throwing like a girl: Self-objectification predicts

adolescent girls motor performance. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29(1), 79-101. doi:

10.1177/0193723504269878.

 

  59

Gill, D.L., Gross, J.B., Huddleston, S., & Shifflett, B. (1984). Sex differences in achievement

cognitions and performance in competition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

55, 340-346.

Golby, J., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby

league. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 933-942.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.015.

Golby, J. & Sheard, M. (2006). The relationship between genotype and positive psychological

development in national-level swimmners. European Psychologist, 11(2), 143-148. doi:

10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.143.

Golby, J., Sheard, M., & van Wersch, A. (2007). Evaluating the factor structure of the

Psychological Performance Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105(1), 309-325.

doi:10.2466/PMS.105.5.309-325.

Gordon, S., Gucciardi, D., & Chambers, T. (2007). A personal construct theory perspective on

sport and exercise psychology research: The example of mental toughness. In T. Morris,

P. Terry, S. Gordon (Eds.), Sport psychology and exercise psychology: International

perspectives (pp. 43-55). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Gould, D. D., Dieffenbach, K. K., & Moffett, A. A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and

their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3),

172-204. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103482.

Gould, D., Eklund, R. C., & Jackson, S. A. (1992). 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling excellence: I.

mental preparation, precompetitive cognition, and affect. Sport Psychologist, 6(4), 358-

382.

 

  60

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987). Psychological foundations of

coaching: Similarities and differences among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. Sport

Psychologist, 1(4), 293-308.

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009). Advancing mental toughness research

and theory using personal construct psychology. International Review of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 54-72. doi: 10.1080/17509840802705938.

Hagberg, I. M., Mullin, J. P., Bahrke, M. M., & Limburg, J. J. (1979). Physiological profiles and

selected psychological characteristics of national American cyclists. Journal of Sports

Medicine & Physical Fitness, 19(4), 341-346.

Hagborg, W. J. (1993). Gender differences on Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents.

Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8(1), 141-148.

Harrison, C., & Lawrence, S. (2004). College students' perceptions, myths, and stereotypes about

African American athleticism: A qualitative investigation. Sport, Education & Society,

9(1), 33-52.

Hassmén, P., & Blomstrand, E. (1995). Mood state relationships and soccer team performance.

The Sport Psychologist, 9(3), 297-308.

Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources and types of confidence

identified by world class sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4),

434-456. doi:10.1080/10413200701599173.

Hays, K., Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Bawden, M. (2009). The role of confidence in world class

performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(11), 1185-1199. doi:

10.1080/02640410903089798

 

  61

Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes'

intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 17(1), 20-36. doi:10.1080/10413200590907540.

Jones, G. G., Hanton, S. S., & Connaughton, D. D. (2002). What is this thing called mental

toughness? An investigation of elite sports performers. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 14(3), 205-218. doi:10.1080/10413200290103509

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework of mental toughness in the

world's best performers. Sport Psychologist, 21(2), 243-264.

Katsikas, C., Argeitaki, P., & Smirniotou, A. (2009). Performance strategies of Greek track and

field athletes: Gender and level differences. Biology of Exercise, 5(1), 29-38. doi:

http:doi.org/10.4127/jbe.2009.0023

Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality (Vol 1).

London: Routledge (Original work published 1955).

Kingston, K. M., Horrocks, C. S., & Hanton, S. (2006). Do multidimensional intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender?

European Journal of Sport Science, 6(1), 53-63. doi:10.1080/17461390500440889.

Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and confidence in track

and field athletes: The impact of gender, competitive level and task characteristics.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25(2), 203-217.

Kuan, G., & Roy, J. (2007). Goal profiles, mental toughness and its influence on performance

outcomes among Wushu athletes. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 6(2), 28-33.

Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-confidence in physical activity: A meta-analysis

of recent studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(3), 294-310.

 

  62

Lirgg, C. D., George, T. R., Chase, M. A., & Ferguson, R. H. (1996). Impact of conception of

ability and sex-type of task on male and female self-efficacy. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 18(4), 426-434.

Loehr, J. E. (1982). Athletic excellence: Mental toughness training for sports. Forum Publishing

Company.

Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achieving athletic excellence.

Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene Press.

Loehr, J. E. (1995). The new toughness training for sports. New York: Plume.

Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2001). Personal views survey (3rd ed., rev.). Newport Beach,

CA: The Hardiness Institute.

Mahoney, M. J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance in Olympic

weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20(1), 1-12.

Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. (1987). Psychological skills and exceptional

athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1(3), 181-199.

Major, R. (1998). Cool pose: Black masculinity and sports. In G. Sailes (Ed.), African Americans

in Sport (pp. 15–22). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

McNair, D.M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L.F. (1981). Profile of mood states manual. San Diego:

Educational and Industrial Testing Service. (Original work published 1971).

McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1992). Edits manual for the profile of mood

states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Mellalieu, S. D., Neil, R., & Hanton, S. (2006). An investigation of the mediating effects of self-

confidence between anxiety intensity and direction. Research Quarterly for Sport and

Exercise, 77, 263–270.

 

  63

Messner, M. A., Adler, P. A., Coakley, J., & Baldwin, J. J. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the

problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.

Meyers, M. C., LeUnes, A. A., & Bourgeois, A. E. (1996). Psychological skills assessment and

athletic performance in collegiate rodeo athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19(2), 132-

146.

Middleton, S. C., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., & Perry, C. (2004a, July).

Discovering mental toughness: A qualitative study of mental toughness in elite athletes.

In G. E. Richards, High performing athletes: Self-concept and achievement goals.

Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Conference on Self-concept,

Motivation and Identity: Where to go from here? Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from

http://www.self.ox.ac.uk/Conferences/2004_Middleton_Marsh_Martin_Richards_Perrya.

pdf

Middleton, S. C., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., & Perry, C. (2004b). Developing

a test for mental toughness: The Mental Toughness Inventory (MTI). Retrieved from

www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mid05310.pdf

Middleton, S., Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Richards, G. E., Savis, J., Perry Jr., C., & Brown, R.

(2004c). The Psychological Performance Inventory: Is the mental toughness test tough

enough? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35(2), 91-108.

Morgan, W. P. (1985). Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental health

model. In D. H. Clarke & H. M. Eckert (Eds.), Limits of human performance (pp. 70-80).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

 

  64

Morgan, W. P., Brown, D. R., Raglin, J. S., O'Connor, P. J., & Ellickson, K. A. (1987).

Psychological monitoring of overtraining and staleness. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 21(3), 107-114.

Morgan, W. P., O'Connor, P. J., Ellickson, K. A., & Bradley, P. W. (1988). Personality structure,

mood states, and performance in elite male distance runners. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 19(4), 247-263.

Morgan, W. P., O'Connor, P. J., Sparling, P. B., & Pate, R. R. (1987). Psychological

characteristics of the elite female distance runner. International Journal of Sports

Medicine, 8(Suppl), 124-131.

Nation, J. R., & LeUnes, A. (1983). A personality profile of the Black athlete in college football.

Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 20(3-4), 1-3.

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. J., Levy, A. R., & Backhouse, S. H. (2008). Mental toughness,

optimism, pessimism, and coping among athletes. Personality and Individual

Differences, 44(5), 1182-1192. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.011

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. J., Levy, A. R., & Backhouse, S. H. (2009). Mental toughness in

sport: Achievement level, gender, age, experience, and sport type differences. Personality

and Individual Differences, 47(1), 73-75. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.006.

Orlick, T. & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2(1), 105-

130.

Ram, N., Starek, J., & Johnson, J. (2004). Race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation: Still a void in

sport and exercise psychology? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26(2), 250-268.

Rudisill, M. E. (1988). Sex differences in various cognitive and behavioral parameters in a

competitive situation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19(4), 296-310.

 

  65

Rudisill, M.E. (1989). Influence of perceived competence and causal dimension orientation on

expectations, persistence, and performance during perceived failure. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 60(2), 166- 175.

Sailes, G. A. (1993). An investigation of campus stereotypes: The myth of black athletic

superiority and the dumb jock stereotype. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(1), 88-97.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-

being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research,

16(2), 201-228. doi:10.1007/BF01173489.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from

neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life

Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063-1078.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063.

Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management

in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1-10.

Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998). Optimism is associated

with mood, coping and immune change in response to stress. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74(6), 1646-1655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1646.

Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validation of the

Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 25(3), 186-193. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186.

 

  66

Sheard, M. (2010). Mental toughness: The mindset behind sporting achievement. New York, NY

US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Smith, R. E., & Christensen, D. S. (1995). Psychological skills as predictors of performance and

survival in professional baseball. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(4), 399-

415.

Smith, R. E., Schutz, R. W., Smoll, F. L., & Ptacek, J. T. (1995). Development and validation of

a multidimensional measure of sport-specific psychological skills: The Athletic Coping

Skills Inventory-28. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(4), 379-398.

Spieler, M., Czech, D. R., Joyner, A., Munkasy, B., Gentner, N., & Long, J. J. (2007). Predicting

athletic success: Factors contributing to the success of NCAA Division I AA Collegiate

Football Players. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 9(2), 22-33.

Spreitzer, E. E., & Snyder, E. E. (1990). Sports within the Black subculture: A matter of social

class or a distinctive subculture? Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14(1), 48-58.

Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and understanding mental toughness

within soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(4), 325-223. doi:

10.1080/10413200500313636

Todd, S. Y. & Kent, A. (2003). Student athletes' perceptions of self. Adolescence, 38(152), 659-

667.

Tutko, T. A., Lyon, L. P., & Ogilvie, B. C. (1969). Athletic Motivation Inventory. San Jose, CA:

Institute for the Study of Athletic Motivation.

Vealey, R. S. (2007). Understanding and enhancing self-confidence in athletes. In R. N. Singer,

H. A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology 3rd ed. (pp. 550–

565). New York: Wiley.

 

  67

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical

test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1(4), 320-331.

Wetzel, D. (2010, August 8). Tiger in turmoil. Retrieved from

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news;_ylt=A2KJjagah2dOVnkA6w5NbK5_?slug=dw-

tiger080810

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Xinyi, Z., Smith, D., & Adegbola, O. (2004). A cross-cultural comparison of six mental qualities

among Singaporean, North American, Chinese, and Nigerian professional athletes.

International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2(2), 103-118.

Zgonc, E. (2010, September). NCAA student-athlete race/ethnicity report. National Collegiate

Athletic Association, Indianapolis, Indiana. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/SAEREP11.pdf