This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 08 September 2013, At: 06:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Understanding mental toughness in Australian soccer:Perceptions of players, parents, and coachesTristan J. Coulter a , Clifford J. Mallett a & Daniel F. Gucciardi aa School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland,AustraliaPublished online: 21 May 2010.

To cite this article: Tristan J. Coulter , Clifford J. Mallett & Daniel F. Gucciardi (2010) Understanding mental toughnessin Australian soccer: Perceptions of players, parents, and coaches, Journal of Sports Sciences, 28:7, 699-716, DOI:10.1080/02640411003734085

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640411003734085

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Understanding mental toughness in Australian soccer: Perceptions ofplayers, parents, and coaches

TRISTAN J. COULTER, CLIFFORD J. MALLETT, & DANIEL F. GUCCIARDI

School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

(Accepted 26 February 2010)

AbstractWe explored mental toughness in soccer using a triangulation of data capture involving players (n¼ 6), coaches (n¼ 4), andparents (n¼ 5). Semi-structured interviews, based on a personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955/1991) framework, wereconducted to elicit participants’ perspectives on the key characteristics and their contrasts, situations demanding mentaltoughness, and the behaviours displayed and cognitions employed by mentally tough soccer players. The results from theresearch provided further evidence that mental toughness is conceptually distinct from other psychological constructs such ashardiness. The findings also supported Gucciardi, Gordon, and Dimmock’s (2009) process model of mental toughness. Awinning mentality and desire was identified as a key attribute of mentally tough soccer players in addition to other previouslyreported qualities such as self-belief, physical toughness, work ethic/motivation, and resilience. Key cognitions reported bymentally tough soccer players enabled them to remain focused and competitive during training and matches and highlightedthe adoption of several forms of self-talk in dealing with challenging situations. Minor revisions to Gucciardi and colleagues’definition of mental toughness are proposed.

Keywords: Personal construct psychology, retrospective, interview, data triangulation, experience cycle

Introduction

Psychological factors have long been considered an

essential ingredient for performance excellence and

well-being across a number of life domains. Within

sport settings, mental toughness is the umbrella term

that coaches, athletes, and the media use when

referring to the recipe of psychological factors that

appear to set apart ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘great’’ athletes

(Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2008). The term

has also received considerable attention in popular

texts in which authors have drawn on their own

personal experiences as consultants to conceptualize

this elusive construct (e.g. Gibson, 1998). Never-

theless, the various constellations of psychological

skills and factors as well as varying definitions that

have stemmed from these anecdotal accounts have

served only to contribute to the conceptual mis-

interpretation rather than providing conceptual

clarity (Connaughton & Hanton, 2009).

Researchers in this area have focused on under-

standing mental toughness and the key character-

istics that encompass this construct across various

team and individual sports (e.g. Fourie & Potgieter,

2001; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002, 2007),

whereas more recent examinations have explored this

psychological construct within individual sports such

as cricket (Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005;

Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009b), Australian football

(Gucciardi et al., 2008), and soccer (Thelwell,

Weston, & Greenlees, 2005). The latter research by

Thelwell and colleagues draws a natural comparison

to the potential outcomes of the present study given

its focus on elite soccer. Qualitative information

generated from athletes, coaches, and sport psychol-

ogists indicates that while virtually all desirable

psychological characteristics connected with success

have been associated with mental toughness, several

common components appear across all the sports

sampled thus far (i.e. self-belief/confidence, atten-

tional control, self-motivation, positive and tough

attitude, enjoy and handle pressure, resilience, and

quality preparation). This finding suggests that a

constellation of core psychological characteristics

might not vary significantly across sports. Never-

theless, there appear to be some unique character-

istics that provide sport-specific information (e.g.

team unity, ethics, religious convictions, ability to

Correspondence: C. J. Mallett, School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.

E-mail: cmallett@hms.uq.edu.au

Journal of Sports Sciences, May 2010; 28(7): 699–716

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640411003734085

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

react quickly), suggesting that mental toughness may

be somewhat contextually bound (for reviews, see

Connaughton & Hanton, 2009; Crust, 2008; Guc-

ciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2009). Whereas the

existence of recurring themes helps in the develop-

ment of a general understanding of mental toughness

and suggests the construct is multidimensional, the

vast number of related attributes, behaviours, perso-

nal characteristics, and skills generated does little to

enhance a more scientific definition and conceptua-

lization. Theoretically guided research, which has

received little attention by mental toughness re-

searchers, has been forwarded as an avenue to help

progress the field (Gucciardi et al., 2009).

Of the few investigations that have been guided by

theory (Gucciardi et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2002),

personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955/1991)

has received the most attention. Although originally

introduced over 50 years ago, personal construct

psychology continues to be employed extensively and

successfully by researchers and practitioners in areas

such as nursing, education, and psychotherapy

(Walker & Winter, 2007). Jones et al. (2002)

examined mental toughness using a personal con-

struct psychology framework and subsequent re-

search by Gucciardi and colleagues (e.g. Gucciardi &

Gordon, 2008, 2009c; Gucciardi et al., 2008) has

supported its utility in conceptualizing this multi-

dimensional psychological construct.

As a theoretical framework, personal construct

psychology is based on a ‘‘man [sic]-the-scientist’’ (p.

4) metaphor in which Kelly (1955/1991) proposed

that people act as personal scientists engaged in

making meaning of the world around them by

anticipating and making predictions about their

personal experiences much like a research scientist.

Personal construct psychology is comprised of a

fundamental postulate and 11 subsequent corol-

laries, which elaborate on the fundamental postulate

and provide greater specificity by describing the

nature of construing as well as the development,

maintenance, and modification of personal con-

structs. Interested readers are referred elsewhere for

reviews of personal construct psychology (Walker &

Winter, 2007) and its usefulness for the field of sport

and exercise psychology (Gucciardi & Gordon,

2009a).

Building on the emerging body of mental tough-

ness research, Gucciardi et al. (2009) have recently

forwarded a process model of mental toughness,

which is grounded in the theoretical tenets of

personal construct psychology, as a means to better

understand the processes by which mental toughness

operates and the associated outcomes. Within this

model, the key components of mental toughness are

said to influence the way in which an individual

covertly and overtly approaches, appraises, and

responds to events demanding varying degrees of

challenge, adversity, and pressure. Feedback ob-

tained from the self and others is then employed to

evaluate the processes one has gone through in

dealing with a particular event in relation to one’s

personal goals. Such evaluations may either confirm

or disconfirm one’s anticipations, which have im-

portant implications for the development, modifica-

tion, and maintenance of key mental toughness

characteristics. Their construct definition seeks to

capture the conceptualization of mental toughness

presented in the model:

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 (Gucciardi et al., 2009, p. 68).

In contrast, Jones et al. (2002) defined what mentally

tough athletes do, rather than what it is (Gucciardi

et al., 2009). Gucciardi and colleagues’ definition of

mental toughness considers mental toughness to be

associated with positive events as well as negative

events. Moreover, it considers mental toughness as

based upon certain foundations – core values,

attitudes, emotions, and cognitions. Of primary

interest in this research was identifying key cogni-

tions of mentally tough soccer players. Despite

providing a theoretically grounded and intuitively

appealing conceptualization of mental toughness, the

specific tenets of Gucciardi and colleagues’ model

have yet to be empirically examined.

Several important considerations for the concep-

tual evolution of mental toughness are highlighted in

the aforementioned definition and conceptualization.

Specifically, to clarify and advance current concep-

tualizations of mental toughness, researchers should

be concerned with an understanding of mental

toughness in the context of its opposite (i.e. mental

weakness), when key mental toughness characteris-

tics are required, and what such attributes enable a

mentally tough athlete to do. In addition, how these

characteristics enable an athlete to think and what

behaviours mentally tough athletes characteristically

exhibit also warrant investigation. Information that

helps us understand mental toughness processes and

outcomes within those conditions in which it is

required will enable us to better predict behaviour

and guidance as to how it can be developed or

enhanced. The aforesaid considerations were a

specific focus in the present study.

The general purpose of this research was to

explore mental toughness in Australian soccer.

700 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The subjective accounts of multiple perspectives

including players, parents, and coaches were

gathered to enhance the scientific rigour of the

study (Jones et al., 2007). The inclusion of parental

perspectives, in particular, was considered a unique

and important addition to the study of mental

toughness, even though researchers (e.g. Jones

et al., 2007) have previously utilized numerous

viewpoints within the study design. Parents possess

knowledge that directly relates to their children’s

character and individuality throughout their devel-

opment, in addition to having an understanding of

the environments within which children grow and

the experiences children were subjected to through-

out their upbringing and playing career (Horn &

Horn, 2007). Furthermore, unlike coaches, parents

are more likely to be consistently present through-

out the early sporting and other life experiences of

players, whereas players will encounter a number of

coaches throughout their playing careers. It seems

only natural, therefore, that parental accounts

should act as a rich source of information alongside

that of coach and athlete perspectives that relates

not only to our knowledge of mental toughness

itself, but importantly also its development. In line

with recent qualitative research (e.g. Gucciardi

et al., 2008; Thelwell et al., 2005), we anticipated

that several characteristics consistent with previous

research, as well as a number of key mental

toughness characteristics specific to this sporting

population, would be generated. No specific

predictions were made regarding the exact nature

of these soccer-specific characteristics as well as

the situations demanding mental toughness, beha-

viours typically displayed, and cognitions and

psychological processes of mentally tough soccer

players.

Methods

Participants

Coaches. Four male coaches aged 40–47 years

(mean¼ 44.3 years, s¼ 3.4), three with extensive

professional playing experience (mean¼ 12 years)

and all four with professional coaching experience in

Europe (mean¼ 13.5 years), participated voluntarily.

One coach was a former senior national team head

coach and another had coached an U-20 national

youth squad. All coaches held National ‘‘A’’

Licences or equivalent (highest coaching award in

Australia).

Players. Six male players (goalkeeper, striker, two

defenders, and two midfielders) aged 25–34 years

(mean¼ 29.3, s¼ 3.8) volunteered to participate.

All participants were current players in the A-League

(top professional competition in Australia), two of

whom had played elite club soccer in either the

Scottish or English Premier League. All players had a

minimum of 3 years’ international soccer experience

(mean¼ 8.5 years), with three players having repre-

sented their national team at the senior level and all

having represented their country at youth level.

Parents. Three mothers and two fathers (age 57–64

years; mean¼ 59.4, s¼ 3.3) of four participating

players agreed to be interviewed. The heritage of

the parents was three Australians, one Italian, and

one British. At the time of their son’s upbringing, the

occupations of the parents were two tradesmen, a

training manager, and two housewives. All parents

resided with and directly brought up their children

until their sons were at least 17 years of age. Of the

four players who agreed for their parents to be

interviewed, one experienced parental divorce at the

age of 17 years; however, he continued to live with

his mother who was interviewed.

Sampling

Stage 1 consisted of coach interviews and the

identification of mentally tough players within the

A-League. Initially, all A-League coaches were

contacted and four agreed to participate. At the

conclusion of each interview, the coach was asked to

provide the names (up to ten) of those current A-

League players who they considered to be among the

mentally toughest in the game based upon their

perception of mental toughness in soccer detailed

during their interview. This process was an impor-

tant distinction from previous research (e.g. Bull

et al., 2005) because it is believed that each coach’s

decision to identify a player that he considers to be

mentally tough is based upon his own insight of

mental toughness in soccer rather than making his

decision from fixed conceptualizations of the con-

struct. By using this selection procedure, the follow-

ing was achieved: (1) players perceived by the

sporting culture to be mentally tough were identified,

and (2) culturally held knowledge of mental tough-

ness for soccer was drawn upon to produce a player

sample. The latter point employs the same philoso-

phical assumptions that form the basis for cultural

consensus analysis in that a sample will hold a

common ‘‘truth’’ that is derived from shared knowl-

edge within their culture (Bull et al., 2005). Only

those players that appeared in all of the four coaches’

lists were invited to participate. Stage 2 involved

interviews with players identified by participant

coaches as being mentally tough players within

A-League soccer. Finally, Stage 3 consisted of

parental interviews of those mentally tough players

Mental toughness in soccer 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interviewed in Stage 2; however, only four of the six

players interviewed gave consent for any of their

parents to be contacted to take part in this study.

Interview schedule

The interview schedule was constructed using a

personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955/1991)

framework similar to that previously adopted with

Australian football coaches (Gucciardi et al., 2008)

and traditional principles for interview design

(Patton, 2002). Specifically, the interview guide

addressed a number of broad categories: (a) personal

experiences and examples of mental toughness (e.g.

‘‘Thinking of your own experiences as a soccer player,

describe an example of when you believed you were

being mentally tough’’); (b) how key mental tough-

ness characteristics enable a player to persevere

through challenging situations (e.g. ‘‘How does

[characteristic X] enable you to thrive or persevere

through [situation X]?’’); (c) contrasting attributes of

key mental toughness components (e.g. ‘‘How is

[characteristic X] similar/different to [characteristic

Y] in how it allows you to think/feel/behave?’’); and

(d) situations in soccer requiring mental toughness

(e.g. ‘‘What do you think is a situation in soccer that

requires mental toughness – on the field/off the field?

What is it about [situation X] that requires mental

toughness?’’). Overall, these categories were designed

to identify and extract the key components (typical

behaviours and cognitions), characteristics, and

situations of mental toughness within the context of

elite soccer from the participants.

The interview questions were adapted to reflect the

unique position held by each group (i.e. parents). For

example, parental perspectives relating to match-

specific situations considered to require mental

toughness, or to match-specific behaviours believed

to be exhibited by mentally tough players were not

elicited or used in the data analysis; however, parental

insights into perceived characteristics of mental

toughness, and both general and developmental

behaviours and situations were sought. Only player

participants were questioned about their cognitions

within the context of those general, match-specific,

and developmental situations perceived as requiring

mental toughness. Both clarification and elaboration

probes were used throughout each interview to

prompt interviewees, encourage clarity and richness

of data, and to ensure that general soccer (e.g. match-

specific situations) and specific individual informa-

tion (e.g. characteristics) was elicited.

Procedure

A university human ethics committee granted

approval for the study before it commenced.

Participants were identified and recruited by con-

tacting clubs in the A-League directly, and were

subsequently approached in person by the first

author. An interview guide was sent to all partici-

pants at least 7 days before interviewing with

instructions concerning the rationale for the study

and the use of data, issues regarding confidentiality

and the participant’s rights, and the reasons for

audio-taping the interview. Demographic informa-

tion was collected before the start of each interview

for which informed and voluntary consent was

gained. All participants were interviewed indepen-

dently at their convenience.

The first author conducted face-to-face interviews

ranging from 45 to 125 min in length with each of

the participants. Each participant was contacted

before the interview to ensure that they had a

suitable amount of time, access to an appropriate

environment, to restate their participant rights, and

to go over the interview process. Transcribed

verbatim data resulted in 345 single-spaced pages

of text. Copies of each transcribed interview were

returned to the corresponding participant for mem-

ber checking. None of the participants requested

changes.

Data analysis and trustworthiness

To enhance the researchers’ familiarity with the

data, the interview data were repeatedly read and

listened to several times. Content analysis of the

data was conducted in accordance with the

procedure outlined by Cote and colleagues (Cote,

Salmela, Baria, & Russell, 1993). Initially, the first

two authors independently analysed the data in an

attempt to avoid the inclusion of any bias on part

of the analysts. The data were analysed on a line-

by-line basis and identified text segments that

reflected a coherent perception of an episode, idea

or piece of information, which Cote et al. termed

a ‘‘meaning unit’’. Raw data themes (categories)

were then identified from the meaning units, the

results of which were compared between the first

two authors. Another researcher who specializes in

content analysis methods independently content

analysed the meaning units. Subsequently, the

process of triangular consensus was employed to

enhance the trustworthiness of the data analyses.

Once this process was completed, the first two

authors independently and inductively analysed

the raw data themes, which produced several

higher-order categories. After some discussions,

the same three researchers reached agreement on

the higher-order categories. Finally, higher-

order categories were rank ordered based upon

how often they were identified across all inter-

view data.

702 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Results and discussion

The results are presented in six sub-sections. The

first four sub-sections identify and address the

components perceived to comprise mental toughness

within the context of soccer in recognizing the

corresponding key characteristics, situations, beha-

viours, and cognitions associated with this desirable

construct. The next sub-section attempts to synthe-

size the research findings with Gucciardi and

colleagues’ (2009) process model of mental tough-

ness to provide an understanding of how the

key mental toughness characteristics appear to

operate to inform the psychological processes of

mentally tough soccer players and subsequent out-

comes. Finally, the section concludes with a revised

definition of mental toughness based upon the

research findings.

Mental toughness characteristics

The data represented in Figure 1 provide a visual

overview of the mental toughness characteristics and

sub-themes identified by coach, player, and parent

participants. Higher-order characteristic descriptions

and contrast poles that complement this information

are reported in Table I. Figure 1 highlights that 14

global action and personality characteristics emerged

from the analysis. With the exception of a winning

mentality and desire, 13 characteristics appear

consistent with those findings from past research

(for reviews, see Connaughton & Hanton, 2009;

Crust, 2008; Gucciardi et al., 2009). This finding

emphasizes and confirms the multivariate nature of

the construct. Moreover, it provides further support

for the view that there exists a ‘‘core constellation’’ of

attributes that characterizes mental toughness across

sport (Gucciardi et al., 2009) and conceivably moves

further from the notion that mental toughness

attributes may be sport-specific.

All participants emphasized that a winning mental-

ity and desire was a fundamental characteristic that

signifies the personality of the mentally tough player,

which is a key addition to the literature of mental

toughness attributes. One player participant articu-

lated this mindset well:

You’ve got to have that winning mentality and

desire to be considered a mentally tough sports-

man. It’s that hunger to win and desire to

continuously chase the game in the pursuit of

success that separates mentally tough players

from the rest. Regardless of their performance at

the time or the final end result, players with this

mindset do not fear defeat, but rather pride

themselves on the principle to achieve and,

most importantly, their need to consistently

apply oneself to this cause regardless of the

situation.

This representative quote suggests that although

mentally tough individuals value success as an

outcome, it is how they apply themselves in pursuit

of this cause that they measure and pride themselves

against, rather than the resultant outcome itself. This

is an important distinction of how players with a

winning mentality differ from those who, for

example, are high in ego orientation and define

success as outperforming others (Harwood, Spray, &

Keegan, 2008). The quote acknowledges that in-

dividuals with this mindset have an overriding desire

to apply oneself in the process of achieving regardless

of oppositional, evaluative or situational factors,

which distinguishes it from achievement behaviours

such as competitiveness (Martens, 1976). Further-

more, the strength of this need distinguishes it from

those concepts that underline one’s actual effort to

achieve task success (e.g. achievement motivation),

which, no doubt, will likely result from this quality.

With the presence of this characteristic being so

strongly represented within the findings, it is

proposed that a winning mentality and desire be

included in future conceptualizations of mental

toughness.

The data represented in Figure 1 also display the

commonalities and variations with which individual

participant groups acknowledged specific mental

toughness characteristics and their sub-components.

Integrating and representing the data triangulation,

as illustrated in Figure 1 and Table I, is regarded as

an important addition to the mental toughness

literature because it not only highlights those

attributes that participants consistently regarded as

being associated with mental toughness, but also

acknowledges how particular groups of individuals

within a player’s socialization and performance

network compare and contrast mental toughness

in soccer. Notably, all participant groups acknowl-

edged that a winning mentality and desire, self-

belief, work ethic, and resilience are important

characteristics that embody mental toughness within

the context of soccer. This is a significant finding

within the data because it emphasizes that there is

agreement across several populations of precisely what

mental toughness represents, thus contrasting re-

ports suggesting that the construct merely relates to

virtually any desirable positive psychological char-

acteristics associated with sporting success (Jones

et al., 2002).

In contrast to the above, subtle characteristic

variations across participant groups are also reported

in Figure 1. For example, whereas coach and player

participants acknowledged the role both perfor-

mance awareness and sport intelligence play in

Mental toughness in soccer 703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Fig

ure

1.

Men

tal

tou

gh

nes

sch

arac

teri

stic

sid

enti

fied

by

coac

hes

(n¼

4),

pla

yers

(n¼

6),

and

par

ents

(n¼

5)

and

ho

wea

chgro

up

ackn

ow

led

ged

bo

thh

igh

er-o

rder

and

sub

-th

eme

cate

go

ries

wit

hin

the

con

text

of

elit

eso

ccer

.

704 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table I. Mental toughness characteristics with corresponding contrasting poles in descending order of importance including descriptions

and representative quotes drawn from all participants.

Emergent

pole

Characteristic

description Contrast pole

Characteristic

description Representative quote

Winning

mentality

and desire

(N¼15)

Having a winning

desire that drives

you to overcome

challenge and

adversity both on

and off the pitch

to succeed/win

Lack the will to

win or succeed

anything less

than 100% of

the time

Lacking the fight to win

or succeed regardless

of the challenge faced

and conceding that

sometimes you are

just second best

You have to have that winning desire because this

will drive you to make sure that you chase every

ball down, chase every player down, until the last

minute, until the final whistle of the game. I think

there are definitely certain degrees of people that

like to win, but then there’s a certain level of

people that want to win at all costs, and they’ll do

whatever they possibly can do to win. That’s the

level where mental toughness comes in.

Self-belief

(N¼14)

Possessing self-belief

in physical and

mental ability

under pressure to

overcome all

challenging

situations

Self-doubt and

uncertainty

Lacking confidence and

belief in one’s ability

to persevere through

adversity to reach

one’s goals

I just think I had a great belief that I was above

everything that’s challenged me on and off the

pitch. I’ve just got a massive self-belief, not just

in my ability but also to push through when

things are tough to keep going 100%.

Physical

toughness

(N¼13)

Pushing through the

pain barrier to

remain focused on

the game, and

maintaining a

high level of

performance

while carrying an

injury, fatigued or

hurting

Fearing physical

fatigue/pain

Succumbing to physical

pain, niggling

injuries, and fatigue

that results in

decreased

performance, focus,

commitment, and/or

effort

We had a guy who had a dislocated shoulder, but

he was desperate to play. It was a big occasion

and he was injured and managed to get himself

through it and play a really strong game. That

was a very good sign of mental toughness. His

ability to just focus with the injury, pushing

through the pain barrier, and not allowing it to

hamper his performance.

Work ethic

(N¼13)

Hard work and

pushing yourself

(physically and

mentally) to

achieve your goals

in all areas of the

game (e.g.

preparation,

training, matches)

Giving less than

100%

Lacking inner drive to

give 100% to all

aspects of the game

He’s mentally tough because he has a terrific work

ethic, which separates him from other players in

the squad. It all comes down to how hard he’s

willing to work. How much he pushes himself in

all the areas necessary to being a successful

player.

Resilience

(N¼12)

Persevering through

adversity both in

and out of soccer

with ‘‘bullet proof’’

determination to

stay focused and to

maintain a

consistently high

level of

performance

Inability to spring

back from

adversity

Dwelling on the

problems rather than

the solutions of

positive action and

incapable of

recovering or

bouncing back from

misfortune, hardship

or disappointment

That’s what I consider to be mental toughness.

Someone who when the chips are down and is

being weathered by lots of problems (e.g.

injuries, non-selection, hardships away from

football) will roll their sleeves up and continue to

keep playing at a consistently high level and

continually have a go.

Personal

values

(N¼11)

Placing meaning on

personal values

and living by

personal

standards to being

a better person

and player

Lacks personal

standards

Lacking principles to

direct one’s actions

and attitude in the

pursuit of becoming a

professional player

He is a guy who has personal values. He values

doing things properly, accepts that hard work is a

part of life, and sets standards which he takes

very seriously, like never giving up and priding

yourself in coping with life’s challenges.

Concentration

and focus

(N¼10)

Having a single-

mindedness to

focus on the job at

hand in the face of

internal or

external pressures,

obstacles or

adversities

Easily distracted Allowing distractions

(e.g. internal or

external pressures,

obstacles or adversity)

to negatively impact

your performance

I think signs that people are mentally tough are that

they can block these things out (crowd/

opposition distractions, pain, personal issues)

and realize that what they’re there for in the first

place is to play a game of football and they’re

able to focus and concentrate on what’s

happening there and then and to do their job.

(continued)

Mental toughness in soccer 705

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

characterizing the mentally tough player, parents (as

a group) did not emphasize these attributes.

Furthermore, in relation to personal values, unlike

parents and players, coach participants did not

acknowledge how players’ valued their opportunity

to play the game as a mentally tough quality.

Moreover, relative to having a tough attitude, player

and parent participants revealed that sub-component

attributes of patience, optimism, and maintaining a

balanced perspective characterized mental toughness

in addition to those already acknowledged across

every group (i.e. sacrifice, discipline, professional-

ism, commitment). Also, only player participants

acknowledged the willingness and ability to take risks

(both on the pitch and throughout one’s career) as a

mental toughness characteristic. Clearly, although

some consistency and agreement appear to be

present across participant groups, inter-group differ-

ences also exist.

Within this elite soccer sample, it is suggested that

whereas some attributes may be considered periph-

eral components to the requirements of the sport

Table I. (Continued).

Emergent

pole

Characteristic

description Contrast pole

Characteristic

description Representative quote

Performance

awareness

(N¼10)

Having the ability to

accurately self-

assess your

performances

Performance

ignorance

Being unable to

truthfully reflect and

assess your

performance

There’s nothing worse than coming off a field and

someone going, ‘‘well done’’, and you know

yourself you haven’t played well. You know

within yourself when your form’s good or when

it’s not great. You don’t need to be told by

anybody.

Sport

intelligence

(N¼9)

Having an ability to

read the game,

having strong

tactical awareness,

and understanding

your role on the

pitch to execute

decisions at critical

moments

Lack sport

intelligence

Lacking the knowledge

and ability to detect

task-relevant cues,

identification of

tactical patterns, and

a critical decision-

making ability when it

matters

His game understanding is definitely the best that

we’ve got. He is a smart player, he knows exactly

when and what he needs to do in certain

situations in the game and at any moment

anywhere on the park to make the right

judgements at critical moments.

Tough

attitude

(N¼10)

Having an incessant

mind-set focused

on being the best

you can be

Weak attitude Giving in when the

going gets tough

[Player X] is just made up from a different metal.

His strength in character and attitude just makes

him one of the toughest players and people I

know.

Coping under

pressure

(N¼8)

Maintaining a high

level of

performance

under pressure

and viewing

obstacles as

challenges

Anxiety and

worry

Languishing under

pressure resulting in

inconsistent

performances, and

feeling threatened by

such circumstances

Mentally tough players handle pressure and perform

as they would normally as if it were any other

match. I always find that I can play better in a

pressured game or a pressure situation than I do in

a normal weekly game. I tend to get a natural lift

out of it. I think that comes from pressure.

Competitive

effort

(N¼5)

Sustaining a high

level of

competitiveness

on the pitch

regardless of the

situation

Situational effort Allowing the match

situation to dictate

your level of

competitiveness

I think someone is mentally tough if they compete

in every single challenge regardless of the result

and not letting the score or any other form of

judgement influence the way you compete on the

pitch.

Risk taker

(N¼5)

A willingness to take

risks both on the

pitch and in one’s

life/career to

increase the

opportunity of

success

Unwilling to take

risks

A reluctance to take

risks to succeed both

on and off the pitch

due to a fear of a

negative outcome(s)

You’ve got to identify that ‘‘Look it’s not working

the way we’re playing now, we’ve conceded, so if

we’re really going to take anything out of this

game we’ve got to push forward and take some

risks’’, and I see that as mental toughness. Being

strong to take those risks.

Emotional

intelligence

and control

(N¼4)

Possessing self-

awareness when

facing challenges

to control and

manage your

emotions

Lack emotional

intelligence

and control

Having an inability to

manage your

emotions resulting in

poor decisions and

performance

execution

Maybe opponents are pissing me off or the referee’s

having a shocker. But you’ve got to know how to

get out of it. Understanding and controlling your

emotions are key to how you’re going to deal

with these situations.

Note: N represents the number of participants that cited a particular theme

706 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(e.g. emotional intelligence), others appear to be

what most, if not all, participants acknowledged to be

a core expression of the construct (e.g. a winning

mentality and desire, self-belief, work ethic). There-

fore, although it is acknowledged that the nature of

any sport-specific situation predetermines the most

appropriate response from a mentally tough player

(Gucciardi et al., 2009), concentrating on the most

commonly reported characteristics suggests a need to

move beyond the notion that each mental toughness

attribute is equal. That is, emphasis should turn to

articulating those characteristics that are core to the

mental toughness mindset across sports that ulti-

mately are demonstrated and realized through a

range of diverse behaviours within these various

types of activity.

Situations demanding mental toughness

Consistent with the findings of Gucciardi et al.

(2008), mental toughness was considered important

not only for those situations with negative effects

(e.g. being dropped, injury) but also for those

situations with positive effects (e.g. reacting after

taking the lead in a match, good form). In contrast,

some researchers examining mental toughness have

focused heavily on adversity and how the key

components enable one to deal with and overcome

such adversities (e.g. Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002),

which is consistent with the conceptualization of the

hardiness construct and resilience and perhaps why

the three terms are often used interchangeably.

Several situations reported as demanding mental

toughness in this study have also been reported

elsewhere (Gucciardi et al., 2008). For example,

coping with the injury and the rehabilitation process;

having the discipline to consistently prepare oneself

physically (e.g. fitness, recovery, diet) and mentally

(e.g. clear role expectations) each week, season after

season; and coping with personal challenges (e.g.

balancing and prioritizing commitments both in and

outside of sport, personal form) are general situations

in sport that require mental toughness. Moreover,

similarities in competition-specific situations between

this study and Gucciardi and colleagues’ research

found that both internal (e.g. coping with fatigue/

physical pain) and external pressures (e.g. environ-

mental, such as crowd abuse, poor referee decisions;

match variables, such as being continually outplayed

by an opposing player, coming on as a substitute)

were common events that required one to be

mentally tough to cope and thrive during such

adverse, pressured or challenging circumstances.

Nevertheless, within this research other general

and match-specific situations were acknowledged as

requiring mental toughness. For example, events

such as being dropped, coping with media pressures

and expectation, remaining focused following both

positive (e.g. birth of a child) and negative (e.g. death

in family, financial concerns) distractions away from

the game, and adapting with the relocation and

change in lifestyle while contracted to play overseas

were all perceived as general situations within the

game that require mental toughness. One player

recalled the challenges while playing abroad:

If you go to a country where you don’t know the

language, it’s a different culture, and times when

you feel long periods of loneliness, being able to

deal with those things and put them to one side

and realize that when it comes to soccer you need

to be at your best – that’s definitely a time when

I’ve had to be mentally tough.

In addition, all coach and player participants

perceived dealing with the match-specific event

following the scoring or conceding of a goal as a

common situation within the game that requires

mental toughness. As one coach details:

Controlling and managing one’s emotions follow-

ing a goal – whether for or against and tactically

knowing how to respond, and not allowing the

resultant scoreline to influence a player’s level of

competitiveness are crucial issues to manage when

goals are scored and the reason why the situation

requires mental toughness.

Finally, although not a primary focus of the

present study, an interesting finding was the im-

portance placed on those situations demanding

mental toughness during a soccer player’s develop-

mental years. While sharing some similarities with

those situations demanding mental toughness for

elite senior soccer players, several unique situations

emerged. For example, during adolescence, mental

toughness was perceived to be required for the

following circumstances: coping as an early or late

maturing player, where early developers have to cope

with the ‘‘catch up’’ in ability and physical develop-

ment of their peers during late teenage years, while

the late developer must cope with playing against

peers who are often physically larger and stronger

besides dealing with non-selection due to early

developers being recruited onto representative

teams; moving away from home for the first time to

develop as a young player (e.g. to national/state

sports institutions) especially when having to cope

with adversity (e.g. injuries, non-selection) and

having to mature, become independent, and be

responsible for one’s own daily activities without the

direct support from parents and family; remaining

focused and committed to your goals and resisting

peer and social pressures (i.e. drinking, drugs, parties,

Mental toughness in soccer 707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

women) especially during late teenage years and the

early years as a young professional that can distract

and draw a young individual away from the dedica-

tion required to succeed; and dealing with the

transition from junior to senior professional level soccer

as a young player, such as: (1) coping with the status

transition from being a ‘‘star’’ at junior level to an

‘‘apprentice’’ at senior level; (2) remaining patient

when not selected for the squad after becoming

accustomed to being regularly picked in teams; (3)

competing for contracts against other young hope-

fuls; and (4) adjusting to both on-field (e.g. speed of

play) and off-field commitments (e.g. media, creat-

ing relationship with older squad members).

Collectively, these findings indicate that mental

toughness is required from an early age and the

situations that demand mental toughness can be

somewhat different from those pressures, adversities,

and challenges one is faced with as a senior elite

performer. Previously, researchers have highlighted

the importance of developmental experiences during

one’s early career development as an influential

source in the development of key mental toughness

characteristics (Bull et al., 2005; Connaughton,

Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008; Thelwell et al.,

2005). In addition to requiring varying degrees of

mental toughness, it appears that such situations

(e.g. learning to cope with injury, being dropped,

moving away from home) play a vital role in the

development of particular characteristics associated

with this desirable construct. Nevertheless, in light of

findings by Connaughton et al. (2008) that suggest

mental toughness is developed throughout a perfor-

mer’s career, specifying those situations that either

require and/or are influential in developing this

desirable construct may prove fruitful for future

avenues of enquiry.

Mental toughness behaviours

Although mental toughness exercised its influence in

the aforementioned situations in a number of ways,

several universal behaviours were recognized. In

particular, some behaviours such as playing with

and recovering from injury, meticulous preparation,

repeatable and consistent high performance, doing

the unglorified tasks during a match (e.g. blocking

opposition passes and shots, running into space to

open up the opposition, getting back to tackle an

opposition player having lost the ball), and superior

decision-making are consistent with previous re-

search (Bull et al., 2005; Gucciardi et al., 2008;

Jones et al., 2002, 2007). As reported by Thelwell

et al. (2005), it also appears that wanting the ball at

all times and having a presence that affects oppo-

nents reflects behaviours representative of mental

toughness within this study – namely, demanding the

ball and dominating/intimidating opposition players,

respectively.

Nonetheless, several match-specific behaviours

from the findings in this study have not been

reported in either Thelwell and colleagues’ work or

other mental toughness literature. Such additional

behaviours include: leading by example in displaying

a high level of competitiveness regardless of the

situation that inspires team-mates; redoubling one’s

work rate and effort to cover the ground left open

following the loss of a team-mate from the pitch

(because of injury or being sent off); taking risks at

crucial times during matches in the pursuit of success

when remaining conservative is a safer option; and

maintaining a positive and ‘‘unaffected’’ persona

(through one’s body language) following physical

knocks or individual errors and mistakes during a

game to avoid the opposition feeding from the

affected player’s misfortune. Participants also ac-

knowledged the sacrifice displayed in consistently

foregoing both social commitments and personal

relationships, especially during mid- to late-teenage

years, to ensure that one was fully devoted and

focused on becoming a professional player. Although

such a behaviour is often displayed by many

successful elite athletes, both junior and senior,

participants in this study emphasized that demon-

strating such a sacrifice at a young age when the

temptation to concede to social distractions and be

influenced by one’s peers is potentially at its peak,

was acknowledged as a clear expression of mental

toughness type behaviour. One parent emphasized

this point when discussing the sacrifices her identi-

fied mentally tough son chose to make during his

teenage years in the pursuit of becoming a profes-

sional soccer player:

He [player] clearly articulated to friends and peers

what he wanted to achieve from soccer, that he had

a goal in mind, and this was most important to

him. If that meant he couldn’t go out partying at

weekends, going out late with friends, or that he

couldn’t get into a steady relationship, that didn’t

matter. Because he was going after his goal, he

understood that to succeed he had to make the

decision to make this sacrifice.

The above findings seem to reflect both task-

related behaviours (e.g. opponent intimidation,

positive body language) that emphasize a leadership

component of mental toughness, while also encom-

passing other behaviours (e.g. consistent perfor-

mances) that might suggest a link between mental

toughness and objective performance outcomes.

However, whereas the above findings make explicit

key behavioural trends within a physically competi-

tive sport such as soccer that demonstrate mental

708 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

toughness, it is acknowledged that this may not be an

exhaustive list. Accordingly, it is hoped that in future

researchers will support and possibly extend upon

both generalized and specific mental toughness

behaviours. Overall, being able to categorize mental

toughness behaviours in this way presents an exciting

avenue of enquiry for future examination of the

construct and would certainly provide a valuable

source of information for practitioners and coaches

alike when discussing observable signs of mental

toughness with athletes.

Mental toughness cognitions

The identification and understanding of the cogni-

tions commonly employed by mentally tough soccer

players is one of the key contributions that this study

makes to the literature. With the exception of Bull

and colleagues’ (2005) identification of ‘‘tough

thinking’’ and a mixture of articles linking mental

toughness with the possession of superior mental

skills (for a review, see Connaughton & Hanton,

2009), the literature has not reported those cogni-

tions central to mental toughness.

Within this study, mentally tough players identi-

fied a variety of thoughts and psychological processes

(see Tables II and III) that appeared to instruct,

rationalize or control their emotions and/or beha-

viour during those situations acknowledged as

requiring mental toughness – whether match, train-

ing/preparation or life/career specific. These cogni-

tions seemed to be drawn from or related to a

number of factors: (1) player values or beliefs; (2) the

way each player believed actions should be done or

prioritized – often reported as being shaped by each

individual’s past, experiences growing up, or lessons

learned throughout their playing career; or (3)

specific game situations, mental skills, or those

thoughts that seem to assist a mentally tough player

to sustain a high level of performance and competi-

tiveness regardless of the circumstance. There were

common attributes (higher-order themes and sub-

themes) across this group of players that seemed to

influence their thinking both on and off the pitch.

Most notably, these players had a winning mentality

and belief in themselves to succeed, a personal pride

and strong work ethic, a passion for playing soccer,

an outlook that greatly valued their opportunity to

play the game professionally and to acknowledge the

sacrifices of others in them attaining their profes-

sional status, a realistic perspective of themselves

when faced with praise and criticism, an optimistic

view on soccer and one’s career/life, a down-to-earth

perspective of life’s priorities, and an independent

attitude to take responsibility for oneself (see

Table II). Where these ‘‘primary’’ qualities come

from in the first place is a topic for future debate on

the development of mental toughness and is beyond

the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, these person-

ality characteristics and attitudes, whether innate or

learned, appear consistent with Bull and colleagues’

(2005) mental toughness model in recognizing the

influence underlying attributes (hence use of the

word ‘‘primary’’) have upon resultant cognitions (i.e.

‘‘tough thinking’’) of mentally tough individuals.

Given that these primary qualities were identified

as being common across mentally tough soccer

players within this sample, a key feature in this study

was to establish how these underlying characteristics,

beliefs or values associated with mentally tough

individuals allow a player to think during those

situations in soccer noted as requiring mental

toughness. From the analysis conducted, it was

recognized that these qualities worked in different

yet complementary ways and played an important

role in influencing the kinds of cognitions mentally

tough soccer players employ to deal with and thrive

through adverse and challenging situations (see

Table II). Of the nine primary qualities reported in

Table II, all players acknowledged that having a

winning mentality, an optimistic outlook, a pride in

justifying one’s actions and acting in a ‘‘professional’’

manner, an honest and realistic view of one’s

achievements, and a down-to-earth and rounded

perspective of life’s experiences all had a considerable

impact on how each individual mentally processed and

ultimately responded to adverse and challenging

events. Having identified that these qualities appear

to have an impact upon elite male soccer players’

cognitions during times of challenge or adversity, the

authors advocate that in future researchers concen-

trate on clarifying how other samples of mentally

tough individuals perceive how specific underlying

mental toughness characteristics (and their sub-

themes) influence athlete psychological processing

within those situations perceived to require mental

toughness. Through such investigation it is hoped

that a greater understanding will be gained of the

influence that all attributes of mental toughness have

upon cognitive aspects of performance.

Match-specific cognitions were also a prominent

feature identified within the data that appeared to

reveal self-talk processes in which all players inter-

viewed reported using or having particular cognitions

during adverse or challenging match situations (see

Table III). Players recalled these cognitions via two

avenues of self-exploration within each interview.

That is, through describing how each player was able

to alter their thinking to thrive and persevere through

the aforementioned match situations, and/or when

describing how specific qualities (e.g. will to win,

self-belief, physical toughness) were perceived to

have influenced player cognitions within these

circumstances. In particular, within the context of

Mental toughness in soccer 709

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table II. The relationship between primary mental toughness characteristics (i.e. attributes, beliefs, values) and the cognitions of mentally

tough soccer players.

Primary quality Description and impact upon player cognitions Representative quote

A winning

mentality and desire

(N¼6)

The ‘‘will to win’’ drives players to extreme levels of

competitiveness regardless of the scenario they find

themselves in. Specifically, a winning mentality

allows mentally tough players to think in a way that

not only motivates them to never give up and

succeed, but also to overcome fatigue or pain to

become victorious

You’ll see people pushing past levels of pain and that’s

generally not to prove to everyone, ‘‘Hey, look, I’m

tough out here’’, but it’s to say, ‘‘I want to win, I’m

doing everything I can to get through in order for the

team to win’’. And that’s where mental toughness

comes from. I might be hurting, like to an extreme level,

but all I’m thinking about is, ‘‘I want to win this game’’.

Optimism (N¼6) Optimism was perceived to be influential in allowing

players to focus on the positives from demanding

circumstances and to have a hopeful outlook that the

future will be positive and will present with it

opportunity

When I was 14 and playing against 17 or 18 year olds

that were stronger and quicker, I was able to get

through by sticking to a lot of positive thoughts like

‘‘its ok. I am younger, and in a few years time

physically I’ll certainly be up there battling with them.

Physically, I’ll be the same as these guys are now.

Given time, I’ll be competing with them’’.

A personal pride

(N¼6)

Mentally tough individuals have a strong personal pride

to not only do things professionally and correctly (e.g.

with preparation, training, rehabilitation) but also to

ensure that they have regularly justified their efforts to

increase their chances of success. This quality,

therefore, enables players to think in a way that

motivates them to live by the highest personal

standards

It’s asking myself at the end of each day ‘‘Have I done

myself justice today? Have I cheated myself in any

way? Did I give everything that I could?’’ I ask myself

this every night before I go to sleep and take great

pride in knowing that I couldn’t have done anything

more.

An honest and realistic

view of

achievements

(N¼6)

This quality influences the perspective of mentally tough

players when coping with excessive praise or criticism

relating to their performances. The quality allows

players to distinguish that their achievements are

often neither as good nor bad to the extremes that

other individuals make them out to be, thus enabling

them to maintain a level (and realistic) outlook of

their actions on the pitch

It’s tough when someone has a go at you. It puts you

down sometimes. But I’ve learned to take it in the

right way and not take it as a negative. I know how I

really performed and I often tell myself ‘‘What can I

learn from this? Where can I improve?’’ To be

honest, it’s exactly the same when I’m told I played

great. At the end of the day ‘‘If I’m as good as

everyone says I am, well go out and prove it! If I’m as

bad as everyone says I am, go out and prove them

wrong!’’

A down to earth

perspective (N¼6)

Having a ‘‘down-to-earth’’ attitude allows mentally

tough players to cope with adversity both on and off

the pitch. In particular, these players were depicted as

people who understand that (1) sometimes unhelpful

things naturally happen which have to be dealt with,

and (2) in the grand scheme of life the testing times as

a professional player are often insignificant to

priorities/experiences that life throws at them or

others close to them

If you judge everything you do in football as either life or

death, you’ll drive yourself into the ground. It’s too

hard to live your life like that. Remember, there’s a

whole world out there that can be much more serious

than playing soccer – your health, loved ones,

whatever. Don’t get me wrong, playing soccer is very

important to me and I take it very seriously, but I

know at the end of the day whether I have a great day

or a bad day at the office – ‘‘it’s just a game’’.

An acknowledgement

of others’ sacrifices

(N¼5)

This quality was believed to contribute to mentally tough

players having the respect for the efforts others have

made on their behalf to allow them to play the sport

they love as a job. This drove these players to think in a

way that they must never let these individuals down by

wasting the opportunity on offer in becoming, and

living the life of, a professional player

You see the sacrifices that others have made for you and

the opportunity this created and you learn that those

sacrifices allowed you to take you to where you

wanted to go. Knowing this, ‘‘I can’t let them down.

They’ve done so much for me to be here’’. I am

driven by the fear of not letting them [player’s

parents] down and for the sacrifices they made for me

to not go to waste.

Valuing personal

opportunities

(N¼5)

Valuing personal opportunities allowed players to

continually recognize that their position within the

team/squad is often dispensable if they do not sustain

a reliable work ethic to continually improve and fight

for their place

‘‘ I must continue to persevere and be determined to

work hard for my place. No place on the team is

guaranteed’’.

Having an immense

love to play soccer

(N¼5)

Having an immense love to play soccer allowed for

players to justify the sacrifice and discipline required

to (1) put in the training hours to make it as a

professional and also to cope with the peer pressure

from others as a young player, and (2) to assist these

players when faced with long-term injuries, some of

which at times were judged as career threatening

‘‘I love football and I’m not going to leave football.

What needs doing?’’ That was the question that

popped in my mind as soon as I got the results [from

the scan]. I said to myself, ‘‘I love football, I’m not

going to quit. What do I need to do to get back?’’

(continued)

710 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table II. (Continued).

Primary quality Description and impact upon player cognitions Representative quote

Acknowledging self-

responsibility

(N¼5)

Mentally tough players reported that they were able to

accept they needed to take responsibility for

themselves and their future if they were to become

professional soccer players. This mature attitude

seemed to allow these players to overcome particular

hardships (e.g. homesickness, travelling away) when

stepping up to the professional level as a young player

I just accepted that ‘‘I’m not going to be around my

parents as much anymore and I have to take on a bit of

a grown-up approach and be happy doing things for

myself’’. Even just the little things such as spending a

bit of time on your own in the room, doing your

washing and things like that. You just realize that

‘‘these are my responsibilities now and I have to do

them. My family is not going to physically be there

every day so I have to do things for myself now’’.

Table III. Identification of specific self-talk cognitions commonly recognized and employed by mentally tough players during adverse and/or

challenging match situations.

Self-talk statements

relating to . . . Perceived use of self-talk statements Example of match-specific self-talk

A will to win (N¼ 6) Cognitions that help a player to fight and

motivate oneself to compete stronger in the

pursuit of success

‘‘ This is what I want. I want to win, I want to

win!’’; ‘‘We can’t lose to these guys . . . Come

on! Get going!’’

Self-belief and confidence

(N¼6)

Thoughts that reinforce a player’s ability and

reminding them of past success in overcoming

similar obstacles and setbacks

‘‘ Come on! We can do this’’; ‘‘This is crap, but

I’ve done this before, I know I can do it again’’

Concentration on simple play

(N¼6)

Thoughts that control a player’s emotions and

direct simple actions by concentrating on task-

relevant cues following mistakes, playing

under pressure or during important matches

(e.g. Grand Final) to do one’s job/what is

expected of one

‘‘ Just do your job!’’; ‘‘Play it to the open man’’;

‘‘Play it into feet’’; ‘‘Mark up goal side’’; ‘‘Stay

with your man’’; ‘‘Make the tackle’’

Inspirational action (N¼ 6) Cognitions to change one’s physical behaviour

and actions to focus on those things that will

demonstrate competitiveness, belief, and

effort to inspire others to do the same

‘‘ If I do well here, maybe I can drag the players

along to do the same thing’’; ‘‘Do something

positive to try and get everyone on board’’; ‘‘I’ve

got to change the flow of the match and show the

way’’; ‘‘Lead by example’’; ‘‘Show your effort’’

Tactical awareness and

adaptability (N¼6)

Tactical-related thinking that instructs for

changes to be made in one’s play to respond to

situational and oppositional formation

adjustments

‘‘ Slow the ball down’’; ‘‘They’ve changed

formation . . . I need to cover back’’; ‘‘They’ve

dropped off, push forward’’

Positive body language (N¼6) Psychological processes that focus on evading the

potential for opposition players to feed off

negative body language when fatigued, injured

or emotionally flustered (e.g. following errors).

‘‘ Get up and knock it off and keep on going and

don’t show the opposition players that you’re

injured and don’t show them that you’re weak

as a player’’

Judged only by performances

(N¼6)

Thoughts that allow a player to come to terms

with the fact that if they put themselves on the

pitch and play they will be judged purely by

their performance regardless of other/personal

issues (e.g. injury, hardships off the pitch)

‘‘ If I go out there and play, no one knows that

I’ve got an injury, I’m only going to get judged

on my performance. They’re not going to say,

‘He’s got a sore shoulder, he’s got a sore

knee’. Well no, I’ve put myself out there so

I’ve got to perform at my best’’

Physical toughness (N¼6) Motivating cognitions focused on the outcome to

win to override physical pain and fatigue, and

to prove to oneself that you are not weak-

minded

‘‘ I might be hurting, like to an extreme level, but all

I’m thinking about is, ‘I want to win this game, I

want to get something out of it’’’; ‘‘Come

on . . . suck it up! It’s only a knock. Show them

that you’re not mentally weak and hurt’’

Perseverance and

determination (N¼6)

Thoughts that sustain motivation, belief, drive,

and concentration to the end

‘‘ Never quit!’’; ‘‘Never give up!’’; ‘‘Play to the

final whistle!’’

Staying positive (N¼6) Positive cognitions that counter negative

thoughts and distractions to help focus on

what constructive actions are necessary to take

next in the pursuit of one’s goals

‘‘ Your legs are hurting and your head’s saying

‘Nah, just stop, just stop’. But you know

you’ve got to change and convince yourself

‘I’m not tired, I’m going to see this through, I

must work to the full limit I’ve been asked to’’’

Mental toughness in soccer 711

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

those match-specific situations identified as requiring

mental toughness (e.g. coping with fatigue/pain late

in a match, tactically adapting following a goal being

scored), these cognitions seem to mirror both

motivational and informational self-talk statements

that reflect particular characteristics (e.g. a will to

win, self-belief, concentration) and actions (e.g.

positive body language, inspirational action) of

mentally tough individuals. Moreover, the findings

suggest that each of the five functions of self-talk

reported by Hardy and colleagues (Hardy,

Gammage, & Hall, 2001) were evident among the

cognitions of the sampled mentally tough soccer

players: a motivational arousal function (e.g. ‘‘Never

quit . . . never give up!’’); a motivational mastery

function (e.g. ‘‘I’ve done this before I can do it

again’’); a motivational drive function (e.g. ‘‘This is

what I want . . . I want to win’’); a cognitive specific

function (e.g. ‘‘Play it to the open man’’); and a

cognitive general function (e.g. ‘‘They’ve changed

formation . . . I need to cover back’’). Of course, the

very fact that such players perceived as being mentally

tough use such functional aspects of self-talk does not

necessarily indicate that individuals considered to be

mentally weak do not also think in a similar manner.

Nevertheless, these findings suggest that mentally

tough individuals might regularly employ the type of

self-talk strategies that may be associated with

consistently high levels of performance. Therefore,

one may presume that the use of such cognitions only

adds to one’s ability to (re)act in such a way that is

characteristic of being mentally tough when experi-

encing perceived adversity or challenge.

Can mental toughness be detrimental to perfor-

mance and player well-being? It is noteworthy that

while mentally tough players are perceived to per-

form well while carrying a minor injury (Gucciardi

et al., 2008), perhaps this may prove to be a potential

adverse consequence to mental toughness not pre-

viously discussed in the literature. With high self-

belief and a winning mentality and desire, for

example, mentally tough soccer players may be

overconfident or too committed to the pursuit of

winning that they fail to recognize or accept medical

advice about minor injuries, rendering them at a

higher risk of major injury than players with less self-

belief. For example, self-talk statements relating to

the need for players to maintain a positive body

language when experiencing pain (‘‘ . . . don’t show

them that you’re weak as a player’’), being judged

only by one’s performance (‘‘ . . . no-one knows that

I’ve got an injury . . . [but] I’ve put myself out there

so I’ve got to perform’’), physical toughness (‘‘Show

them that you’re not mentally weak and [physically]

hurt’’), and staying positive (‘‘Your legs are hurting

and your head’s saying ‘Nah, just stop, just

stop’ . . . but you know you’ve got to change’’),

all of which emphasize a player’s capacity to over-

come and drive through the physical distress

experienced in the sport. Thus the potential detri-

mental effects of mental toughness are worthy of

future investigation.

Integrating the findings with the mental toughness model

Figure 2 illustrates that, individually, each of the

aforementioned components (characteristics, beha-

viours, cognitions, situations) provides an important

contribution to an understanding of mental tough-

ness in soccer. Within the context of Gucciardi and

colleagues’ (2009) process model of mental tough-

ness, these four components provide an under-

standing of how the key mental toughness

characteristics might operate to inform the psycho-

logical processes of mentally tough soccer players

and subsequent outcomes. Although other factors

such as external resources (e.g. social support, access

to state of the art rehabilitation equipment) may

assist in dealing with and thriving through particular

situations, it became apparent from the participants’

discourse that the type and/or amount of key mental

toughness characteristics required to deal success-

fully with a situation demanding mental toughness

appears to be influenced by the nature of the

pressure, adversity or challenge inherent within a

particular situation (Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009a;

Kelly, 1955/1991). Depending on the nature of the

situation, therefore, some or all of the mental

toughness components may be called upon to

overcome a challenge or adversity.

The current findings also suggest a consistency

with Gucciardi and colleagues’ (2009) model of

mental toughness in that the perceived processes by

which the primary qualities affected subsequent

cognitions included approaches before the situation

(e.g. doing everything one can to perform to one’s

potential), appraisals of the situation (e.g. ‘‘what can I

learn from this situation’’), and responses following

an encounter with the situation (e.g. continuing to

work hard, persevere, and remain determined to-

wards retaining one’s place in the team following

poor/good performance). Therefore, the recognition

that primary qualities may influence cognitions at

differing stages within Gucciardi and colleagues’

process model of mental toughness provides scope

for further investigation to identify those qualities that

have the greatest impact upon cognitive processes of

mentally tough individuals within the approach,

appraisal, and response stages of ‘‘experiencing’’;

and how these differ across those situations identified

as requiring mental toughness. Acknowledging the

differential contributions of primary qualities would

not only provide specificity to our understanding of

how mental toughness characteristics influence the

712 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

psychological processes of athletes both on and off the

field as they attempt to cope with and react to

challenge or adversity, but also how differing func-

tional aspects of self-talk may be more appropriate at

different stages within Gucciardi and colleagues’

model.

While the process model of mental toughness

(Gucciardi et al., 2009) implies a casual direction,

the qualitative nature of the current study limits our

ability to detail scientifically rigorous evidence to

support such effects. Nonetheless, the model pro-

vides a useful foundation upon which to develop

hypotheses using the current findings that may be

experimentally examined in future research. For

example, Figure 3 provides an illustrative example

of how a winning mentality, self-belief, work ethic,

resilience, personal values, and tough attitude enable

a mentally tough soccer player to successfully deal

with ‘‘being dropped or deselected’’ from a team

(interested readers are encouraged to contact the

corresponding author for other illustrative examples).

As is evident in this example, some key characteristics

such as tough attitude are considered useful at several

stages throughout the cycle of experience, whereas

others such as self-belief provide the necessary impact

at particular stages. When considering a different

situation such as ‘‘good individual form’’, for

example, the relative contribution of these two

characteristics becomes different such that self-belief

provides a greater impact than tough attitudes

through the cycle of experience.

Important practical implications also arise from a

process understanding of mental toughness as de-

picted in Figure 3. The perception that at least two

key characteristics are required to deal with each

situation reported by participants suggests that the

mental toughness characteristics share overlapping

ranges (describes the applicability of a characteristic)

and foci (where the characteristic works or fits best) of

conveniences (Gucciardi et al., 2009; Kelly, 1955/

1991). Taken together with information generated

from importance rankings (Jones et al., 2002, 2007;

Thelwell et al., 2005), and the emphasis on certain

characteristics stemming from the number of cita-

tions in the current study, such information highlights

those characteristics that deserve the greatest atten-

tion from practitioners who aim to develop or

enhance mental toughness among their clients.

When integrated with previous research and

theory (e.g. Gucciardi et al., 2008, 2009; Jones

et al., 2007) in a manner like that presented in

Figure 3, a key contribution that the current study

makes to the literature is highlighting the importance

of events or situations demanding low-to-high levels

of mental toughness as a central component in under-

standing mental toughness and its development in

Figure 2. Conceptual overview of concepts, sub-categories, and categories associated with mental toughness in Australian soccer.

Mental toughness in soccer 713

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Fig

ure

3.

Six

key

char

acte

rist

ics

that

inte

ract

toen

able

am

enta

lly

tou

gh

socc

erp

laye

rto

dea

lw

ith

bei

ng

dro

pp

ed/d

esel

ecte

d.

714 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

sport. These ‘‘critical incidents’’ demand varying

degrees of a soccer player’s mental toughness

resources to successfully deal with and thrive through

such instances. It follows that the constellation of

one’s mental toughness (i.e. strengths and weak-

nesses) will influence the manner in which one

approaches, appraises, and responds to the pressure,

challenge, and/or adversity inherent within any

critical incident one encounters during the course

of one’s career. For the applied practitioner, helping

a soccer player identify and understand those

situations which require some degree of mental

toughness will prove fruitful in understanding the

potential effects of such instances for the individual

and how he or she can draw on his or her mental

toughness to facilitate positive experiences during

these critical incidents. Alternatively, the develop-

ment of a list of common or key ‘‘critical incidents’’

in sport will facilitate empirical endeavours whereby

researchers can conduct observational studies to

examine how mentally tough athletes behave in such

instances compared with less mentally tough ath-

letes. Moreover, experimental studies in which these

critical incidents are replicated in a laboratory setting

may facilitate more fine-tuned causal examinations

of mental toughness as depicted in a process model

of mental toughness (Gucciardi et al., 2009).

Defining mental toughness

Overall, the aforementioned data provide support for

the definition of mental toughness forwarded by

Gucciardi et al. (2009). First, the key mental

toughness characteristics reported by the participants

can be classified under the broad dimensions of

values, attitudes, emotions, and cognitions. Partici-

pants also recognized the importance of the key

components for dealing with and thriving through a

variety of positively and negatively construed situa-

tions demanding mental toughness. Finally, the key

characteristics were described as influencing the way

in which mentally tough soccer players approach,

respond to, and appraise events demanding mental

toughness.

Nonetheless, three important amendments to the

definition seem appropriate based on the findings

reported here, thereby making a key contribution to

the evolution of a construct definition of mental

toughness. First, given that 13 of 14 key character-

istics and their sub-components are consistent with

previous research, it appears that sport-specific

components may not warrant inclusion in concep-

tualizations of mental toughness; thus, we have

removed this aspect of Gucciardi and colleagues’

definition (2009) in the amended definition. Second,

consistent with previous research (e.g. Gucciardi

et al., 2008), the current findings highlight the

importance of an understanding of the behaviours

commonly displayed by mentally tough athletes, in

particular in identifying observational displays of

mental toughness in action that provide a vital source

of information when providing feedback to athletes.

Third, it was also revealed that dealing with and

thriving through those situations that require mental

toughness call for the presence of some or all of the

mental toughness components (i.e. characteristics,

behaviours, cognitions; see also Gucciardi & Gor-

don, 2009c). Accordingly, these latter two points

result in two additions to the original construct

definition. The revised definition below attempts to

capture these important findings within Gucciardi

and colleagues’ construct definition of mental

toughness:

Mental toughness is the presence of some or the entire

collection of experientially developed and inherent

values, attitudes, emotions, cognitions, and beha-

viours 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.

Conclusion

We explored mental toughness in soccer players

based in Australia using data triangulation involving

players, coaches, and parents. We were particularly

interested in gaining an understanding of the

processes by which the key characteristics enable

one to deal with and thrive through situations

demanding mental toughness, with a particular focus

on cognitions. Limitations of the research include

the use of self-report and retrospective recall

methodology, single (as opposed to multiple) inter-

views, and our focus on one sport. In addition, the

results may be restricted in terms of their general-

izability given the focus on male soccer players and

coaches within the participant sample and an

emphasis solely on the elite status of these indivi-

duals. Finally, while contrast poles were identified in

the findings for each mental toughness characteristic

(see Table I), in future researchers might examine

those perspectives of less mentally tough individuals

(or those perceived as being mentally weak) within

the study design to enable the literature to distin-

guish those qualities that are unique to this popula-

tion, thus providing increased clarification of those

attributes solely held by mentally tough athletes.

Nevertheless, the study does have a number of

strengths, including data triangulation and the

adoption of a theoretically guided interview pro-

tocol. Having acknowledged these methodological

Mental toughness in soccer 715

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013

limitations and strengths, we believe this study makes

several key contributions to the mental toughness

literature that include: identification of key cogni-

tions associated with mental toughness; use of data

triangulation involving parents of identified mentally

tough soccer players; support for the efficacy of a

process model of mental toughness; a refined

construct definition of mental toughness (Gucciardi

et al., 2009); and highlighting the importance of

understanding the situations or events demanding

mental toughness in advancing current conceptuali-

zations. It is hoped that the information presented

here will assist in the conceptual evolution of mental

toughness, especially considering its complex and

subjective nature.

References

Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. E. (2005).

Towards an understanding of mental toughness in elite English

cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 209–227.

Clough, P. J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness:

The concept and its measurement. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.),

Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32–43). London: Thomson

Publishing.

Connaughton, D., & Hanton, S. (2009). Mental toughness in

sport: Conceptual and practical issues. In S. D. Mellalieu & S.

Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review

(pp. 317–346). London: Routledge.

Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008).

The development and maintenance of mental toughness:

Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26,

83–95.

Cote, J., Salmela, J., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Organising

and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport

Psychologist, 7, 127–137.

Crust, L. (2008). A review and conceptual re-examination of

mental toughness: Implications for future researchers. Person-

ality and Individual Differences, 45, 576–583.

Fourie, S., & Potgeiter, J. R. (2001). The nature of mental

toughness in sport. South African Journal for Research in Sport,

Physical Education and Recreation, 23, 63–72.

Gibson, A. (1998). Mental toughness. New York: Vantage Press.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2008). Personal construct

psychology and the research interview: The example of mental

toughness in sport. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 119–

130.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009a). Construing the athlete

and exerciser: Research and applied perspectives from personal

construct psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21

(suppl. 1), S17–S33.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009b). Development and

preliminary validation of the Cricket Mental Toughness

Inventory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1293–1310.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009c). Revisiting the

performance profile technique: Theoretical underpinnings and

application. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 93–117.

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Towards

an understanding of mental toughness in Australian football.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 261–281.

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, 54–72.

Hardy, J., Gammage, K., & Hall, C. R. (2001). A descriptive study

of athletes’ self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 306–318.

Harwood, C., Spray, C. M., & Keegan, R. (2008). Achievement

goal theories in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport

psychology (3rd edn., pp. 157–186). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Horn, T. S., & Horn, J. L. (2007). Family influences on children’s

sport and physical activity participation, behaviour, and

psychosocial responses. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund

(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 685–711). Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this

thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport

performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205–218.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework

of mental toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport

Psychologist, 21, 243–264.

Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of

personality. (Vol. 1). London: Routledge (original work pub-

lished 1955).

Martens, R. (1976). Competitiveness in sports. In F. Landry & W.

A. R. Orban (Eds.), Physical activity and human well being (pp.

232–343). Miami, FL: Symposia Specialists.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods

(3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Greenlees, I. (2005). Defining and

understanding mental toughness within soccer. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 326–332.

Walker, B. M., & Winter, D. A. (2007). The elaboration of

personal construct psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,

453–477.

716 T. J. Coulter et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

19 0

8 Se

ptem

ber

2013