Upload
daniel-f
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: [email protected]
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