can control” (cited in Coaching Excellence, 1996, p. 3). But as we explained previously,
athletes’ insights into psychological constructs should be treated with caution. Therefore,
a more rigorous conceptual analysis of mental toughness is required.
A review of applied psychological research on mental toughness reveals that this term
has been used in a variety of ways. Specifically, G.Jones et al. (2002) showed that it
referred to such different psychological processes as the ability to cope with pressure, the
ability to rebound from failure, a determination to persist in the face of adversity, and a
form of mental resilience. Given this variability in terminology, what is required in this
field is a theoretical rather than an intuitive model of this construct. In this regard, two
recent studies of mental toughness are helpful. The first of these studies used a
questionnaire-based methodology whereas the second one was based on qualitative
techniques (interviews and “focus groups”—see also Box 1.4).
First, Clough et al. (2002) attempted to define and measure this construct using a
theoretical model developed by Kobasa (1979). Briefly, this latter researcher discovered
that some people have a “hardy” personality in the sense that they possess coping skills
that enable them to thrive under adverse circumstances. Influenced by this idea, Clough
et al. (2002) postulated four key components of mental toughness in their “4Cs model” of
this construct. The first of these four components is “control” or the capacity to feel and
act as if one could exert an influence in the situation in question (a view which is similar
to that of Greg Rusedski’s concept of mental toughness). The second component of the
construct is “commitment” or a tendency to take an active role in events. Third,
“challenge” refers to the perception of change as an opportunity to grow and develop
rather than as a threat. Finally, “confidence” is a component of mental toughness that
designates a strong sense of self-belief. Combining these four elements, Clough et al.
(2002) defined mentally tough athletes as people who have “a high sense of self-belief
and an unshakeable faith that they can control their own destiny” (p. 38) and who can
“remain relatively unaffected by competition or adversity” (ibid.). In addition, these
researchers devised an 18-item measure called the “Mental Toughness Questionnaire”
which requires respondents to use a five-point Likert scale to indicate their level of
agreement with such items as “Even when under considerable pressure, I usually remain
calm” (item 1) or “I generally feel in control” (item 10) or “I usually find it difficult to
make a mental effort when I am tired” (item 17). These authors reported a reliability
coefficient for this scale of r=0.90 and construct validity data based on predicted
relationships with such constructs as self-efficacy or a belief on one’s ability to achieve
certain outcomes regardless of the situation (r=0.56, p<.05). Although such psychometric
data are encouraging, a great deal of additional validation evidence is required before this
scale can be accepted as a worthwhile tool for the measurement of the rather nebulous
construct of mental toughness.
A second study of this construct was carried out recently by G.Jones et al. (2002)
using qualitative research methodology. More precisely, these researchers used a
combination of a “focus group” (i.e., a data collection technique based on group
discussion that is led by a trained facilitator) and individual interviews with a sample
(n=10) of international sport performers to elicit the meaning of “mental toughness” as
well as the characteristics associated with it. Results showed that mental toughness was
perceived to comprise both general and specific components. The general component of
this construct was a perception of having a “natural or developed psychological edge”
Introducing sport and exercise psychology: discipline and profession 9