See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339717758

Mental toughness training

Chapter · November 2019

DOI: 10.4324/9781351189750-14

CITATIONS READS

6 409

4 authors, including:

Stuart Beattie
Bangor University
29 PUBLICATIONS 934 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stuart Beattie on 17 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

9780815392835C14.3D 255 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

14 Mental toughness training

Stuart Beattie, Lew Hardy, Andrew Cooke, and
Daniel Gucciardi

Introduction

What is mental toughness?

Mental Toughness is a term that is commonly used to describe an athlete who
when under pressure has demonstrated some form of mentally tough behaviour
(Gucciardi, Hanton, Gordon, Mallet, & Temby, 2015; Hardy, Bell, & Beattie,
2014). The outcome of such behaviours quite often results in the maintenance
(or even enhancement) of performance under pressure (Bell, Hardy, & Beattie,
2013). Mental Toughness is focused upon the resources that athletes use to
bring about mentally tough behaviours and is generally assessed via self-report.
Some researchers use sport-specific multifactor approaches such as the Sport
Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ; Sheard, Golby, & van Wersch,
2009), whereas other researchers have found that mental toughness is best
assessed via a unidimensional approach such as the Mental Toughness Index
(MTI; Gucciardi et al., 2015). On the other hand, mentally tough behaviours
are generally informant assessed (e.g., the athlete’s coach rates how well the athlete
maintains goal directed performance under pressure). Importantly, we propose that
before one can make reasonable claims about the usefulness of self-report assess-
ments of mental toughness, there needs to be an evaluation of whether mentally
tough behaviours have actually occurred (Beattie, Alqallaf, & Hardy, 2017;
Gucciardi et al., 2015; Hardy et al., 2014). However, researchers and practi-
tioners should be aware that some of these behaviours may be concealed to the
observer (e.g., cognitions or thought processes of the athlete).
We recommend three important ingredients for developing mental tough-
ness: 1) the athlete must practice in pressurised training environments that con-
tain punishments or costs (or indeed rewards) replicating as closely as possible
to those encountered in competition; 2) the athlete must have access to psycho-
logical resources or support that can be put into practice when dealing with
pressurised training environments; and 3) the athlete must be motivated to suc-
ceed in the sport in which they compete.
9780815392835C14.3D 256 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

256 Stuart Beattie et al.

Qualitative research on mental toughness (developmental
perspectives)
From the athlete’s perspective. The purpose of this chapter is to provide direc-
tions for the training of mental toughness. Therefore, a brief overview of
research examining the development of mental toughness follows. As there are
no long-term quantitative studies examining the development of mental tough-
ness, our review is limited to qualitative studies. Further, as this topic has been
covered in-depth elsewhere (Anthony, Gucciardi, & Gordon, 2016), we only
provide a brief overview. Qualitative methods, however, limit researcher’s ability
to differentiate between the causes, processes, outcomes and other correlates
associated with mental toughness (Hardy et al., 2014). Most of the qualitative
research that has been performed is on elite athletes, such that ability is con-
founded with mental toughness. This could lead erroneously to the implication
that less elite athletes cannot be mentally tough!
The environment (home, training and competition) seems to be a main pre-
cursor for the development of mental toughness. For example, Bull, Shambrook,
James, and Brooks (2005) identified a pool of 12 cricketers who had been
voted as the most mentally tough by a sample of 101 cricket coaches. Environ-
mental influences such as parents, childhood background (dealing with adversity
at a young age), exposure to foreign cricket (experiencing other hostile environ-
ments), and having opportunities to survive early setbacks, were identified as
pre-cursors to the development of mental toughness.
The importance of the environment has also been noted as an antecedent for
the development of mental toughness in a sample 10 international female gym-
nasts from Great Britain and the United States (e.g., Thelwell, Such, Weston,
Such, & Greenlees, 2010). The environment was broken down into four sub-
categories: 1) training environments where the club had obtained past success,
and installed discipline, hard work, competitive attitudes, determination, and
never give up attitudes; 2) family environments that installed competitive, posi-
tive and never give up attitudes, and where there was some experience of adver-
sity (single parent families); 3) environments that afforded observing, competing
and training with better gymnasts and 4) athlete environments that had high
expectations, derived from past success in the sport. These four environmental
factors helped to develop mental toughness.
In their examination of the development of mental toughness in seven inter-
national athletes (athletes represented their country at Olympic or Common-
wealth games), Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, and Jones (2008) concluded
that mental toughness developed over the entire duration of an athlete’s
career (early, middle, and later years). It could be developed via the coach’s
leadership behaviours, observing significant others in training and competition,
parental advice, being in challenging, rewarding, and enjoyable motivational
climates, gaining competitive experience, and experiencing and overcoming
critical incidents. Similar evidence for the long-term development of mental
toughness was also shown by these authors in a study of the development and
9780815392835C14.3D 257 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 257

maintenance of mental toughness in seven of the world’s best performers (ath-
letes had medalled at Olympic or World Championship level; Connaughton,
Hanton, & Jones, 2010). At the initial involvement in sport, mental tough-
ness was installed by competitive training environments and the mastering of
skills more quickly and to a higher level than peers. When progressing to the
elite phase of their career, a structured and disciplined training environment,
learning from role models, and “doing what needed to be done” developed
mental toughness. At the elite level, mental toughness was developed through
experience of high-level competitions, having a wide range of social support,
applying mental skills, and experiencing critical incidents. Experiencing and
overcoming critical incidents were seen as invaluable experiences in developing
mental toughness across athlete’s careers. Critical incidents outside of sport
(e.g., parental divorce), seemed to be a catalyst for the athlete to focus and
prioritize training. This latter finding was reinforced by a study of “super-
elite” and elite Olympic athletes. The “super-elite” athletes (who had won
multiple gold medals at successive Olympic Games or World Championships)
were more likely than elite athletes to have experienced a critical negative life
event during their development years and a later turning point that enhanced
motivation and/or focus (Hardy et al., 2017).
Self-regulated training behaviours seem to have a role to play in mediating
the relationship between self-reported mental toughness and coach rated assess-
ments of mentally tough behaviours in a swimming environment (Beattie, Alqal-
laf, Hardy, & Ntoumanis, 2019). Self-regulated training behaviours were
assessed by the athlete and the coach regarding how well the athlete engages
with training. Positive relationships between self-reported mental toughness and
both training behaviours and coach-rated assessments of mentally tough behav-
iours were noted. Self-regulated training behaviours also had a positive relation-
ship with coach-rated mentally tough behaviours and that these self-regulated
behaviours mediated the relationship between self-reported mental toughness
and coach-rated assessments of mentally tough behaviours. In summary, self-
regulated training behaviours (regardless of whether they were assessed by the
coach or athlete) partially explained the positive relationship observed between
self-assessed mental toughness and coach rated perceptions of mentally tough
behaviours (see Figure 14.1).
From the coach’s perspective. Qualitative research has been conducted on
coach’s perceptions of how mental toughness is developed (Driska, Kamphoff,
& Armentrout, 2012; Gucciardi, Gordon, Dimmock, & Mallet, 2009). Eleven
male Australian Football League coaches were interviewed on how coaches
could cultivate and facilitate, as well as hinder, mental toughness (Gucciardi
et al., 2009). Factors that facilitated its development included; having a positive
coach-athlete relationship, focussing upon personal development, and providing
stimulating training environments which exposed athletes to various challenges,
pressures and adversity. Mental toughness was adversely affected when the coach
prioritised success over development, focussed on player’s weaknesses, or had
low or unrealistic expectations particularly in unchallenging environments.
9780815392835C14.3D 258 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

258 Stuart Beattie et al.

Self-regulated
training
behaviours

Self-report MT Coach rated MTb

Figure 14.1 Self-regulated training behaviours indirectly explaining the relationship

between self-reported mental toughness and coach-rated mentally tough
behaviours.

The importance of challenge for the development of mental toughness also

emerged as an important factor among 13 highly experienced swimming coaches
from the United States (Driska et al., 2012). Three higher order themes were
highlighted from interviews. First were actions of the coach, which included cre-
ating challenging and demanding expectations. The coach created such an envir-
onment by constantly challenging swimmers, having high expectations,
demanding excellence, and creating emotional challenges. Second was the
coach’s general philosophy of training, including the development of mental
toughness. Coaches challenged their swimmers when addressing physical, tech-
nical and psychological needs. Goals and race intervals replicated “race pain”
and as the swimmer’s conditioning improved, the coach would design workouts
where the swimmer would fail. Re-visiting the failure at a later stage of training
emphasised to the swimmer that failures could be overcome. Finally, the coach
developed a motivational climate that fostered mental toughness. For example,
some coaches rewarded swimmers who pushed beyond their limits, or praised
athletes in front of their peers if they had displayed “tough minded” behaviours
(e.g., bouncing back from a previous poor training session).
In a recent meta-analysis of qualitative research on mental toughness develop-
ment, based on ten key qualitative studies (some discussed above), four import-
ant themes emerged (Anthony et al., 2016). Themes related to personal
characteristics, interactions with the environment, progressive development, and
breadth of experience. This led to a bioecological model of mental toughness
development through; proximal processes (continuingly evolving performer-
environment exchanges); personal characteristics (athletes are producers as well
as products of their own development); contexts (referred to as the athletes’
physical and social environment); and finally, time (when significant events
occur).
9780815392835C14.3D 259 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 259

From the sport psychologist’s perspective. Few researchers have examined the
development of mental toughness from the perspective of the sport psycholo-
gist. In one exception, 15 sport psychologists from the USA and the UK, con-
sidered experts in the field of mental toughness were interviewed (Weinberg,
Freysinger, Mellano, & Brookhouse, 2016). Psychologists reported that coaches
could build mental toughness in their athletes by being mindful about putting
athletes into adverse situations and presenting them with opportunities to
develop mental skills to cope effectively. Coaches should be critical but encour-
aging, foster autonomy, see athletes as individuals, use multiple techniques in
building mental toughness and seek further education.

Mental toughness interventions

Athlete-centred training programs. Meta-analytic data supports the benefits of
psychological and psychosocial skills training interventions for sport performance
(Brown & Fletcher, 2017). Early efforts to train mental toughness were focused on
developing athletes’ psychological skills/resources considered important for sport
performance. Sheard and Golby (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of a multi-
component psychological skills training (PST) package that consisted of goal set-
ting, visualisation, relaxation, concentration and thought stoppage with a sample of
36 national level swimmers. The intervention was delivered individually to athletes
over a five-week period via a series of 45 min sessions, with primary outcomes
assessed pre-, post- and one-month post-intervention. These outcomes included
self-reports of perceptions of success, mental toughness, hardiness, self-esteem, self-
efficacy, optimism, affect and swimming performance across a range of events.
There were significant performance improvements in six of 12 events assessed post-
intervention, and two of 12 swimming events one-month post-intervention.
Improvements post-intervention were observed in all psychological measures, with
the exception of the challenge subscale of hardiness. Nevertheless, there were three
key limitations of this study related to the size of the samples and assessment of
swimming performance (specific events ranged from n = 5–25), the absence of
a control group (i.e., improvements due to training and development over
a 2-month period in other areas could not be ruled out), and a lack of assessment
of mentally tough behaviours from other individuals (e.g., coaches).
In a group of adolescent Australian footballers, two intervention groups were
compared against a waitlist control group (Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock,
2009a). A “traditional” PST program involving sessions on self-regulation,
arousal regulation, mental rehearsal, attentional control, self-efficacy and ideal
performance states was compared with a mental toughness training group. The
mental toughness intervention involved sessions that targeted personal and team
values, work ethic, self-motivation, self-belief, concentration and focus, resili-
ence, emotional intelligence, sport intelligence and physical toughness, charac-
teristics identified in a previous study (Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2008).
Both the traditional and mental toughness programs encompassed six two-hour
sessions, delivered weekly over six weeks. Primary outcomes included self, parent
9780815392835C14.3D 260 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

260 Stuart Beattie et al.

and coach ratings of mental toughness, and self-reports of resilience and flow,
which were measured pre-intervention and at the end of the competitive season.
The mental toughness intervention and traditional groups differed significantly
from the control group across several dimensions of mental toughness (self,
parent and coach reports), resilience and flow at the end of the competitive
season. However, there were minimal differences between the traditional PST
and mental-toughness training groups. Follow-up interviews with athletes, par-
ents and coaches from the mental-toughness training group underscored the
importance of enhanced self-awareness, techniques for self-monitoring and self-
regulation, and perspective-taking discussions for improvements in mental
toughness (Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2009b). A strength of this study
was that mental toughness was partly corroborated by coaches and parents of
the athletes, but again, the sample size was small, athletes were not randomized
to groups and there was a reliance on subjective measures of primary outcomes.
A final study conducted on mental toughness training, which was based on
training in high pressure situations, was conducted with elite youth cricketers
(Bell et al., 2013). The central focus of this intervention was to enhance the
athlete’s ability to achieve and maintain performance goals under pressure from
a wide range of stressors. As pressurised performance environments contain
a high frequency of punishment-related stimuli (e.g., letting the team down,
being dropped, adverse publicity), the players were repeatedly exposed to threat
(i.e., punishment conditioned stimuli) in their regular training environment fol-
lowing task failure. This threatening environment was achieved by the use of
punishments following task failure or a failure of personal discipline. The pun-
ishments used were essentially just inconveniences, additional work that had to
be done, or loss of opportunities (e.g., clearing dinner plates away, performing
an additional training session at the end of the training day, or being excluded
from a valuable practice session). At a theoretical level, the use of such punish-
ment conditioned stimuli could produce two different effects, both of which
should be beneficial. First, experiencing and overcoming punishment-
conditioned stimuli in a training environment could systematically desensitise
the individual to the stress and anxiety associated with the threat (Wolpe,
1958). Second, being repeatedly exposed to punishment conditioned stimuli
could sensitize athletes’ threat detection mechanisms thereby giving them the
maximum opportunity to detect such threats earlier on subsequent occasions.
The first of these effects is well-established in the desensitization literature
(Wolpe, 1958). Evidence in support of the latter effect has been produced by
a recent set of studies which showed that elite level cricketers who were sensitive
to punishment and insensitive to reward also demonstrated superior threat
detection, and were rated as having higher levels of mental toughness behaviour
by their coaches (Hardy et al., 2014).
To avoid the potentially harmful effects of punishment, the intervention by Bell
et al. (2013) had a number of potentially important features. It was designed and
delivered in a multi-disciplinary, transformational manner with and through the
coaching staff as part of the athlete’s regular training program. The athletes and
9780815392835C14.3D 261 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 261

their parents voluntarily “signed up” to the program following a two-day informed
consent event. Importantly, the participants were also taught a number of simple
individualised strategies to help them prepare to perform under pressure and
recover focus and performance following failure. The intervention period was 12
months and the intervention group was compared against a control group on
a number of markers of mental toughness at pre-test and at various intervals over
the year. In comparison to the control group, the intervention group demon-
strated significant improvements in coach-rated mentally tough behaviours, object-
ively assessed competitive performance statistics, indoor batting against pace, and
a multistage fitness test. However, no significant difference occurred in a “batting
against spin” assessment. Despite the outcomes of this study, again limitations
were acknowledged. First, participants were not randomly allocated to groups as
the control group consisted of players who had been short listed for selection to
the intervention program but not selected. Second, performance was not assessed
solely under high pressure conditions, rather a global assessment of the athlete’s
performance across the whole season was used. Finally, the separate effects of
exposure to punishment conditioned stimuli, transformational delivery, and the
use of individualised coping strategies were not separately assessed.
Coach-centred training programs. Drawing from self-determination theory
(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), a mental toughness interven-
tion program was evaluated targeting coach interpersonal style, particularly with
regard to the satisfaction of athletes’ needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness (Mahoney, Ntoumanis, Gucciardi, Mallett, & Stebbings, 2016; see
also Mahoney, Gucciardi, Gordon, & Mtoumanis, 2017). Participants were
recruited from four rowing clubs in the UK and athletes (n =61) and coaches (n
=18) were assigned to an intervention or wait-list control group. The interven-
tion consisted of two, 2-hour workshops. With the exception of psychological
needs thwarting, which was higher at post-intervention and 2-months post-
intervention, there were no other group improvements. Given the large attrition
in athletes across measurement points (intervention group = 47%, control group
= 45%), it is likely that the study was underpowered to detect any potential dif-
ferences. Post-study interviews with the intervention coaches revealed a number
of potential benefits (e.g., opportunity to share ideas in group settings, practical
skill use) and barriers (e.g., time, regression to preferred coaching practice
approach) to their participation in the training program. It is worth noting that
this intervention was at odds with other studies of MT training. Here, athletes
self-reported psychological needs were always met, which may not be beneficial
for the enhancement of mental toughness.

Maximising transparency and clarity in intervention development

and reporting
The existing work on mental toughness interventions underscores the complex-
ity of such efforts in that training programs often incorporate several unique and
interacting active components. Such complexity presents challenges for
9780815392835C14.3D 262 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

262 Stuart Beattie et al.

researchers who aim to report their research in ways that foster replication, syn-
thesis and translation into practice. Several reporting guidelines have been devel-
oped and published over the past decade with the goal to assist researchers in
specifying key methodological information with transparency and clarity. Key
reporting guidelines pertinent for intervention research include CONSORT
(Schulz, Altman, & Moher et al., 2010) and its extensions (Campbell et al.,
2012; Eldridge et al., 2016; Vohra et al., 2015), and TREND (Des Jarlais
et al., 2004); interested readers are referred to the Equator Network (www
.equator-network.org) for a repository of over 350 checklists. One recommenda-
tion common to these guidelines for intervention research is to provide suffi-
cient detail on the content of the specific techniques or “active ingredients”
(Michie et al., 2015) which characterise the researchers’ efforts to modify or
change behaviour (e.g., reinforcement, self-monitoring, feedback). To promote
standardised descriptions of these active components, behavioural scientists have
developed taxonomies of behaviour change techniques (BCT; Michie et al.,
2013) which can be adopted for the development of interventions and their
reporting. Such an approach has been used to provide a systematic review of the
literature on coach development programs to identify the theoretical underpin-
nings and active ingredients of effective interventions for coach behaviour
(Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Côté, 2017). Yet to date, mental toughness
researchers and more broadly sport and exercise psychology scholars (including
us) have not taken sufficient notice of these guidelines for the development and
reporting of psychosocial and behavioural interventions. Use of these guidelines
early in the development of mental toughness interventions and for their dissem-
ination via academic reports is essential for transparency and clarity regarding
the active ingredients, in turn, shaping the next wave of research.

Psychophysiological indices of mental toughness and its

development
In addition to influencing personality and psychological resources, interven-
tions designed to foster mental toughness would be expected to elicit certain
psychophysiological changes which promote mentally tough behaviours.
Research directly examining the psychophysiological correlates of mental
toughness is sparse, but we can make several theory-driven hypotheses about
how psychophysiological measures could reflect varying levels of mental
toughness.
Predictions derived from challenge and Threat Appraisal Theory. According
to challenge and threat appraisal theory (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Jones,
Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009), when individuals encounter stressors
that they are motivated to confront, their psychological appraisal of the situation
determines their physiological response, which in-turn, influences their perform-
ance. In situations where an individual’s perceived resources (e.g., skills, know-
ledge, external support) exceed their perceived demands (e.g., uncertainty,
danger, required effort), a “challenge appraisal” is said to ensue, prompting
9780815392835C14.3D 263 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 263

activation of the sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) axis. This mobilises
energy resources by releasing epinephrine and norepinephrine to elevate heart
rate, ventricular contractility and cardiac output. Epinephrine can also bind with
beta-2 receptors in skeletal muscle to prompt vasodilation in skeletal muscle
beds, thereby reducing total peripheral resistance (Seery, 2011). This pattern of
physiological responding is argued to facilitate physical activity (e.g., fast and
efficient movements in sport) by increasing the efficiency of blood flow to large
skeletal muscles (Jones et al., 2009).
In situations where perceived demands exceed perceived resources, a “threat
appraisal” ensues, prompting activation of both the SAM and the pituitary-
adrenocortial (HPA) axes. SAM activation would prompt elevations in heart rate
and ventricular contractility, while additional HPA activation would prompt the
release of cortisol, which tempers vasodilation (Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge,
Norris, & Weisbuch, 2004). This pattern of physiological responding could
compromise the relative efficiency of blood flow to the muscles, and would
rather prepare individuals to withdraw from action than prime them to act
(Seery, 2011; see Figure 14.2).
Based on challenge and threat appraisal theory, one could reason that mental
toughness interventions, especially those that focus on increasing coping
resources and preparedness, should increase the likelihood of stressors being
appraised as a challenge rather than a threat. Accordingly, the development of
mental toughness could be indexed by a relative increase in cardiac output and
decrease in total peripheral resistance during stressful situations. Moreover, this
pattern of physiological responding could underpin any beneficial effects of the
mental toughness intervention on performance; this awaits to be tested. Imped-
ance cardiograph systems are traditionally used to assess cardiac output and total
peripheral resistance. They are most commonly found in medical and research
laboratories, with size and cost factors presenting a barrier to their widespread
use in field settings. However, advancements in technology are yielding more

t
Heart rate
t High efficiency of
Challenge Appraisal SAM activation Ventricular contractility Physical activity
t Cardiac output bloodflow to
If resources facilitated
v Total peripheral resistance skeletal muscles
exceed
demands

Demands and
Stressor is Resources are
confronted evaluated

If demands
exceed t
resources Heart rate Low efficiency of
t Physical activity
Threat Appraisal SAM & HPA activation Ventricular contractility bloodflow to
= or v Cardiac output skeletal muscles compromised
= or t Total peripheral resistance

Figure 14.2 Overview of Challenge and Threat Appraisal Theory (Blascovich &
Tomaka, 1996; Jones et al., 2009). Interventions to increase mental
toughness are expected to increase the likelihood of individuals following
the upper “Challenge” path and psychophysiological responses.
9780815392835C14.3D 264 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

264 Stuart Beattie et al.

portable, miniaturised and low-cost solutions that will increase the feasibility of
field-based psychophysiological monitoring in the future (e.g., Yazdanian,
Mahnam, Edrisi, & Esfahani, 2016).
Predictions derived from theories of approach and avoidance motivation.
Several researchers have associated increased approach motivation with higher
levels of mental toughness (Gucciardi, 2010) and performance (Lochbaum &
Gottardy, 2015). At a cortical-level, approach motivation manifests as pre-
frontal-cortical-asymmetry, with relatively greater activation of the left prefrontal
cortex than the right prefrontal cortex (Harmon-Jones & Gable, 2018). This
physiological index originates from studies of participants with brain lesions.
People with lesions in the left hemisphere (and, hence, dominance of the right
hemisphere) showed depressive symptoms (e.g., avoidance, withdrawal), whereas
those with lesions in the right hemisphere showed manic symptoms (e.g.,
approach) (Gainotti, 1972). If development of mental toughness is characterised
by an increase in approach behaviours and overcoming of stressors, there should
be increased prefrontal-cortical-asymmetry, with increased activation of the left
prefrontal cortex. Again, this prediction has not to date been tested.
Predictions derived from task-specific expert performance profiles. In addition
to prompting general physiological changes consistent with challenge appraisals
and approach motivation, mental toughness interventions could encourage spe-
cific patterns of physiological activity known to support optimal performance.
For instance, successful (compared to unsuccessful) golf-putting has been char-
acterised by increased activation recorded at electrodes overlying the primary
motor cortex, likely reflecting more accurate motor programming of parameters
such as force and direction (Babiloni et al., 2008; Cooke et al., 2014, 2015). In
contrast, decreased activation of electrodes overlying the left-temporal regions
likely reflects inhibition of verbal-analytic processes, which consistently character-
ises increased accuracy in gun-shooting (e.g., Gallicchio, Finkenzeller, Sattlecker,
Lindinger, & Hoedlmoser, 2016; Kerick, Douglass, & Hatfield, 2004). Accord-
ingly, mental toughness interventions may be expected to elicit more optimal
task-specific psychophysiological profiles, such as the examples provided above
for golf and shooting, and these profiles could further underpin the beneficial
effects of mental toughness training on performance.
Incidences of performance deterioration under stress have been attributed
to stress disrupting the psychophysiological processes associated with optimal
movement preparation (e.g., Cooke, Kavussanu, McIntyre, & Ring, 2010;
Hatfield et al., 2013). We hypothesise that a feature of mental toughness
should be the maintenance of optimal preparatory indices (e.g., cortical prep-
aration indexed by the readiness potential and event-related desynchron-
ization) during even the most intense high-stress situations. An index of the
development of mental toughness would be the gradual alleviation of disrup-
tions to preparatory psychophysiological activity upon the transition from
low- to high-stress conditions. These predictions provide a basis for future
interdisciplinary research.
9780815392835C14.3D 265 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 265

Summary and directions for future research
The previous sections detail some psychophysiological measures that would be
expected to change as mental toughness develops. This represents only a sample
of measures and theories that could be drawn upon and used in the evaluation
of mental toughness interventions. Readers interested in other psychophysio-
logical-based theories and measures that could equally support mental toughness
development could also consider the neurovisceral integration model (Thayer,
Hansen, Saus-Rose, & Johnsen, 2009) and the psychomotor efficiency hypoth-
esis (Hatfield & Hillman, 2001).
The future research suggestions voiced above involve monitoring cardiovascu-
lar and cortical activity longitudinally to charter mental toughness developments
over the course of an intervention. Also, one could manipulate these psycho-
physiological variables via biofeedback training. It is well established that bio-
feedback can train individuals to volitionally produce certain psychophysiological
patterns, including some of those that have been identified as candidate correl-
ates of mental toughness (e.g., Allen, Harmon-Jones, & Cavender, 2001; Ring,
Cooke, Kavussanu, McIntyre, & Masters, 2015). It would be interesting for
future research to examine whether such biofeedback interventions can directly
encourage the development of mental toughness as alternative or adjunct treat-
ments to more traditional mental toughness interventions.
Despite the wealth of studies examining the importance of different cogni-
tions, attitudes, emotions, psychological resources and traits that have been asso-
ciated with mental toughness, there have only been a handful of interventions
devoted to its development. These studies differ in their methodological
approach and in how they quantify success. Some use subjective self-report
assessments as a primary outcome, some use objective assessments of mentally
tough behaviours and performance-related statistics as outcome variables. All of
them, however, have implemented some form of psychological skills interven-
tion, yet all fall short of adhering to guidelines for the development and report-
ing of psychosocial and behavioural interventions.
There is a need to avoid a blanket interventionist approach to developing
mental toughness, where every athlete gets the same intervention at the same
time, over the same period, whether needed or not. Even if the intervention is
theoretically driven, this approach is akin to the proverbial throwing mud at
a wall! A further desirable outcome of any intervention research should be the
demonstration of effects at more than just a self-report level and ideally at all
levels. For example, beneficial outcomes should be seen in measures of personal-
ity (self- or other reported), psychological resources (self- or other reported),
psychophysiological (objective), and behavioural (objective, observed, or inform-
ant-rated) measures.
The success of individualised mental toughness interventions might also be
enhanced if practitioners integrated a whole-person perspective (see Coulter,
Mallett, Singer, & Gucciardi, 2016). To account for psychological individuality
and to better understand the motives behind an athlete’s behaviour, the
9780815392835C14.3D 266 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

266 Stuart Beattie et al.

practitioner should take note of three layers of understanding (McAdams &
Pals, 2006). First, one must understand the athlete’s dispositional traits (e.g.,
personality or beliefs). Second, there is a need to understand the athlete’s char-
acteristic adaptations (e.g., motives, goals, values, beliefs and identity). The final
layer of personality relates to the self-narrative perspective (e.g., how previous
life events shape the person and the future). As above, super-elite athletes were
more likely than elite athletes to have experienced a critical negative life event
(Hardy et al., 2017; see also Howells, Sakar, & Fletcher, 2017) and it appeared
that those critical life events were in part a catalyst for the athlete succeeding
with sport.
To conclude, mental toughness cannot be developed in a void of adversity.
The qualitative work showing that tough training environments (Driska et al.,
2012) and transformational delivery of punishment-driven interventions (Bell
et al., 2013) support this line of thinking. Further, researchers have shown
that self-regulated training environments (where the athlete takes ownership
of their own training), partially explains the relationship between self-report
ratings of mental toughness and coach assessment of how well the athlete
performs under pressure (Beattie et al., 2019). There is also a need for
mental toughness interventions to be more individualised (Bell et al., 2013;
Gucciardi et al., 2009a). To fully understand the athlete and tailor individual-
ised interventions, the three layers of understanding pertaining to mental
toughness should prove helpful (McAdams & Pals, 2006). There is also
a need to better understand the relationships between self-report mental
toughness assessments, its correlates, objectively assessed mentally tough
behaviours, psychophysiological responses to stress, and performance related
variables under pressure. For example, it is unlikely that all behaviours dem-
onstrated by the athlete that promote performance under pressure could be
termed mentally tough behaviours. We also recommend that future mental
toughness interventions are based on principles of maximizing transparency
and clarity in reporting and intervention development.

References
Allan, V., Vierimaa, M., Gainforth, H. L., & Côté, J. (20172017). The use of behaviour
change theories and techniques in research-informed coach development programmes:
A systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. doi:10.1080/
1750984X.2017.1286514
Allen, J. J., Harmon-Jones, E., & Cavender, J. H. (2001). Manipulation of frontal EEG
asymmetry through biofeedback alters self-reported emotional responses and facial EMG.
Psychophysiology. 38, 685–693.
Anthony, D. R., Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2016). A meta-study of qualitative
research on mental toughness development. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 9, 160–190. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2016.1146787
Babiloni, C., Del Percio, C., Iacoboni, M., Infarinato, F., Lizio, R., Marzano, N., . . . &
Eusebi, F. (2008). Golf putt outcomes are predicted by sensorimotor cerebral EEG
rhythms. The Journal of Physiology, 586, 131–139. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.141630
9780815392835C14.3D 267 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 267

Beattie, S., Alqallaf, A., & Hardy, L. (2017). The effects of punishment and reward sensitiv-
ities on mental toughness and performance in swimming. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 48, 246–261. doi:10.7352/IJSP.2017.48.246
Beattie, S., Alqallaf, A., Hardy, L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2019). The mediating role of training
bahviors on self-report mental toughness and mentally tough behaviour in swimming.
Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8, 179–191. doi.org/10.1037/
spy0000146179
Bell, J., Hardy, L., & Beattie, S. (2013). Enhancing mental toughness and performance
under pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2-year longitudinal intervention. Sport, Exer-
cise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 281–297. doi:org/10.1037/a0033129
Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, R. K., & Weisbuch, M. (2004). Pre-
dicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 683–688. doi:org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.007
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1–51. doi:org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60235-X
Brown, D. J., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Effects of psychological and psychosocial interven-
tions on sport performance: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47, 77–99. doi:10.1007/
s40279-016-0552-7
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. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200591010085
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G. for the CONSORT Group
(2012). Consort 2010 statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ, 345,
e5661. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661
Connaughton, D., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2010). The development and maintenance of
mental toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 168–193.
Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development and
maintenance of mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sports Sci-
ences, 26, 83–95. doi:10.1080/02640410701310958
Cooke, A., Gallicchio, G., Kavussanu, M., Willoughby, A., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C.
(2015). Pre-movement high-alpha power is modulated by previous movement errors:
Indirect evidence to endorse high-alpha power as a marker of resource allocation during
motor programming. Psychophysiology, 52, 977–981. doi:10.1111/psyp.12414
Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., Gallicchio, G., Willoughby, A., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C.
(2014). Preparation for action: Psychophysiological activity preceding a motor skill as
a function of expertise, performance outcome, and psychological pressure. Psychophysi-
ology, 51, 374–384. doi:10.1111/psyp.12182
Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C. (2010). Psychological, muscular and
kinematic factors mediate performance under pressure. Psychophysiology, 47, 1109–1118.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01021.x
Coulter, T. J., Mallett, C. J., Singer, R., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2016). Personality in sport
and exercise psychology: Integrating a whole person perspective. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 23–41.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C, Crepaz, N. the TREND group (2004). Improving the report-
ing quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioural and public health interventions:
9780815392835C14.3D 268 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

268 Stuart Beattie et al.

The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.94.3.361
Driska, A. P., Kamphoff, C., & Armentrout, S. M. (2012). Elite swimming coaches’ percep-
tions of mental toughness. Sport Psychologist, 26, 189–206.
Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J. the PAFS consensus group (2016). CON-
SORT 2010 statement: Extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ, 24(355),
i5239. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5239
Gainotti, G. (1972). Emotional behavior and hemispheric side of the lesion. Cortex, 8(1),
41–55. doi:org/10.1016/S0010-9452(72)80026-1
Gallicchio, G., Finkenzeller, T., Sattlecker, G., Lindinger, S., & Hoedlmoser, K. (2016).
Shooting under cardiovascular load: Electroencephalographic activity in preparation for
biathlon shooting. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 109, 92–99. doi:org/
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.09.004
Gucciardi, D., Hanton, S., Gordon, S., Mallet, C., & Temby, P. (2015). The concept of
mental toughness: Tests of dimensionality, nomological network, and traitness. Journal
of Personality, 83, 26–44. doi:10.1111/jopy.12079
Gucciardi, D. F. (2010). Mental toughness profiles and their relations with achievement
goals and sport motivation in adolescent Australian footballers. Journal of Sports Sciences,
28, 615–625. doi:org/10.1080/02640410903582792
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. doi:10.1080/10413200801998556
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009a). Evaluation of a mental toughness
training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: I. A quantitative analysis. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 307–323. doi:10.1080/10413200903026066
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009b). Evaluation of a mental toughness
training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: II. A qualitative analysis. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 324–339. doi:10.1080/10413200903026074
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J. A., & Mallett, C. J. (2009). Understanding the
coach’s role in the development of mental toughness: Perspectives of elite Australian
football coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1483–1496. doi:10.1080/
02640410903150475
Hardy, L., Barlow, M., Evans, L., Rees, T., Woodman, T., & Warr, C. (2017). Chapter 1 –
Great British medallists: Psychosocial biographies of super-elite and elite athletes from
Olympic sports. Progress in Brain Research, 232, 1–119.
Hardy, L., Bell, J., & Beattie, S. (2014). A neuropsychological model of mentally tough
behavior. Journal of Personality, 82, 69–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12034
Harmon-Jones, E., & Gable, P. A. (2018). On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activ-
ity in approach and withdrawal motivation: An updated review of the evidence. Psycho-
physiology, 1–23. doi:10.1111/psyp.12879
Hatfield, B. D., Costanzo, M. E., Goodman, R. N., Lo, L. C., Oh, H., Rietschel, J. C., . . .
& Haufler, A. (2013). The influence of social evaluation on cerebral cortical activity and
motor performance: A study of “real-life” competition. International Journal of Psycho-
physiology, 90, 240–249. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.08.002
Hatfield, B. D., & Hillman, C. H. (2001). The psychophysiology of sport: A mechanistic
understanding of the psychology of superior performance. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 362–386). New York: Wiley.
9780815392835C14.3D 269 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

Mental toughness training 269

Howells, K., Sakar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Can athletes benefit from difficulty?
A systematic review of growth following adversity in competitive sport. In M. R. Wilson,
V. Walsh, & B. Parkin (Eds.), Sport and the brain: The science of preparing, enduring and
winning, Part B (pp. 117–159). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Jones, M., Meijen, C., McCarthy, P. J., & Sheffield, D. (2009). A theory of challenge and
threat states in athletes. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 161–180.
doi:org/10.1080/17509840902829331
Kerick, S. E., Douglass, L. W., & Hatfield, B. D. (2004). Cerebral cortical adaptations asso-
ciated with visuomotor practice. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36, 118–129.
doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000106176.31784.D4
Lochbaum, M., & Gottardy, J. (2015). A meta-analytic review of the approach-avoidance
achievement goals and performance relationships in the sport psychology literature. Jour-
nal of Sport and Health Science, 4, 164–173. doi:org/10.1016/j.jshs.2013.12.004
Mahoney, J. W., Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2017). Training a coach
to be autonomy-supportive: An avenue for nurturing mental toughness. In
S. T. Cotterill, N. Weston, & G. Breslin (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology: Practitioner
case studies (pp. 193–213). Chichester: Wiley.
Mahoney, J. W., Ntoumanis, N., Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., & Stebbings, J. (2016).
Implementing an autonomy-supportive intervention to develop mental toughness in ado-
lescent rowers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 199–215. doi:10.1080/
10413200.2015.1101030
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an inte-
grative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.61.3.204
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W.,
Wood, C. E. (2013). The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchic-
ally clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behav-
iour change interventions. Annals of Behaviour Medicine, 46, 81–95. doi:10.1007/
s12160-013-9486-6
Michie, S., Wood, C. E., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J. J., & Hardeman, W.
(2015). Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic
method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five stud-
ies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative
data). Health Technology Assessment, 99, 1–188. doi:10.3310/hta19990
Ring, C., Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Masters, R. (2015). Investigating the
efficacy of neurofeedback training for expediting expertise and excellence in sport. Psych-
ology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 118–127. doi:org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.005
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford.
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D. the CONSORT group (2010). CONSORT 2010
statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trails. BMC Medi-
cine, 8(18). doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
Seery, M. D. (2011). Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulner-
ability to potential stress in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1603–
1610. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.003
Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2006). Effect of a psychological skills training program on swim-
ming performance and positive psychological development. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 149–169. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671790
9780815392835C14.3D 270 [255–270] 3.9.2019 9:45AM

270 Stuart Beattie et al.

Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validation of
the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 25, 186–193. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186
Thayer, J. F., Hansen, A. L., Saus-Rose, E., & Johnsen, B. H. (2009). Heart rate variability,
prefrontal neural function, and cognitive performance: The neurovisceral integration per-
spective on self-regulation, adaptation, and health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37,
141–153. doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9101-z
Thelwell, R. C., Such, B. A., Weston, N. J. V., Such, J. D., & Greenlees, I. A. (2010). Devel-
oping mental toughness. Perceptions of elite female gymnasts. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 170–188. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2010.9671941
Vohra, S., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M. the CENT group CONSORT extension for report-
ing N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 76, 9–17.
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.004
Weinberg, R., Freysinger, V., Mellano, K., & Brookhouse, E. (2016). Building mental
toughness; perceptions of sport psychologists. The Sport Psychologist, 30, 231–241. doi:
org/10.1123/tsp.2015-0090
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: University Press.
Yazdanian, H., Mahnam, A., Edrisi, M., & Esfahani, M. A. (2016). Design and implemen-
tation of a portable impedance cardiography system for noninvasive stroke volume
monitoring. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors, 6, 47–56.

View publication stats