| Mental Toughness |
|
|
|
There are certain
moments during competition that appear to carry great psychological
significance, when the momentum starts to shift in one direction or
another. These situations require athletes to remain completely focused
and calm in the face of difficult circumstances.
Tennis players talk of the ‘big’ points during a tight match, such as a fleeting chance to break serve; for an athlete, it could be the final triple-jump in the competition after seriously under-performing; for a footballer, it could be how you react to a perceived bad refereeing decision or to going behind in a match your team are expected to win. Most top athletes and coaches believe that psychological factors play as crucial a role as physical attributes and learned skills in the make-up of champions. When physical skills are evenly matched – as they tend to be in competitive sport – the competitor with greater control over his or her mind will usually emerge as the victor. Mental strength is not going to compensate for lack of skill, but in close contests it can make the difference between winning and losing. • achieve relatively consistent performances regardless of situational factors; • retain a confident, positive, optimistic outlook, even when things are not going well, and not ‘choke’ under pressure; • deal with distractions without letting them interfere with optimal focus; • tolerate pain and discomfort; • remain persistent when the ‘going gets tough’; • have the resilience to bounce back from disappointments. The influence of personality These characteristics are obviously related to success in most life situations. But it seems that some of us may be tougher than others because of personality traits and learned ways of coping.Personality research has always stirred up controversy – usually because researchers have not been able to agree on the correct approach to studying it. Some have taken what is known as the ‘trait’ approach, which views personality as stable and enduring, based on individual characteristics. However, others see personality as shaped by environmental influences, while ‘interactionists’ view individual traits and the environment as codeterminants of behaviour. In recent times, this latter position has tended to predominate, based on the view that personality structure involves both a stable core of attitudes, values and beliefs about self, that remains relatively unchanged after early childhood, and more changeable, dynamic behaviours that are influenced by our environment. Research on the relationship between stress and illness has revealed that some people have characteristics that act as buffers against stressors, making them less likely to succumb to ill health in difficult times. The leading researcher Suzanne Kobasa showed in one study that a personality characteristic known as ‘hardiness’ was a key factor in whether or not highly-stressed executives succumbed to illness. The hardy executives, who avoided illness, tended to perceive stressors as ‘challenges’ rather than threats, so maintaining a sense of control over events (3). Kobasa suggested that hardiness incorporates three key elements: 1. Control – the perceived ability of the individual to exert influence rather than experience helplessness; 2. Commitment – ie a refusal to give up easily; 3. Challenge – involving a person’s ability to grow and develop rather than remain static, and to view change rather than stability as the norm. Until recently, few studies had attempted to transfer the concept of hardiness to sport and exercise settings, but it seems very similar to the idea of mental toughness outlined earlier in this article. One study on the relationship between hardiness and performance in basketball showed that seven out of eight season-long performance indicators were significantly correlated with a total hardiness score (4). This finding needs to be interpreted with caution, however, since correlations do not necessarily reflect causation. The Hull researchers carried out two studies to show how mental toughness was related to performance and cognitive appraisal. In the first study, 23 volunteers performed 30-minute static cycling trials at three different intensities of 30, 50 and 70% of their maximum oxygen uptake, rating the physical demands of the trials at five-minute intervals. Participants were classified as having either high or low mental toughness based on their responses to the above-mentioned questionnaire and, as predicted, those with higher levels of mental toughness reported significantly lower perceived exertion at 70% of maximum. No significant differences were noted at lower levels of exertion which, as the researchers acknowledged, is consistent with the cliché that ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get going’. The observed differences at higher levels of exertion could reflect a tendency of the more tough-minded to somehow act on the incoming stimuli before it reaches the level of perception, to reduce the perception of strain. Mentally tough exercisers might perceive themselves as having greater control during such conditions, or interpret the higher intensity as a challenge rather than a threat. The ‘4Cs’ model of mental toughnessBuilding on the work of Kobasa, the Hull team proposed that confidence (as well as control, commitment and challenge) was a key element of mental toughness. This has given rise to the ‘4Cs’ model of mental toughness.Research on mental toughness in sport and exercise has focused largely on individual differences, in which mental toughness is viewed as a relatively stable characteristic. However, classic previous research on animals has suggested that ‘toughening up’ can be achieved through exposure to stressful conditions. Weiss and colleagues observed a toughening phenomenon after exposing animals to cold-water swimming, electric shock treatment or injections over a 14-day period (5). Specifically, the usual decrement in performance following aversive stimulation was not observed after the 14-day period. The intermittent exposure to aversive stimuli had apparently led to the animals becoming more tolerant of – and resilient to – such stimuli. Although this finding does not necessarily transfer to human subjects, there are distinct parallels with various techniques commonly used as interventions in sport and exercise environments. For example, a technique known as ‘stress inoculation training’ gradually exposes the individual to more threatening situations while self-control is acquired as a means to combat learned helplessness. The stress response is gradually diminished as exposure renders the situation less threatening and the individual experiences a growing sense of control. Of particular importance here is the idea that exposure to stress in controlled situations is much more powerful than stress reduction or removal, which will not help an individual cope with future exposure to the same stressor.
One researcher has proposed four major influences on toughening, as follows: |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|