سختی روانی، خوش بینی، بدبینی و مقابله در میان ورزشکاران
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38221||2008||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4735 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 44, Issue 5, April 2008, Pages 1182–1192
Abstract The concept of mental toughness is widely used, but empirical evidence is required to fully understand this construct and its related variables. The purpose of this paper was to explore the relationship between: (a) mental toughness and coping, (b) mental toughness and optimism, and (c) coping and optimism. Participants were 677 athletes (male 454; female 223) aged between 15 and 58 years (M age = 22.66 years, SD = 7.20). Mental toughness correlated significantly with 8 of the 10 coping subscales and optimism. In particular, higher levels of mental toughness were associated with more problem or approach coping strategies (mental imagery, effort expenditure, thought control, and logical analysis) but less use of avoidance coping strategies (distancing, mental distraction, and resignation). Eight coping subscales were significantly correlated with optimism and pessimism. In conclusion, the relationships observed in this study emphasize the need for the inclusion of coping and optimism training in mental toughness interventions.
1. Introduction Mental toughness has recently been suggested to be an important characteristic for athletic success (Golby and Sheard, 2004 and Loehr, 1986), and yet it remains one of the least understood terms in sport psychology (Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002). Definitions of this construct not only vary widely among coaches, sport commentators, fans, and athletes, but also among researchers. For instance, Clough, Earle, and Sewell (2002) reported that mentally tough people have “a high sense of self-belief and an unshakable faith that they control their own destiny, these individuals can remain relatively unaffected by competition and adversity” (p. 38). Conversely, Jones et al. (2002) suggested that mental toughness represents the ability of a person to cope with the demands of training and competition, increased determination, focus, confidence, and maintaining control under pressure. To date, most researchers have relied on qualitative research paradigms to examine mental toughness. For example, mental toughness characteristics have been investigated in athletes from a variety of sports (e.g., Fourie and Potgieter, 2001, Jones et al., 2007 and Jones et al., 2002) and specific sports like cricket (e.g., Bull, Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005), and soccer (e.g., Thellwell, Weston, & Greenlees, 2005). The mental toughness studies involving the cricketers and soccer players produced similar findings to those by Fourie and Potgieter, alongside Jones et al. (2002) with a strong emphasis placed on coping effectiveness (Thellwell et al., 2005) and tough thinking (Bull et al., 2005). Given the adaptive applied implications of being mentally tough it is essential that researchers pursue sound psychometric measurement of this construct. To date, two measures have been postulated to examine mental toughness. First, Loehr (1986) developed the sport specific psychological performance inventory (PPI), based on interviews with a large number of athletes. However, the psychometric properties of the PPI have recently been criticized (Middleton et al., 2004). Secondly, grounded in Kobasa, 1979 concept of hardiness and their applied work with rugby league players, Clough et al. (2002) proposed the 4Cs model of mental toughness and developed the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48) to assess their proposed characteristics of mental toughness. The MTQ48 assesses an individual’s total mental toughness and the four proposed sub-components: (a) control (emotional and life), a tendency to feel and act as if one is influential, (b) commitment, a tendency to involve oneself in rather than experience alienation from an encounter, (c) challenge, belief that life is changeable and to view this as an opportunity rather than a threat, and (d) confidence (interpersonal and in abilities), a high sense of self-belief and unshakable faith concerning one’s ability to achieve success. Adequate reliability, face, construct, and criterion validity has been reported for the MTQ48 ( Clough et al., 2002). For example, Crust and Clough (2005) found that individuals who scored higher on total mental toughness and on the factors of control and confidence were significantly more likely to tolerate a physical endurance task for longer than those individuals who scored lower on these factors. Other research using the MTQ48 found higher levels of mental toughness were associated with more positive threat appraisals, enhanced ability to cope with pain, and a greater attendance to clinic-based physical therapy among athletes undertaking a sport injury rehabilitation program ( Levy, Polman, Clough, Marchant, & Earle, 2006). There are some similarities in terms of the characteristics identified which underlie mental toughness between the work of Clough and colleagues (e.g., Clough et al., 2002 and Crust and Clough, 2005) and Jones and colleagues (Jones et al., 2002 and Jones et al., 2007). In particular, control and confidence are perceived to be important by both teams of researchers; however, Jones et al., 2002 and Jones et al., 2007 suggest that coping is also a key construct of mental toughness. Coping refers to conscious cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage a situation that has been appraised as stressful (Lazarus, 1999 and Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested that coping strategies either change or eliminate the stressor (problem-focused coping e.g., planning), or manage the emotional responses (emotion-focused coping e.g., deep breathing) caused by the stressor. Based on this widely accepted conceptualization of coping in sport (Nicholls & Polman, 2007), we believe that Jones et al., 2002 and Jones et al., 2007 refer to mentally tough athletes as being able to cope effectively (Bull et al., 2005, Jones et al., 2002, Jones et al., 2007 and Thellwell et al., 2005). However, these studies do not state whether mentally tough athletes differ in the actual coping strategies employed, in comparison to athletes that are not mentally tough. Khoshaba and Maddi (1999) have suggested that hardy people are more likely to show problem or approach based coping behavior when faced with a stressful situation. However, little is known about the specific coping strategies that mentally tough athletes may, or may not use in comparison to less mentally tough athletes. Or, as Nicholls and Polman (2007) have stated, “the relationship between coping and mental toughness appears to be an obvious one, but has not been investigated to date” (p. 18). Secondly, although it is purported by Jones and colleagues that mental toughness is relatively stable and enduring, one of its key components is not. Previous research with elite athletes provides support for Lazarus (1999), that coping changes over time (e.g., Nicholls et al., 2006, Nicholls et al., 2005 and Nicholls and Polman, in press). Therefore, it would be premature to consider coping behavior as an essential component of mental toughness without empirical evidence. Another psychological construct that appears to be related to both mental toughness and coping is optimism. In a qualitative study, Gould, Dieffenbach, and Moffett (2002) reported that Olympic champions report high levels of mental toughness, coping effectiveness, and optimism. Optimism, in this respect, has been defined as “a major determinant of the disjunction between two classes of behavior: (a) continued striving versus (b) giving up and turning away” (Scheier & Carver, 1985, p. 227). Researchers became interested in studying optimism, because more optimistic individuals exhibit increased effort to achieve goals. Alternatively, less optimistic individuals are more likely to withdraw or disengage attempts at achieving a goal (e.g., Carver et al., 1979, Gaudreau and Blondin, 2004 and SolbergNes et al., 2005). In addition, optimism seems to be a predictor of sport performance. In a study by Norlander and Archer (2002) it was found that optimism was the best predictor of performance in elite male and female cross country skiers and ski-marksman (16–20 years) and swimmers (16–19 years). Finally, optimism appears to be associated with differences in coping behavior. In a recent meta-analysis it was found that more optimistic individuals use more approach coping strategies and less avoidance strategies (Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). To date, however, we are not aware of any studies that have quantitatively investigated the optimism and mental toughness relationship. In summary, mental toughness is an appealing psychological construct to both coaches and sport psychologists. Empirical information is required to understand more about the relationship between mental toughness and the psychological constructs that are reported to determine it. As such, the purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between (a) mental toughness and coping, (b) mental toughness and optimism and pessimism, and (c) coping and optimism and pessimism.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations for the LOT, MTQ48, and CICS, respectively. Table 2 and Table 3 provide information with regard to the correlation analysis whereas Table 2 provides the results of the regression analysis. Eight of 10 coping scales were significantly correlated with mental toughness. That is, higher levels of mental toughness were associated with more problem or approach coping strategies (mental imagery, effort expenditure, thought control, and logical analysis) but less use of avoidance coping strategies (distancing, mental distraction, and resignation; see Table 2). Table 1. Mean and standard deviations for optimism/pessimism, mental toughness, and coping behavior among athletes Dependent variables (N = 677) Minimum Maximum Optimism 15.82 (2.03) 7 20 Pessimism 6.58 (2.64) 4 16 Mental toughness total 173.1 (17.9) 99 214 Challenge 3.76 (0.43) 2.25 4.75 Commitment 3.72 (0.50) 2.00 4.91 Emotional control 3.22 (0.52) 1.71 4.86 Life control 3.63 (0.51) 1.86 5.00 Ability confidence 3.57 (0.51) 1.33 5.00 Interpersonal confidence 3.67 (0.67) 1.33 5.00 Mental imagery 3.35 (0.76) 1.00 5.00 Effort expenditure 3.99 (0.67) 1.00 5.00 Thought control 3.63 (0.63) 1.25 5.00 Seeking support 2.39 (0.89) 1.00 4.75 Relaxation 2.73 (0.78) 1.00 4.75 Logical analysis 3.25 (0.75) 1.00 5.00 Distancing 2.07 (0.73) 1.00 4.50 Mental distraction 1.85 (0.76) 1.00 4.50 Venting emotions 2.86 (1.03) 1.00 5.00 Resignation 1.65 (0.69) 1.00 4.50 Table options Table 2. Results of the pearson product moment correlation analysis between the coping strategies and the personality variables optimism/pessimism and mental toughness Optimism Pessimism Mental toughness Challenge Commitment Emotional control Life control Ability confidence Interpersonal confidence Mental imagery .29⁎⁎ −.10⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ 16⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .01 .10⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .09⁎ Effort expenditure .25⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .08⁎ .19⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ Thought control .27⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .06 .21⁎⁎ .25 .17⁎⁎ Seeking support .13⁎⁎ .06 .02 −.02 .01 −.06 .00 .07 .06 Relaxation .09⁎ −.02 .10⁎⁎ .07 .09⁎ .05 .08⁎ .12⁎⁎ .02 Logical analysis .28⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .09⁎ .22⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ Distancing −.05 .18⁎⁎ −.09⁎ −.06 −.12⁎⁎ −.06 −.09⁎ −.07 .03 Mental distraction −.11⁎ .30⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ −.12⁎⁎ −.12⁎⁎ Venting emotions .05 .13⁎⁎ −.01 .03 .04 −.15⁎⁎ .00 −.09⁎ −.12⁎⁎ Resignation −.23⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎ −.11⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ ⁎ P < 0.05. ⁎⁎ P < 0.01. Table options Table 3. Results of the pearson product moment correlation analysis between the personality variables optimism/pessimism and mental toughness Optimism Pessimism Mental toughness .56⁎⁎ −.46⁎⁎ Challenge .48⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎ Commitment .52⁎⁎ −.33⁎⁎ Emotional control .08⁎ −.24⁎⁎ Life control .48⁎⁎ −.43⁎⁎ Ability confidence .38⁎⁎ −.49⁎⁎ Interpersonal confidence .42⁎⁎ −.16⁎⁎ ⁎ P < 0.05. ⁎⁎ P < 0.01. Table options Positive, moderate to high correlations were found between total mental toughness and the six subscales of mental toughness (e.g., challenge, commitment, emotional control, life control, ability confidence, and interpersonal confidence) and optimism. Negative correlations were found for mental toughness and pessimism (see Table 3). Eight of the 10 coping subscales (e.g., mental imagery, effort expenditure, thought control, seeking support, relaxation, logical analysis, mental distraction, and resignation) were significantly correlated with optimism and pessimism, respectively. Higher levels of optimism were associated with more mental imagery, effort expenditure, thought control, and logical analysis, whereas pessimism was associated with significantly less use of these coping strategies. Resignation was positively correlated with pessimism, but negatively correlated with optimism.