Mental toughness and choking susceptibility in athletes

The ability to perform under pressure is crucial for athletic success. Choking under pressure, defined as inferior performance despite striving for superior performance, has been a topic of significant research. Early definitions lacked nuance, leading to the development of more comprehensive definitions that consider motivation, capability, and perceived importance. Perceived pressure arises from various sources, including spectators, evaluation, and time constraints, evoking cognitive and behavioral reactions like distraction, self-consciousness, and anxiety. Choking susceptibility refers to the likelihood of experiencing choking and has been operationalized by Mesagno et al. (2008) as a combination of scores on self-consciousness, anxiety, and coping styles. This protocol classifies athletes as choking-susceptible or non-susceptible based on percentile scores across these three attributes. Although the protocol has shown links to various performance-related outcomes, more evidence is needed to support its validity, particularly its relationship to actual choking behavior. Mental toughness is another crucial construct in sport performance, often associated with excelling under pressure. While anecdotal evidence and some qualitative studies have suggested a link between mental toughness and choking susceptibility, rigorous quantitative research is lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by investigating the relationship between these two constructs, hypothesizing that choking-susceptible athletes would exhibit lower levels of mental toughness.

Existing literature extensively links anxiety, perfectionism, fear of negative evaluation, physical fatigue, and changes in motor control to an increased probability of choking. Mesagno et al.'s (2008, 2009) protocol, the primary method for assessing choking susceptibility, combines the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS), Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS), and Coping Style Inventory for Athletes (CSIA). Prior research using this protocol has examined its links to various factors including cognitive processes, handedness, brain activation patterns, and personality traits. However, a critical gap remains: limited evidence exists directly linking choking susceptibility to actual choking behavior. Mental toughness, characterized by self-belief, self-control, and effective coping strategies, has been shown to facilitate adaptive responses to stress and enhance performance under pressure. Studies on mental toughness interventions have demonstrated improvements in performance in various sports. Although some research suggests a link between lower mental toughness and choking propensity, these studies either did not directly assess mental toughness or relied on self-reported choking instead of objective measures. This inconsistency necessitates further investigation into the relationship between mental toughness and choking susceptibility, particularly considering the different coping strategies emphasized in the literature. Some studies highlight the positive association between mental toughness and approach coping styles, while others emphasize the negative relationship between avoidance coping styles and choking. The association between mental toughness and anxiety is less clear, with varying studies reporting negative, null, or even positive associations.

A quantitative study was conducted using a Qualtrics research panel to recruit athletes from Canada and the United States. After removing responses for straightlining and lack of sport clarification, the final sample comprised 415 athletes (187 females, 224 males, 3 non-binary/third gender, and 1 preferring not to specify). Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 80, with an average of 40.56 years (316 valid responses). Athletes represented 39 different sports and various competitive levels (international to recreational). Ethical clearance was obtained from Brock University's Research Ethics Board. Data were collected using online questionnaires, including measures for demographics, mental toughness, and choking susceptibility. Choking susceptibility was assessed using Mesagno et al.'s protocol, employing the SCS, SAS, and CSIA. Mental toughness was assessed using the Mental Toughness Index (MTI), an eight-item unidimensional measure rated on a 7-point Likert scale. The study used a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test to compare mental toughness scores between choking-susceptible and non-susceptible athletes, due to violations of normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the MTI to verify its one-factor model fit with the current data. Supplementary analyses examined the potential influence of gender, experience, and competitive level on the relationship between choking susceptibility and mental toughness.

Of the 415 participants, 16% (n=67) were classified as choking susceptible based on Mesagno et al.'s protocol (using the nearest percentile to 75th due to absence of observations at 75th). The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in MTI scores between choking-susceptible and non-susceptible athletes [U(415) = 10826.00, p > 0.05], indicating that mental toughness was not significantly different between the two groups. The effect size was small (0.11). Correlational analyses showed that mental toughness was not significantly correlated with self-consciousness (r = 0.03) but had small to moderate negative correlations with sport anxiety (r = -0.31) and the differential coping score (r = -0.18). Mental toughness had a small positive correlation with avoidance coping (r = 0.15) but no significant correlation with approach coping (r = -0.04). Supplementary analyses using chi-square tests found no significant difference in choking susceptibility prevalence between males and females or between athletes with less than and greater than 5 years of experience. However, a significant difference was found in choking susceptibility prevalence between recreational (12.5%) and competitive (19.8%) athletes (χ² = 4.09, p < 0.05, φ = -0.10). The CFA of the MTI confirmed a good fit to the one-factor model (CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08), with all eight items loading significantly onto the MTI factor (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90).

The study's findings failed to support the hypothesis that choking-susceptible athletes would exhibit lower mental toughness. The lack of significant difference in MTI scores between the two groups suggests that mental toughness and choking susceptibility may be distinct constructs, contrary to some anecdotal evidence and conceptual arguments. This conclusion aligns with existing research highlighting the distinctness of mental toughness from constructs such as grit, resilience, and hardiness. The small correlations observed between MTI and components of the choking susceptibility protocol (anxiety, coping) are consistent with the existing literature showing mixed or limited relationships between these factors and mental toughness. The significant difference in choking susceptibility between recreational and competitive athletes warrants further investigation into whether the relationship between mental toughness and choking susceptibility is moderated by competitive level or other contextual factors. Overall, the results suggest that while mental toughness and choking susceptibility may be related to broader concepts of sport performance, they represent unique constructs.

This study found no significant relationship between choking susceptibility and mental toughness in a large sample of athletes. This challenges previous assumptions and suggests the two constructs are distinct, although potentially related through other mediating factors. Further research should investigate the relationship between mental toughness and actual choking behavior, focusing on specific athlete subgroups (e.g., by competitive level) and potentially using longitudinal designs to better capture the dynamic interplay between these constructs. Future studies also need to improve the validation and predictive ability of Mesagno's choking susceptibility protocol.

Several limitations may have affected the results. The cross-sectional design and online survey methodology could have introduced response biases and limitations on sample representativeness. The specific mental toughness measure used (MTI) may not capture all aspects of this multifaceted construct. The lack of additional information on athletes' sports (e.g., practice time, competition frequency) may also have influenced the findings. Finally, the study did not assess actual choking behavior, instead relying on the existing operational definition of choking susceptibility, which may not accurately predict actual choking.