Mental toughness and choking susceptibility in athletes

The study addresses whether athletes classified as choking susceptible, per Mesagno’s protocol (combining self-consciousness, trait sport anxiety, and coping style), differ in mental toughness compared to non-susceptible athletes. Choking is defined as a performance decrement under pressure when the athlete is motivated, capable, and perceives the situation as important. Various antecedents to choking (e.g., anxiety, perfectionism, fear of negative evaluation, self-consciousness) are outlined. Mental toughness, commonly linked to superior performance under pressure and adaptive coping, may theoretically relate to choking susceptibility. The study’s purpose was to test the hypothesis that choking susceptible athletes report lower mental toughness than non-susceptible athletes, thereby examining concurrent validity of the choking susceptibility construct.

Prior work defines choking susceptibility via high self-consciousness, high anxiety, and approach-over-avoidance coping (Mesagno et al., 2008, 2009). Anxiety impairs attention and performance, particularly for high-trait-anxious athletes who experience elevated state anxiety and working memory overload under pressure; coping style influences performance, with avoidance sometimes beneficial short-term but approach coping potentially fostering self-focus and decrements. Self-consciousness has been associated with poorer performance under pressure. Studies link choking susceptibility with cognitive-emotional patterns (emotion-focused attention, approach-cognitive coping), handedness, hemispheric activation, and personality traits. Mental toughness is described as a malleable, state-like resource facilitating goal-directed behavior under stress, associated with confidence, perceived control, effective coping, perseverance, and potentially with flow and clutch states. Qualitative work suggested lower mental toughness among athletes who report frequent choking, but without direct measurement or standardized choking classification. Notably, coping literature often associates approach/problem-focused strategies with better outcomes under pressure, contrasting with Mesagno’s protocol emphasis on avoidance. Prior findings on relationships between mental toughness and anxiety, coping, and self-consciousness are mixed, motivating direct empirical examination of mental toughness relative to choking susceptibility.

Design: Cross-sectional online survey assessing choking susceptibility components and mental toughness in athletes. Ethics approval obtained (Brock University REB 21-274). Data collection: July–August 2022 via Qualtrics panel. Inclusion: age ≥18, participation in a sport; participants compensated via panel vendors. Participants: N=415 after data quality screening (from 425 responses). Gender: 187 female, 224 male, 3 non-binary/third gender, 1 prefer not to say. Age: 18–80 years, mean 40.56 (316 valid age responses). Competitive level included international (n=9), national (n=28), provincial/state (n=53), university/college (n=45), intermediate (n=72); 39 sports represented; 79.4% regular or occasional starters. Measures: (1) Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS; 23 items; public, private, social anxiety subscales; 0–4 scale). Global factor used; current α=0.84. (2) Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; 21 items; somatic, worry, concentration disruption; 1–4 scale; total 21–84; current α=0.96). (3) Coping Style Inventory for Athletes (CSIA; 16 items; approach and avoidance subscales; 1–5 scale; current α=0.67–0.76). Differential coping score computed as approach minus avoidance. (4) Mental Toughness Index (MTI; 8 items; 1–7 scale; current α=0.90). Demographics collected. Choking susceptibility classification: Participants deemed choking susceptible if scoring ≥75th percentile on at least two of the three measures and ≥50th percentile on the remaining; due to data distribution, the nearest cutoff (73rd percentile) was used instead of 75th. Classification based on sample-relative percentiles of SCS, SAS, and CSIA differential score. Analysis: SPSS 26 for descriptive and inferential analyses; EQS 6.4 for CFA of MTI. Group comparison planned via independent-samples t-test; due to violated assumptions (non-normality, heterogeneity of variance), Mann–Whitney U employed to compare MTI between choking susceptible vs non-susceptible groups. Correlations examined between MTI and choking components. Supplementary chi-square tests assessed differences in prevalence of choking susceptibility by gender, experience (<5 vs ≥5 years), and competition level. CFA assessed one-factor MTI structure using robust fit indices due to multivariate kurtosis.

• Classification: 16% (n=67) classified as choking susceptible; 84% (n=348) as non-susceptible (cutoff adjusted to 73rd percentile due to distribution).
• Mental toughness group comparison: MTI means—choking susceptible M=42.94 (SD=6.64), non-susceptible M=43.83 (SD=8.14). Mann–Whitney U(415)=10826.00, p>0.05, effect size r≈0.11; no significant difference in MTI between groups.
• Correlations with MTI: self-consciousness r=0.03 (ns); sport anxiety r=-0.31 (moderate, p<0.001); CSIA differential (approach−avoidance) r=-0.18 (small, p<0.001). MTI correlated with avoidance coping r=0.15 (p<0.001) but not approach coping r=-0.04 (ns).
• CFA of MTI: One-factor model fit acceptable with robust indices: CFI=0.95, IFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.08; all items loaded significantly; α=0.90.
• Supplementary analyses: No significant differences in choking susceptibility prevalence by gender or by experience (<5 vs ≥5 years). Competitive level effect: 12.5% recreational vs 19.8% competitive athletes classified as choking susceptible; χ²=4.09, p<0.05, φ=-0.10.

The hypothesis that choking susceptible athletes would report lower mental toughness than non-susceptible athletes was not supported. Mental toughness did not differ across susceptibility groups, and correlations showed minimal to moderate associations with the choking components (non-significant with self-consciousness; small with coping; moderate negative with sport anxiety). These findings suggest mental toughness and choking susceptibility are distinct but related constructs and challenge assumptions that lower mental toughness underpins choking susceptibility. The results align with mixed prior evidence regarding mental toughness relationships with anxiety and coping. The lack of association with choking susceptibility does not preclude a relationship between mental toughness and actual performance under pressure or choking episodes. Prior intervention and observational work indicates mental toughness may facilitate clutch performance and reduce choking impact. It is possible that relationships vary across subgroups (e.g., competitive level, gender) or that mental toughness relates to actual choking rather than susceptibility as operationalized by Mesagno’s protocol. The higher prevalence of susceptibility among competitive athletes hints at contextual moderators. Overall, the findings raise questions about the concurrent and construct validity of the choking susceptibility protocol and underscore the need to examine how these constructs relate to observed choking behavior.

This study found no significant difference in self-reported mental toughness between athletes classified as choking susceptible and those classified as non-susceptible, indicating the constructs are separate though modestly related via anxiety and coping. The MTI demonstrated acceptable one-factor structure in this sample. The findings challenge assumptions that choking susceptibility inherently reflects lower mental toughness and highlight the need to refine and validate the choking susceptibility construct. Future research should: (1) test whether Mesagno’s choking susceptibility protocol predicts objectively measured choking under varying pressure levels; (2) examine potential moderators (e.g., competition level, gender) of the susceptibility–mental toughness relationship; (3) incorporate performance measures and longitudinal or experimental designs; and (4) compare different mental toughness instruments and delineate mechanisms linking mental toughness to performance under pressure.

• Measurement selection: Only the MTI was used to assess mental toughness; conceptual debates remain regarding facets, antecedents, and outcomes of mental toughness.
• Limited sport-specific covariates: No data on practice time, competition frequency, or other sport context variables that could influence results.
• Choking susceptibility construct maturity: Mesagno’s protocol is relatively new; its ability to predict actual choking behavior has not been established.
• Study design: Cross-sectional online survey potentially subject to response biases and representativeness issues; inability to conduct factorial non-parametric analyses limited subgroup interaction testing.
• Classification threshold adjustment: The 73rd percentile was used in place of the intended 75th percentile cutoff due to sample distribution, which may influence classification.
• No direct performance measures: Without behavioral choking outcomes, concurrent/predictive validity relative to actual choking could not be assessed.