1. Introduction

Sport is no longer a pastime, run and organised by amateurs. It is a multi-billion poundbusiness that competes for scarce resources and uses, amongst other things, professional* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1642-342301; fax: +44-1642-342399.Mental toughness and hardiness at dierent levelsof rugby league

Jim Golby *, Michael Sheard

School of Social Sciences & Law, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough TS1 3BA, UK

Received 15 May 2003; received in revised form 19 September 2003; accepted 24 October 2003

Available online 11 December 2003

Abstract

The increasingly business-like environment of professional sport has resulted in greater scrutiny andanalysis

of playersperformance.The roles of physiological parameters in predicting success in theworld of professionaland amateur sport are well established. However, to date, evidence is sparse concerning the role of personality

traits in predicting such success. The present study examined the potency of measures of personality style and

mental skills in predicting success in the criterion sport of professional rugby league. Mental toughness was

assessed by questionnaire using the Psychological Performance Inventory. Hardiness was assessed by ques-tionnaire using the Personal Views Survey III-R. Subjects in this study were 115 professional rugby league

footballers representing the top three playing levels in the game in Great Britain (International, Super League,

and Division One). Findings demonstrated that performers playing at the highest standard (International

players) scored signicantly higher in all three hardiness subscales (commitment, control and challenge) and in

two of the seven mental toughness subscales (negative energy control and attention control). Results are dis-

cussed relative to previous ndings, in particular, of the ecacy of high levels of hardiness. Practical impli-

cations focus on the advocacy of mental toughness and hardiness training to improve sports performance.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mental toughness; Hardiness; Psychological performance inventory; Personal views survey III-R; Rugby

league; Playing standard

Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942www.elsevier.com/locate/paidE-mail address: j.golby@tees.ac.uk (J. Golby).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.015

934 J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942management techniques (Robinson, 2003). In this push toward eciency, eectiveness and valuefor money, it has become of even greater interest to players, coaches, administrators, spectatorsand owners to identify psychological attributes and mental skills associated with superior sportperformance as a rst stage in facilitating their development. A growing body of research hasidentied mental skills that distinguish between more and less successful performers across anumber of sports, for example, golf (Thomas & Over, 1994), rodeo (Meyers, LeUnes, & Bour-geois, 1996) and equestrianism (Meyers, Bourgeois, LeUnes, & Murray, 1998). It is reasonable toexpect that psychological attributes will distinguish between players operating at dierent levels ofperformance. However, to date, there is scant evidence of the eects of such features on high-impact collision sports, exemplied by rugby league.The game of professional rugby league represents an interesting challenge from which to

examine some of the psychological traits felt to underpin and/or predict sporting success. Rugbyleague is an international collision sport with over 1500 registered professional players in GreatBritain alone, with many more in Australia, New Zealand and France, as well as many thousandsof amateur players (Lavallee, Golby, & Lavallee, 2002). While studies have examined the heavyphysiological requirements of the game (e.g. Baker & Nance, 1999; Coutts, Reaburn, & Abt, 2003;Meir, 1994) and the frequent incidence of injury in it (e.g. Gissane, Jennings, Cumine, Stephenson,& White, 1997; Gissane, Jennings, White, & Cumine, 1998), little scientic information exists onthe psychological demands on its participants. This is somewhat surprising given that a per-formers psychological response to competition is thought to depend largely on the characteristicsand requirements of the sport (Krane & Williams, 1987).Often associated with peak sports performance is the psychological construct of mental

toughness. Indeed, in a study of the psychological characteristics of Olympic champions, Gould,Dieenbach, and Moett (2002) identied mental toughness as the mental skill factor most fre-quently cited as a signicant contributor to sports performance enhancement. The term mentaltoughness is intuitively appealing and used equally generously by players, coaches and the sportsmedia, yet usually without adequate denition (Cashmore, 2002; Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002).Several proposed denitions have been proered to address this lack of conceptual clarity,including an ability to cope with pressure (e.g. Goldberg, 1998), to rebound from failures (e.g.Woods, Hocton, & Desmond, 1995) and the possession of superior mental skills (e.g. Bull,Albinson, & Shambrook, 1996).According to Loehr (1986), mentally tough performers are disciplined thinkers who respond to

pressure in ways which enable them to remain feeling relaxed, calm and energised because theyhave the ability to increase their ow of positive energy in crisis and adversity. They also have theright attitudes regarding problems, pressure, mistakes and competition. For the purpose of thepresent research, mental toughness has been dened by Loehr (1986). Specically, the attributes ofmental toughness include: (a) self-condence (i.e. knowing that one can perform well and besuccessful), (b) negative energy control (i.e. handling emotions such as fear, anger, and frustrationand coping with externally-determined events), (c) attention control (i.e. focused), (d) visualisationand imagery control (i.e. thinking positively in pictures), (e) motivation (i.e. willing to persevere),(f) positive energy (i.e. having fun and enjoyment) and (g) attitude control (i.e. unyielding).Whilst recent research supports Loehrs (1986) propositions on mental toughness, these have

not substantially added to the debate. Specically, Jones, Hanton, and Connaughton (2002, p.

209) have suggested that mental toughness is having the natural or developed psychological edge

With its stress-buering (Kobasa, 1979; Maddi, Kahn, & Maddi, 1998; Wiebe, 1991) andperformance-enhancing (Atella, 1999; Khoshaba & Maddi, 1999; Westman, 1990) functions, themoderating eects of hardiness have become associated with those purported of mental toughness

J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942 935(Clough et al., 2002). This stable personality disposition is formed from three interrelated beliefs:(a) commitment (i.e. a tendency to involve oneself in whatever one is doing), (b) control (i.e. atendency to feel and act as if one is inuential), and (c) challenge (i.e. a belief that life ischangeable and to view this as an opportunity rather than a threat) (Kobasa, 1979). Hardiness isassumed to decrease the likelihood of stress-related physical illnesses, mental illnesses, anddecrements in performance, conduct, and morale. These improvements are achieved by moti-vating transformational coping (active, decisive) rather than regressive coping (denial, avoidance)with stressful circumstances (Maddi, 1999). Hardy individuals tend to interpret demanding sit-uations, such as highly competitive sporting contests, in less stressful ways because they view themas desirable, controllable, and challenging (Maddi & Hess, 1992).The benets of high levels of hardiness have been demonstrated in a variety of contexts,

including the business world (Maddi et al., 1998), the public sector (Rush, Schoel, & Barnard,1995) and the military (Bartone, 1999). However, in spite of the availability of an acceptablemeasure of hardiness, as with the related concept of mental toughness, there remains a dearth ofevidence demonstrating links between their characteristics and sporting achievement, with onenotable exception (Golby, Sheard, & Lavallee, 2003).By investigating the relationship between playing standard in rugby league, mental toughness

and hardiness, this research intended to give empirical support to those studies whose eorts havebeen directed toward identifying psychological characteristics of elite-level performers (cf. Gouldet al., 2002) and dening and conceptualising mental toughness (cf. Clough et al., 2002; Joneset al., 2002). Therefore, the present study aimed to examine whether mental toughness, hardinessand their respective subscales distinguish between professional rugby league players operatingat dierent levels of performance.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The subjects in this study were 115 professional rugby league players (mean age 25.5 years;range 1835 years; SD 3.3), from the three playing standards in the professional game: Inter-national (standard rank number 1) (n 70), Super League (standard rank number 2) (n 22),that enables you to, generally, cope better than your opponents with the many demands (com-petition, training, lifestyle) that sport places on a performer and, specically, be more consistentand better than your opponents in remaining determined, focused, condent, and in control underpressure. While Clough et al. (2002, p. 38), writing of mentally tough performers, stated thatwith a high sense of self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they control their own destiny, theseindividuals can remain relatively unaected by competition or adversity. Consequently, his re-mains a useful blueprint for examining this important construct.and Division One (standard rank number 3) (n 23).

936 J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 9339422.2. Measures

2.2.1. Mental toughness

The Psychological Performance Inventory (PPI; Loehr, 1986) was used to measure mentaltoughness. This 42-item scale yields an overall mental toughness score, as well as seven 6-itemsubscale scores: (a) self-condence; (b) negative energy control; (c) attention control; (d) visu-alisation and imagery control; (e) motivation; (f) positive energy; and (g) attitude control. Sub-scale scores range from a low of 6 to a desirable high of 30 and total scores from 42 to 210. Scoreswere recorded on a ve-point Likert scale anchored by almost always and almost never. ThePPI was found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach alphas for the seven subscales indicatinghigh reliability (self-condence0.69; negative energy control0.42; attention control0.75;visualisation and imagery control0.82; motivation0.70; positive energy0.71; attitude con-trol0.71).

2.2.2. HardinessThis study employed the most recent measurement of hardiness developed by Maddi and

Khoshaba (2001). The 18-item Personal Views Survey III-R (PVSIII-R) yields an overall hardi-ness score, as well as three 6-item subscale scores: (a) commitment, (b) control, and (c) challenge.Scores were recorded on a four-point Likert scale anchored by not at all true and very true.Overall hardiness norms range from 19 to 49, with an average of 3841, while studies have shownthe PVS III-R to have acceptable validity and internal consistency (total hardiness0.88; com-mitment0.75; control0.84; challenge0.71) (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001).

2.3. Procedure

Permission from the organising committee of the 2000 Rugby League World Cup, SuperLeague, and Division One clubs, cooperation of coaches and consent of players were obtainedprior to the administration of the inventories. International players were sampled from the eightquarter-nalists in the World Cup competition. Four teams responded, thus representing aconvenient sample. To ensure that the three representative standards remained mutually exclusive,one Super League club and one Division One club were targeted whose squads were comprisedwholly of players who had not previously played for their country. All players agreed to par-ticipate, and were currently operating at the highest standard they had achieved to date. The PPIand PVS III-R were completed in respective training camps having been administered in coun-terbalanced order.

2.4. Data analyses

Data were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with follow-up uni-variate analyses (ANOVA) to clarify the source of signicant dierences. To establish morespecically where dierences existed, post hoc comparisons were made using Tukeys HSD pro-cedure, which already has built-in protection to type I error (Toothaker, 1991). For the MA-NOVA, playing standard (i.e. International, Super League or Division One) served as the

independent variable, while all 10 categories of mental toughness and hardiness subscales served

as the multivariate dependent variables. Stepwise discriminant analysis was used to establishwhich variables best predicted membership of the three groups. Alpha was set at 0.05.

3. Results

Means and standard deviations of all variables are presented in Table 1. There was a signicantmultivariate eect for playing standard, Wilks k 0:40, F 20; 206 5:98, P < 0:001, partialg2 0:37, with signicant dierences observed in ve of the dependent variables. Specically,there were signicant group dierences in commitment, F 2; 112 46:91, P < 0:001, partialg2 0:46, where International players surpassed Super League and Division One players. Asignicant dierence was also found in control, F 2; 112 13:36, P < 0:001, partial g2 0:19,where International players scored higher than Division One players. Signicant group dierenceswere also found in challenge, F 2; 112 29:82, P < 0:001, partial g2 0:35, where Internationalplayers scored higher than either the Super League or Division One players. International playersalso scored signicantly higher in negative energy control, F 2; 112 5:64, P < 0:01, partialg2 0:09, and attention control, F 2; 112 3:65, P < 0:05, partial g2 0:06, than their DivisionOne counterparts. No signicant dierences were observed between Super League and DivisionOne players.

PVS III-R

Commitment 13.56 2.16 9.59 2.34 9.61 1.85 618

J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942 937Control 13.87 2.17 12.64 1.68 11.35 2.19 818

Challenge 11.93 2.46 8.91 2.00 8.43 1.53 417

Total hardiness 39.50 5.10 31.14 4.66 29.39 3.45 2250Pearson productmoment correlations revealed weak to moderate correlations among themental toughness and hardiness subscales (Table 2). Of particular note, commitment and controlwere most strongly correlated with challenge, while self-condence was moderately, but signi-cantly, associated with attention control, positive energy and attitude control. Overall, total scoreson the PPI and total scores on the PVS III-R were signicantly correlated (r 0:384; P < 0:001).

Table 1

Means and standard deviations of PPI and PVS III-R subscales

Standard

International Super League Division One Range

M SD M SD M SD

PPI

Self-condence 26.26 3.05 25.82 2.82 25.35 2.48 1730

Negative energy control 21.60 2.76 20.36 2.46 19.48 3.10 1329

Attention control 23.81 3.49 22.86 3.26 21.39 4.92 1130

Visualisation/imagery control 22.97 5.06 22.73 5.17 22.26 3.78 830

Motivation 25.73 3.28 24.73 3.07 24.48 3.96 1330

Positive energy 25.44 2.91 24.91 3.35 24.26 2.75 1830

Attitude control 25.36 2.90 25.27 3.04 23.87 3.89 1530

Total mental toughness 171.17 17.77 166.68 16.68 161.09 19.25 114201

Table 2

Intercorrelations of PPI and PVS III-R subscales

SC NE AT VI MO PO AD CM CT CH

SC

NE 0.50

AT 0.64 0.57

VI 0.35 0.13 0.29

MO 0.55 0.28 0.51 0.50

938 J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942PO 0.66 0.48 0.55 0.53 0.62

AD 0.67 0.43 0.60 0.54 0.62 0.71

CM 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.16 0.32 0.39 0.27

CT 0.24 0.31 0.23 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.50

CH 0.16 0.15 0.29 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.12 0.55 0.50

SC self-condence; NE negative energy control; AT attention control; VI visualisation and imagery control;The results of the stepwise discriminant function analysis are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Themodel predicted that a combination of two hardiness variables successfully discriminated 81% ofsubjects according to playing standard: International (89%), Super League (73%) and DivisionOne (65%). These measures were selected in the following order of importance: commitment andchallenge.

MOmotivation; PO positive energy; AD attitude control; CM commitment; CT control; CH challenge.* P < 0:05.** P < 0:01.*** P < 0:001.

Table 3

Summary of stepwise discriminant analysis: variables entered/removeda

Step Entered Wilks lambda

Exact F

Statistic df1 df2 df3 Statistic df1 df2 P -value

1 Commitment 0.544 1 2 112 46.907 2 112 0.000

2 Challenge 0.476 2 2 112 24.967 4 222 0.000

At each step, the variable that minimises the overall Wilks lambda is entered.aMaximum number of steps is 20; minimum partial F to enter is 3.84; maximum partial F to remove is 2.71; F level,

tolerance or VIN is insucient for further computation.

Table 4

Summary of stepwise discriminant analysis: variables in the analysis

Step Tolerance F to remove Wilks lambda

1 Commitment 1.00 46.91

2 Commitment 0.93 20.63 0.65

Challenge 0.93 7.99 0.54

J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942 9394. Discussion

The aims of this study were to investigate whether mental toughness, hardiness and theirrespective subscales would distinguish between professional rugby league players operating atdierent standards. Results suggested a signicantly positive relation between total scores on thePPI and PVS III-R. It seems that both inventories are measuring related but distinct attributes ofmental skills, indicating both concurrent and convergent validity. The ndings also suggesteddierences relative to the degree to which the mental attributes of commitment, control, challenge,negative energy control and attention control were present.International players were characterised by the highest level of hardiness, as measured by

commitment, control, and challenge. This group of players scored signicantly higher than Divi-sion One players relative to control and signicantly higher than both sub-elite groups relative tocommitment and challenge. That International players scored signicantly higher in control thanDivision One players may indicate that they felt more able to inuence positively the outcome ofmatches. A further explanation may be that this feeling allowed them to view highly competitivecontests in a less stressful manner (Maddi, 1999).Relative to commitment, International players demonstrated higher levels of organisation and

involvement in the sport. Their signicantly higher challenge scores suggests that they were moreable to view potentially dicult situations as opportunities for personal and professional growth,and not as a threat (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001).These present data support previous ndings in non-sporting contexts regarding the functions

of hardiness as a buer to stress (Kobasa, 1979; Maddi et al., 1998; Wiebe, 1991) and as a per-formance enhancer (Atella, 1999; Khoshaba & Maddi, 1999; Westman, 1990). The results conrmthe fact that International players are more able to cope with highly stressful sporting contests andmaintain high levels of competitive performance.The mental toughness subscales made a smaller contribution than hardiness to the variance in

the players competitive standard. International players displayed signicantly higher levels ofnegative energy control than their Division One counterparts. Two interpretations of the ndingson negative energy control present themselves. First, players at the highest level of the game weremore able to keep their emotions in control and remain calm and relaxed under pressure situa-tions (cf. Co^te, 2001). Second, if having momentarily lost composure, International players werebetter equipped to regain psychological control following unexpected, externally-determinedevents (cf. Jones et al., 2002).International players also reported signicantly higher levels of attention control than per-

formers from Division One. A probable explanation is that players performing at the highestcompetitive level possess a greater capacity for long and intensive periods of total concentra-tion. This interpretation is corroborated by Jones et al.s (2002) identication that remainingfully-focused on the task at hand in the face of competition-specic distractions is a keymental toughness attribute for sports performers. Moreover, Gould et al. (2002) reported theability to focus and block out distraction as an essential psychological characteristic in Olympicchampions.However, the relatively small contribution of both negative energy control and attention control

in their ability to distinguish between the three levels of players is of interest. Previous re-

search in the sports domain has more strongly identied negative thoughts (Van Raalte, Brewer,

940 J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942Rivera, & Petitpas, 1994), concentration (Nideer & Sagal, 2001) and a narrow focus of attention(Ravizza, 2001) as deciding factors in competition. Two possible explanations present themselves.First, the hardiness construct (46%, 35% and 19% of the variance in playing standard was ex-plained by commitment, control and challenge, respectively), as opposed to mental toughness (9%and 6% of the variance in playing standard was explained by negative energy control and attentioncontrol, respectively), has greater explanatory prowess and, second, the mental toughness measureused possesses insucient discriminative power (only two of the ve mental toughness subscalesrevealed signicant dierences compared to all three hardiness subscales).Of additional interest was the nding that all groups consistently had relatively lower mean

scores on negative energy control and visualisation and imagery control than on the other mentaltoughness subscales. This was surprising given the importance placed on the ability to remain inpsychological control following unexpected, uncontrollable events (cf. Co^te, 2001; Jones et al.,2002), and the reported ecacy of imagery use in basketball (Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin, &Kendall, 1990), tennis (Efran, Lesser, & Spiller, 1994), gure skating (Ming & Martin, 1996), golfputting (Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, & Koestner, 1996) and track and eld athletics (Abma,Fry, Li, & Relyea, 2002).The current evidence in the elite-level performers of high levels of benecial psychological

attributes is consistent with previous research (e.g. Gould et al., 2002; Williams & Krane, 2001). Inaddition to the many physiological attributes requisite to outstanding sport performance, apsychological prole that includes high levels of mental toughness and, in particular, hardinessappeared to distinguish elite-level players.That no signicant dierences were observed between Super League and Division One players

was also of interest. This indicated that while the dierence in levels of mental toughness andhardiness between these two sub-elite groups was minimal, there was an apparent gulf betweenthem and the International players.Of particular note was the identication of the hardiness subscales commitment and challenge

that most successfully discriminated between the three playing standards. These measures weremore strongly associated with playing status than those relating to mental toughness and, as such,may oer stronger discriminatory powers. Previous research not related to sport has demon-strated the ecacy of high levels of hardiness for many dierent categories of people, such ashealth care professionals (Rich & Rich, 1987; Topf, 1989), business managers (Kobasa, Maddi, &Kahn, 1982; Maddi et al., 1998), student teachers (Thomson & Wendt, 1995), public sectoremployees (Rush et al., 1995) and military personnel (Bartone, 1999; Westman, 1990). However,the literature on the relationship between hardiness and sport success is extremely limited (Maddi& Hess, 1992). Intervention work to increase hardiness levels should be considered to provide sub-elite players, in particular, with the skills to progress to a higher performance level.While the present study moves the debate from the previously identied state of conceptual

clarication to show links between hypothesised components of mental toughness, hardiness andperformance, future research might concentrate on how psychological skills training, mentaltoughness and hardiness ameliorate sport performance. Consideration should be given torandomised-control studies with thought also given to the possibility of the confounding eects ofa clubs culture and environment. Further, from an application viewpoint, such research would beuseful in establishing baseline reference data for players being selected onto specialised devel-

opment programmes.

J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942 941References

Abma, C. L., Fry, M. D., Li, Y., & Relyea, G. (2002). Dierences in imagery content and imagery ability between high

and low condent track and eld athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 6775.

Atella, M. D. (1999). Case studies in the development of organizational hardiness: from theory to practice. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 125134.

Baker, D., & Nance, S. (1999). The relation between running speed and measures of strength and power in professional

rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13, 230235.

Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in army reserve forces. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 7282.

Beauchamp, P. H., Halliwell, W. R., Fournier, J. F., & Koestner, R. (1996). Eects of cognitive-behavioral

psychological skills training on the motivation, preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport

Psychologist, 10, 157170.

Bull, S. J., Albinson, J. G., & Shambrook, C. J. (1996). The mental game plan: getting psyched for sport. Eastbourne:

Sports Dynamics.

Cashmore, E. (2002). Sport psychology: the key concepts. London: Routledge.

Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.),

Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 3245). London: Thomson.

Co^te, J. (2001). Coach and peer inuence on childrens development through sport. In J. M. Silva & D. E. Stevens(Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 520540). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coutts, A., Reaburn, P., & Abt, G. (2003). Heart rate, blood lactate concentration and estimated energy

expenditure in a semi-professional rugby league team during a match: a case study. Journal of Sports Sciences,

21, 97103.

Efran, J. S., Lesser, G. S., & Spiller, M. J. (1994). Enhancing tennis coaching with youths using a metaphor method.

The Sport Psychologist, 8, 349359.

Gissane, C., Jennings, D. C., Cumine, A. J., Stephenson, S. E., & White, J. A. (1997). Dierences in the incidence of

injury between rugby league forwards and backs. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 29, 9194.

Gissane, C., Jennings, D., White, J., & Cumine, A. (1998). Injury in summer rugby league football: the experiences of

one club. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 32, 149152.

Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A cognitive-behavioural analysis of mental toughness in national rugby

league football teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 455462.

Goldberg, A. S. (1998). Sports slump busting: 10 steps to mental toughness and peak performance. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Gould, D., Dieenbach, K., & Moett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic

champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172204.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite

sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205218.

Kendall, G., Hrycaiko, D., Martin, G. L., & Kendall, T. (1990). The eects of an imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and

self-talk package on basketball game performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 157166.

Khoshaba, D. M., & Maddi, S. R. (1999). Early experiences in hardiness development. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 51, 106116.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 37, 111.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: a prospective study. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42, 168177.

Krane, V., & Williams, J. (1987). Performance and somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and condence changes prior to

competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 10, 4756.

Lavallee, D., Golby, J., & Lavallee, R. (2002). Coping with retirement from professional sport. In I. Cockerill (Ed.),

Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 184197). London: Thomson.

Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: achieving athletic excellence. Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene

Press.

Maddi, S. R. (1999). Comments on trends in hardiness research and theorizing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

and Research, 51, 6771.

Maddi, S. R., & Hess, M. J. (1992). Personality hardiness and success in basketball. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 23, 360368.

Maddi, S. R., Kahn, S., & Maddi, K. L. (1998). The eectiveness of hardiness training. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 50, 7886.

Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2001). Personal views survey (3rd ed., Rev.). Newport Beach, CA: The Hardiness

Institute.

942 J. Golby, M. Sheard / Personality and Individual Dierences 37 (2004) 933942Meir, R. (1994). A model for the integration of macrocycle and microcycle structure in professional rugby league.

Strength and Conditioning Coach, 2, 612.

Meyers, M. C., Bourgeois, A. E., LeUnes, A., & Murray, N. G. (1998). Mood and psychological skills of elite and sub-

elite equestrian athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 399409.

Meyers, M. C., LeUnes, A., & Bourgeois, A. E. (1996). Psychological skills assessments and athletic performance in

collegiate rodeo athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 132146.

Ming, S., & Martin, G. L. (1996). Single-subject evaluation of a self-talk package for improving gure skating

performance. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 227238.

Nideer, R. M., & Sagal, M.-S. (2001). Concentration and attention control training. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied

sport psychology: personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 312332). Mountain View, CA: Mayeld.

Ravizza, K. (2001). Increasing awareness for sport performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology:

personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 179189). Mountain View, CA: Mayeld.

Rich, V. L., & Rich, A. R. (1987). Personality hardiness and burnout in female sta nurses. Journal of Nursing

Scholarship, 19, 6366.

Robinson, L. (2003). The business of sport. In B. Houlihan (Ed.), Sport & society: a student introduction (pp. 165183).

London: Sage.

Rush, M. C., Schoel, W. A., & Barnard, S. M. (1995). Psychological resiliency in the public sector: hardiness and

pressure for change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 1739.

Thomas, P. R., & Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated with performance in golf. The Sport

Psychologist, 8, 7386.

Thomson, W. C., & Wendt, J. C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by

student teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 269274.

Toothaker, L. E. (1991). Multiple comparisons for researchers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Topf, M. (1989). Personality hardiness, occupational stress, and burnout in critical care nurses. Research in Nursing and

Health, 12, 179186.

Van Raalte, J. L., Brewer, B. W., Rivera, P. M., & Petitpas, A. J. (1994). The relationship between observable self-talk

and competitive junior tennis players match performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 400415.Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress and performance: the moderating eect of hardiness. Human

Performance, 3, 141155.

Wiebe, D. J. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: a test of proposed mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60, 8999.

Williams, J. M., & Krane, V. (2001). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.),

Applied sport psychology: personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 137147). Mountain View, CA:

Mayeld.

Woods, R., Hocton, M., & Desmond, R. (1995). Coaching tennis successfully. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby leagueIntroductionMethodSubjectsMeasuresMental toughnessHardiness

ProcedureData analyses

ResultsDiscussionReferences