Effects of Mental Toughness and Mood on Perseverance in Athletes and Non Athletes

Effects of Mental Toughness and Mood on Perseverance in Athletes and Non-Athletes A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Psychology. ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................iv Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................vi Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 Mental Toughness ....................................................................................................................................2 Constructs Related to Mental Toughness .......................................................................................3 Resilience ..................................................................................................................................................................4 Hardiness ..................................................................................................................................................................5 Perseverance ...........................................................................................................................................................6 Factors Influencing Mental Toughness ...........................................................................................7 Present Study .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Method....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Participants ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Materials................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Procedures ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Manipulation Checks......................................................................................................................................... 16 Analyses.................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 Future Directions ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 24 References ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) ............................................ 33 Appendix B: Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18) ..................................................... 34 Appendix C: IAPS mood induction images - Positive .............................................................. 36 Appendix D: IAPS mood induction images - Neutral .............................................................. 37 Appendix E: IAPS mood induction images - Negative ............................................................ 38 Appendix F: Maze Task ....................................................................................................................... 39 iii iv Abstract This study aims to examine the effect mental toughness has on perseverance in a nonathletic setting, and how mood moderates this relationship among collegiate athletes and non-athletes. To explore these relationships, participants were randomly assigned to one of three mood induction conditions: positive, neutral, and negative. Participants completed the Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). For the mood induction, participants were presented with 12 emotionally valenced images for 6 seconds each, selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Behavioral perseverance was measured by how long participants worked on a maze task. We predicted that participants with higher mental toughness levels would persevere longer on the maze task than those with lower levels. We also hypothesized that those in the positive mood induction would persevere the longest on a maze task. Further, we predicted that there would be an interaction between mental toughness and mood, in which participants with high levels of mental toughness would be less affected by the mood induction, and show higher levels of perseverance in the positive, neutral, and negative mood groups, respectively. Lastly, we expected athletes to have higher levels of mental toughness and be less affected by the mood induction, thus showing higher levels of behavioral perseverance. There were no significant results when examining the effects mental toughness and mood had on behavioral perseverance. There were also no significant findings to suggest athletes have higher levels of mental toughness and perseverance than non-athletes. These findings are inconsistent with previous research, which could suggest that mental toughness does not extend to tasks outside of athletics. v List of Figures Figure 1. Interaction between Mental Toughness and Mood Induction on Behavioral Perseverance ............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 2. Main Effect of Mood and Varsity Athlete Status on Behavioral Perseverance 32 vi Introduction “There’s no crying in baseball!” Quotes like this illustrate the idea of necessary emotion regulation and mental toughness within sports. Over the past decades, mental toughness gained popularity in research due to the increasing interest in this topic within sports psychology (Gucciardi, 2017). Coaches and athletes desire to understand what factors are impacted by mental toughness since it is seen as a crucial aspect to combat adversity (Beck, 2012). Despite the influx of studies published about this topic, there are still concerns surrounding the conceptualization and measurement of mental toughness (Gucciardi, 2017). Researchers use perseverance as a behavioral measurement of mental toughness to conceptualize the construct and examine if mental toughness levels predict behavior (Gucciardi, Gordon, & Dimmock, 2008). Individuals who exhibit higher mental toughness tend to persevere more (Gucciardi, Peeling, Ducker, & Dawson, 2016). Another factor that is shown to promote perseverance is positive affect (Hill, Burrow, & Bronk, 2016). Mentally tough individuals have better emotional regulation, therefore they may be less impaired when exposed to stimuli that could trigger negative emotions (Beck, 2012). However, since mental toughness is predominantly been studied within sports contexts, there is insufficient research that examines the degree to which it predicts certain behaviors, like perseverance, outside of the athletic realm (Gerber et al., 2012). Furthermore, addressing mental toughness within non-athletes is another understudied area within the research. If mental toughness does predict behavior outside of sports, does this mean athletes have a benefit, or can non-athletes be just as mentally tough? Therefore, the current study seeks to address these gaps in the literature by examining the effect mental toughness has on the perseverance of collegiate athletes and non-athletes in a non-athletic setting, and how mood might moderate this relationship. Mental Toughness Within sports, mental toughness is seen as a necessary component to succeed in one’s performance. Due to the varying definitions of mental toughness, this topic is ambiguously understood in research, which results in a continued lack of clarity on how to approach and operationalize it (Jones, 2010). However, sports psychologists continue to work to define and measure mental toughness in recent times. Weinberg, Butt, and Culp (2011) interviewed 10 successful and experienced National Collegiate Athletic Association head coaches about their perspectives on mental toughness. Coaches reported that athlete mental toughness levels involve one’s psychological skills (focus, confidence, knowledge, mental planning), motivation to succeed, and resilience. In another study, researchers examined 10 international athletic performers’ definitions of mental toughness. The researchers described the common definition as “having the natural or developed psychological edge that enables you to cope better than your opponents with the many demands that sport places in a performer and specifically, be more consistent and better than your opponents in remaining determined, focused, confident, and in control under pressure” (Jones, 2010, p.209). However, this definition comes from a small sample size and leaves out components that other researchers argue are pivotal to characterizing mental toughness. According to Clough, Earle, & Sewell (2002), these necessary components to involve in operationalizing mental toughness are control, commitment, challenge, and confidence. 2 Clough et al. (2002) asserted the following comprehensive definition of mental toughness: individuals tend to be sociable and outgoing, remain calm and relaxed, but are competitive in many situations and have lower anxiety levels than others, a high sense of self-belief, an unshakable faith that they can control their destiny and remain relatively unaffected by competition or adversity. This definition is used to operationalize and measure mental toughness, specifically including the 4 C’s: control, commitment, challenge, and confidence. Kobasa, Maddi, and Kahn (1982) define control as a tendency to feel and act as if one is influential in the face of the varied contingencies of life and challenge the belief that change, rather than stability, is normal in life and that the anticipation of changes is an interesting incentive for growth, rather than a threat to security. Commitment is expressed as the tendency to involve oneself in, rather than experience alienation from whatever one is doing or encounters (Maddi, Hoover, & Kobasa, 1982). Confidence in the abilities of oneself is the fourth important factor that relates to sports performance (Clough, Earle, & Sewell, 2002). Researchers operationalize and measure mental toughness with a questionnaire called the MTQ48, which is based on these four components. Clough et al. (2002) found that this questionnaire reliably measures an individual’s level of mental toughness. It is important to have a measure that helps narrow the ambiguities in defining mental toughness. Constructs Related to Mental Toughness Due to the ambiguity in the literature, researchers attempt to define and measure mental toughness in a more structured manner by focusing on these three components (Clough et al., 2002). Previous research examined three specific factors that lead to successful results for people in athletics, the workforce, and even relationships. These 3 factors are resilience, hardiness, and perseverance, which are previously studied concepts that are important to operationalizing mental toughness (Guillen & Laborde, 2014; Nezhad & Besharat, 2010). Resilience, hardiness, and perseverance are similarly defined constructs, but all three are more similarly related to mental toughness than factors such as personality and emotion. Resilience Resilience is described as an individual’s capacity to adapt to unpleasant experiences (Nezhad & Besharat, 2010). Resilience is necessary to overcome adversity and allows people to continue to pursue what they intend. One model of resilience proposes that individual differences, such as appraisal processes, social support, and coping strategies, are components that can affect the likelihood of resilience (Nezhad & Besharat, 2010). Sports is one avenue in which adolescents can learn how to build resilience, through developing the components mentioned above, and successfully transition into adulthood (Hall, 2011). Higher levels of resilience allow athletes to bounce back from stressors by expressing their positive emotions (Nezhad & Besharat, 2010). Resilience is also found to be positively associated with sport achievement and psychological well-being (Hosseini & Besharat, 2010). Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) suggest that numerous psychological factors such as positive personality, motivation, confidence, focus, and perceived social support interact to influence the stress-resilienceperformance relationship. Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) also found that Olympic athletes who had more control over their emotions had more psychological resilience than those who displayed less control. Part of being resilient is associated with overcoming challenges, which is a necessary factor for mental toughness (Gerber et al., 2012). 4 Hardiness Nezhad and Besharat (2010) examined hardiness as a similar component to mental toughness relating to athletic success. Though similar to the definition of resilience, hardiness is described as a personality construct that enables individuals to better handle stressful situations (Goss, 1994). Situations where hardiness can be developed range from one’s commitment to the task, to adversity during competition characterized by opponents performing better. Similar to mental toughness, hardiness is operationalized by three components: commitment - involving oneself in the action they are doing, control - of various life situations, and challenge - the extent to which one sees challenges as opportunities (Kobasa, 1979). For example, athletes must be committed to the sport or team they are playing for, which exemplifies hardiness. The second component of hardiness that is developed through sport is learning to control game situations, which is done by improving individual skills. The third component is a challenge, for example, in soccer every time some opponent scores, it allows space for the other team to overcome adversity and score a goal in return. Hardiness is exemplified in the business world, the public sector, and the military (Golby & Sheard, 2004). Research suggests that higher levels of hardiness predict higher sport achievement and psychological well-being (Ramzi & Besharat, 2010). Hardiness is also connected with mental toughness, in that mental toughness and hardiness distinguish elite-level athletes from others based on their psychological and physiological attributes (Golby & Sheard, 2004). Golby and Sheard (2004) examined two sub-elite groups and International players specifically, with the International players scoring highest on the scales measuring hardiness and mental toughness. 5 Perseverance In contrast to hardiness and resilience, perseverance (also called persistence or effort), can be described as behavior such as pushing through challenges, refusing to quit, and continuing high amounts of pressure over a long period (Gucciardi et al., 2016). Perseverance reflects consistency in achieving one’s goals and not giving up when faced with challenges or overcoming adversity (Guillen & Laborde, 2014). Gucciardi et al. (2016) found a strong relationship between more mentally tough individuals and high levels of behavioral perseverance. They conducted a cross-sectional field study in which researchers had 20 Australian football players participate in a multistage 20-meter shuttle run test as the behavioral perseverance component. Results showed that mentally tough individuals persevered longer, suggesting that mental toughness predicts behavior. Findings from Lucas, Gratch, Cheng, and Marsella (2015) show that mentally tough individuals are more likely to persist rather than quit on a physical task, even if that means facing the risk of failure. In one study, Laborde, Guillen, and Mosley (2016) examined individual differences between positive personality traits by comparing athletes from individual and team sports, and non-athletes (Laborde et al., 2016). The traits Laborde et al. examined were perseverance, resilience, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positivity as characteristics they associated with mental toughness. Results showed that athletes scored higher than non-athletes on positive personality traits and mental toughness measures. Having the ability to control oneself, the confidence to believe in oneself, and follow through on commitments despite the need to persevere and overcome challenges reflects the four necessary components of mental toughness. 6 Although there is an influx of studies on mental toughness in the previous decade, there continues to be limited research that examines mental toughness outside of the athletic realm and if it predicts behavior outside of sports. In previous studies that compared athlete and non-athlete samples, athletes were shown to possess higher levels of traits such as perseverance and resilience, as well as optimism and hope, characteristics associated with mental toughness (Guillen & Laborde, 2014; Laborde et al., 2016). By examining behavior perseverance, researchers can better attest to how mental toughness affects one’s life. Psychologists observe behaviors that typically demonstrate challenging or demanding situations to look at how mental toughness affects behavioral perseverance (Gucciardi et al., 2016). However, even in the limited research that examines behavior, studies continue to explore behavioral perseverance regarding sports (Gucciardi et al., 2016). More behavioral perseverance studies outside of athletics would add to the mental toughness literature by helping researchers better understand the behavioral effects of mental toughness, and narrowing its definition. Through examining mental toughness in more arenas, it will help researchers narrow the focus on what mental toughness means and how it can be fostered. Factors Influencing Mental Toughness Mental toughness differs between and within individuals and is a state-like concept that fluctuates depending on the objective of a task (Gucciardi, 2017). Previous studies suggest there are various contextual factors that influence mental toughness levels, which can account for the variation among individuals. One of these factors that researchers examined is the Big Five factors of personality: agreeableness, openness, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (Horsburgh, Schermer, Veselka, & 7 Vernon, 2009). In a study conducted by Horsburgh et al. (2009), researchers discovered that there was a strong negative correlation between neuroticism and mental toughness, whereas a positive correlation existed between each of the other four personality factors (agreeableness, openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness) and mental toughness. Mentally tough individuals may exhibit a positive personality profile, marked by low levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion because those traits are linked to well-being (Hill et al., 2016). Well-being is shown to initiate adaptive personality changes, which allows individuals to be more satisfied with their lives (Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2013). The second way in which researchers account for the observed individual differences in mental toughness is by exploring the role of mood. Individuals who possess a positive personality experience greater positive affect, and as a result are observed to be more mentally tough (Hill et al., 2016). One reason why this trend may exist is that individuals who manifest positive affect may hold a greater interest in their long-term goals, and in return, their passion is built from a foundation of positivity and commitment (Hill et al., 2016). In other words, exhibiting positive emotions could allow individuals to better their chances of persevering to reach their desired goal. Positive emotions, like interest and inspiration, are shown to aid in the development of physical, intellectual, and social resources (Fredrickson, 2001). The broaden-and-build theory suggests that the experience of positive emotions helps broaden attention and cognition, which fosters an increase in creative thinking and the processing of goal-relevant information (Aspinwall, 1998). Additionally, this theory posits that positive emotions accelerate cardiovascular recovery and return the body to midrange levels of activation, 8 which is optimal for maintaining focus and may influence mental toughness (Fredrickson, 2001). A third way some researchers try to explain differences in mental toughness is by how an individual exhibits emotion regulation during anxiety-provoking situations. Lower levels of anxiety are significantly related to higher levels of mental toughness (Beck, 2012). One possible explanation for this association can be seen through the negative relationship that exists between anxiety and conscientiousness (Smith, Barstead, & Rubin, 2017). In a study conducted by Smith et al. (2017), researchers found that low levels of anxiety protect individuals from an increased risk of facing emotional difficulties. This buffering effect could result from high conscientiousness, which promotes self-regulation (Smith et al., 2017). Being able to control one’s emotions and keep the focus on a given task may foster mental toughness through adaptive success which leads to higher levels of observed perseverance (Richards & Gross, 2000). Controlling one’s emotions is a pivotal act when dealing with anxiety-provoking situations. Individuals who succeed in doing so often display higher levels of mental toughness because the suppression of outward expression facilitates optimal performance (Beck, 2012). Specifically, Beck (2012) explored collegiate athletes’ mental toughness levels and their potential relationship to mood. The findings are consistent with previous research because the results show a negative correlation between mental toughness and levels of anxiety and total mood disturbance (Beck, 2012). Athletes are constantly faced with high anxiety situations and are “expected to be confident in their ability to recover from a mistake, not angered and distracted by a bad call...not likely to get down on themselves when a coach points out an area of weakness” (Beck, 2012, p.22). Thus, 9 mentally tough athletes may outperform their less mentally tough counterparts because of their ability to regulate emotions so that they feel high levels of energy and are emotionally undisturbed, which are both characteristics that facilitate successful performances (Beck, 2012). One way to describe how individuals deal with their emotions in such a way is referred to as the ability to exhibit an “iceberg profile” (Beck, 2012). The iceberg profile is said to reflect a mood state profile that is characterized by high scores of vigor, and low scores of tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion (Terry & Lane, 2000). This favorable mood profile is often exhibited by elite athletes compared to the general population (Visram, 2012). Lower levels of mental toughness are reflected as an inverted iceberg, characterized by higher scores of depression and anger, and lower scores of vigor (Visram, 2012). Therefore, mentally tough athletes are capable of regulating their mood so that they are in an optimal positive emotional state to perform at their best (demonstrate an iceberg profile), which is often seen among elite athletes. However, it is plausible that mood interacts with mental toughness given the impact of emotion regulation, therefore the relationship between mental toughness and perseverance may be affected by mood. Specifically, individuals who possess low mental toughness levels will experience a decline in behavioral perseverance when in a negative mood since their enduring coping resources will decrease, as they are unable to regulate their emotions as well compared to individuals possessing high mental toughness. Present Study In this study, our goal is to bridge the gap in the literature by examining the effect mental toughness has on the behavioral perseverance of collegiate athletes and non10 athletes in a non-athletic setting, and how mood may moderate this relationship. Furthermore, we seek to understand if being a collegiate athlete influences one’s perseverance, as we work to address this gap in the literature on studying mental toughness in non-athletes. We aim to discover if athletes’ mental toughness carries into other activities in their lives outside of their sport. The current research could suggest another context for studying the “mental toughness” construct, in addition to the current context it is studied within. We recruited both athletes and non-athletes and measured their mental toughness levels with the Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18). We then manipulated mood by randomly assigning participants to one of three mood groups, in which they either viewed positively, neutrally or negatively valenced images. Participants’ perseverance was measured by a nearly impossible maze task. First, we hypothesized a main effect of mental toughness on perseverance, specifically that individuals who report higher levels of mental toughness would persevere longer on the maze task. Second, we hypothesized a main effect for mood on perseverance, such that participants who are placed in the positive mood group would show the highest levels of perseverance on the maze task, followed by the neutral group, and then the negative group. Further, we expect an interaction between mental toughness and mood such that participants with high mental toughness would be less affected by the mood induction task, and display higher levels of perseverance over all three mood groups. Finally, we predicted that athletes would score higher on the MTQ18 than non-athletes, and thus athletes would be less affected by the mood induction and exhibit higher levels of perseverance. 11 Method Participants Participants included 70 undergraduate college students who attended a small liberal arts college in Washington State. Of the 70 participants, 69% identified as female, 30% identified as male, and 1% identified as non-binary. In addition, 86% of participants were Caucasian, 1% were Hispanic or Latinx, 9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% identified as Other. Our participant sample consisted of 19 first years in college, 12 sophomores, 13 juniors, and 26 seniors. Of the total number of participants, 47% identified as collegiate athletes, which we specified by their membership on a varsity sports team. Participants were recruited through an email sent out to the various school list serves with an attached google sheet for sign up times, as well as through the psychology subject pool. The email encouraged participation and informed participants that they would be compensated with either candy or course credit in a psychology class. Materials Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that aims to measure the current positive and negative affect within an individual, which we used as a manipulation check (see Appendix A). The PANAS scale has high reliability, with α = 0.90 for the positive affect subscale and α = 0.87 for the negative affect subscale (Watson et al., 1988). The validity of the scale was supported by a confirmatory factor analysis that Crawford and Henry (2004) performed, which 12 confirmed that the PANAS scale is a valid measure of the constructs it was intended to assess. When given the pretest and posttest questionnaire, participants were instructed to fill out the survey based on how their current feelings matched the statements. The survey includes 10 items that address positive affect (e.g., Proud), while the other 10 describe negative affect (e.g., Ashamed). We included five additional filler words, such as “Hungry” or “Pretty,” which were added to prevent the participant from guessing the purpose of the survey. The 5-point Likert scale response choices ranged from 1 (Very Slightly or Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Participants' positive and negative affects were calculated by summing the total of each subscale, and the differences between the pretest and posttest reports were calculated to assess a successful mood induction. Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18; Clough et al., 2002). The MTQ48 was produced to result in an overall score for mental toughness while considering the four components, but we used the MTQ18 because it was developed to be more useraccessible (see Appendix B; Clough et al., 2002). The difference though is that the MTQ18 provides an overall score of mental toughness, whereas the MTQ48 indicates the four subscales of mental toughness. The four subscales measure the four components: ‘challenge, commitment, confidence, and control’. In Clough et al. 's (2002) study, over 600 athletes completed the MTQ48 and it was highly reliable; with a reliability coefficient of 0.9. However, the MTQ18 has adequate reliability; Cronbach’s alpha, α = 0.65 (Levy, Polman, Clough, Marchant, & Earle, 2006). The two measures have a correlation of r = 0.87. The MTQ18 includes 18-items, nine of those items are sentences that reflect higher levels of mental toughness and the other nine sentences reflect lower levels of mental toughness. The response choices ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 13 (strongly agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. When given the questionnaire, participants were instructed to indicate their responses to the following items based on how they are generally. An example item from the questionnaire is when I make mistakes I usually let it worry me for days after. The MTQ18 was calculated by summing the numbers reported, but reverse coding the statements assessing low mental toughness. Mood induction (Silva, 2011). Participants underwent a mood induction task (see Appendix C, Appendix D, & Appendix E). Participants were exposed to 12 images for six seconds each, depending on which of the three mood groups they were randomly assigned to. All the images were taken from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), and their purpose was to induce the appropriate mood into participants (Silva, 2011). As is common when using the IAPS, we carefully selected images for each mood group depending on how we believe people generally perceived their content. The participants assigned to the positive mood induction group were presented with positively valenced stimuli such as smiling, fun, and exciting times. The participants assigned to the negative mood induction group were presented with negatively valenced stimuli such as fire, crying, and upset faces. The participants assigned to the neutral mood induction group were presented with stimuli that are associated with neither positive nor negative effects such as buttons, chairs, and cabinets, to act as our control group. Maze task. Researchers presented each participant with a nearly impossible maze (see Appendix F). The maze was purposely a difficult task to measure how long each participant was willing to persevere. 14 Procedures After completing the consent form, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: positive mood induction, neutral mood induction, and negative mood induction group. In each condition, participants were initially asked to fill out two pretest questionnaires. The first survey participants were asked to complete was the PANAS. The second pretest questionnaire administered was the MTQ18. We administered the MTQ18 in the pretest in order to avoid participants’ mental toughness levels being influenced by their performance on the maze task. Next, participants were exposed to a series of 12 emotionally valenced images from the IAPS, corresponding to their respective conditions, for six seconds each. The positive mood group was presented with positively valenced stimuli, the negative mood group was shown negatively valenced images, and the neutral group was shown images that were associated with neither positive nor negative emotions. After the mood induction, participants were handed a nearly impossible maze task and were asked to work on the maze for as long as they were willing to or until completion. We used this task and the time a participant spent on it to quantify perseverance. We covertly timed the duration each participant spent on the maze, from the moment they began working on it, to the point when they told us they were done. Additionally, we did not cut anyone off from working on the maze. After the participants stopped working on the maze task, they were again asked to fill out the PANAS to measure their mood after the mood induction task, which acted as a manipulation check to see if the simulation did induce the respective mood. The posttest PANAS was administered after the maze task to avoid demand characteristics, such as 15 participants figuring out we were measuring mood. The questions in the posttest PANAS were presented in a different order than the pretest PANAS, and the answers were reversely coded to counteract the possibility of participants automatically filling the survey out the same way as the pretest. At the end of the study, each participant was asked to fill out a short demographics questionnaire to collect information on athlete status, ethnicity, age, year in college, and gender identity. Finally, participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study and were given their chosen form of compensation. Results Manipulation Checks To examine whether our manipulation of mood induction was successful, we ran two one-way between-subjects’ ANOVAs to compare the participants' change in positive and negative PANAS scores from before to after the mood induction. We created the change in mood variable for both the positive and negative affect subscales by taking the difference between the post and pre PANAS scores for each participant. Results for the positive PANAS scores showed that there was no significant difference between positive (M = -0.67, SD = 6.23), negative (M = -0.40, SD = 5.00), and neutral (M = 0.83, SD = 2.96) groups, F(2, 67) = 0.60, p = .557. Results for the negative PANAS scores approached significance, F(2, 67) = 2.40, p = .099. A Tukey's HSD test revealed no differences between the negative (M = 1.74, SD = 5.31) group compared to the neutral (M = -0.17, SD = 3.69) group (p = .436), however positive (M = 3.17, SD = 6.34) compared to neutral approached significance (p 16 = .082). This means that the positive group became slightly more negative from pretest to posttest compared to the neutral group. However overall, the mood task was not successful in inducing positive, negative, or neutral mood states. Analyses To examine our hypothesis that participants with higher levels of mental toughness and in the positive mood group would exhibit the highest levels of behavioral perseverance on the maze task, we ran an ANCOVA. We assigned mood as the independent variable and mental toughness scores as the covariate to examine their independent effects as well as the interaction effect on behavioral perseverance. We ran a second ANCOVA excluding the participants who completed the maze to examine if those individuals affected the significance of our results. However, the results from this second ANCOVA analysis were consistent with the entire sample analysis, in that our results for both instances were nonsignificant. If we did find significant results, higher levels of mental toughness would protect participants from the effects of negative mood on perseverance. We did not find a significant main effect of mental toughness on behavioral perseverance, F(1, 64) = 1.50, p = .226, η = 0.02. We also did not find significant results 2p for the main effect of mood induction on behavioral perseverance, while controlling for mental toughness scores, F(2, 64) = 0.83, p = .439, η = 0.03. The interaction between 2p mental toughness and mood on behavioral perseverance was not significant, F(2, 64) = 0.63, p = .537, η = 0.02 (see Figure 1). 2p Additionally, we ran a correlation to examine our prediction that athletes would score higher on the MTQ18 than non-athletes. Even though our results are trending towards athletes (M = 63.24; SD = 8.90) having higher mental toughness compared to 17 non-athletes (M = 59.43; SD = 10.22), the findings of the correlation were nonsignificant, r(68) = -0.197, p = .103. In order to examine the effects of mood and varsity athlete status on perseverance, we ran a 2 (athlete status: varsity athlete, non-varsity athlete) x 3 (condition: positive, neutral, negative) between-subjects factorial ANOVA. There was no main effect of mood on behavioral perseverance, F(2, 64) = 1.25, p = .293, η = 0.04, and no main effect of 2p varsity athlete status on behavioral perseverance, F(1, 64) = 1.71, p = .196, η = 0.03. 2p There was also no significant interaction between mood and varsity athlete status on behavioral perseverance, F(2, 64) = 0.70, p = .503, η = 0.02 (see Figure 2). 2p Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the effect mental toughness has on perseverance in a non-athletic setting, and how mood moderates this relationship among athletes and non-athletes. We predicted that there would be an interaction between mental toughness and mood, in which participants who reported higher levels of mental toughness would be less affected by the mood induction, and thus show higher levels of perseverance despite the manipulation. Based on previous studies that compared mental toughness between athletes and non-athletes, we hypothesized that athletes would display higher levels of mental toughness, therefore showing higher levels of behavioral perseverance due to their ability to better regulate their emotions and be less affected by the mood induction compared to the non-athlete participants. There were no significant findings to support our predictions that mental toughness levels influence perseverance in the maze task. High mental toughness scores did not appear to significantly predict higher levels of behavioral perseverance, or in 18 other words, mental toughness did not predict behavior in a non-athletic setting. It is plausible that these findings do not show a significant relationship between the two variables because of the role motivation plays in displaying mental toughness (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). Mental toughness changes depending on the objective of a task and participants may have had varying motivations to complete the maze, which would influence their willingness to work on the task and persevere (Gucciardi, 2017). Motivations may be a bigger factor than originally anticipated, and therefore mental toughness may not be an athletic construct but one that is based on context. For example, when examined in an athletic setting where participants are motivated by their desire to succeed in sports, they are more likely to persevere (Gucciardi et al., 2008). Furthermore, there were no significant findings to support our prediction that there would be a main effect of mood influencing behavioral perseverance. One possible explanation for the nonsignificant relationship we found between mood and perseverance is that our mood induction task was not successful in appropriately inducing positive, negative, and neutral moods. Based on our results of the manipulation check, the only finding that appeared to be approaching significance was the comparison of positive to neutral groups on the negative PANAS scores. One possible explanation for why our mood induction did not work could be due to the nature of the task we presented participants. According to a meta-analysis performed by Westermann, Spies, Stahl, & Hesse (1996) videos, stories, and instruction (subjects explicitly asked to imagine and get involved in a situation described and in feelings suggested) were all together the most effective for inducing positive and negative moods. Therefore, it is plausible that our utilization of solely IAPS images was not enough to induce a specific mood since it did 19 not require much personal engagement. Furthermore, past research that was successful in inducing moods through the presentation of IAPS images used 15 photos, so it is also possible that our use of 12 images was too little (Ibanez, Moureau, & Roussel, 2017). Also, we did not find a significant interaction of mood and mental toughness on perseverance. Although the interaction was nonsignificant, we did see a generally positive trend in the positive and negative mood induction groups, in which there seem to be higher levels of perseverance in the maze task for higher mental toughness levels. Furthermore, the slope for the negative mood induction group appeared to be steeper than the slope for the positive mood group. In other words, there seemed to be a bigger difference in perseverance levels between participants of high and low mental toughness within the negative mood group, compared to the participants of high and low mental toughness in the positive mood group. Even though these findings are not significant, they are consistent with our expectation of individuals with higher mental toughness exhibiting better emotion regulation, and persevering longer as a result (Richards & Gross, 2000). In the negative mood group, we expected to see participants who reported high levels of mental toughness exhibit similar perseverance levels to those highly mentally tough participants in the positive mood group. However, we expected to see a bigger discrepancy in perseverance levels between the two mood groups among individuals who reported low mental toughness, which could account for the greater slope seen in the negative mood group. Rather, we anticipated that among the low mental toughness group, participants in the negative mood group would be more affected by the mood induction because of their decreased ability to regulate emotions, and thus show 20 lower perseverance levels compared to the low mental toughness participants in the positive mood group. Even though our findings are inconsistent with previous studies that found a relationship between positive mood facilitating higher levels of perseverance, there is research that suggests negative moods may produce the same effect (Hill et al., 2016). Forgas (2013) proposed that negative moods promote perseverance because his findings showed that participants spent more time on a task, attempted to answer more questions, and had more correct answers when in a negative mood, compared to a positive mood. Negative moods can recruit more narrowed and attentive thinking styles, and in some circumstances, can reduce dysfunctional self-handicapping behaviors, leading to an increase in perseverance (Forgas, 2013). Similarly, there was no significant interaction between mood and varsity athlete status on behavioral perseverance. This finding is inconsistent with our prediction that athletes would display higher levels of perseverance overall due to their increased ability to regulate emotions and be less affected by the mood induction, compared to their nonathlete counterparts. One possible explanation for this nonsignificant interaction could be due to our lack of finding a significant relationship between mental toughness and athlete status, contrary to our prediction as well. According to our analysis, even though athletes displayed higher mental toughness levels overall, there was a small, nonsignificant correlation between the two variables. These findings are inconsistent with previous studies that found a positive relationship between being an athlete and having high perseverance (Visram, 2012). Likewise, Gucciardi et al. (2008) found that football players with higher mental toughness levels predicted their perseverance in a sprint task. 21 We may see a different result than Gucciardi et al. (2008) because they examined physical perseverance rather than only mental, so the physiological functions may help increase perseverance levels. This may explain why mental toughness cannot be generalized outside of a sports context. Limitations This study adds to the overall literature of mental toughness by narrowing the ambiguities about the definition. One ambiguity it aims to address is whether mental toughness should be defined as a personality trait or something that is developed. By examining whether it is affected by mood and athlete status, researchers can interpret if mental toughness is a stable trait or if it is developed through participation in athletics. Further, this study helps to define mental toughness by examining if it predicts behavior, specifically outside of a sports context, which most previous research has failed to do. However, because we lack significant results in this study, it may also help to understand that we may not be able to generalize mental toughness outside of sports. Simply put, mental toughness may only be a predictor of behavior in a sports context. There are a few limitations to this study that should be considered for future research. One limitation is in regard to external validity. This study has a small sample size and consists solely of students from a small liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest, which suggests that it is hard to generalize the results to the greater population since our participants come from very similar backgrounds: western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. Past research has shown cultural differences in the necessity of emotion regulation, which could have implications on mental toughness for individuals in non-Western cultures (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). 22 The small sample size also limits our power, which may explain why our results lacked significance. Also, it is possible that the low power of the study and social desirability bias of athletes could have resulted in our nonsignificant findings. A further limitation to this study is in regard to the administration of the manipulation check. We decided to present the posttest PANAS after the maze task in order to avoid demand characteristics. However, due to this placement, participants’ performance on the maze task may have influenced their response to the posttest PANAS. One further limitation is that people who participated on weekends tended to spend more time on the maze in comparison to participants who came in on weekdays between their classes or practices. This may simply be that subjects who participated during the week had other priorities on their mind and were not as willing to continue on the maze task. Similarly, athletes may be busier than non-athletes during weekdays, therefore they may be less motivated to complete the maze than others who were not as busy. Future Directions Future research should consider whether the participant cares about the task itself, as well as the types of tasks that may be more influenced by mental toughness. Previous research found that mental toughness predicts the behavior of athlete perseverance in their chosen sport (Gucciardi et al., 2016). Future research looking outside of a sports context should compare participants’ mental toughness of what they care about and what they do not care about to see if it makes a difference since motivation may play a factor in one’s ability to be mentally tough during a task. Another future direction could be comparing physical perseverance to mental perseverance and examining whether mental toughness is affected by adrenaline, to continue exploring if mental toughness does 23 predict behavior. As previously mentioned, cardiovascular activity influences focus and Gucciardi et al. (2008) found that football players with higher levels of mental toughness persevered longer in a sprint task (Fredrickson, 2001). However, adrenaline may impact one's perseverance and can help explain why studies that examined athletes on a physical fitness task found that behavior was predicted by mental toughness levels. These future areas may be able to help researchers explain what exactly is this idea of ‘mental toughness’. Conclusion We reported research that examines some concepts related to mental toughness, which are resilience, hardiness, and perseverance (Guillen & Laborde, 2014; Nezhad & Besharat, 2010). Studies need to examine if mental toughness is just a sports phenomenon and it falls under one of the concepts previously mentioned or if they are separate notions. Regardless of the definition, mental toughness may be affected by other moderators such as personality, motivation, and as we explored, emotion. In this study, we did not find that mental toughness predicted behavior, or that it was significantly affected by our mood induction. However, since previous studies treated mental toughness as a predictor variable, researchers should continue to examine this construct as a potential predictor of behavior (Gucciardi et al., 2016). Additionally, future research should continue to explore the effects mood has on mental toughness and perseverance. The ambiguous understanding of mental toughness due to inconsistent findings needs to be addressed within the world of sports psychology. More research like this is needed to address the concerns about measuring and understanding mental toughness. Due to the rise in popularity and interest of mental toughness within sports psychology, researchers 24 must come to a consensus on the definition of this construct to more consistently guide future research 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figures Figure 1. Interaction between Mental Toughness and Mood Induction on Behavioral Perseverance Figure 2. Main Effect of Mood and Varsity Athlete Status on Behavioral Perseverance 32 Appendix A: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) 4, 9, 16, 19, 24* indicates a filler item 33 Appendix B: Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18) Please indicate your response to the following items by circling one of the numbers, which have the following meaning. 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree Please answer these items carefully, thinking about how you are generally. Do not spend too much time on any one item 1. Even when under considerable pressure I usually remain calm. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I tend to worry about things well before they actually happen 1 2 3 4 5 3. I usually find it hard to summon enthusiasm for the tasks I have to do 1 2 3 4 5 4. I generally cope well with any problems that occur 1 2 3 4 5 5. I generally feel that I am a worthwhile person 1 2 3 4 5 6. ‘I just don’t know where to begin’ is a feeling I usually have when presented with several things to do at once 1 2 3 4 5 7. I usually speak my mind when I have something to say 1 2 3 4 5 8. When I make mistakes I usually let it worry me for days after 1 2 3 4 5 9. In discussions, I tend to back down even when I feel strongly about something 1 2 3 4 5 10. I generally feel in control 1 2 3 4 5 11. I often wish my life was more predictable 1 2 3 4 5 12. When I am feeling tired I find it difficult to get going 1 2 3 4 5 13. I am generally able to react quickly when something unexpected happens 1 2 3 4 5 14. However bad things are, I usually feel they will work out positively in the end 1 2 3 4 5 15. I generally look on the bright side of life 1 2 3 4 5 16. I generally find it hard to relax 1 2 3 4 5 34 17. I usually find it difficult to make a mental effort when I am tired 1 2 3 4 5 18. If I feel somebody is wrong, I am not afraid to argue with them 1 2 3 4 5 Scoring: Question number 1 2R 3R 4 5 6R 7 8R 9R 10 11R 12R 13 14 15 16R 17R 18 35 Appendix C: IAPS mood induction images - Positive 36 Appendix D: IAPS mood induction images - Neutral 37 Appendix E: IAPS mood induction images - Negative 38 Appendix F: Maze Task 39