Psychological Predictors of Athletic Performance: Emotional Intelligence, Coping Style, and Mental Toughness

The present study examined the psychological predictors of success as they relate to performance levels. To this end, study 1 was conducted investigating the foremost psychological constructs athletes employ while in a competitive environment. Qualitative questions were asked to a sample of collegiate athletes and after the analysis of their responses, the emerging psychological constructs as potential predictors of performance were emotional intelligence, coping style, and mental toughness. These three constructs formed the basis of study 2, in which the three constructs were hypothesized to be predictors of performance. Measures of each construct were taken along with measures of performance. They were then analyzed to assess any significant correlations or interactions between them. Results indicated only a slight number of significant findings, failing to support the main hypothesis, despite previous literature indicating that these three constructs have a mediating effect on performance. PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE 3 Psychological Predictors of Athletic Performance: Emotional Intelligence, Coping Style, and Mental Toughness The world of sports is highly diverse and in this environment, people of all types succeed and fail. In a locker room before a game, one athlete sits in their locker with their headphones on, eyes shut, nodding their head to the music as they mentally prepare to compete. Meanwhile, the locker room is buzzing around them. A teammate turns the music playing over the sound system to its highest volume and begins to dance. Everyone in the locker room is preparing to go play in the same game, yet the differences in how they prepare can be strikingly dissimilar. During the competition, many stressors will arise, but little is known about the overall stressful experience of athletes (Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012). This article discusses different psychological constructs that can influence an individuals’ ability to perform within an adverse setting, as sports often are. By better understanding how they play a role in human performance, and to what degree, a more complete picture can be built within the literature to inform athletes regarding the best way to improve their performance. In nature, athletic events involve many adverse events that lead to extreme emotions, which makes understanding how to interpret and manage emotions during competition critical for athletes. It is important to learn not only how to prevent emotions from impeding performance, but also to utilize emotions to create a performance advantage. When thinking of emotions in such a way, the construct of emotional intelligence arises. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to monitor one’s own and others feelings and emotions, discriminate among them, and use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Broadly, high measures of EI are associated with enhanced performance and, as concluded from a meta-analysis on the construct by Van Rooy & Viswesvaran (2004), the overall predictive PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE 4 validity of EI appears to hold across all performance domains. This effect is particularly robust in assessing performance in employment settings. There are also findings that relate business and sports, indicating successful individuals in each environment possess similar forms of attributes (Jones, 2002; Weinberg & McDermiott, 2002). Research concentrated on EI and sports has only recently begun, beginning in the early 2000’s. In that time, researchers have utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods and multiple assessment inventories in their studies of EI and sport (Meyer & Fletcher, 2007). Since it is clear EI has an impact on performance in employment settings, it is conceivable that individuals with higher EI will also perform better in a sporting environment. In the same way that the predictive ability of EI holds across all performance domains, it is possible that other psychological constructs also have predictive ability across multiple domains, including the adverse setting of sports. To this end, there is value in broadly exploring the psychological constructs athletes use while performing with the hope of finding some that prove valuable in predicting performance. Study One To gain a better understanding of exactly which psychological constructs relate to performance in the adverse setting of athletics, a qualitative study was conducted. The questions asked were focused towards attaining a comprehensive picture of athlete’s psychological thinking during competition. This included questions about prior, during, and after competitions and practices from the athlete’s perspective in regards to their thoughts about themselves, their teammates, and their coaches. The goal of doing this was to determine the underlying psychological constructs an athlete uses to function in their competitive environment. It was hypothesized that EI would appear as a psychological construct, and additionally, that other PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE 5 psychological constructs would emerge as influential to performance, particularly emotional response and regulation efforts, in a competitive environment as well. Methods A qualitative survey was conducted among members of the Vanderbilt women’s soccer team (n=10) and the Vanderbilt men’s football team (n=20). Participants were asked open-ended questions focused around the following psychologically driven aspects of competition: individual game preparation (e.g., what is your most common emotion before a game? ), team interaction game preparation (e.g., how do pregame speeches affect your performance? ), individual during the game (e.g., when you make a mistake, what is the first thing you think of? ), team interaction during the game (e.g., you hear your teammates cheering you on after making a great play, how does this make you feel/affect you? ), individual post-game (e.g., how do you evaluate your performance after a game? ), team interaction post-game (e.g., your team loses, what’s the best way for coach to address the team? ), individual practice (e.g., do you feel like being focused while warming up is important to your performance during practice? ), team interaction practice (e.g., you’re put 1v1 with your best friend on the team, how does this affect your mentality? ), and home vs. away games (how would you say your mentality differs between playing at home and playing away games? ). Participant interviews were conducted in-person and responses recorded by the researcher. The full set of questions can be found in Appendix A. Data Analysis. Participant’s responses were analyzed in sets based upon the aforementioned aspects of competition. Within each aspect, congruencies and incongruences were looked for among responses. That is, when participant’s responses were similar, particular notice was taken and likewise, when participant’s responses to the same question showed great variation, particular notice was also taken. Questions were then subdivided into those that showed great PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE 6 response variation, moderate variation, and little to no variation. Questions in which response diversity was great, the polarity of responses was also noted, resulting in some that were highly polarized, some showing variation across a spectrum, and others showing no clear pattern at all. After doing this, psychological constructs began to emerge among the categories. These were typically found upon close examination of stark contrasts in participant responses to a question or polarizations of responses either together or on the two extremes of a spectrum. Results Participant’s responses were examined for trends towards psychological constructs. Three prevailing constructs emerged: emotional intelligence (EI), coping strategy, and mental toughness (MT). In support of EI were responses to the question, “You see a teammate not touching the lines while doing a drill. Would you address this, and if so, what would you say? ” Across a spectrum, some participants said they would not address the issue, while others said they would address it through multiple methods, some yelling, others preaching accountability and making general comments to the group. This is indicative of EI, given that participants were required to evaluate their own feelings of the situation, and then required to react in a way sensitive to how others would perceive it; those acting in favorable and constructive ways would be seen as having higher EI than those acting in destructive ways. Other similar examples exist among the data categories, this particular example coming from the team interaction practice category and showing variation across a spectrum. In support of coping strategy as an emerging psychological construct were responses to the question, “Do you have any pregame rituals and what happens if you forget to do them? ” Participant responses were polarized in either having or not having pregame rituals as well as PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE 7 how they would be affected if they forgot them. Some participants said in forgetting them they “don’t care” or “make do”, whereas others note they will “worry about it”, “feel nervous and anxious”, and “feel unprepared”. Responses like so are indicative of coping strategy, being that participants who adjust positively when they forget their pregame ritual are showing use of a positive coping strategy whereas those unable to adjust are using a negative coping strategy. Additionally, pregame rituals are a coping strategy in themselves to deal with the stressors that arise with competition. Examples similar to this in support of the importance of coping style exist among the data. The aforementioned example in particular came from the individual game preparation category and responses among participants showed polarization. The emergence of MT as a psychologic