View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Relationship between Mental Toughness and Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Item-Method Directed Forgetting Task

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Relationship between Mental Toughness and Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Item-Method Directed Forgetting Task
Language: English
Authors: Dewhurst, Stephen A. (ORCID 0000-0001-5834-0049), Anderson, Rachel J., Howe, David, Clough, Peter J.
Source: Applied Cognitive Psychology. Sep-Oct 2019 33(5):943-951.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Cognitive Ability, Persistence, Psychological Patterns, Memory, Task Analysis, Personality, Locus of Control
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3570
ISSN: 0888-4080
Abstract: Previous research by the authors found that mental toughness, as measured by the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48; Clough, P.J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. [2002]. Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology [pp. 32-43]. London: Thomson Publishing), was significantly associated with performance on the list-method directed forgetting task. The current study extends this finding to the item-method directed forgetting task in which the instruction to Remember or Forget is given after each item in the study list. A significant positive association was found between the correct recognition of Remember words and the emotional control subscale of the MTQ48. No significant associations were observed with other measures of mental toughness or personality. The findings are discussed in terms of the relationship between mental toughness and cognitive control.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1262154
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFf9uDgo-PmfaEbX5oLeYS9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPE9Dbmm7AgY9NZtPgIBEICBm1OitOogMn90eKp5mNUvvbdkHzX_4EGp8Cx80F1yBKHNpEmvelFi-DfpxfQdcDphNj_XfCDQcj0pKE8Nfzg0Tqj7j0hdwvfIL4QI6ndR9bXahxdXzZ1JHTYgKB9f5cagH3zXX04hhZ3iijQ3uVkEC5Jl_Nnn-A0ZTMYpfImx2DHT2j_-6DgkRDkXfWzfYvhtfIQw2WcPbCKZ5HAk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0138393118;bu801sep.19;2019Sep04.03:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0138393118-1">The relationship between mental toughness and cognitive control: Evidence from the item‐method directed forgetting task </title> <p>Summary Previous research by the authors found that mental toughness, as measured by the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48; Clough, P.J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. [2002]. Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology [pp. 32–43]. London: Thomson Publishing), was significantly associated with performance on the list‐method directed forgetting task. The current study extends this finding to the item‐method directed forgetting task in which the instruction to Remember or Forget is given after each item in the study list. A significant positive association was found between the correct recognition of Remember words and the emotional control subscale of the MTQ48. No significant associations were observed with other measures of mental toughness or personality. The findings are discussed in terms of the relationship between mental toughness and cognitive control.</p> <p>Keywords: cognitive control; directed forgetting; mental toughness</p> <hd id="AN0138393118-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Why are some individuals better than others at coping with competitive or pressurised situations? One factor that has been shown to confer an advantage in such situations is "mental toughness" (e.g., Clough, Earle, & Sewell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]; Weinberg, Butt, & Culp, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]). This psychological construct is associated with attributes such as resilience, self‐belief, and the ability to cope under pressure. In a recent review, Lin, Mutz, Clough, and Papageorgiou ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]) defined mental toughness as "an umbrella term that entails positive psychological resources, which are important across a range of achievement contexts" (pp.1–2). Contexts in which mental toughness has been shown to have positive effects include sport (e.g., Crust & Azadi, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]; Kaiseler, Polman, & Nicholls, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]; Levy, Polman, Clough, Marchant, & Earle, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]), the workplace (Marchant et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]), education (St Clair‐Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]), and the military (Godlewski & Kline, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]). More generally, mental toughness has been shown to be positively related to life satisfaction and negatively related to depressive symptoms (Gerber et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the numerous studies highlighting the benefits of mental toughness, there is as yet no objective understanding of the psychological processes that underpin this important construct. Definitions of mental toughness are typically couched in terms of related concepts such as hardiness and resilience. In an attempt to move beyond circular definitions, Dewhurst, Anderson, Cotter, Crust, and Clough ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]) presented behavioural evidence that mental toughness is associated with cognitive inhibition. Cognitive inhibition is a component of the broader concept of cognitive control (see Abrahamse, Braem, Notebaert, & Verguts, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>] for a recent review) and was defined by MacLeod ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]) as "the stopping or overriding of a mental process, in whole or in part, with or without intention" (p.5). Crucially, cognitive control can be measured objectively using behavioural tasks.</p> <p>Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]) investigated the relationship between mental toughness and cognitive inhibition using a variant of the list‐method directed forgetting paradigm, originally developed by Bjork ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]). Participants studied a list of words in anticipation of a memory test and were then told to forget them and concentrate on learning a second list. After presentation of the second list, participants were asked to recall both lists (i.e., including the list they were instructed to forget). Mental toughness (as measured by the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 [MTQ48] developed by Clough et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]; see Clough & Strycharczyk, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>] for a review) was found to predict performance on the directed forgetting task. Specifically, regression analyses showed no influence of mental toughness on recall of List 1, but mental toughness positively predicted recall of List 2. The interpretation of this pattern was that mentally tough participants were able to inhibit List 1 and focus on the encoding of List 2. This effect was driven by the commitment subscale of the MTQ48, suggesting that it was the ability to focus on current goals (see Clough & Strycharczyk) that led to the enhanced recall of List 2.</p> <p>Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]) discussed the benefits of forgetting in pressurised domains such as sport and education, where dwelling on a mistake can undermine subsequent performance. The finding that mental toughness was associated with the ability to prevent unwanted information (List 1) from affecting current goals (encoding List 2) is consistent with findings that mental toughness confers an advantage in such situations. A limitation of the list‐method directed forgetting task, however, is that it measures only a single instance of forgetting. In contrast, the item‐method directed forgetting task, in which the instruction to remember or forget is presented after each study item, measures the ability to forget multiple stimuli and allocate attentional strategies over a sustained period of time (see MacLeod, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>], for a comparison of the item‐ and list‐methods of directed forgetting). We used the list‐method in our previous research because the effects have been attributed to cognitive inhibition (Bjork, Bjork, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]), which we hypothesised would be influenced by dispositional factors such as mental toughness. In contrast, performance in the item‐method task has previously been explained in terms of reduced rehearsal of items that participants are instructed to forget (e.g., Bjork, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]), which we hypothesised would not be influenced by dispositional factors.</p> <p>Recently, however, Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]) proposed a novel account of the item‐method task in which forgetting is attributed to an active control process within working memory (WM). Across three experiments, Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz found that articulatory suppression during encoding interfered with the forgetting of to‐be‐forgotten items, which they attributed to interference with this resource‐demanding control process. Although there were variations across the three experiments, the basic procedure consisted of a series of trials, designated by Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz as WM trials, in which two lists of three words were presented side by side for 3 s. After a 250‐msec interval, the lists were replaced by the instruction to forget, which randomly appeared to the left or right of a fixation point, indicating which list of three words participants were to forget. Participants were then presented with one of the six words and asked to decide whether or not it was a word they had been instructed to forget. Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz found that articulatory suppression interfered with forgetting, such that participants were more likely to falsely identify Forget words as Remember words when the task was performed with articulatory suppression. No effects of articulatory suppression were observed in the Remember words.</p> <p>From the perspective of the current study, the most salient of Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]) findings were observed in yes/no recognition tests administered after completion of the WM trials. Participants were presented with recognition lists containing 24 old items (12 Remember and 12 Forget) and 24 foils. The main finding was that the directed forgetting effect (better memory for Remember items than Forget items) was eliminated when the items were studied with articulatory suppression. As noted above, Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz interpreted this as evidence that successful forgetting in the item‐method task reflects the operation of an active control process. This effect was driven by a reduction in correct recognition of Remember words when studied under articulatory suppression, suggesting that the control process serves to allocate attention to Remember items and away from Forget items.</p> <p>Previous research has shown that the ability to control thoughts and emotions is characteristic of mentally tough individuals (e.g., Clough et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]). The aim of the current study, therefore, was to investigate whether mental toughness predicts performance on the item‐method directed forgetting task as well as the list‐method as previously shown by Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). If forgetting in the item‐method task is due to an active control process, then any effects of mental toughness are likely to be observed in the control subscale of the MTQ48. The MTQ48 is particularly useful in this regard as the control subscale is further divided into life control (control of external events) and emotional control (control of one's emotional reactions to events), allowing us to explore different types of control. In order to further investigate the role of control in directed forgetting, we added a second mental toughness measure, the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) developed by Sheard, Golby, and van Wersch ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]), which also includes a control subscale. Although this subscale has been found to have only moderate correlations with the control subscales of the MTQ48 (Crust & Swann, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]), for the purposes of the current study, having a number of measures allowed us to explore more thoroughly the potential relationship between control and directed forgetting. Despite its name, the SMTQ is relevant to other domains besides sport.</p> <p>A final aim of the current study was to address a criticism made by Delaney, Goldman, King, and Nelson‐Gray ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]) that Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]) failed to account for the effects of other personality factors. Delaney et al. argued that the effect of directed forgetting on mental toughness was due to the MTQ48's correlation with the conscientiousness subscale of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]). In order to address this, participants in the current study completed the BFI is addition to the MTQ48 and SMTQ.</p> <p>In the experiment reported below, participants completed the MTQ48 (Clough et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]), the SMTQ (Sheard et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>], and the BFI (McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]) before taking part in an item‐method directed forgetting task in which the instruction to Remember or Forget was presented after each word. This was followed by a test of recognition memory for both the Remember and the Forget words. We used recognition tests rather than the recall tests used in our previous study because Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]) found that articulatory suppression affected both Remember and Forget words in the recognition test, but only Forget words in the WM test. Based on our previous research, we predicted that mental toughness would be positively associated with the correct recognition of Remember words. Based on the proposal by Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz that forgetting in the item‐method paradigm relies on an active control process, we predicted that any effects of mental toughness would be driven by the control subscales of the mental toughness questionnaires.</p> <hd id="AN0138393118-3">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0138393118-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 93 undergraduate students (69 females) from the University of Hull. All were native English speakers in the age range 18–52 years (<emph>M</emph> = 20.13, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.07). Sample size was based on the findings of Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]; <emph>n</emph> = 60) that mental toughness accounted for 20% of the variance in recall of the Remember list, with <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .21. Field ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]) suggested <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> values of.02,.13, and.26 for small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. The <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> reported by Dewhurst et al. is close to the large effect size suggested by Field, for which he recommended a sample of at least 77 participants. We expected a similar‐sized effect in the current study, but in order to maximise power, we aimed to increase our original sample size by at least 50%. The final total of 93 participants was achieved via opportunity sampling. The participants were tested at individual workstations in groups of up to five and received course credit for their participation. The research was approved by the local ethics committee in compliance with the host institution's <emph>Code of Good Research Practice,</emph> which adheres to the principles of the <emph>Concordat to Support Research Integrity</emph> and the <emph>Declaration of Helsinki</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0138393118-5">Materials and design</hd> <p>The MTQ48, developed by Clough et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]) consists of 48 statements on six subscales: challenge, commitment, emotional control, life control, confidence in abilities, and interpersonal confidence. Examples of the statements include "Challenges usually bring out the best in me" (challenge), "I usually find something to motivate me" (commitment), "I can usually control my nervousness" (emotional control), "I generally feel in control" (life control), "I generally feel that I am a worthwhile person" (confidence in abilities), and "I often feel intimidated in social gatherings" (interpersonal confidence: reverse scored). Participants respond to the items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The MTQ48's subscales have been shown to have acceptable validity and reliability in a number of studies (e.g., Crust & Keegan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]; Lin, Clough, Welch, & Papageorgiou, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]; Perry, Clough, Crust, Earle, & Nicholls, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]; Ward, St Claire‐Thompson, & Postlethwaite, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The SMTQ, developed by Sheard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]), consists of 14 items divided into three subscales of confidence, constancy, and control. Examples include "I have an unshakeable confidence in my ability" (confidence), "I give up in difficult situations" (constancy), and "I worry about performing poorly" (control: reverse scored). Responses are made on a 4‐point Likert scale from "not at all true" to "very true." Sheard et al. found the SMTQ to have adequate reliability, divergent validity, and discriminative power. Additional support for the reliabilities of the three subscales has been shown by Zeiger and Zeiger ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]) and Goldby and Wood ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The BFI (McCrae & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]) consists of a 44‐item questionnaire measuring the five personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Participants complete the sentence stem "I see myself as someone who" with phrases that relate to one of the five traits and then rate whether they agree or disagree with the resulting statement. Examples include "is talkative" (extraversion), "is helpful and unselfish with others" (agreeableness), "worries a lot" (neuroticism), "does a thorough job" (conscientiousness), and "prefers work that is routine" (openness to experience: reverse scored). Participants respond on a 5‐point Likert scale from "disagree strongly" to "agree strongly." This well‐established questionnaire has been shown to have acceptable reliabilities (e.g., Benet‐Martinez & John, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The stimuli for the directed forgetting task were 96 concrete nouns (e.g., cottage and teacher) taken from the MRC Psycholinguistic database (Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]) and randomly divided into two study lists of 48 items each. Within each study list, 24 items were allocated to the Remember condition and 24 to the Forget condition. The recognition test consisted of the 24 Remember items and the 24 Forget items, with the 48 unstudied items included as lures. Allocation of lists to target and lure items and to Remember and Forget conditions was fully counterbalanced.</p> <hd id="AN0138393118-6">Procedure</hd> <p>Ethical approval was granted by the local Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study. At the start of the testing procedure, participants read and completed a consent form, then completed a brief demographic questionnaire followed by the MTQ48, the SMTQ, and the BFI. Participants were instructed to work through the questionnaires from the first item to the last and to spend no more than a few seconds on each item. After completing all three questionnaires, participants were given the instructions for the directed forgetting task. Briefly, they were informed that they would be presented with a series of words followed by a memory test in which they would be required to remember some, but not all, of the presented words. They were told that each word would be followed by a row of upper case letter R (RRRRRR) or by a row of upper case letter F (FFFFFF). Participants were told that they would subsequently be asked to remember the words followed by RRRRRR but not those followed by FFFFFF.</p> <p>The presentation of each item in the directed forgetting task began with a 1‐s fixation consisting of a row of six asterisks, followed by a blank screen for 500 ms, the study word for 750 ms, a blank screen for 250 ms, and the instruction ("RRRRRR" or "FFFFFF") for 3 s. The next item appeared after a 500‐ms blank screen. After a 5‐min distractor task involving simple maths problems, participants received the instructions for the recognition test. They were told that they would be presented with another set of words, some of which had appeared in the study list and some of which had not. They were asked to identify all the words that had been presented in the study list, including the words they had been instructed to forget. Items in the recognition test remained on screen until the participants pressed a response key ("z" for an old item or 'm' for a new item) with a 500‐ms blank screen between each item.</p> <hd id="AN0138393118-7">RESULTS</hd> <p>Mean recognition scores in the directed forgetting task were 21.23 (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.43) for the Remember words and 15.20 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.86) for the Forget words. A paired samples t‐test indicated a significant difference between the recognition scores, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref49">92</reflink>) = 12.49, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>d</emph> = 1.29, confirming that the directed forgetting manipulation was effective. The relationships between the measures of mental toughness and correct recognition scores for Remember and Forget words were then analysed in a series of hierarchical regressions. In each analysis, the BFI scores were entered at Step 1. Separate analyses were conducted on the MTQ48 and the SMTQ, with the respective subscales entered at Step 2. For each measure of mental toughness, separate analyses were conducted on the correct recognition of Remember and Forget words.</p> <p>In the analysis of the MTQ48 and Remember words, the BFI accounted for less than 5% (<emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .046) of the variance at Step 1, <emph>F</emph> < 1. Entering the MTQ48 at Step 2 accounted for a statistically significant 21% of the variance, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .213, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref51">92</reflink>) = 2.00; <emph>p</emph> = .039. Analysis of the coefficients showed a significant positive effect of emotional control (<emph>β</emph> = .47, <emph>p</emph> = .001), with none of the other subscales accounting for significant additional variance, all <emph>p</emph>'s > .12 (see Table ). In the analysis of the Forget words, neither the BFI, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .057, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref53">92</reflink>) = 1.05; <emph>p</emph> = .395, nor the MTQ48, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .138, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref55">92</reflink>) = 1.18; <emph>p</emph> = .315, accounted for significant variance in recognition scores (see Table ). In the analysis of the SMTQ and Remember words, neither the BFI, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .046, nor the SMTQ, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .071, accounted for significant variance, both <emph>F</emph>s < 1 (see Table ). Finally, neither the BFI, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .057, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref57">92</reflink>) = 1.05; <emph>p</emph> = .395, nor the SMTQ, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .074, <emph>F</emph> < 1, accounted for significant variance in the analysis of the Forget words (see Table ). The correlation matrix for the recognition of Remember and Forget words and the scores on the MTQ48, SMTQ, and BFI subscales is shown in Table .</p> <p>Summary of the simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the BFI, the MTQ48, and Remember words</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">B</th><th align="left">B SE</th><th align="left">Beta</th><th align="left">Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 1</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>22.93</td><td>2.94</td><td /><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−0.43</td><td>0.35</td><td>−0.14</td><td>0.230</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.210</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>−0.42</td><td>0.43</td><td>−0.11</td><td>0.337</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>−0.25</td><td>0.35</td><td>−0.08</td><td>0.466</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.50</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.936</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 2</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>16.71</td><td>4.55</td><td /><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−0.33</td><td>0.41</td><td>−0.11</td><td>0.426</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.219</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>−0.45</td><td>0.54</td><td>−0.12</td><td>0.410</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.787</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.41</td><td>0.50</td><td>−0.09</td><td>0.411</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Challenge</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.54</td><td>−0.03</td><td>0.808</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Commitment</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control (emotion)</td><td>2.33</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control (life)</td><td>−0.48</td><td>0.60</td><td>−0.12</td><td>0.431</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence (abilities)</td><td>−1.00</td><td>0.69</td><td>−0.26</td><td>0.147</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence (interpersonal)</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.747</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: BFI, Big Five Inventory; MTQ48, Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48.</p> <p>Summary of the simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the BFI, the MTQ48, and Forget words</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">B</th><th align="left">B SE</th><th align="left">Beta</th><th align="left">Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 1</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>15.23</td><td>5.84</td><td /><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−1.16</td><td>0.70</td><td>−0.19</td><td>0.101</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.752</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.262</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.817</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.40</td><td>0.99</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.689</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 2</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>21.47</td><td>9.50</td><td /><td>0.027</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−1.83</td><td>0.86</td><td>−0.30</td><td>0.035</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.514</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.168</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>−0.47</td><td>1.06</td><td>−0.08</td><td>0.659</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.64</td><td>1.04</td><td>−0.07</td><td>0.541</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Challenge</td><td>−1.11</td><td>1.31</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.329</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Commitment</td><td>0.38</td><td>1.68</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.822</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control (emotion)</td><td>0.83</td><td>1.37</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.543</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control (life)</td><td>−1.57</td><td>1.26</td><td>−0.21</td><td>0.216</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence (abilities)</td><td>−0.99</td><td>1.44</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.490</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence (interpersonal)</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.073</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: BFI, Big Five Inventory; MTQ48, Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48.</p> <p>Summary of the simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the BFI, the SMTQ, and Remember words</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">B</th><th align="left">B SE</th><th align="left">Beta</th><th align="left">Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 1</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>22.93</td><td>2.94</td><td /><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−0.43</td><td>0.35</td><td>−0.14</td><td>0.230</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.210</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>−0.42</td><td>0.43</td><td>−0.11</td><td>0.337</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>−0.25</td><td>0.35</td><td>−0.08</td><td>0.466</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.50</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.936</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 2</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>21.61</td><td>4.11</td><td /><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−0.38</td><td>0.37</td><td>−0.120</td><td>0.310</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.318</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>−0.61</td><td>0.50</td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.229</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>−0.09</td><td>0.50</td><td>−0.03</td><td>0.863</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.810</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence</td><td>−0.43</td><td>0.75</td><td>−0.09</td><td>0.573</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Constancy</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.316</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.323</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Abbreviations: BFI, Big Five Inventory; SMTQ, Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire.</p> <p>Summary of the simultaneous multiple regression analyses for the BFI, the SMTQ, and Forget words</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">B</th><th align="left">B SE</th><th align="left">BetaS</th><th align="left">Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 1</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>15.23</td><td>5.84</td><td /><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−1.16</td><td>0.70</td><td>−0.19</td><td>0.101</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.752</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.262</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.817</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.40</td><td>0.99</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.689</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Step 2</td><td align="left">(Constant)</td><td>16.95</td><td>8.20</td><td /><td>0.042</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Extraversion</td><td>−0.97</td><td>0.74</td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.195</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Agreeableness</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.879</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conscientiousness</td><td>0.36</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.717</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Neuroticism</td><td>−0.10</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.922</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Openness</td><td>−0.52</td><td>1.05</td><td>−0.06</td><td>0.621</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confidence</td><td>−1.18</td><td>1.50</td><td>−0.12</td><td>0.435</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Constancy</td><td>1.55</td><td>1.30</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.237</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td>0.05</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.963</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Abbreviations: BFI, Big Five Inventory; SMTQ, Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire.</p> <p>Correlation matrix for recognition of Remember words, recognition of Forget words, and the subscales of the MTQ48, SMTQ, and BFI</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Factor</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th><th align="left">15</th><th align="left">16</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Remember words</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Forget words</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. MTQ48 Challenge</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. MTQ48 Commitment</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. MTQ48 Control (Emo.)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.14</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. MTQ48 Control (Life)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. MTQ48 Conf. (Ability)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.54<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. MTQ48 Conf. (Inter.)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.18</td><td>0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. SMTQ Confidence</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. SMTQ Constancy</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. SMTQ Control</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.19</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12. Extraversion</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.17</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.63<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.15</td><td>0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13. Agreableness</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td>0.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.09</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>14. Conscientiousness</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td>0.68<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.03</td><td>0.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.07</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>15. Neuroticism</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.69<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.59<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>−0.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>16. Openness</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td>0.05</td><td>0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td>−0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>−0.01</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Abbreviation: BFI, Big Five Inventory.</item> <item>6 * Significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed).</item> <item>7 ** Significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0138393118-8">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The results of the current study are consistent with those of Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]) in showing a positive association between mental toughness and directed forgetting. They also extend this finding to the item‐method version of the directed forgetting paradigm and tests of recognition memory. As in our previous research, mental toughness was positively associated with retention of the Remember words but was not significantly associated with retention of the Forget words. This pattern confirms our previous interpretation that mental toughness is associated with the ability to prevent unwanted information (the Forget words) from interfering with current goals (encoding the Remember words).</p> <p>Although the selective effect on Remember items has now been observed in two studies, one might intuitively expect mental toughness to be associated with memory for Forget words, whereby individuals with high mental toughness remember fewer Forget words as well as more Remember words. However, such a finding would be more likely to occur if mentally tough individuals were actively suppressing unwanted information, rather than simply directing attention away from it. The current pattern is consistent with the findings of Festini and Reuter‐Lorenz ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]) that the disruptive effect of articulatory suppression on directed forgetting in recognition memory was located in the Remember items, suggesting that the concurrent task interfered with the allocation of attention to the target information.</p> <p>In our previous research, the relationship between mental toughness and the list‐method directed forgetting task was driven by the commitment subscale of the MTQ48, suggesting that performance was linked to the ability to commit to current goals. In contrast, the relationship between mental toughness and the item‐method task was driven by a positive effect of emotional control. According to Clough and Strycharczyk ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>], p.54), individuals with high levels of emotional control are able to control their responses to external forces and direct their energy towards their chosen objectives. This is consistent with the demands of the item‐method directed forgetting task. The finding that directed forgetting was not significantly associated with the life control subscale of the MTQ48 suggests that it is control of one's responses that is critical in tasks that require one to allocate attention strategically, rather than control of external forces themselves.</p> <p>In contrast to the MTQ48, the control subscale of the SMTQ was not significantly associated with directed forgetting. This is consistent with the findings of Crust and Swann ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]) that, despite having the same label, some of the subscales of the MTQ48 and the SMTQ are measuring different constructs. In the current study, one possible explanation of the null effect in the SMTQ is that some items on the control subscale conflate emotional control and life control (e.g., "I get anxious by events I did not expect or cannot control" and "I get angry and frustrated when things do not go my way"). As noted above, the life control subscale of the MTQ48 was not significantly associated with performance on the directed forgetting task. The current findings thus underline the importance of distinguishing between the control of external forces and the control of one's emotional responses to them.</p> <p>It should be noted, however, that directed forgetting requires cognitive control rather than emotional control. Although cognition and emotion are intimately associated (see Duncan & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>], and Gray, Braver, & Raichle, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>] for reviews of the interdependence of cognition and emotion), it is likely to be the control of cognitive processes, rather than purely emotional processes, that predicts performance on the directed forgetting task. Interestingly, the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory developed by Gucciardi and Gordon ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>]) includes a subscale of attentional control. The Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory was not suitable for the current study because some of the items refer specifically to cricket. It is possible, however, that the concept of attentional control underlies the pattern observed in the current study. Crust and Swann ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]) alluded to this point in their comparison of the MTQ48 and the SMTQ. As they noted, some items in the SMTQ (e.g., "I get distracted easily and lose my concentration" in the constancy subscale) would appear to relate to attentional control. The sensitivity of more general self‐report measures of mental toughness might be enhanced by the inclusion of a subscale that measures attentional or cognitive control.</p> <p>Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]) discussed the importance of forgetting in competitive or pressurised situations, where dwelling on a mistake can undermine subsequent performance. The current findings suggest that mentally tough individuals, specifically those with high levels of emotional (or cognitive) control, will be at an advantage in situations that involve repeated challenges over a sustained period of time. The ability to allocate attention trial by trial, remembering or forgetting information according to whether or not it is relevant to current goals, is clearly beneficial in many domains. An interesting direction for future research would be to investigate whether mentally tough individuals retain their advantage when the directed forgetting task is made more challenging, for example, by presenting the task under time pressure or with a concurrent distractor task.</p> <p>Delaney et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]) found that the effect of directed forgetting in the list‐method directed forgetting task was predicted by the conscientiousness subscale of the BFI as well as the commitment subscale of the MTQ48 and concluded that conscientiousness was the critical factor. In the current study, however, none of the subscales of the BFI was associated with performance on the item‐method task. This is most likely due to differences in the nature of the directed forgetting tasks and the fact that the item‐method was associated with emotional control rather than commitment. Horsburgh, Schermer, Veselka, and Vernon ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>]) compared the MTQ48 and the BFI and found significant negative correlations between emotional control and neuroticism. Despite this, neuroticism was not significantly associated with the recognition of Remember words in the current study. It should be noted, however, that Horsburgh et al. found significant negative correlations between neuroticism and all MTQ48 items. The correlation matrix from the current study (see Table ) shows the same pattern. In contrast, the only self‐report measure that correlated significantly with the correct recognition of Remember words was emotional control. We share the concern expressed by Horsburgh et al. that correlations between self‐report measures may be spurious.</p> <p>To summarise, the current findings provide further evidence that it is possible to identify behavioural correlates of mental toughness in a simple laboratory task. Previous research into mental toughness has relied primarily on self‐report data collected using psychometric tests in the form of questionnaires. The current findings, together with those of Dewhurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref69">11</reflink>]), raise the possibility of moving from a model of mental toughness that is derived purely from self‐reports to a model that combines self‐reports with data from objective behavioural tests. By identifying the cognitive underpinnings of mental toughness, we can avoid circular definitions and develop better‐targeted behavioural interventions to enhance mental toughness.</p> <ref id="AN0138393118-9"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 693 – 728. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref47" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Benet‐Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grande across culture and ethnic groups: Multi trait and multi‐dimensional analysis of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729 – 750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.75.3.729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Anderson, M. C. (1998). Varieties of goal‐directed forgetting. In J. M. Golding, & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 103 – 137). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bjork, R. A. (1970). Positive forgetting: The noninterference of items intentionally forgotten. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 225 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clough, P. J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32 – 43). London : Thomson Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Clough, P. J., & Strycharczyk, D. (2012). Developing mental toughness: Improving performance, wellbeing, and positive behaviour in others. London : Kogan Page.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref5" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Crust, L., & Azadi, K. (2010). Mental toughness and athletes' use of psychological strategies. European Journal of Sport Science, 10, 43 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903049972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crust, L., & Keegan, R. (2010). Mental toughness and attitudes to risk taking. Personality & Individual Differences, 49, 164 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Crust, L., & Swann, C. (2011). Comparing two measures of mental toughness. Personality & Individual Differences, 50, 217 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delaney, P. F., Goldman, J. A., King, J. S., & Nelson‐Gray, R. O. (2015). Mental toughness, reinforcement sensitivity theory, and the five‐factor model: Personality and directed forgetting. Personality & Individual Differences, 83, 180 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewhurst, S. A., Anderson, R. J., Cotter, G., Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2012). Identifying the cognitive basis of mental toughness: Evidence from the directed forgetting paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 587 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, S., & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1184 – 1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701437931</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Festini, S. B., & Reuter‐Lorenz, P. A. (2017). Rehearsal of to‐be‐remembered items is unnecessary to perform directed forgetting within working memory: Support for an active control mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 94 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). London : SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerber, M., Brand, S., Feldmeth, A. K., Lang, C., Elliot, C., Holsboer‐Trachsler, E., & Pühse, U. (2013). Adolescents with high mental toughness adapt better to perceived stress: A longitudinal study with Swiss vocational students. Personality & Individual Differences, 54, 808 – 814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godlewski, R., & Kline, T. (2012). A model of voluntary turnover in male Canadian forces recruits. Military Psychology, 24, 251 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2012.678229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldby, J., & Wood, P. (2016). The effect of psychological skills training on mental toughness and psychological well‐being of student‐athletes. Psychology, 7, 901 – 913. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.76092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 4115 – 4120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062381899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1293 – 1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903242306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horsburgh, V., Schermer, J., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P. (2009). A behavioural genetic study of mental toughness and personality. Personality & Individual Differences, 46, 100 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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, 205 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiseler, M., Polman, R., & Nicholls, A. (2009). Mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, coping and coping effectiveness in sport. Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 728 – 733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Clough, P. J., Marchant, D. C., & Earle, K. (2006). Mental toughness as a determinant of beliefs, pain, and adherence in sport injury rehabilitation. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 15, 246 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, Y., Clough, P. J., Welch, J., & Papageorgiou, K. (2017). Individual differences in mental toughness associate with academic performance and income. Personality & Individual Differences, 113, 178 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, Y., Mutz, J., Clough, P. J., & Papageorgiou, K. A. (2017). Mental toughness and individual differences in learning, educational and work performance, psychological well‐being, and personality: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacLeod, C. M. (1999). The item and list methods of directed forgetting: Test differences and the role of demand characteristics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 123 – 129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacLeod, C. M. (2007). The concept of inhibition in cognition. In D. S. Gorfein, & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 3 – 23). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11587‐001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, D., Polman, R., Clough, P. J., Jackson, J. G., Levy, A., & Nicholls, A. R. (2009). Mental toughness: Managerial and age differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 428 – 437. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910959753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the Five‐Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.52.1.81</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, J. L., Clough, P. J., Crust, L., Earle, K., & Nicholls, A. R. (2013). Factorial validity of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire‐48. Personality & Individual Differences, 54, 587 – 592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheard, M., Golby, J., & van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress toward construct validity of the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 186 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015‐5759.25.3.186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St Clair‐Thompson, H., Bugler, M., Robinson, J., Clough, P., McGeown, S. P., & Perry, J. (2015). Mental toughness in education: Exploring relationships with attainment, attendance, behaviour and peer relationships. Educational Psychology, 35, 886 – 907. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, F., St Claire‐Thompson, H., & Postlethwaite, A. (2018). Mental toughness and perceived stress in police and fire officers. Policing: An International Journal, 41, 674 – 686. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM‐01‐2017‐0013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberg, R., Butt, J., & Culp, B. (2011). Coaches' views of mental toughness and how it is built. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 156 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2011.567106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 6 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202594</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeiger, J. S., & Zeiger, R. S. (2018). Mental toughness latent profiles in endurance athletes. PLoS ONE, 13 (2), Article ID), e0193071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193071</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Stephen A. Dewhurst; Rachel J. Anderson; David Howe and Peter J. Clough</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref68"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1262154
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Relationship between Mental Toughness and Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Item-Method Directed Forgetting Task
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dewhurst%2C+Stephen+A%2E%22">Dewhurst, Stephen A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5834-0049">0000-0001-5834-0049</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Rachel+J%2E%22">Anderson, Rachel J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Howe%2C+David%22">Howe, David</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Clough%2C+Peter+J%2E%22">Clough, Peter J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22"><i>Applied Cognitive Psychology</i></searchLink>. Sep-Oct 2019 33(5):943-951.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Ability%22">Cognitive Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persistence%22">Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+Analysis%22">Task Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality%22">Personality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Locus+of+Control%22">Locus of Control</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/acp.3570
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0888-4080
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Previous research by the authors found that mental toughness, as measured by the Mental Toughness Questionnaire 48 (MTQ48; Clough, P.J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. [2002]. Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology [pp. 32-43]. London: Thomson Publishing), was significantly associated with performance on the list-method directed forgetting task. The current study extends this finding to the item-method directed forgetting task in which the instruction to Remember or Forget is given after each item in the study list. A significant positive association was found between the correct recognition of Remember words and the emotional control subscale of the MTQ48. No significant associations were observed with other measures of mental toughness or personality. The findings are discussed in terms of the relationship between mental toughness and cognitive control.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1262154
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1262154
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/acp.3570
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 943
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Task Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Locus of Control
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Relationship between Mental Toughness and Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Item-Method Directed Forgetting Task
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dewhurst, Stephen A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anderson, Rachel J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Howe, David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Clough, Peter J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0888-4080
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1