Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mental toughness and self-efficacy of elite
ultra-marathon runners
Anthony W. Brace
1
, Kendall George
2
, Geoff P. LovellID
1,3
*
1School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia,
2School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia,
3Department of Sport, Hartpury University, Gloucester, United Kingdom
*Geoff.lovell@Hartpury.ac.uk
Abstract
Minimal research has examined psychological processes underpinning ultra-marathon run-
ners’ performance. This study examined the relationships between mental toughness and
self-efficacy with performance in an elite sample of ultra-marathon runners competing in the
2019 Hawaiian Ultra Running Team’s Trail 100-mile endurance run (HURT100). The Mental
Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ) and the Endurance Sport Self-Efficacy Scale (ESSES)
were completed by 56 elite ultra-marathon runners in the HURT100 (38 males, 18 females;
M
age
= 38.86 years, SD
age
= 9.23). Findings revealed mental toughness and self-efficacy
are highly related constructs (r(54) = 0.72, p<0.001). Mental toughness and self-efficacy
did not significantly relate to ultra-marathon performance (mental toughness and self-effi-
cacy with Ultra-Trail World Tour (UTWT) rank F(2, 53) = 0.738, p= 0.483; mental toughness
and self-efficacy with likelihood would finish the HURT100 χ
2
= 0.56, p= 0.756; mental
toughness and self-efficacy with HURT100 placing and time F(2, 53) = 1.738, p= 0.186 and
F(2, 30) = 2.046, p= 0.147, respectively). However, participants had significantly and mean-
ingfully higher mental toughness (M= 45.42, SD = 4.26, medium and large effect sizes)
than athletes from other sports previously published. Our interpretation is that these results
taken in conjunction, suggest a threshold of mental toughness that performers require to be
of the standard needed to be able to prepare for and compete in elite ultra-marathon events
such as the HURT100; once this mental toughness threshold is met, other factors are likely
to be more influential in determining elite level ultra-marathon performance.
Introduction
Ultra-endurance events have been described as prolonged periods of physical activity covering
further distance than the standard marathon (42.195 km) or lasting more than 6 hours, typi-
cally involving running, cycling, or swimming [1,2]. Ultra-endurance events that are solely
completed on foot are generally termed ultra-marathon events. Ultra-marathon events often
range from 50 to 100 km, however, ultra-marathon races do span much further than this and
commonly involve challenging and tumultuous terrain, e.g., the Hawaiian Ultra Running Trail
100-Mile Endurance Run (HURT100) (161 km), Bad Water 135 (217 km), and the 6693 Ultra
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 1 / 11
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Brace AW, George K, Lovell GP (2020)
Mental toughness and self-efficacy of elite ultra-
marathon runners. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241284.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284
Editor: Nizam Uddin Ahamed, University of
Pittsburgh, UNITED STATES
Received: January 15, 2020
Accepted: October 12, 2020
Published: November 4, 2020
Copyright: ©2020 Brace et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
publicly accessible via the following URL: https://
hartpury.pure.elsevier.com/en/datasets/participant-
smtq-and-esses-scores.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist
(566 km). Ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon competition is gaining popularity, with the
number of participants growing over the last decade, especially so for women [3]. Although
globally the ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon participation rates are growing, research that
specifically focusses on the people that engage in this unique and extreme form of physical
activity is limited. Of the research that has considered ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon,
the majority has focused on demographic characteristics [3,4], physiological demands (e.g.,
gastrointestinal problems, lower limb injuries, and debilitating muscle cramping, [5]), and
changes in diet and physical activity across participants’ lifetimes [6,7]. However, there is min-
imal research that specifically focuses upon the psychological aspects of ultra-endurance and
ultra-marathon, examining how these challenging feats of endurance are achieved, with even
less research investigating elite level performers.
To gain further understanding as to how athletes overcome the challenges associated with
ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon competition, further psychology focused research is war-
ranted. Likely beneficial and insightful perspectives to consider these psychological challenges
is the concept of mental toughness. Mental toughness is a psychological concept that has been
shown to be an important construct in sport [8]. Gucciardi et al. (2015) [8] define mental
toughness as “a personal capacity to produce consistently high levels of subjective (e.g., per-
sonal goals or strivings) or objective performance (e.g., sales, race time, GPA) despite everyday
challenges and stressors as well as significant adversities” (p.28). While mental toughness has
only received very limited consideration in quantitative studies of ultra-endurance and ultra-
marathon, previous research has concluded mental toughness to be an important factor for
success in mixed martial arts [9], football (soccer) [10], tennis [11], hockey [12], Australian
football [13], cricket [14], rugby league [15], and endurance athletes [16]. Further supporting
the expected saliency of mental toughness for ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon competi-
tion is evidence that mental toughness components are reported to be higher in individuals
who are able to endure physical exertion for longer periods [17].
Numerous conceptual models have been posited to explain mental toughness (e.g., [13,18,
19]), however it appears no clear consensus has been reached regarding this conceptualization
[20]. For this investigation, we have adopted the Goal-Expectancy-Self-Control model [20] as
a guiding theoretical framework. The Goal-Expectancy-Self-Control model, developed from a
critical review of mental toughness research, suggests that following presentation of a stressor
three psychological resources characterise mental toughness: self-control, goals, and self-effi-
cacy. Self-efficacy was thus selected as a variable of focus for this investigation based on its
inclusion in the Goal-Expectancy Control model, and that additionally self-efficacy has consis-
tently been shown to be associated with sporting performance and success [21–24]. Bandura
(1982) [25] suggests “perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgements of how well one can
execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (p.122). Furthermore,
limited self-efficacy is associated with athletes applying less effort when they perceive they can-
not successfully complete a task, as opposed to focusing their efforts upon mastering the task
[25]. Thus, ultra-endurance and ultra-marathon athletes with limited self-efficacy can be con-
sidered to be less likely to persist, perform, and complete, compared to those with higher levels
of self-efficacy. If it is assumed that prolonged physical activity is likely to be associated with
increased pain and discomfort, self-efficacy may also offer additional benefits through analge-
sic effects. Self-efficacy has been reported to be associated with endogenous opioids, buffering
pain while enduring high levels of discomfort [5,26,27].
With regard to mental toughness, only minimal research has investigated ultra-marathon
athletes, much of which has been qualitative, and predominately considered in samples other
than runners [26,28]. Zeiger and Zeiger (2018) [16], who did use a quantitative methodology
and did include some ultra-marathon participants, endeavoured to analyse the underlying
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 2 / 11
structures of mental toughness using latent profile analysis of the Sports Mental Toughness
Questionnaire (SMTQ [29]). The key findings from Zeiger and Zeiger (2018) [16] were associ-
ations between mental toughness and satisfaction with race results, gender, and age. The men-
tal toughness subscale self-belief, as measured by the PPI-A [30], had the largest effect size
between different mental toughness classes (High mental toughness, Moderate mental tough-
ness, Low mental toughness), with greater self-belief trending towards greater mental tough-
ness. Also, high-division placement positively associated with higher mental toughness [16].
Zeiger and Zeiger’s (2018) [16] findings do progress our understanding of mental toughness
in endurance athletes, however, limitations of their study include lack of focus on ultra-mara-
thon participants, recollected data, and a sample that unlikely generalises to elite populations.
While there appears to be reliable evidence from a range of sportsthat mental toughness
and self-efficacy do associate with sporting success, and logical proposition of why mental
toughness and self-efficacy should contribute to ultra-marathon performances, there is mini-
mal research concerning these psychological constructs in ultra-marathon runners. This
dearth in our understanding of how mental toughness and self-efficacy quantitatively pertain
to ultra-marathon limits the evidence-based design of efficacious applied interventions to
enhance ultra-marathon performance through the manipulation of mental toughness and self-
efficacy. In response to the salience of this topic area, increased ultra-marathon participation
rates, yet limitations in current understanding, the overarching aim of this research was to
quantitatively assess how mental toughness and self-efficacy relate to elite ultra-marathon per-
formance. To approach this aim, five specified objectives were examined in a sample of elite
ultra-marathon participants with data gathered temporally proximal to competition: (1) How
mental toughness and self-efficacy relate to each other as constructs, as well as to the SMTQ
subscales of Confidence, Constancy, and Control; (2) Whether mental toughness and self-effi-
cacy contribute to Ultra-Trail (ultra-marathon) World Tour rankings [31]; (3) How mental
toughness and self-efficacy predict ultra-marathon completion (specifically the HURT100); (4)
Whether mental toughness and self-efficacy predict absolute (i.e. finishing time and placing)
ultra-marathon performance (specifically in the HURT100); and (5) If mental toughness and
self-efficacy in elite ultra-marathon athletes is higher than athletes from other sports. With
regard to expected results, it was hypothesized that overall mental toughness and the subscales
of the SMTQ (Confidence, Constancy, and Control) would significantly relate to self-efficacy.
That mental toughness and self-efficacy would positively correlate Ultra-Trail World Tour
ranking, and mental toughness and self-efficacy would predict whether an ultra-marathon ath-
lete would finish the HURT100. Furthermore, that performance measures of HURT100 plac-
ing and time would significantly associate with mental toughness and self-efficacy. Finally,
mental toughness would be significantly greater in ultra-marathon athletes compared to ath-
letes from other sports.
Method
The design of this investigation was a quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional, analysis
of self-reported variables.
Participants and recruitment
Following institution ethical approval (University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Eth-
ics Committee; approval number A181188) and informed consent, 140 elite level ultra-mara-
thon athletes over 18 years of age competing as individuals in the HURT100 were invited on a
voluntary basis to complete an online survey hosted on SurveyMonkey. The HURT100 is a
100 mile (161 km) running competition through the Hawaiian mountains. The HURT100
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 3 / 11
course has an elevation change of 7,620 meters gain and loss over for the entirety of the 100
mile course. The race is spread over five 32.19 km laps, with each lap containing three aid sta-
tions for athlete re-hydration, nutrition, and medical attention. The HURT100 is a highly
regarded international event to the ultra-marathon community; in 2019 all but two competi-
tors were listed on the Ultra-Trail World Tour rankings, justifying the contention that
HURT100 athletes are elite [32].
Recruitment was conducted through email of all individual HURT100 ultra-marathon
competitors. Inclusion criteria required athletes to be over the age of 18, competing in the
2019 HURT100, with, fluent reading and comprehension of English. Of the 140 competitors
invited to complete the survey, 41% provided meaningful data (N= 56, M
age
= 38.86, SD
age
=
9.23, %
male
= 67.9).
Materials and procedure
Participants completed the online survey as part of a larger program of investigation. Other
collected data represented athletes’ qualitative experiences of participating in the HURT 100
related to mental toughness, pain tolerance, and factors contributing to race outcome (we
intend to publish these qualitative data in a separate publication). The survey included mea-
sures of mental toughness, self-efficacy, and demographic data (age, gender, training experi-
ence, world ranking, training hours per week, occupation, employment, and education). The
survey was made available to participating athletes 12 days prior to the start of the HURT100,
closing immediately prior to the start; the mean average duration between completion of the
survey race start was 6.16 days (SD = 2.54).
Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ). Mental toughness was assessed by
the 14 item Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ [29]), providing an overall sports
mental toughness score and three subscales; Confidence, Constancy, and Control [29]. SMTQ
overall mental toughness scores have a possible range from 14–56, with higher scores repre-
senting higher levels of mental toughness. Confidence scores range from 6–24, with Constancy
and Control scores ranging from 4–16. Previous research has reported that the SMTQ is a
valid and reliable measure as evidenced by acceptable internal consistency scores (Cronbach
alpha; Confidence 6 items; a= 0.80, Constancy 4 items; a= 0.74, and Control 4 items; a= 0.7
[29]). For the current sample, internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) for the entire question-
naire was also considered acceptable (14 items; a = 0.65), as too was for the subscale of Control
(4 items; a = 0.65). Cronbach alpha scores for the subscales of Confidence (6 items; a = 0.52)
and Constancy (4 items; a = 0.42) were low. However, acknowledging the acceptable internal
consistency score for the whole scale, the reported negative effect of limited item numbers
upon Cronbach alpha, and the desire to maintain the structural integrity of the previously vali-
dated and commonly adopted scale, the decision was made to accept the internal consistency
scores both the Confidence and the Constancy sub-scales [33–36].
Endurance Sports Self-Efficacy Scale (ESSES). Self-efficacy was measured by the Endur-
ance Sport Self-Efficacy Scale (ESSES; [37]) The ESSES is a 11-item measure of sport specific
self-efficacy with an emphasis on endurance sports. Possible ESSES scores range from 0–100
with higher scores representing greater levels of self-efficacy. The ESSES has been reported to a
valid and reliable measure of self-efficacy (11 items; a= 0.88 [37]). ESSES internal consistency
scores for the current sample were acceptable (11 items; a = 0.85 [38]).
HURT100 2019 performance. Performance was assessed as finishing place and finishing
time for the HURT100 2019; these data were obtained from the official event website. The
measure of HURT100 2019 completion was based on whether participants completed the
event in accordance with the event rules and regulations.
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 4 / 11
Data analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 24, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Prior to
statistical analysis data were checked for normality and that relevant assumptions were met.
Normality was assessed through visual inspection of histograms and normal P-P plots [38].
Linearity was assessed through visual inspection of �ZRESID against �ZPRED plots and homo-
scedasticity was found to be acceptable [39]. While multicollinearity is always a concern when
variables are correlated, as all variance inflation factor (VIF) scores were well below 10 with
tolerance statistics all above 0.2, can confidently conclude that there was no collinearity within
the data. Eigen values were assessed to further indicate the assumption of collinearity was
acceptable [38]. Durbin Watson tests indicated the independence of errors assumption was
met [38]. Specific statistical analyses for each research objective are presented in the results sec-
tion. For all analysis, significance was set at the 95% level of confidence. G-Power sample size
estimates for the regression analyses to obtain 0.80 power, with Cohen’s d(39) effect size esti-
mates of 0.2 (small effect size), with two predictors, indicated that a sample of at least 52 was
required. Effect sizes for Pearson’s bivariate correlation (research objective one) were based on
calculated rvalues, with r= 0.10 considered small effect, r= 0.30 considered medium effect,
and r= 0.50 considered large (38). Effect sizes for regression analysis (research objectives one,
two, three, and four) were based on Cohen’s f
2
, with f
2
= 0.10 considered small effect, f
2
= 0.25
considered medium effect, and f
2
= 0.35 considered large (39). Effect sizes for single sample t-
tests (research objective five) were based on Cohen’s d, with d= 0.20 considered small effect,
d= 0.05 considered medium effect, and d= 0.80 considered large effect (39).
Results
The sample consisted of 56 participants: 68% male; 37% between 24–34 years of age, 37%
between 35–44, and 25% between 45–65 (M
age
= 38.86, SD
age
= 9.23). Fifty-five percent of par-
ticipants had less than 5 years experience of running ultra-marathon, 30% had between 5–10
years of experience, and 14% had over 10 years’ experience of running ultra-marathon. Partici-
pant characteristics can be found in Table 1, descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of mea-
sured variables are presented in Table 2.
To analyse research objective one, Pearson’s bivariate correlation assessed association
between mental toughness and self-efficacy, additionally, one linear multiple regression was
employed to determine associations between self-efficacy and mental toughness SMTQ sub-
scales (confidence, control, and constancy). Results to research objective one demonstrated
that mental toughness as measured by the SMTQ and self-efficacy as measured by the ESSES
were strongly correlated (r(54) = 0.72, p<0.001) with large effect size. Multiple linear regres-
sion demonstrated a significant relationship between the SMTQ subscales confidence, control,
and constancy with self-efficacy, explaining 52.7% of self-efficacy variance (F(3, 52) = 21.41,
p<0.001, R
2
= 0.55, adjusted R
2
= 0.53, with large effect size, f
2
= 1.24 [38]). SMTQ-confi-
dence made the largest significant unique contribution to self-efficacy (β=0.57, t= 5.97, p<
0.001, 95% CI [1.15, 2.32]), explaining 31% of self-efficacy variance, followed by SMTQ-con-
trol (β=0.46, t= 4.87, p<0.001, 95% CI [1.20, 2.89]), explaining 20% of self-efficacy variance.
SMTQ-constancy failed to make a significant contribution to self-efficacy. Descriptive statis-
tics for the SMTQ and ESSES can be found in Table 2.
To explore research objective two, multiple linear regression was used to assess how mental
toughness and self-efficacy related to Ultra-Trail World Tour rank. Results revealed than nei-
ther mental toughness nor self-efficacy, F(2, 53) = 0.738, p= 0.483, significantly related to
Ultra-Trail World Tour rank. To analyse research objective three, a binary logistic regression
was undertaken to explore the association between mental toughness and self-efficacy with the
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 5 / 11
likelihood of completing the HURT100 2019. Results indicated mental toughness and self-effi-
cacy did not significantly relate the likelihood an athlete would finish the HURT100 (χ
2
= 0.56,
p= 0.756). In response to research objective four, two separate linear and multiple regressions
were performed to determine the relationship between self-efficacy and mental toughness with
HURT100 2019 performance (placing and time). Results indicated mental toughness and self-
efficacy did not significantly relate to placing nor time measures of performance (F(2, 53) =
1.738, p= 0.186 and F(2, 30) = 2.046, p= 0.147 respectively).
For research objective five, single sample t-tests compared mental toughness in the current
sample of elite ultra-marathon runners with previously published mental toughness SMTQ
data for athletes from other sports. Results (Table 2) demonstrated the current sample of ultra-
marathon runners () had significantly and meaningfully greater mental toughness (SMTQ;
M= 45.42, SD = 4.26) than; high level adolescent female hockey players (M= 41.9, SD = 5.4, t
(55) = 6.19, p<0.001, d= 0.83, 95% CI [2.39, 4.67]) [12], professional Welsh football (soccer)
players (M= 42.00, SD = 8.37, t(55) = 6.01, p<0.001, d= 0.80, 95% CI [2.28, 4.57]) [10], pro-
fessional mixed martial artists (M= 42.80, SD = 5.64, t(55) = 4.61, p<0.001, d= 0.61, 95% CI
[1.48, 3.77]) [9], South African tennis players (M= 41.22, SD = 4.67, t(55) = 7.39, p<0.001,
d= 0.98, 95% CI [3.06, 5.35]) [11], high-performing adolescent male athletes (M= 42.16,
SD = 4.87, t(55) = 5.73, p<0.001, d= 0.76, 95% CI [2.12, 4.41]) [40] (values are presented to
the number of decimal places provided in the previously published data; for Wieser et al, [10],
as the group average SMTQ was presented as a percentage, we multiplied the reported percent-
age by the maximum possible score to provide an absolute SMTQ score). Descriptive statistics
for t-test comparisons are presented in Table 3.
Table 1. Characteristics of Ultra-Marathon runners.
Variable Characteristic n%
Gender Male 38 67.9
Female 18 32.1
Age 24–34 21 37.5
35–44 21 37.5
45–65 14 25
Education <Secondary School 2 3.6
Secondary School 8 14.3
College Certificate/Diploma 4 7.1
Bachelor’s Degree 19 33.9
Advanced Degree 23 41.1
Years Competing in ultra- marathon <5 years 21 37.5
5–10 years 27 48.2
>10 years 8 23.2
Hours Training Per Week 6–10 Hours 16 28.6
11–15 Hours 27 48.2
16+ Hours 13 23.2
Ultra-Trail World Tour Rank 40–59 5 9.26
60–79 24 44.44
80–100 25 46.3
Placing in the 2019 HURT100 Top 10 6 10.70
11–20 6 10.70
21+ 21 37.50
Did not finish 23 41.10
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284.t001
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 6 / 11
Discussion
Minimal quantitative research has specifically focused on ultra-marathon runners and the
associated psychological factors required for success in ultra-marathon. Therefore, the purpose
of this study was to analyse the psychological constructs of mental toughness and self-efficacy
within ultra-marathon runners to determine how these concepts relate to each other and to
ultra-marathon performance.
In answer to research objective one, it was found that mental toughness and self-efficacy do
correlate strongly with each other (r(54) = 0.72, p<0.001); as was expected due to concept
relatedness in the literature [8,20,41,42]. This finding further confirms that mental toughness
is multidimensional and shares conceptual space with other constructs. Furthermore, the sub-
scale of the SMTQ Confidence was found to explain 31% of the variation within self-efficacy.
As self-efficacy has been defined as a belief in one’s own abilities [25], it can be suggested that
having confidence as opposed to self-doubt [30] would contribute to self-efficacy.
One possible explanation as to why mental toughness relates to self-efficacy is due to per-
ceived self-efficacy being linked to endogenous opioid activation [27]. High levels of self-effi-
cacy may produce greater levels of mental toughness due to endogenous opioids buffering
pain; as mental toughness has been linked to pain tolerance [43], self-efficacy opioid activation
Table 3. Descriptive and inferential statistics for single sample t-tests between current Ultra-Marathon runners sample and previously published SMTQ data for
different sports.
Sport Descriptive statistics Inferential statistics
n M SD t(df) p 95% CI Cohen’s d
Ultra-Marathon Elite Athletes (current sample) 56 45.42 4.26 – – –
Adolescent Female Hockey Players [12] 484 41.9 5.4 6.19(55) <0.001�[2.39, 4.67] 0.83
Professional Welsh Football [10] 20 42.00 8.37 6.01(55) <0.001�[2.28, 4.57] 0.80
Professional Mixed Martial Artists [9] 49 42.80 5.64 4.61(55) <0.001�[1.48, 3.77] 0.61
South African tennis [11] 365 41.22 4.67 7.39(55) <0.001�[3.06, 5.35] 0.98
High-performing adolescent male athletes [40] 151 42.16 4.87 5.73(55) <0.001�[2.12, 4.41] 0.76
Note.
�p<0.001.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284.t003
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between measured variables (n = 56).
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M (SD)
1. SMTQ: Total Average –45.42 (4.26)
2. SMTQ: Confidence 0.802�� –18.50 (3.11)
3. SMTQ: Constancy 0.509�� 0.223 –15.00 (1.20)
4. SMTQ: Control 0.546�� 0.019 0.128 –11.92 (2.11)
5. ESSES: Total Average 0.720�� 0.584�� 0.215 0.470�� –83.08 (9.48)
6. Ultra-Trail World Tour 2018 Rank
†
0.184 0.065 0.216 0.184 0.232 –73.78 (18.78)
7. HURT100 2019 time (hrs) -0.327 -0.261 -0.233 -0.020 -0.301 -0.749�� –30.90 (3.68)
8. HURT100 2019 position
†
-0.252 -0.184 -0.131 -0.074 -0.220 0.123 0.808�� –18.48 (21.37)
Note. World ranking and HURT100 2019 finishing positions correlations based on separate sex classification results
�p<0.5
��p<0.01
†
Spearman’s rho correlations.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284.t002
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 7 / 11
may affect mental toughness. Athletes could be experiencing higher levels of mental toughness
because they have a greater ability to buffer pain through the body’s endocrine system. Study-
ing the relationship between the body’s pain buffering systems and physiological toughness
(i.e. an increase in active opioid receptors) could be beneficial to understanding the connection
between mental toughness and self-efficacy.
With regard to research objectives two, three, and four, Ultra-Trail World Tour rank, fin-
ishing the HURT100, and performance were not significantly associated with levels of mental
toughness and self-efficacy. This finding was contrary to our predictions. However, of the lim-
ited previous research that has demonstrated positive significant relationship between self-effi-
cacy and completion of ultra-marathon type events [42], despite relatively large sample size
only small effect sizes were observed. Our proposed explanation of these non-significant
observed relationships of self-efficacy and mental toughness with performance, and the only
small effects previous reported [42], relates to our finding for research objective five. The
results of one-sample t-tests for objective five demonstrated that mental toughness in the cur-
rent sample was significant and meaningfully higher than mental toughness previously
reported for other sports performers. Our interpretation is that these results taken in conjunc-
tion, suggest a threshold of mental toughness that performers require to be of the standard
needed to be eligible to prepare for and complete in elite ultra-marathon events such as the
HURT100; once this mental toughness threshold is met, other factors are likely to be more
influential in determining performance. This does not negate the importance of mental tough-
ness for ultra-marathon performance, but does highlight a non-linear relationship between
mental toughness and performance, as well as emphasizing the likely multifaceted nature of
factors that determine ultra-marathon performance. However, further research should con-
sider this conclusion, contrasting elite ultra-marathon athlete mental toughness and self-effi-
cacy scores with those of ‘sub-elite’ ultra-marathon runners or those participating in shorter
distances.
In application of these conclusions that higher categories of ultra-marathon competition
require supra-threshold levels of mental toughness and associated self-efficacy, psychological
skills training focused on increasing mental toughness and self-efficacy could potentially help
in improving the likelihood an athlete would advance into the highest category of ultra-mara-
thon performance. While psychological skills training has been shown to improve athletes’
performance in other sports [43,44], there is very limited research that has considered the
effects of mental toughness and self-efficacy training programs in ultra-marathon samples.
Future research should also consider the development of mental toughness and self-efficacy
training programs and interventions specific to the somewhat unique challenges of ultra-mara-
thon. Qualitative research that considers the reported challenges, barriers, and enablers to
ultra-marathon performance would be key in informing the design of such ultra-marathon
specific mental toughness and self-efficacy programs and interventions.
This study has limitations. The use of a mental toughness assessment tool that is not specific
to ultra-marathon is likely to limit these results. The SMTQ was constructed from a sample of
athletes other than ultra-marathon runners, thus introducing the potential that key aspects of
mental toughness in ultra-marathon could be undetected. Development of a mental toughness
tool specific to ultra-marathon would appear to have utility in both research and applied prac-
tice. A similar limitation related to self-efficacy is also likely to exist. Additionally, this research
was based on participant self-report, a methodology that does contain challenges related to
participants having sufficient knowledge of their own thoughts to be able to accurately report,
as well response distortion due social desirability bias [45]. Furthermore, while the size of this
purposefully elite sample was in excess of the power analysis predicted required sample size (to
obtain 0.8 power assuming a small 0.2 effect size) there does remain the risk of a type II error.
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 8 / 11
In conclusion, this investigation provided novel findings demonstrating that ultra-mara-
thon runners measure significantly higher than other sports in mental toughness. While men-
tal toughness and self-efficacy strongly relate to each, mental toughness and self-efficacy do
not relate to performance above a super-threshold; although a criterion level appears requisite
to be able complete the elite level, potentially associated with the ability to manage and com-
plete the required extensive training load. Once this criterion level of mental toughness and
self-efficacy is satisfied, other factors, potentially including other psychological factors as well
as physical and logistic, appear to have greater saliency in determining elite ultra-marathon
performance outcomes.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Geoff P. Lovell.
Data curation: Kendall George.
Formal analysis: Anthony W. Brace, Kendall George, Geoff P. Lovell.
Investigation: Kendall George.
Methodology: Anthony W. Brace, Kendall George, Geoff P. Lovell.
Supervision: Geoff P. Lovell.
Writing – original draft: Anthony W. Brace, Kendall George, Geoff P. Lovell.
Writing – review & editing: Anthony W. Brace, Kendall George, Geoff P. Lovell.
References
1. Knechtle B. Ultramarathon runners: nature or nurture? International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance. 2012 Dec 1; 7(4):310–2. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.7.4.310 PMID: 23197583
2. Zaryski C, Smith DJ. Training principles and issues for ultra-endurance athletes. Current Sports Medi-
cine Reports. 2005 May 1; 4(3):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.csmr.0000306201.49315.73 PMID:
15907270
3. Hoffman MD, Fogard K. Demographic characteristics of 161-km ultramarathon runners. Research in
Sports Medicine. 2012 Jan 1; 20(1):59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2012.634707
4. Cejka N, Ru¨st CA, Lepers R, Onywera V, Rosemann T, Knechtle B. Participation and performance
trends in 100-km ultra-marathons worldwide. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2014 Feb 25; 32(4):354–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.825729 PMID: 24015856
5. Holt NL, Lee H, Kim Y, Klein K. Exploring experiences of running an ultramarathon. The Sport Psycholo-
gist. 2014 Mar 1; 28(1):22–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0008
6. Birkenhead K, Barr SI, Lovell GP, Solomon C. Changes in diet, and the relationship between diet and
physical activity, within and across the lifetime of current ultra-endurance exercisers. The Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2019 May: 59(5):798–807. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-
4707.18.08882-5 PMID: 30293404
7. Birkenhead K, Lovell G, Barr SI, Solomon C. Changes in physical activity across the lifetime of current
ultra-endurance exercisers. Journal of Physical Activity Research. 2018; 3(1):11–9. https://doi.org/10.
23736/S0022-4707.18.08882-5 PMID: 30293404
8. Gucciardi DF, Hanton S, Gordon S, Mallett CJ, Temby P. The concept of mental toughness: tests of
dimensionality, nomological network, and traitness. Journal of Personality. 2015 Feb; 83(1):26–44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12079 PMID: 24428736
9. Chen MA, Cheesman DJ. Mental toughness of mixed martial arts athletes at different levels of competi-
tion. Perceptual and motor skills. 2013 Jun; 116(3):905–17. https://doi.org/10.2466/29.30.PMS.116.3.
905-917 PMID: 24175462
10. Wieser R, Thiel H. A survey of “mental hardiness” and “mental toughness” in professional male football
players. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 2014 Dec; 22(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-22-
17
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 9 / 11
11. Cowden RG, Meyer-Weitz A, Oppong Asante K. Mental toughness in competitive tennis: relationships
with resilience and stress. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016 Mar 15; 7:320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.00320 PMID: 27014132
12. Walker SP. Mindfulness and mental toughness among provincial adolescent female hockey players.
South African Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016; 28(2):46–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2078-516x/
2016/v28i2a1110
13. Gucciardi DF, Gordon S, Dimmock JA. Towards an understanding of mental toughness in Australian
football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2008 Jul 18; 20(3):261–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10413200801998556
14. Gucciardi DF, Gordon S. Development and preliminary validation of the Cricket Mental Toughness
Inventory (CMTI). Journal of Sports Sciences. 2009 Oct 1; 27(12):1293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640410903242306 PMID: 19736598
15. Golby J, Sheard M. Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby league. Personality and
Individual Differences. 2004 Oct 1; 37(5):933–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.015
16. Zeiger JS, Zeiger RS. Mental toughness latent profiles in endurance athletes. PloS one. 2018 Feb 23;
13(2):e0193071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193071
17. Crust L, Clough PJ. Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance. Perceptual and
Motor Skills. 2005 Feb; 100(1):192–4. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.100.1.192-194 PMID: 15773710
18. Clough P, Earle K, Sewell D. Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement, in: Cockerill I, eds,
Solutions in sport psychology. Thomson, London; 2002, 32–45.
19. Hardy L, Bell J, Beattie S. A Neuropsychological model of mentally tough behaviour. Journal of Person-
ality. 2014 Feb; 82(1):69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12034 PMID: 23437782
20. Thom BT, Guay F, Trottier C. Mental toughness in sport: The Goal-Expectancy-Self-Control (GES)
model. 2020 Mar eprint https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1808736
21. Burke ST, Jin P. Predicting performance from a triathlon event. Journal of Sport Behavior. 1996 Dec; 19
(4):272–287.
22. Laguardia R, Labbe
´EE. Self-efficacy and anxiety and their relationship to training and race perfor-
mance. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1993 Aug; 77(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.77.1.27
PMID: 8367251
23. Martin JJ, Gill DL. The relationships of competitive orientations and self-efficacy to goal importance,
thoughts, and performance in high school distance runners. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 1995
Mar 1; 7(1):50–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406300
24. Miller M. Efficacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of different skill levels. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport Psychology. 1993 Jul; 24:284–296.
25. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 1982 Feb; 37(2):122.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
26. Jaeschke AM, Sachs ML, Dieffenbach KD. Ultramarathon runners’ perceptions of mental toughness: a
qualitative inquiry. The Sport Psychologist. 2016 Sep 1; 30(3):242–55. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.
2014-0153
27. Bandura A, O’Leary A, Taylor CB, Gauthier J, Gossard D. Perceived self-efficacy and pain control: opi-
oid and nonopioid mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987 Sep; 53(3):563.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.3.563 PMID: 2821217
28. Crust L, Nesti M, Bond K. Mental toughness and coping in an ultra-endurance event. Athletic Insight
Journal. 2010; 12(1). http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/6274/
29. Sheard M, Golby J, Van Wersch A. Progress toward construct validation of the Sports Mental Tough-
ness Questionnaire (SMTQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2009 Jan; 25(3):186–93.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.3.186
30. Golby J, Sheard M, Van Wersch A. Evaluating the factor structure of the psychological performance
inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2007 Aug; 105(1):309–25. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.105.1.
309-325 PMID: 17918579
31. Annual ranking 2018—Ultra-Trail®World Tour [Internet]. Ultra-Trail®World Tour. 2019 [cited 18
November 2019]. Available from: https://www.ultratrail-worldtour.com/runners/rankings/annual-
ranking-2018/
32. Swann C, Moran A, Piggott D. Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport
psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2015 Jan 1; 16:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2014.07.004
33. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 1993 Feb; 78(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 10 / 11
34. Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2013.
35. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications; 2016.
36. Mallery P, George D. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Allyn, Bacon,
Boston; 2003.
37. Anstiss PA, Meijen C, Madigan DJ, Marcora SM. Development and initial validation of the Endurance
Sport Self-Efficacy Scale (ESSES). Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2018 Sep 1; 38:176–83. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.06.015
38. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. 5th ed. Sage; 2017.
39. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge; 1988.
40. Cowden RG. Mental toughness, emotional intelligence, and coping effectiveness: An analysis of con-
struct interrelatedness among high-performing adolescent male athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
2016 Dec; 123(3):737–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516666027 PMID: 27555364
41. Nicholls AR, Polman RC, Levy AR, Backhouse SH. Mental toughness, optimism, pessimism, and cop-
ing among athletes. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008 Apr 1; 44(5):1182–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.011
42. Corrion K, Morales V, Bergamaschi A, Massiera B, Morin JB, d’Arripe-Longueville F. Psychosocial fac-
tors as predictors of dropout in ultra-trailers. PLoS ONE. 2018 Nov 5; 13(11):e0206498. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0206498 PMID: 30395613
43. Birrer D, Morgan G. Psychological skills training as a way to enhance an athlete’s performance in high-
intensity sports. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2010 Oct; 20:78–87. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01188.x
44. Whitmarsh BG, Alderman RB. Role of psychological skills training in increasing athletic pain tolerance.
The Sport Psychologist. 1993 Dec 1; 7(4):388–99. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.7.4.388
45. Crust L, Clough PJ. Developing mental toughness: From research to practice. Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy in Action. 2011 Apr 1; 2(1):21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2011.563436
PLOS ONE
Ultra-marathon runners
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241284 November 4, 2020 11 / 11
Content uploaded by Kendall George
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kendall George on Nov 12, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
