Mental toughness in archers: Amit 2026 study

Forty Indian university archers aged 18 to 25 filled in a mental toughness questionnaire: twenty had won a medal at the All India Inter-University championships, and twenty had competed at the same level without reaching the podium. The questionnaire counts the weaknesses an archer recognises in themselves, so a lower score means greater toughness. The medallists averaged 4.45 out of 24 (standard deviation 1.61), the non-medallists 14.20 (2.42).

The difference runs the same way in all four six-item sections: commitment and motivation (1.20 against 3.75), concentration (1.05 against 3.85), control under pressure (1.05 against 3.15) and self-belief (1.15 against 3.45). Among the sections the highest t value is for concentration (8.913) and the lowest for control under pressure (6.513); for the total it reaches 15.019, with p below 0.001 in every comparison. The authors read the result as an association, not as evidence that mental toughness wins medals.

The archers were chosen deliberately rather than at random from those taking part in the Indian inter-university championships, and the medal (gold, silver or bronze at that level) is the only thing that separates the two groups. The study does not say what bow they shot, how many years they had been shooting or what they scored.

The instrument is an adaptation of Alan Heary's Mental Toughness Test, published on the website of a mental performance coach: 24 statements, six for each of the four sections, with one point for every statement ticked. Under the test's own guidance, individual scores from 0 to 4 fall in the "thriving" band, 5 to 14 in "surviving" and 15 to 24 in "struggling". The groups were compared with independent-samples t tests, section by section and on the total, with 38 degrees of freedom.

The sample is small and hand-picked, and the questionnaire comes from a coaching website: the authors themselves note that they did not report reliability or validity for the modified version in this sample. It is therefore unclear how far the 24 statements capture mental toughness and how far they capture, say, the mood of someone who has just won. The questionnaire was completed after the medal had already been won or missed, and the design cannot say which of the two comes first.

The opening summary mentions 54 medallists and 32 non-medallists, while the methods and tables report 20 and 20: this record follows the tables. A gap this large (t of 15 across 40 people) is unusual for a psychological questionnaire and would need to be found again with a validated instrument. The venue is flagged in the registry for doubtful editorial standards, and discipline, technical level and scores are not reported.

For someone who shoots, the study adds little: among university archers competing at the same level, those who won a medal describe themselves as more motivated, more focused, calmer under pressure and more self-assured than those who did not. It is an association captured at a single point with an unvalidated instrument, and it does not show that working on these qualities brings medals.

The authors suggest adding mental preparation to technical and physical training, tailored to each archer; that is their view, supported by other studies, since this work tested no intervention. In the registry it counts as a weak signal on the link between psychological traits and competition results, to be read with the caution its venue calls for.