Psychology Of High Performance PDF 2019

VI CONCLUSION  17 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HIGH PERFORMANCE: OVERARCHING THEMES FRANK C. WORRELL, PAULA OLSZEWSKI-KUBILIUS, AND RENA F. SUBOTNIK We began this...

VI CONCLUSION  17 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HIGH PERFORMANCE: OVERARCHING THEMES FRANK C. WORRELL, PAULA OLSZEWSKI-KUBILIUS, AND RENA F. SUBOTNIK We began this journey with a focus on outstanding performers—that is, youth who are described as gifted and talented, adults who are considered experts or eminent—and the goal of understanding the psychology of high performance. Are there key psychological principles that inform our under- standing of how individuals become outstanding performers and producers across a range of domains? Gladwell (2008) concluded, on the basis of research by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) and others, that the formula for eminence is simple: Begin early, get approximately 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, and be in the right place at the right time. Is this formula sufficient, or is there more to becoming a high performer? In this book, we have delved into high performance across five broad areas (academic disciplines, arts pro- duction, arts performance, professions, and sport) and eight specific domains. We have also looked at how teams of experts become expert teams. We have http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000120-018 The Psychology of High Performance: Developing Human Potential Into Domain-Specific Talent, R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and F. C. Worrell (Editors) Copyright © 2019 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. 369 examined the research on outstanding performance in game sports, and we have interviewed gatekeepers in a variety of domains. We now return to some of the questions raised in Chapter 1, as well as the megamodel of talent development (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011) that inspired the questions, and to how the questions and the model have been informed by research in the domains. We look at the constructs related to potential for achievement, including ability and psycho- social variables, and at the similarities and differences across the performance and production domains. We grapple with the contributions of mentors and the role of deliberate practice. In doing this, we draw from all the chapters, synthesizing the research findings with the voices of the gatekeepers who make decisions in the real world. After summarizing what we have learned, we conclude with some ideas for future psychological research on high per- formers and outstanding performance. WHAT DOES POTENTIAL FOR ACHIEVEMENT LOOK LIKE IN THIS DOMAIN? Subotnik et al. (2011) identified several variables associated with the potential for outstanding performance. These include general ability, domain-specific abilities, creativity, and psychosocial characteristics, all of which were deemed important across domains. In this section, we look at both types of ability and at creativity. Psychosocial characteristics are considered in the next section. General Ability General ability is often referred to as g or intelligence and is typically operationalized with a combination of verbal and nonverbal reasoning, pro- cessing speed, and working memory. We typically associate cognitive ability with the academic domains, but the construct is much broader. Gottfredson (1997) defined intelligence as “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experi- ence” (p. 13). Given the breadth of the construct, it is perhaps not surprising that intelligence or general ability was seen to be important across domains. With regard to the academic domains, Simonton (see Chapter 9, this volume) noted that typical “high-achieving psychologists were most often excellent students, attending selective colleges or universities as undergraduates, earning academic honors, and then entering prestigious graduate programs” (p. 206). Similarly, Leikin (Chapter 8) cited research on mathematical talent which referenced working memory and mental flexibility. 370       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik  However, the ability to learn quickly was raised as an important charac- teristic in many other domains. Successfully completing at least two university degrees is a prerequisite for medical practice (McWilliams, Holding, & Knotek, Chapter 5). Chua (Chapter 12) pointed out that gatekeepers in the dance domain are looking for performers who can think on their feet as well as dance. Kozbelt and Kantrowitz (Chapter 14) noted that precocious drawers learn more quickly than their peers, and Fransen and Güllich (Chapter 3) discussed the importance of decision making during game sports, which requires the player to consider her own skills, the skills of her teammates, the weather conditions, and so on. Jay Hogue, gymnastics coach, stated that he looks for mental as well as physical quickness in potential gymnasts (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver”). Aron, Botella, and Lubart (Chapter 15) also brought up the ability to learn quickly, adapt to unexpected circumstances, and come up with new solutions in the culinary arts, as did Reyes and Salas (Chapter 6) in the context of expert teams. It is fair to say that aspects of general ability enhance potential for outstanding performance in most domains, even though their utility may be more evident in some domains. Domain-Specific Abilities Domain-specific abilities are also of critical importance in performance. For example, Kozbelt and Kantrowitz, in Chapter 14, emphasized the importance of visual cognition in the visual arts and the capacity for making progress without “explicit scaffolding.” These domain-specific abilities are also manifested in the artists’ superior performance in visual analysis tasks, for example, suggesting that artists “perceive the world differently” than do nonartists (Kozbelt & Kantrowitz, Chapter 14). Aron et al. (Chapter 15) talked about the importance of a kitchen sense in the culinary arts, as well as basic abilities such as being able to cut vegetables efficiently, mixing ingre- dients in the correct proportions, and coordinate cooking multiple dishes simultaneously. In software engineering, the expectation is that beginners will already know how to code, as this skill is necessary in order to get a start in this profession (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”). Reyes and Salas noted in Chapter 6 that within expert teams there is expertise-based intuition that comes with a deep knowledge of the subject matter. Memory, which is often assessed as a component of general ability, is also domain-specific. Individuals with a mathematical cast of mind (Leikin, Chapter 8) have better memories for mathematical principles. Dancers and athletes need to memorize specific movements that they use all the time, with dancers having the additional task of memorizing movements in relation to the psychology of high performance      371 music. Thus, musicality and rhythmicity are also domain-specific abilities for dancers but not for athletes. Stronger dancers also are better at observing and understanding movements, a capacity that may also be important in the athletic domains. Creativity Creativity can be defined as coming up with innovative or novel ideas and products, and there is some consensus that creativity requires domain- specific knowledge (Kozbelt & Kantrowitz, Chapter 14; Subotnik et al., 2011). Creativity was mentioned in reference to several domains. Leikin (Chapter 8) noted that many researchers consider creativity in mathematics to be the equivalent of high performance in mathematics, leading to the creation of an international organization on creativity in mathematics. But creativity is more than a label—it is a novel way of looking at the domain. In choosing PhD students, mathematician Avi Berman looks for students who can pose good problems (Leikin, “Gatekeeper Interview: Avi Berman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology”). Psychologist Robert J. Sternberg made the same point with regard to high performance in psychology; he argued that creativity in psychology is the ability to dis- tinguish more important problems from less important ones, and suggested that we should spend more time training budding scientists to be “good prob- lem finders” rather than “good problem solvers” (Simonton, “Gatekeeper Interview: Robert J. Sternberg, Professor of Human Development, Cornell University”). Kozbelt and Kantrowitz (Chapter 14) similarly made this point about drawing and the visual arts. Although Noice and Noice did not discuss creativity by name in Chapter 11, they pointed out that outstanding acting is “truthfully spon- taneous performance.” Actor/director/choreographer David Black talked about the ongoing search for the creative process throughout his career, and the importance of making mistakes in finding it (Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: David Black, Producer, Director, Actor, Teacher”), a senti- ment echoed by software engineer Michael Reed, who opined that it is difficult to become a creative producer if you are not willing to take risks (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”). In his chapter on dance, Chua (Chapter 12) distinguished between little-c creativity (making suggestions for minor changes) and Big-C creativity (a unique personal interpretation), noting that research indicates that contemporary dancers tend to be more creative than ballet dancers because the former have no strict models to conform to. Transitioning from little-c to Big-C creativity was also noted in the culinary arts, as creativity became more important with the advent of Nouvelle Cuisine 372       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik in the 1970s and the television programs of the past decade (Aron et al., Chapter 15). Contemporary dancers also scored higher than jazz and ballet dancers on openness to experience and psychoticism and lower on conscientiousness, personality characteristics that have been linked to creativity. These findings suggest that general and domain-specific abilities and creativity interact to produce outstanding performance and production, with the contributions differing depending on the domain and subdomain. Simonton (Chapter 9) also pointed out that the outstanding psychologists stand out from the crowd with the top 10% being responsible for 40% of the creative outputs, a pattern that is typical of outstanding producers and performers across domains. WHAT PSYCHOSOCIAL SKILLS ARE ESSENTIAL IN THIS DOMAIN? The visibility of psychosocial variables has increased substantially in the past decade, in part due to popular press books on constructs such as grit and growth mind-set. However, there are a host of psychosocial constructs related to performance, and psychosocial variables were mentioned in the context of every domain. For example, several authors in this book high- lighted the importance of passion for the domain. Kozbelt and Kantrowitz (Chapter 14) observed that “drawing prodigies evince a rage to master.... They work compulsively, needing no encouragement” (p. 318). Similarly, one dance teacher looks for students who are “hungry to learn” and who never say “I’m good enough” (Chua, Chapter 12). Jay Hogue looks for individuals who have a passion for gymnastics (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver”) and Simonton (Chapter 9) talked about developing a passion for psychological science. A related psychosocial variable is curiosity, which came up as a major theme in mathematics (Leikin, Chapter 8) and the culinary arts (Aron et al., Chapter 15). Passion and curiosity set the stage for the hard work that it takes to be successful in any domain, and persistence, task commitment, and self- regulation were major themes across the domains. Avi Berman (Leikin, “Gatekeeper Interview: Avi Berman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology”) talked about using homework to assess the persistence and diligence of mathematically talented students, and Robert J. Sternberg noted that even though psychology may not be as high in the hierarchy as other sciences, becoming a great psychologist requires as much persistence as mastering other disciplines (Simonton, “Gatekeeper Interview: Robert J. Sternberg, Professor of Human Development, Cornell the psychology of high performance      373 University”). Persistence is particularly important when things are not going well (Chua, Chapter 12, and Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: Stephen Pier, Professor of Dance and Division Director, The Hartt School, University of Hartford”). Task commitment and self-regulation are intimately related to persis- tence. The head of pedagogy at the Finnish Ballet School argued that task commitment is the critical factor for becoming a successful ballet dancer: “Ballet is your life” (Chua, Chapter 12). And even though teachers and mentors need to be supportive, task commitment needs to come from within the individual. Indeed, self-regulation was identified as one of the most important factors in talent development in golf, gymnastics (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver,” and Portenga, Chapter 2), and game sports (Fransen & Güllich, Chapter 3). Portenga, in Chapter 2, reported that in an interesting use of self-regulation, some elite golfers began limiting the time spent with non-elite golfers and nongolfers due to a lack of time and to the failure of the latter groups to be supportive and understand the sacrifices neces- sary to pursue excellence. Self-regulation was also highlighted in software engineering (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”) and medicine (McWilliams et al., Chapter 5). Some of the other psychosocial variables deemed important include openness to experience, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking, and a willingness to learn from one’s mistakes. Simonton in Chapter 9 argued that eminent psychological researchers need to be as open to new experiences as their peers in the creative domains, and the importance of openness to experiences was echoed by actor/director David Black (Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: David Black, Producer, Director, Actor, Teacher”). Tolerance for ambiguity was men- tioned by gatekeepers in two domains: psychology (Simonton, “Gatekeeper Interview: Robert J. Sternberg, Professor of Human Development, Cornell University”) and software engineering (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”), whereas risk-taking was deemed important in several domains, including psychology (Simonton, “Gatekeeper Interview: Robert J. Sternberg, Professor of Human Development, Cornell University”), the culinary arts (Aron et al., Chapter 15), and software engineering (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”), as well as in the function of expert teams (Reyes & Salas, Chapter 6). Learning from mistakes was singled out as important in acting (Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: David Black, Producer, Director, Actor, Teacher”) and working on an expert team (Reyes & Salas, Chapter 6). Other psychosocial factors 374       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik included interpersonal skills in dance (Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: Stephen Pier, Professor of Dance and Division Director, The Hartt School, University of Hartford”), adaptability and self-reflection in golf, and aware- ness of one’s strengths and limitations in psychology and medicine. WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES ACROSS TALENT DEVELOPMENT DOMAINS? Similarities Across Domains Subotnik et al. (2011) divided talent domains into two categories: performance and production. Performance domains are ones in which individ- uals engage in some type of performance (e.g., singing, athletics, dance) that occurs in the moment and is gone. Although performances can be captured for posterity on recordings, each performance is unique. Production domains (e.g., writing, composition, mathematics) result in tangible outcomes such as novels, cantatas, or mathematical proofs, and these products do not change with the passage of time, although the interpretation of them may change. Thus, in choosing domains for this book, we included both perfor- mance domains (e.g., acting, dance, golf, game sport, medicine) and production domains (e.g., mathematics, academic psychology, drawing, the culinary arts, software engineering). Subotnik et al. argued that the domains had both similarities and differences. Some of the similarities included mastering the content of the domain, the need for educational and practice opportunities, and the importance of mentors for inculcating values. Mastering Content Although mastering domain-specific content is important, it is taken for granted in most domains and was not mentioned with great frequency. In other words, to be a high performer in a domain means that one has mastered the content. Academic psychologists begin publishing in their mid-20s (Simonton, Chapter 9), golfers start winning competitions in their mid-teens (Portenga, Chapter 2), and precocious drawers manifest skills that are “never mastered by ordinary children” (Kozbelt & Kantrowitz, Chapter 14, p. 318). The need for mastery is also required for expert team performance, and an expert team requires a group of experts who then also become expert at working as a team. Similarly, participants in game sports have to master and be able to use, for example, perceptual-motor skills appropriately during a game. The research suggests that without knowledge of domain-specific content, high performance will not happen. the psychology of high performance      375 Educational Opportunities The need for education was a major theme across domains. Beginning with the production domains, Leikin (Chapter 8) discussed the importance of appropriate educational opportunities in the development of mathematical talent but conceded that researchers have not achieved consensus on the specific type of educational activities that are optimal. Indeed, in his inter- view, Professor Berman identified several types of educational opportunities offered to youth talented in mathematics, from traditional accelerated classes to afterschool enrichment programs, research camps in the summer, and a mail-based program in mathematics and science (Leikin, “Gatekeeper Interview: Avi Berman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Technion– Israel Institute of Technology”). For advancement in academic psychology, Simonton (Chapter 9) highlighted both the quality of the graduate pro- gram attended and the stature of the mentor in the field, but also noted that these were preceded by a strong undergraduate education in which the student was introduced to psychological science. Similarly, Aron et al. (Chapter 15) discussed the importance of the master/apprentice relation- ship in the culinary arts, and Kozbelt and Kantrowitz (Chapter 14) reviewed approaches to pedagogy in drawing, including appropriate instruction. Perhaps the most explicit expression of the importance of education came from software engineer Michael Reed, who noted in his interview that companies that hire software engineers do not teach individuals how to write programs (Kozbelt, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”). Although a university degree is not necessary, coding skills are required, and individuals who have both university classes and additional experiences in programming are more likely to be hired. The role of education is equally important in the performance domains. Chua (Chapter 12) quoted Wilfried on the importance of strong technique for success in dance—technique that comes with a specific type of training. Medicine requires many years of formal education in addition to examina- tions to be board-certified (McWilliams, Holding, & Knotek, Chapter 5) and the critical role of the professional coach was highlighted in the chapter on golf (Portenga, Chapter 2). Although the research on acting is quite limited (Noice & Noice, Chapter 11), these researchers described the pedagogical techniques of several of the leading acting teachers in the past century, tech- niques used to help actors hone their craft. The research in golf suggested that elite golfers go through the different phases noted by Sosniak (1985) in Bloom’s (1985) study of talent development. Individuals who became elite golfers made the decision to work with a golf coach after having some success in golf through early adolescence (Portenga, Chapter 2). Thus, the role of 376       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik education and mentors in inculcating values in the domain is an integral part of the process, be it an academic advisor in psychology, a coach in golf, or a master in acting or the culinary arts. Resources Gifted education and talent development have been criticized as elitist, and the importance of resources came up in several domains. The majority of eminent psychologists come from families in which the parents are pro­ fessionals (Simonton, Chapter 9). Jay Hogue commented on the family commitment required for success in gymnastics in terms of money, time, and travel over multiple years, which will necessarily exclude families with fewer resources (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver”). The need for resources was echoed in the process of becoming an elite golfer: Development into an elite adolescent golfer requires a significant investment of money, time, and energy. As with many youth sports, there can be a considerable financial investment in coaching and travel for tournaments. What may make golf unique and more expensive than most other sports is that it is typically difficult to have consistent access to a golf course without a club membership. It appears that aspiring elite golfers benefit from having family memberships at local golf clubs. (p. 28) Research suggests that the majority of elite golfers (e.g., PGA players) lived near a golf course and a family member belonged to the golf club. Another key resource that families provide is emotional support (Bloom, 1985; Feldman, 1986; Subotnik et al., 2011; see also Olszewski-Kubilius et al., Chapter 10, this volume). Jay Hogue suggested that the development of talent in gymnastics works best if the family provides the emotional sup- port and allows the coach to provide the training in the domain (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver”). Differences Across Domains Subotnik et al. (2011) identified ways in which performance and pro- duction domains differ. One of these differences is that the skills that need to be practiced are more clearly defined in the performance than in the pro- duction domains, with the latter domains consisting of tasks that are more diffuse and long term. In other words, the role of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993; Ericsson & Pool, 2016) is more clearly defined and definable in performance domains. the psychology of high performance      377 Role of Deliberate Practice The importance of a coach, teacher, mentor, or other guide who under- stands what is needed at a specific time is a key aspect of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993). Deliberate practice involves “practice activities that maximize improvement” which “the individual can engage in between meet- ings with the teacher,” and these activities can be distinguished “from other activities, such as playful interaction, paid work, and observation of others, that individuals can pursue in the domain” (Ericsson et al., 1993, p. 368). On the basis of a series of studies, Ericsson et al. (1993) claimed that delib- erate practice, as opposed to talent (i.e., innate ability), was the primary determinant of outstanding performance. Deliberate practice was certainly a theme in several domains. Fransen and Güllich noted in Chapter 3 that team sports players participated in “coach-led practice in organised settings,” which was similar to descriptions of deliberate practice. Chua (Chapter 12) also commented on the impor- tance of deliberate practice in becoming an elite dancer, and reported on a study where students took 10 years to get through the talent development phases. Similarly, the role of deliberate practice in leading to expert perfor- mance as an adult was acknowledged in golf (Portenga, Chapter 2) and soft- ware programming (Knotek, “Gatekeeper Interview: Michael Reed, Software Engineer and Site Lead, Google Chapel Hill”; McWilliams et al., Chapter 5). And although deliberate practice was not mentioned in medicine—perhaps due to the fact that its formal educational structure renders practice generally invisible to outsiders—the importance of practice in certain types of medicine (e.g., surgery) cannot be denied. However, many of these researchers saw talent as separate from rather than a product of deliberate practice. Although some acknowledged deliberate practice as a contributor to outstanding performance, they did not support the contention that deliberate practice is the determining factor in outstanding performance. Portenga (Chapter 2) contended that elite adolescent golfers typically begin engaging in deliberate practice after they decide to try to become elite adult golfers. Chua (Chapter 12) noted that although the age at which youth decided that they wanted to become professional dancers did predict “expertise development at age 18,... the age at which the dancers started training did not,” suggesting that deliberate practice is important but is not the deciding factor. Noice and Noice (Chapter 11) contended that acting requires less deliberate practice than some other performance domains, such as piano playing, dance, and classical singing, and may be correct in their assessment that “every artistic discipline requires a different balance between talent and the type of technique requiring extensive, repetitive practice” (p. 242). They downplayed the importance of deliberate practice in the development of acting, in large part due to the type of practice required in 378       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik training actors. However, they also acknowledged that their definition of talent is outstanding performance in the absence of deliberate practice (Noice & Noice, 2013). It would seem that the distinction between perfor- mance and production domains in terms of practice is not as clear-cut as Subotnik et al. (2011) hypothesized and that the nature of the tasks required in the domain determines the importance of deliberate practice in that domain. Additionally, several scholars highlighted the importance of play, as opposed to deliberate practice, as an early contributor to a trajectory that resulted in outstanding performance. Avi Berman noted that he used play as one way to assess budding mathematical talent in children (Leikin, “Gatekeeper Interview: Avi Berman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology”), and Chua (Chapter 12) noted that in the first of the three stages of teaching dance, “lessons are inher- ently fun and playful” (p. 283). In their review of the development of elite talent in game sport, Fransen and Güllich (Chapter 3) reported that in the developmental phases, elite players were engaged with a variety of sports other that the one in which they became elite, and participated in informal, peer-led play in their main sport as well. Individuals who became elite golfers in adolescence had early experiences that involved playing around with and enjoying golf from an early age with family and friends (Portenga, Chapter 2). This importance of play was also a theme in software engineering. Michael Reed noted that when an interviewee reports side-hacking (i.e., engaging in programming on your own), it increases the probability that he will hire that programmer (McWilliams et al., Chapter 5). Thus, as with deliberate practice, the role of play probably differs across domains. For example, Kozbelt and Kantrowitz (Chapter 14) pointed out that “visual art provides an arena for adults to engage in a kind of childlike play, in which rules are invented and played out” (p. 329). Play has been underemphasized in the talent develop- ment literature beyond the initial stages in a domain trajectory. On the other hand, neither deliberate practice nor play came up in developing outstanding talent in psychology. Psychomotor Ability Performance and production domains are also distinct with regard to the role of physical stamina, with physicality being much more important in performance domains. For the most part, physicality and athleticism were associated with performance domains, notably golf, dance, and game sports. The ability to move well and the shape of the body came up in multiple studies on dancers, and research on and gatekeepers in dance also highlighted an understanding of the body and the way it moves (Chua, Chapter 12). However, physical endurance was also mentioned with regard to the culinary the psychology of high performance      379 arts. Although this domain does not require the physical ability and prowess associated with sport, long days (early starting times and late stopping times) makes physical stamina a variable related to success in this field. HOW EARLY IS TALENT MANIFESTED, AND WHAT BENCHMARKS SIGNAL TRANSITIONS TO THE NEXT STAGE? In some domains, talent is typically manifested earlier than in others. For example, outstanding talent in mathematics, some aspects of music (e.g., violin), and gymnastics is often evident before age 10, whereas in other domains, such as psychology or diplomacy, talent may not be evident until adulthood (Subotnik et al., 2011). One question is, to what extent does talent manifest early in a domain? This question is difficult to answer. Nonetheless, there is some research that speaks to this in some domains, supporting some of Subotnik et al.’s (2011) claims. Research suggests that mathematical cast of mind can be seen in early childhood in individuals who went on to be out- standing mathematicians (Leikin, Chapter 8). Mathematician Avi Berman reminisced that his elementary school teacher reminded him that he had told her he was going to be a mathematician, and in his work, he noted that he could tell which high school students would go on to work in mathematics or technology (Leikin, “Gatekeeper Interview: Avi Berman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology”). Jay Hogue contended that the potential for outstanding gymnasts is evident between ages 8 and 12, although 12 may already be late (Portenga, “Gatekeeper Interview: Jay Hogue, Assistant Gymnastics Coach, University of Denver”). Qualifying for the national team occurs in the mid-teens. Hogue pointed out that college recruiting for gymnasts used to begin in the high school years, but it now takes place when gymnasts are in middle school. He postulated that talent can help you to be a successful college gymnast, but talent plus psychosocial skills are required for elite performance (e.g., the Olympics), and he noted the importance of being able to perform under the pressure of intense competition. In contrast, potential elite golfers are identified in mid-adolescence, with Tiger Woods being atypical given his early start. As noted before, young promising golfers begin to consider becoming elite in golf at around 14 to 16; this transition involves getting a professional coach and beginning to engage in more deliberate practice (Portenga, Chapter 2). The research on golf introduces another factor related to development. Fathers play a dispropor- tionate role in getting elite golfers interested in the sport, as most of the fathers played golf and played it quite well. Mothers of elite golfers increased 380       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik their involvement when the elite golfers started playing in national and inter- national tournaments, and the role of the mothers involved organizing and coordinating schedules in addition to providing support. These mothers had schedules that allowed them to take up the “job” of coordinating schedules and travel. In the domains that require a substantial amount of education as a prerequisite—for example, medicine, psychology, software engineering, and the culinary arts—it is not typical or sometimes even possible for individuals to become substantive contributors until early adulthood. Stages in a developmental trajectory toward outstanding performance were identified in several domains. For example, in drawing, students move from scribbling to the preschematic stage, and then to the schematic stage (Kozbelt & Kantrowitz, Chapter 14). What separates potentially great performers from others in these stages is their above-average performance: “an unusual facility at imitating nature and other artists’ work” as well as a strong motivation to master drawing, often resulting in performance that is years ahead of their peers (Kozbelt & Kantowitz, Chapter 14, p. 317). Similarly, in dance, Chua (Chapter 12) mentioned four stages: budding (evidence of potential), blos- soming (commitment reflected in taking lessons), maturing (preprofessional), and seasoned artist (a professional dancer). Medicine requires three different examinations before board certification and initial licensure, and software engineering requires knowledge of coding, often signaled by a college degree in computer science, but also including an independent coding project before entry into the profession and development of specialized expertise. In sum, becoming an outstanding performer requires development of basic and advanced skills and, ultimately, expertise in the domain. WHAT INHIBITING FACTORS CAN DERAIL A PROMISING TRAJECTORY? It is important to note that the ability to predict who will become an outstanding performer or an eminent contributor remains elusive. Indeed, much of the research on outstanding performance is retrospective and involves case studies, and this research is often focused on the best of the best—that is, prodigies and individuals who have become eminent—and may not be generalizable to all outstanding performers. Although we cannot with any certainty predict success, there is some consensus across domains about some of the factors that decrease the probability of being successful. Perhaps the biggest inhibitor is the failure to persist in the face of difficulties or failure. As psychologist Robert J. Sternberg pointed out, “the biggest career killer in science is giving up” (Simonton, “Gatekeeper Interview: Robert J. Sternberg, Professor of Human Development, Cornell University” p. 222). Dancer the psychology of high performance      381 Stephen Pier echoed this sentiment in his Gatekeeper Interview by Kozbelt, as did Aron et al. in Chapter 15 with regard to the culinary arts. Obstacles can include a lack of recognition in the field, even if one is doing very good work; nonsupportive environments; and failure experiences. As noted above, outstanding performance requires dedication and time commitment to the domain, whether in deliberate practice or in other activities that increase one’s skill levels or products. Thus, the loss of drive, motivation, or passion for the domain is an inhibiting factor. In expert teams, roles that are not clearly defined can have a negative effect on team perfor- mance (Reyes & Salas, Chapter 6). A third inhibiting factor is the lack of appropriate education or coaching. Parents, who are sometimes the first coaches for a talented youngster, need to know when to turn coaching over to a profes- sional who will be able to help the budding athlete transition to the next level. Another inhibiting factor is a lack of financial resources required to pursue the domain, including the resources to pay a coach or to pay for tournaments or competitions, for example. A fifth factor is the lack of a supportive family, environment, or peer group. The importance of supportive individuals and families was mentioned in several domains. A peer group that is not involved in the domain and cannot understand or appreciate the sacrifices required to work toward becom- ing outstanding can be distracting or discouraging. For example, Portenga (Chapter 2) reported on golfers who left the sport in order to socialize more with their nongolfer friends. This finding supports Sosniak’s (1995) work on the importance of being in an appropriate community of learners. WHAT PROPORTION OF THE RESPONSES TO OUR SET OF FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS IS BASED ON RESEARCH VERSUS PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT? This is difficult to answer with any degree of precision. What the chapters in this book highlight is that some domains have considerably more research support behind them than others. For example, there are rich literatures on talent development in some fields (e.g., dance, golf, mathematics, psychology) and remarkably little literature in other domains (e.g., acting, medicine, software engineering). There is also an extensive body of research in expert team performance (Reyes & Salas, Chapter 6) and in game sport (Fransen & Güllich, Chapter 3). On the other hand, Noice and Noice (Chapter 11) pointed out that there is little scholarship on the development of acting ability, a fact that they attributed to the limited role that deliberate practice plays. Certainly, domains in which deliberate practice plays an important role have received considerable attention (Ericsson & Pool, 2016). 382       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik  There are other domains in which there is extensive research in education and training (e.g., medicine), but the research is focused on how to get all practitioners to achieve basic competence rather than on the development of outstanding performance in the domain. What is clear is that there are a number of general principles that seem to cut across all domains, such as the importance of general and domain-specific abilities. We conclude with some recommendations for further research. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION The chapters in this volume provided support for many of the con- clusions put forward by Subotnik et al. (2011). However, many questions remain, and research will be helpful in providing the answers. 77 What is the role of general cognitive ability in nonacademic domains? Is intelligence as important in nonacademic as in academic domains? 77 What aspects of intelligence are critical in the context of specific domains? 77 Can one make Big-C creativity contributions in a domain without substantial expertise in the domain? 77 What are ideal proportions of specialization and interdisciplinar- ity within the talent development process? Are the proportions the same across domains? 77 Are there psychosocial factors that are specific to individual domains, just as factors such as persistence are important across all domains? 77 Is deliberate practice important for all domains? If so, does deliberate practice take on different forms across domains? If not, what are the types of tasks that benefit substantially from deliberate practice and what is the equivalent of deliberate practice in domains without these types of tasks? 77 How can society identify the domains in which a youth has outstanding potential early enough to allow for appropriate development and training in the domain? 77 In what ways can society support the development of non­ academic talent in youth from families with few resources? 77 What does talent development that increases the probability of eminence look like in fields such as medicine and software engineering? 77 Of all the variables explored in this volume, which weigh heaviest at each stage of development in predicting high performance? the psychology of high performance      383  Looking back, we can identify a number of inventions that have had a substantial impact on society. The printing press, the internal combustion engine, the radio, the television, and the Internet are among these inno­ vations. And there are a host of other events, such as the development of vaccines and paper and plastic and fuel, that have changed the course of history. And would human experience be the same without athletic competitions, creative writing, and the visual and performing arts? In all of the aforementioned domains, and in all domains, there are individuals whom we admire for their expertise and artistry. Even when we are not fans of a particular domain, we enjoy the performances of outstanding individ­ uals or we benefit, even if indirectly, from the discoveries of outstanding producers. Psychology is the study of behavior and mental processes, and a unique contribution of this discipline is the enhancement of individual performance using psychological principles and techniques. In this book, we have pro- vided an overview of a few domains in the hope of finding commonalities to facilitate development in all domains. The importance of ability, creativity, risk-taking, and persistence has been highlighted, as well as the importance of more domain-specific elements such as mathematical cast of mind, kitchen sense, and visual cognition. It is our hope that in addition to providing infor- mation on the domains covered, this volume will inspire researchers to exam- ine talent development in the many domains that were not included here, as we work toward a more complete understanding of talent development and the role of psychology in facilitating it. REFERENCES Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: How to master almost anything. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Company. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8 384       worrell, olszewski-kubilius, and subotnik Noice, H., & Noice, T. (2013). Extending the reach of an evidence-based theatrical intervention. Experimental Aging Research, 39, 398–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0361073X.2013.808116 Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Phases of learning. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 409–538). New York, NY: Ballantine. Sosniak, L. A. (1995). Inviting adolescents into academic communities: An alternative perspective on systemic reform. Theory Into Practice, 34, 35–42. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00405849509543655 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking gifted- ness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1529100611418056 the psychology of high performance      385