Understanding Sports and Exercise Psychology PDF

UNIT 2 Understanding sports and exercise psychology as a science CONTENTS Unit 1 Psychology in sports, present and future of sport and exercise psychology Unit2 Understanding sports and exercise psychology as a science Unit 3 Factors affecting behavior – Biology...

UNIT 2 Understanding sports and exercise psychology as a science CONTENTS Unit 1 Psychology in sports, present and future of sport and exercise psychology Unit2 Understanding sports and exercise psychology as a science Unit 3 Factors affecting behavior – Biology and environmental factors Unit 4 Personality in sports- how different personality traits can influence an athlete’s approach to training competition and teamwork  Reading a sport and exercise psychology textbook and actually working professionally with exercisers and athletes are very different activities. To understand the relationship between the two, we must be able to integrate scientific textbook knowledge (scientifically derived knowledge) with practical experience (professional practice knowledge). Scientifically Derived Knowledge Sport and exercise psychology is above all a science. Hence, it is important that you understand how scientifically derived knowledge comes about and how it works; that is, you need to understand the scientific method.  Science is not simply an accumulation of facts discovered through detailed observations but rather a process, or method, of learning about the world through the systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical filtering of knowledge acquired through experience. When we apply science to psychology, the goals are to describe, explain, predict, and allow control of behavior.  Let’s take an example. Dr. Jennifer Jones, a sport psychology researcher, wants to study how movement education affects children’s self-esteem. Dr. Jones first defines self-esteem and movement education and determines what age groups and particular children she wants to study. She then explains why she expects movement education and self-esteem to be related (e.g., the children would get recognition and praise for learning new skills). Dr. Jones’ research is really about prediction and control: She wants to show that using movement education in similar conditions will consistently affect children’s self-esteem in the same way. To test such things, science has evolved some general guidelines for research: 1. The scientific method dictates a systematic approach to studying a question. It involves standardizing the conditions; for example, one might assess the children’s self-esteem under identical conditions with a carefully designed measure. 2. The scientific method involves control of conditions. Key variables, or elements in the research (e.g., movement education or changes in self-esteem), are the focus of study, with other variables controlled (e.g., the same person doing the teaching) so they do not influence the primary relationship. 3. The scientific method is empirical, which means it is based on observation. Objective evidence must support beliefs, and this evidence must be open to outside evaluation and observation. 4. The scientific method is critical, meaning that it involves rigorous evaluation by the researcher and other scientists. Critical analysis of ideas and work helps ensure that conclusions are reliable Theory A scientist’s ultimate goal is a theory, or a set of interrelated facts that present a systematic view of some phenomenon in order to describe, explain, and predict its future occurrences. Theory allows scientists to organize and explain large numbers of facts in a pattern that helps others understand them. Theory then turns to practice  One example is the social facilitation theory (Zajonc, 1965). After Norman Triplett’s first reelwinding experiment with children , psychologists studied how the presence of an audience affects performance, but their results were inconsistent. Sometimes people performed better in front of an audience, and other times they performed worse. Zajonc saw a pattern in the seemingly random results and formulated a theory. He noticed that when people performed simple tasks or jobs they knew well, having an audience influenced their performance positively. Simple Task\ Jobs they know well=INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE POSITIVELY Unfamiliar or complex tasks = harmed performance.. However, when people performed unfamiliar or complex tasks, having an audience harmed performance.  In his social facilitation theory, Zajonc contended that an audience creates arousal in the performer, which hurts performance on difficult tasks that have not been learned (or learned well) and helps performance on well- learned tasks. AUDIENCE CAN CREATE AN AROUSAL WELL LEARNED TASK= Helps the performance DIFFICULT TASK \not LEARNED =Hurts performance  Zajonc’s theory increased our understanding of how audiences influence performance at many levels (students and professionals) and in many situations (sport, exercise). He consolidated many seemingly random instances into a theory basic enough for performers, coaches, and teachers to remember and to apply in a variety of circumstances.  Of course, not all theories are equally useful. Some are in early stages of development, and others have already passed the test of time. Some theories have a limited scope and others a broad range of application. Some involve few variables and others a complex matrix of variables and behaviors Studies Versus Experiments An important way in which scientists build, support, or refute theory is by conducting studies and experiments. A study involves an investigator’s observing or assessing factors without changing the environment in any way. For example, a study comparing the effectiveness of goal setting, imagery, and selftalk in improving athletic performance might use a written questionnaire given to a sample of high school cross country runners just before a race. The researchers could compare techniques used by the fastest 20 runners with those used by the slowest 20 runners. The researchers would not be changing or manipulating any factors but simply observing whether faster runners reported using particular mental skills (e.g., imagery). But the researchers would not know whether the goal setting, imagery, and self-talk caused some runners to go faster or whether running faster stirred the runners to set more goals. Studies have limited ability to identify what scientists call causal (cause and effect) relations between factors. Experiment An experiment differs from a study in that the investigator manipulates the variables along with observing them and then examines how changes in one variable affect changes in others.  In psychology, independent variables and dependent variables are used to establish cause-and-effect relationships in experiments. Here’s what each term means:  Independent Variable (IV): This is the variable that researchers manipulate or change to observe its effects. It’s the "cause" in a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, in a study on the effects of sleep on memory, the amount of sleep participants get (e.g., 4 hours vs. 8 hours) is the independent variable. Dependent Variable (DV): This is the variable that researchers measure to see if it’s affected by the independent variable. It’s the "effect" or outcome. In the sleep and memory study, memory performance (e.g., score on a memory test) is the dependent variable, as it’s expected to depend on or change with the amount of sleep.  In general: The independent variable is what you control. The dependent variable is what you measure. Researchers manipulate the independent variable to observe how it impacts the dependent variable, helping to clarify relationships and causal effects.  Runners might be divided into two equal groups. One, called the experimental group, would receive training in how to set goals and use imagery and positive self- talk. The other, called the control group, would not receive any psychological skills training. Then, if the experimental group outperformed the control group (with other factors that might affect the relation being controlled), the reason, or cause, for this would be known. A causal relation would have been demonstrated.  Any method of obtaining knowledge has strengths and limitations. The scientific method is no different in this regard. The major strength of scientifically derived knowledge is that it is reliable; that is, scientific findings are consistent or repeatable. Not only is the methodology systematic and controlled, but also the scientists are trained to be as objective as possible. One of their goals is to collect unbiased data—data or facts that speak for themselves and are not influenced by the scientist’s personal feelings.  On the negative side, the scientific method is slow and conservative because reliability must be judged by others. It also takes time to be systematic and controlled—more time than most practitioners have. A breakthrough in science usually comes after years of research. For this reason, it’s not always practical to insist that science guide all elements of practice.  Sometimes scientific knowledge is reductionistic. That is, because it is too complex to study all the variables of a situation simultaneously, the researcher may select isolated variables that are of the most critical interest. When a problem is reduced to smaller, manageable parts, however, our understanding of the whole picture may be compromised or diminished.  Another limitation of science is its overemphasis on internal validity. That is, science favors the extent to which results of an investigation can be attributed to the treatment used, usually judging a study by how well scientists conform to the rules of scientific methodology and how systematic and controlled they were in conducting the study. Too much emphasis on internal validity can cause scientists to overlook external validity, or whether the issue has true significance or utility in the real world. If a theory has no external validity, its internal validity doesn’t count for much. Finally, scientific knowledge tends to be conservative. Professional Practice Knowledge Professional practice knowledge refers to knowledge gained through experience. Perhaps, for example, you spend a lot of time helping exercisers, athletes, and physical education students enhance their performance and well-being, and in the process you pick up a good deal of practical understanding or information. Professional practice knowledge comes from many sources and ways of knowing, including these: 1. Scientific method 2. Systematic observation 3. Single case study 4. Shared public experience 5. Introspection (examining your thoughts or feelings) 6. Intuition (immediate apprehension of knowledge in the absence of a conscious, rational process)  Although exercise leaders, coaches, and certified athletic trainers ordinarily do not use the scientific method, they do use theoretically derived sport and exercise principles to guide their practice. For example, volleyball coach Theresa Hebert works with the high school team. She develops her coaching skills in a variety of ways. Before the season begins, she reflects (uses introspection) on how she wants to coach this year. During team tryouts she uses systematic observation of the new players as they serve, hit, and scrimmage. Last season, she remembers, the team captain—a star setter—struggled, so Coach Hebert wants to learn as much about her as possible to help her more this year. To do this, the coach talks with other players, teachers, and the setter’s parents. In essence, the coach conducts a case study. When she and her assistant coaches compare notes on their scouting of the next opponent, shared public experience occurs. Coach Hebert often uses intuition also—for example, she decides to start Sarah over Rhonda today, the two players having similar ability, because it feels right to her. Of course, these methods are not equally reliable; however, in combination they lead to effective coaching. Like her players, Coach Hebert sometimes makes mistakes. But these errors or miscalculations also become sources of information to her.  Professional practice knowledge is guided trial and-error learning. Whether you become a physical therapist, coach, teacher, exercise leader, or certified athletic trainer, you will use your knowledge to develop strategies and then to evaluate their effectiveness. With experience, an exercise and sport science professional becomes more proficient and more knowledgeable in practical ways. Professional practice knowledge also has major strengths and limitations. This practical knowledge is usually more holistic than scientifically derived knowledge, reflecting the complex interplay of many factors—psychological, physical, technical, strategic, and social. And unlike science, professional practice knowledge tends to absorb novel or innovative practices.  Coaches, teachers, exercise leaders, and trainers enjoy using new techniques. Another plus is that practical theories do not have to wait to be scientifically verified, so they can be used immediately. On the downside, professional practice can produce fewer and less precise explanations than science can. Professional practice is more affected by bias than is science and thus less objective.  Practical knowledge tends to be less reliable and definitive than scientifically based knowledge. Often a teacher knows a method works but does not know why. This can be a problem if the teacher wants to use the method in a new situation or revise it to help a particular student. THANKS! CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and includes icons by Flaticon and infographics & images by Freepik Please keep this slide for attribution