Sport Psychology - Recomended Textbook.pdf

SPORT PSYCHOLOGY This book offers a student-friendly introduction to the discipline of sport psy- chology. All the key psychological issues in sport are explored and illustrated with sporting examples. Throughout, difﬁcult questions are raised: are athletes born or made? Does participating in sport affect personality? What impact do cultural beliefs have on personal sporting development? These complex issues are weighed up to provide a detailed overview of the topic. Matt Jarvis has substan- tially revised and expanded his original coverage of the subject from his highly successful book Sport Psychology (published by Routledge in 1999). Here he pro- vides a succinct but comprehensive account of major theory and research in sport psychology, whilst maintaining the readable style and student-centred approach which made the previous book so successful. Key issues covered include: personality and sport attitudes to sport aggression in sport the social factors affecting performance arousal and anxiety motivation and skill acquisition. There is an emphasis not merely on learning about sport psychology, but also on developing critical and creative thinking. In addition, the book includes chapters on conducting research and writing essays in sport psychology, as well as reﬂective exercises throughout the text. Written by a successful author who has experience of teaching at sixth form and undergraduate level, this book will be useful to undergraduates in sport science and leisure management, those studying for the BAQTS and PGCE in physical education, and those studying A-level psychology or sports studies. Matt Jarvis teaches psychology at Totton College and is Visiting Lecturer at Southampton University. Sport Psychology A Student’s Handbook Matt Jarvis First published by Routledge 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2FA Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Routledge is a part of the Taylor & Francis Group Copyright © 2006 Routledge All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. This publication has been produced with paper manufactured to strict environmental standards and with pulp derived from sustainable forests. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Jarvis, Matt, 1966– Sport psychology : a student’s handbook / Matt Jarvis. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1 -84169-581-5 (hardcover) – ISBN 1-84169-582-3 (softcover) 1. Sports – Psychological aspects – Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. GV706.4.J37 2005 796.01—dc22 ISBN10: 1-84169-581-5 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-1-84169-581-5 (hbk) ISBN10: 1-84169-582-3 (pbk) ISBN13: 978-1-84169-582-2 (pbk) Contents List of ﬁgures and tables ix Preface to second edition xi 1. Introduction 1 What is sport psychology? 1 A brief history of sport psychology 2 What is a sport psychologist? 3 For those new to psychology 5 Summary and conclusions 11 2. Personality characteristics and sporting behaviour 13 Trait theories 14 Research into traits and sporting behaviour 19 Narrow-band theories of personality 22 Attentional style 27 Discussion of the trait and narrow-band approaches 29 Situational and interactional approaches 30 Summary and conclusions 33 3. Personality development and sport 35 Social learning theory 36 Applying social learning theory to sport 37 Sources of inﬂuence on social development and sport 40 Gender and sport 42 Sport as an inﬂuence on social development 46 The psychodynamic approach to personality development 49 Summary and conclusions 53 4. Attitudes to sport 55 The nature of attitudes 56 Measuring attitudes 58 The formation of attitudes to sport 61 Attitudes to competition 64 Attitudes to sport and sporting behaviour 65 CONTENTS v Changing people’s attitudes to sport 69 Summary and conclusions 71 5. Aggression and sport 73 Deﬁning aggression 74 The link between aggression and performance 76 Theories of aggression 79 Individual differences in sporting aggression 83 Situational factors affecting aggression 85 The $64,000 question – does sport increase or reduce aggression? 86 The reduction of aggression 88 Summary and conclusions 90 6. Social factors in sporting performance 93 Groups and teams 93 Social facilitation 97 Negative effects of team membership 102 Leadership 104 Summary and conclusions 110 7. Arousal, anxiety and sporting performance 113 Deﬁnitions of arousal, anxiety and stress 114 Factors inducing anxiety and stress 118 The relationship between arousal and performance 120 The relationship between anxiety and performance 122 Stress management 127 Summary and conclusions 133 8. Motivation and sport 135 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation 136 Theories of motivation 138 Self-efﬁcacy 147 Counterfactual thinking 148 Pathological motivation and sport 150 Summary and conclusions 152 9. Skill acquisition and expertise 155 Deﬁnitions 156 Classifying abilities 156 Classifying skills 158 Two linked issues: the existence of superability and the nature–nurture debate in sport 160 Stages of skill acquisition 163 The information-processing approach to skills 166 Memory 167 Theories of motor learning 170 vi CONTENTS Expert performance 172 Enhancing skill and expertise: the role of practice 174 Summary and conclusions 177 10. Research methods in sport psychology 179 Quantitative and qualitative research 180 The experimental model 180 The correlational method 184 Survey methods 187 Case studies 190 Archival studies 191 Review methods 192 Summary and conclusions 194 11. Writing essays in sport psychology 197 Seven deadly sins of essay writing 197 Content 199 Structure 203 Style 207 Conventions 208 Summary and conclusions 213 References 215 Index 229 CONTENTS vii List of figures and tables Figures 2.1. Eysenck’s four personality types 16 2.2. What personality differences can you see between golfers and surfers? 23 2.3. The relative importance of personality, situation and other factors in athletic performance 31 2.4. Mood proﬁles of elite and unsuccessful athletes 32 3.1. Children witnessing this behaviour may imitate it 38 3.2. David Beckham 39 3.3. Children imitate family role models 41 3.4. Feminine roles can be hard to reconcile with athleticism 43 3.5. Female athletes are evaluated by commentators for looks and personality rather than performance 45 4.1. Boxing arouses strong attitudes 59 4.2. Social learning of a child’s attitude to football 63 4.3. Applying the theory of reasoned action to explaining participa- tion in sport 66 4.4. There is always a decision-making process involved in choosing to participate in sport 69 5.1. The greater the potential for serious injury, the more elaborate are the rules for preventing it 75 5.2. Although (American) ice hockey is notoriously violent, there is no clear link between aggression and success 78 5.3. Bandura’s famous bobo doll study 81 5.4. 9/11 triggered a reaction against war analogies 84 5.5. Martial arts training tends to reduce aggression 87 6.1. The effect of being watched on pool players will depend on their level of expertise 99 7.1. Drive theory of the relationship between arousal and perform- ance for expert performers 121 7.2. The inverted-U hypothesis of arousal and performance 122 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ix 7.3. Fazey & Hardy’s catastrophe model of the relationship between anxiety and performance 123 7.4. The relationship between arousal and bowls performance under low and high cognitive anxiety 124 7.5. Zones of optimal functioning in three athletes 124 7.6. Jack Nicklaus places tremendous emphasis on imagery 131 7.7. Visualising a stadium before competition may reduce anxiety 132 8.1. Karate belts are an example of the effective use of extrinsic motivation 138 8.2. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 139 8.3. Fitting reasons for sport participation into the hierarchy of needs 140 8.4. Martial arts differ in the use of a predominantly task- or ego- oriented environment 144 8.5. Fencing self-efﬁcacy is affected by winning and losing 145 8.6. Weiner’s model of attribution 146 8.7. After this incident in 1998, the country engaged in counterfac- tual thinking 149 9.1. Weightlifting requires the ability of dynamic strength 157 9.2. Examples of sporting skills ranging from gross to ﬁne 158 9.3. This martial artist is practising a closed skill, but with sufﬁcient practice should be able to use it in an open situation 159 9.4. This child basketball prodigy did not develop the necessary physical characteristics for adult competition 162 9.5. Michael Jordan is a classic example of an athlete practising at the autonomous stage 165 9.6. Welford’s information-processing model 166 9.7. Anderson’s model of memory 168 9.8. Closed loop theory 170 10.1. Some correlation patterns 184 10.2. An effect size of one standard deviation 193 11.1. Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking skills 200 11.2. A spider diagram 206 Tables 1.1. Applying psychological approaches to understanding sport 7 1.2. Major theoretical orientations in psychology 7 8.1. Comparison of task- and ego-oriented athletes 142 8.2. Examples of some internal and external attributions following failure 145 9.1. Examples of motor abilities and dependent skills 156 x LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Preface to the second edition Following the success of the ﬁrst edition of Sport Psychology, which was written primarily for A-level students, the aim of this second edition is to make the book of more use to students at undergraduate level. To achieve this, I have tried to maintain the informal, user- friendly style of the ﬁrst edition, but I have also added substantially to the content. Thus, the text is much more detailed and up-to-date, fea- turing a more comprehensive range of theories and numerous studies from the last 5 years. Chapters 2–9 cover the essential topics in sport psychology; personality and sport, attitudes to sport, aggression and sport, social factors affecting performance, arousal and anxiety, motivation, and the acquisition of skill and expertise. Throughout the book, I have rejected utterly the ‘just do it’ attitude that characterises some sport science literature. Instead there is an emphasis on thrash- ing out difﬁcult issues, including the questions of whether athletes are born or made, and whether sport is really character building. For real understanding of sport psychology, it is necessary to have a reasonable understanding of the nature of psychology itself. One of the things I have tried to do in this second edition is to put across to those new to studying psychology at this level the nature of the disci- pline. In Chapter 1, the reader is introduced to the distinction between theory and research and the range of theoretical approaches that make up psychology. However, psychology is as much a way of thinking as a set of theories and studies. I have tried to introduce the reader to the skills of critical and creative thinking prized by psychologists, and to encourage the use of these higher thinking skills throughout the book with a series of reﬂective exercises. Also of use to those new to psychology should be the ﬁnal two chapters. In Chapter 10, I review the major research methods used in sport psychology. This should help students both to understand more PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION xi deeply the research they have studied already and to plan their own research. Chapter 11 aims to teach students what is expected in a psychology essay, and to guide them through the process of planning and constructing an essay. Again there is an emphasis on applying higher-level thinking skills to psychological theory and research, and this chapter should crystallise the understanding of creative and critical thinking encouraged throughout the text. xii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION Introduction 1 Learning objectives By the end of this chapter you should be able to: deﬁne sport psychology give a brief history of the discipline understand what sport psychologists do and who is entitled to use the designation explain the purpose of theory and research in psychology, and describe some major research methods used in sport psychology recognise the major approaches to psychology begin to think critically about psychological theory and research. What is sport psychology? Because there are many ways in which we can apply psychology to sport and, given the wide range of activities that different cultures regard as sport, it is helpful to adopt quite a broad deﬁnition of sport psychology. In 1996, the European Federation of Sport Psychology (FEPSAC) produced such a broad deﬁnition, which, slightly simpli- ﬁed, reads, ‘Sport psychology is the study of the psychological basis, pro- cesses and effects of sport.’ This of course begs the questions, what is sport and what is psychology? Although many athletes would insist that sport necessarily includes an element of competition, the term ‘sport’ is used, both in the FEPSAC deﬁnition of sport psychology, and throughout this book, in the broadest sense, including any physi- cal activity for the purposes of competition, recreation, education or health. Psychology is often deﬁned as ‘the science of mind and behaviour’ (Gross, 2005). Later in this chapter, we can take a brief overview of psychology and begin to learn how to think critically and creatively about psychological theory and research. Sport psychology (or sports psychology, as some prefer) is thus a 1. INTRODUCTION 1 broad church. Many American sport psychologists draw a sharp dis- tinction between academic sport psychology, which focuses on all the factors affecting participation and performance in sport, and applied sport psychology, which focuses purely on applying psychology to enhance athletic performance (e.g. Cox, 2001). At the time of writing, European writers generally do not subscribe to this rather rigid dis- tinction (Kremer & Scully, 1994), and this book crosses freely between academic and applied sport psychology. The topics covered here, per- sonality, attitudes, aggression, stress and anxiety, group dynamics, motivation and skill acquisition, should be both of academic interest and applicable to working with athletes and, in some cases, spectators. A brief history of sport psychology Sport psychology has existed in some form for almost as long as psychology itself. The ﬁrst recorded study in sport psychology took place at the close of the nineteenth century. Norman Triplett (1898) performed what is often cited as the ﬁrst experiment in social psy- chology as well as the ﬁrst in sport psychology. Triplett investigated the phenomenon of social facilitation, in which performance is affected by the presence of others (this is discussed in detail in Chap- ter 6). He demonstrated that cyclists tended to cycle faster when racing against other cyclists than they did alone. Triplett did not pursue further sport-related research, however, and it was not until the 1920s that the discipline of sport psychology was formally established. In 1925, Coleman Grifﬁth set up the Athletic Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois. Grifﬁth, who also put sport psychology on the map by establishing a university course, publishing two major textbooks and acting as a consultant to professional sports teams, is often called the ‘father of sport psychology’. The early path of sport psychology did not run smoothly, however, and the Athletic Research Laboratory closed in 1932 due to lack of funds. Between the 1930s and the 1960s (at least in the Western world), there was little activity in the ﬁeld of sport psychology. In the Soviet Union, sport psychology emerged as a discipline shortly after the Sec- ond World War. It is of course difﬁcult to obtain accurate information about the practice of Soviet psychology during the Cold War, but it is commonly believed that, during the 1960 Melbourne Olympics, East- ern European teams employed sport psychologists (Kremer & Scully, 1994). Certainly, we know that, by the early 1970s, East German and 2 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Soviet teams were routinely employing sport psychologists to enhance athletic performance in international events. Sport psychology reappeared in the USA in the 1960s, and was taken up in Britain and the rest of Europe a few years later. The area has since expanded worldwide to become one of the fastest growing new academic disciplines. Interestingly, until very recently, the study of sport psychology was ﬁrmly located in the domain of sport sciences as opposed to within psychology. This may be changing, however. In 1986, the American Psychological Association ofﬁcially recognised sport psychology as a branch of psychology, and in 1993 the British Psychological Society formed a Sport and Exercise Psychology Section, which has now become a full division of the society. What is a sport psychologist? We can think of this question in two ways; ﬁrst, who can call himself or herself a sport psychologist, and second, what do sport psycholo- gists do? To address the ﬁrst question, currently, in Britain, there is no compulsory registration of sport psychologists; therefore, in theory, anyone can call himself a sport psychologist. In reality, of course, it would be highly unethical for anyone not properly trained to use the title ‘psychologist’ in any context. At the time of writing, legislation is being brought in which will place legal limits on the use of the term. The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) keeps a register of approved sport psychologists. At the 1998 annual confer- ence, the British Psychological Society (BPS)’s Sport and Exercise Psychology Section (now ‘Division’) approved the principle of grant- ing the title Chartered Sport Psychologist to appropriately qualiﬁed people. At the time of writing, legislation is at the consultation stage to restrict certain titles, including Chartered Sport and Exercise Psycholo- gist, to those on a register, to be maintained by the Health Professions Council. To register with BASES as a sport psychologist, one needs either a ﬁrst degree in psychology and a higher degree in sport science or a ﬁrst degree in sport science and a higher degree in sport psy- chology. To achieve chartered status from the BPS, it is necessary to have a BPS-approved ﬁrst degree in psychology and BPS-approved postgraduate training, including supervised practice. There is cur- rently no such approved postgraduate training. A similar situation exists in the USA, where, although the American Psychological Association (APA) has a Division of Sport Psychology (Division 47), it does not accredit courses. 1. INTRODUCTION 3 There is some controversy surrounding the accreditation of sport psychologists. The BASES scheme for registration of sport psychologists has existed only since 1992, and many people who were already working as sport psychologists chose not to join the register or were unqualiﬁed to do so. Anshel (1992) has pointed out that many of those working full-time with athletes do not have the time, resources or inclination to pursue the lengthy procedures necessary to become registered, and that registration thus excludes some of the Britain’s most experienced practitioners. On the other hand, compulsory regis- tration would provide a measure of protection for the public from dubious or underqualiﬁed practitioners. With regard to the second question, the work carried out by sport psychologists is quite varied. The European Federation of Sport Psychology (1996) recognises three interrelated tasks for sport psychologists: research; investigation into all aspects of the psychology of sport, both theoretical and applied education; teaching students, ofﬁcials and athletes about sport psychology application; assessment of and intervention in psychological prob- lems connected to sport. This can involve consulting to whole teams or counselling of individuals. The BPS Division of Sport and Exercise Psychology is particularly committed to research, education and application in particular areas, as shown in Box 1.1: Box 1.1 Areas of focus for the BPS Division of Sport and Exercise Psychology psychology of elite performance individual and group processes in sport motor skill acquisition and performance motivational issues in sport and exercise psychological factors in adoption and maintenance of exercise behaviour sport, exercise and mental health professional practice in sport and exercise psychology. Because sport psychology is now such a broad ﬁeld, it is becoming impossible for sport psychologists to keep up with all aspects of their discipline. Nowadays, you will ﬁnd that many sport psychologists 4 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY have become highly specialised. For example, psychologists may spe- cialise in the study of motivation (see Chapter 8). They may carry out research into motivation, teach coaches about motivation and perhaps work with individual athletes to improve their motivation. For those new to psychology For readers new to psychology, before ploughing into the speciﬁcs of sport psychology, it is perhaps worth taking some time to overview the nature of psychology in general, and to begin to learn to think like a psychologist. To understand psychology, it is necessary to under- stand what we mean by the terms ‘theory’ and ‘research’, and to be familiar with the different theoretical approaches psychologists can draw upon to understand a phenomenon. Theory and research The writings of psychologists largely consist of two very important elements: theory and research. A psychological theory is intended to explain why something takes place. For example, in Chapter 7, we can look at a range of theories that aim to explain the relationship between arousal, anxiety and sporting performance. It is tempting to ask, ‘which is right?’ when confronted by a range of alternative theories; however, it is rare in psychology for a single theory to hold all the answers. Usually, each theory is helpful in its own way because it helps us understand and think about a different aspect of the situation. The term ‘research’ is a very broad one, and is used by psycholo- gists in different ﬁelds to mean rather different things. However, a simple deﬁnition appropriate to sport psychology is the gathering and analysing of data (information).1 Often, though not necessarily, this is done in order to test an idea or hypothesis. For example, we might hypothesise that team players are more sociable than athletes in indi- vidual sports. There are many procedures by which data can be gath- ered. Some of the more important research methods used in sport psychology are outlined in Box 1.2. 1 This deﬁnition would not be universally acceptable in psychology. In social psychology, for example, it would not be adequate, as there is a ﬁeld of ‘theoretical research’ that overlaps between the generating of theory and data gathering. 1. INTRODUCTION 5 Box 1.2 Some of the research methods used in sport psychology Experiment: involves comparing people’s responses or performance under two or more artiﬁcially created conditions. For example, we might set up two conditions in which basketball players are either punished or rewarded as they train, and thus measure the effect punishment and reward has upon their motivation and performance. Quasi-experiment: involves comparing two or more naturally occurring groups. For example, we might be interested in comparing the personality characteristics of athletes in individual and team sports, or comparing men’s and women’s attitudes to boxing. Survey: involves asking questions or asking for responses to suggestions. This can be done verbally (interview) or on paper (questionnaire). Surveys are useful in investigating attitudes and motives. Observation: involves systematically watching people’s behaviour in particu- lar circumstances. We might use observation, for example, to see how fre- quency of aggression changes in response to losing in a contact sport. Correlation: involves measuring two or more variables and seeing how they are related. In a positive correlation, as one variable increases, so does the other. An example of such a correlation is that between physical size and hostility. In a negative correlation, as one variable increases, the other decreases. An example of this is the relationship between experience as a martial artist and hostility – as experience increases, hostility declines. Approaches to psychology The BPS recognises ﬁve aspects of or approaches to the study of psychology. These are individual differences, social psychology, cognitive psychology, physiological psychology and developmental psychology. Examples of how each of these approaches can be applied to sport psychology are shown in Table 1.1. From Table 1.1 it is quickly apparent that there is considerable over- lap between the ﬁve approaches and that in practice they are not distinct from one another. For example, attitudes are an aspect of social psychology because they affect our interpersonal behaviour, but they also vary from one person to another; thus, they are also studied as an aspect of individual differences. Similarly, personality is most obviously an aspect of individual differences; however, we can under- stand the reasons why we differ in our personality with reference to physiological processes and developmental processes. 6 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Approach Main focus of approach Examples in sport Table 1.1 Applying psychology psychological Individual differences Variation in the Personality, attitudes to approaches to characteristics of sport, motivation, understanding sport individuals anxiety Social psychology Ways in which people Attitudes to sport, interact with one another aggression, team cohesion, team leadership Cognitive psychology Ways in which the mind Skill acquisition, processes information motivation, imagery Physiological psychology The relationship between Arousal and biological and performance, biological psychological basis of personality traits functioning Developmental The processes of Social learning, gender psychology development of development, psychological functions personality development and characteristics across the lifespan Theoretical orientations in psychology An alternative way to classify approaches to psychology is in terms of its theoretical orientations. Unlike other sciences, which tend to have broad agreement about the fundamentals of what they study, how and to what end, psychology is made up of different theoretical schools, each of which takes a different view of the subject. Table 1.2 shows some of the major theoretical orientations in psychology and examples of their contributions to sport psychology. Some psychologists operate very much within a single theoretical framework and can be said to have a distinct orientation, whilst others dip into different orientations and approaches as required. This latter is called an eclectic approach. Theoretical orientation Underlying assumptions Examples of applications in sport psychology Behavioural (learning) Focus is on observable Social learning of behaviour attitudes, personality, Table 1.2 Major aggression theoretical Behaviour is acquired by orientations in learning psychology 1. INTRODUCTION 7 Table 1.2 continued Theoretical orientation Underlying assumptions Examples of applications in sport psychology Cognitive Focus is on mental Cognitive anxiety processes Mental processes underlie Cognitive aspects of behaviour and emotion motivation Psychodynamic Focus is on the Personality unconscious mind development There are unconscious Unconscious factors in inﬂuences on us, including attitudes instinct and early Instinct and aggression experience Humanistic Focus is on human Achievement potential and growth motivation Physiological Focus is on physiological Trait theories of processes personality Physiology underlies Arousal and somatic psychological processes anxiety Social Focus is on interpersonal Social facilitation and group processes Social situation affects Team membership psychological processes Reﬂective exercise Consider the following scenario. John, a middle-aged man who has not taken part in sport since school (when he was a talented athlete), decides to start regular exercise. He gets into the habit of running, in which he takes considerable pleas- ure and which helps him lose weight and feel more energetic. After several months, John achieves a standard high enough to enter in a local race, where he records a creditable time. From a behavioural perspective, John is receiving reinforcement in the form of weight loss, increased energy and improved times. He is thus learning that running is a good thing so he continues. From a cognitive perspective, John is processing information about running. He believes his running makes him healthier and more attractive, and will help him live longer. From a psychodynamic perspective, there are likely to be unconscious inﬂu- ences on John’s behaviour, perhaps related to his age. He might be unconsciously trying to recapture his youth or responding to a fear of ageing and death. 8 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY From a humanistic perspective, John never fulﬁlled his early potential as an athlete and is seeking to achieve as much as he can in this area. From a physiological perspective, John is producing large quantities of endorphins, natural opiates, which induce ‘runner’s high’. Running and other vigorous exercise enhance mood because of the chemical changes they bring about. From a social perspective, we need to take a step back and consider the social situation in which John’s behaviour takes place. For example, in the light of social norms of body type, we might see his behaviour as a response to social pressure to lose weight. 1. Which of these perspectives portrays John’s behaviour in a positive light? 2. Which appeal to you as likely explanations of John’s behaviour? Learning to think like a psychologist: critical and creative thinking Psychology is not just a collection of theory and research. To study psychology effectively, we also need to learn to think like a psycholo- gist. Perhaps the most important aspect of thinking psychologically is critical thinking. This means that, although we try to rely on evidence rather than common sense, we are also careful not to take theory or research ﬁndings at face value. Whenever we encounter a psycho- logical theory or study, we should ask ourselves certain questions. Box 1.3 indicates some key questions to ask when faced by a new theory, and Box 1.4 some questions to ask regarding a new piece of research. Box 1.3 Critical thinking about theories When you meet a new theory, try asking yourself the following questions. Not all questions will be equally useful for evaluating every theory, but between them they should give you some idea of its strengths and limitations. 1. What evidence is the theory based on? Is it, for example, based on only a single study? It is a strength if a theory is based on more than one source of information. 2. Is there convincing evidence to support the theory? Have there been many studies aiming to test the study? If so, how many provide ﬁrm support? 3. Is there some evidence that clearly fails to support the theory? Are there studies that suggest that in fact the theory may not be correct? 1. INTRODUCTION 9 4. Does the theory provide a complete explanation for a psychological phenom- enon? In other words, is there some important observation that the theory cannot easily explain. Is there another theory that explains that observation better? Box 1.4 Critical thinking about studies When you come across a new study, ask yourself the following questions. Like those for evaluating a theory, they should give you some idea about the strengths and limitations of the study. 1. How large and representative is the sample size? A common limitation of studies is that they involve a small group of participants, often undergraduate students. Are these results applicable to athletes at large? 2. Will results generalise from one sport to another? For example, will a ‘fact’ discovered about team players generalise to those pursuing individual sports or from contact to non-contact athletes? 3. Was the study carried out in a controlled or natural setting? If it was set up in an artiﬁcial setting, it is possible that participants did not behave naturally. 4. How good are the measures used to record results? For example, if a study involves measuring personality or attitudes, how good is the scale used to measure these? Generally, published tests are better than those put together for a single study. 5. Is there another study that shows the opposite? If so, think about what might differ between the studies. They might, for example, look at different sports or athletes playing at different levels. Recently, psychologists have begun to recognise that creative thinking as well as critical thinking is an important aspect of being a good psychologist or psychology student (Sternberg, 1999; McGhee, 2001). We think creatively when we develop new ideas or think about a problem from a different angle. Box 1.5 suggests some examples of the type of questions you can ask yourself in order to think creatively about sport psychology. Box 1.5 Questions and tasks to stimulate creative thinking 1. What things does this theory predict might happen in a sporting situation? 2. How could you test that idea? Design a study. 3. Could you design a programme to tackle a problem based on that theory? 10 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY 4. What alternative explanations can you think of for the results of that study other than the one the authors have suggested? 5. Putting together the ﬁndings of these studies, can you suggest your own explanation for this phenomenon? Summary and conclusions Sport psychology has existed for around a hundred years, becoming widely accepted in the 1960s, and growing rapidly in inﬂuence at the time of writing. Sport psychologists conduct research, educate inter- ested parties, such as coaches, and work directly with athletes to improve their performance. Some psychologists draw a distinction between academic and applied sport psychology, but this is controversial. Also controversial is the issue of accreditation of sport psychologists. Currently, there is a move toward accreditation in all the professions; however, there is some resistance in sport psychology, meaning that some of the most experienced practitioners have not sought accreditation. For those new to studying psychology, it is important to under- stand some basics about the way the subject works. In particular, be clear about the distinction between theory and research, and be familiar with the ﬁve approaches to studying psychology and the theoretical orientations psychologists might adopt. You should also be aware that psychology involves critical and creative thinking about theory and research. Practise using the key questions in Boxes 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 to develop your critical and creative thinking as you read this book. Further reading FEPSAC (1996) Position statement of the FEPSAC: 1. Deﬁnition of sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist 10, 221–223. Kremer J & Scully D (1994) Psychology in sport. London, Taylor & Francis. LeUnes A & Nation JR (2002) Sport psychology. Paciﬁc Grove, CA, Wadsworth. www.bases.org.uk/newsite/aboutbases.asp www.bps.org.uk/sub-syst/SPEX/index.cfm www.psyc.unt.edu/apadiv47/ http://itp.lu.se/fepsac/ 1. INTRODUCTION 11 Personality characteristics and sporting behaviour 2 Learning objectives By the end of this chapter you should be able to: deﬁne personality describe the trait approach to personality, with particular reference to the theories of Eysenck, Cattell, and Costa and McCrae discuss research into the relationship between personality traits and sporting participation, performance and choice of sport outline narrow-band theories of personality, with particular regard to sensa- tion seeking, telic dominance, mental toughness and attentional style, and evaluate their relationship to sporting behaviour understand the relationship between situation and behaviour, and explain the interactional approach with particular reference to the proﬁle of mood states. One of the most basic questions faced by psychology is, ‘Why are we all different?’ Of course, in some ways, we are all much the same, as in the structure of our brains and the mechanisms of perception and memory. However, there are huge differences among us in the ways we think, feel and behave in response to particular situations. The psychology of personality is concerned with these individual differ- ences. Pervin (1993) has offered a simple working deﬁnition of per- sonality: ‘Personality represents those characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns of behaviour’. Broadly, four fac- tors inﬂuence how we respond in any given situation: our genetic make-up, our past experience, the nature of the situation in which we 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 13 ﬁnd ourselves and our free will. Each of these factors is emphasised by one or more theories of personality. Trait theories of personality emphasise the role of genetics in determining our individuality. Situational and interactional views place more emphasis on the particular situation and less emphasis on the nature of the individual in determining how we act. Trait, situational and interactional theories are all ambitious approaches to personality that aim to describe the entire nature of the person. Narrow-band theories are less ambitious, focusing on a single aspect of personality. None of the main theoretical approaches to personality place much emphasis on free will; that is, how we choose to think, feel and behave. Free will is a controversial idea in psychology. Although we may believe that we choose how to behave, it is always likely that we are inﬂuenced to some degree by our genetic make-up and our past experiences. The role of experience in personality development is dealt with in Chapter 3. In some ways, the study of personality underlies all sport psy- chology. When we look in later chapters at such topics as attitudes, aggression, motivation and anxiety, what we are really interested in is how and why people differ in these aspects, and how we can modify these to improve athletic performance. The answers to many of these questions can be found in personality theory. Trait theories There are two main assumptions underlying the trait approach to personality. Firstly, an individual’s personality is made up of certain key characteristics or traits. Traits are the stable, enduring character- istics of a person. Secondly, individuals differ in each trait, at least partly due to their genetic differences. Traits can be measured accord- ing to three factors: their frequency, their intensity and the range of situations to which they can be applied. For example, a trait that appears in most of the major theories is extroversion – how lively, sociable and impulsive an individual is. We are safe in saying that someone is highly extrovert if they display lively, sociable and impul- sive behaviour, often to an extreme and in a variety of quite different situations. Eysenck’s theory Eysenck (1952) initially proposed that personality could be completely described by just two traits, extroversion and neuroticism. Extrover- sion describes how lively, sociable and impulsive a person is, whilst 14 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY neuroticism describes how emotionally stable they are. One question you might ask is why three different characteristics like liveliness, sociability and impulsivity are grouped together as one trait. The answer is that, through a mathematical process called factor analysis, Eysenck discovered that in most cases, it is the same people who tend to be lively, impulsive and sociable. When characteristic behaviours tend to cluster together in this way, we can say that they make up one trait. Extraversion and neuroticism can be measured by a personality test called the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). Some items from the EPI are shown in Box 2.1. Box 2.1 Items from the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) YES NO 1. Do you often long for excitement? [ ] [ ] 2. Do you often need understanding friends to cheer you up? [ ] [ ] 3. Are you usually carefree? [ ] [ ] 4. Do you ﬁnd it very hard to take no for an answer? [ ] [ ] 5. Do you stop and think things over before doing anything? [ ] [ ] Questions 1, 3 and 5 are part of the extroversion (E) scale, whilst questions 2 and 4 are part of the neuroticism (N) scale. The E and N scales are each marked out of 24. A high score on the E scale would indicate that you are very extrovert whilst a low score would indicate that you are very introvert, that is, quiet, solitary, and not at all impul- sive. A high score on the N scale would indicate that you are very neurotic, that is, emotionally unstable, whereas a very low score would indicate that you are a very stable, unﬂappable person. This is shown in Box 2.2. Box 2.2 What EPI scores show EPI score introvert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E scale 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 extrovert stable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N scale 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 neurotic Most people score between 5 and 20 on each scale. In a later version of his theory, Eysenck (1975) added a third personality trait, psychoti- cism, a measure of how tender or tough-minded an individual is. This factor is incorporated into a third scale in Eysenck’s later personality test, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). By looking at 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 15 Figure 2.1 Eysenck’s four personality types. someone’s extroversion and neuroticism, we can classify them as one of four personality types, or temperaments. These are shown in Figure 2.1. Reﬂective exercise Some of snooker’s best-loved ﬁgures from the past two decades have included Jimmy White and Alex Higgins. They were known for both their outgoing person- alities and their inspirational but inconsistent play. By contrast, Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry were more reserved players, who achieved more consistent results. 1. Suggest where each of these players might fall in Eysenck’s personality types. 2. How might their personality traits have contributed to their success? Eysenck (1966) explained extroversion and neuroticism as being primarily determined by the nature of the individual’s nervous sys- tem. Introverts are more easily aroused by events than extroverts because of the sensitivity of an area of the brain called the reticular activating system; therefore, they require less stimulation to be com- fortable. Introverts tend to seek out situations where there is relatively little stimulation, appearing quiet and solitary. Extroverts, who require more stimulation to achieve a comfortable level of arousal, respond by seeking out situations where there is more stimulation 16 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY to be had. Their behaviour therefore tends to be more lively and sociable. Eysenck saw neuroticism as being a result of the response of the individual’s nervous system to stress. Those who score highly in neuroticism are thus those whose nervous system, in particular the limbic system, is highly responsive to stress and is slow to recover. Stable individuals are those whose nervous system responds less strongly to stress and then recovers more quickly. Cattell’s theory Cattell disagreed with Eysenck’s view that personality could be understood by looking at only three dimensions of personality. Instead he argued that it was necessary to look at a much larger num- ber of traits in order to get a complete picture of someone’s personal- ity. Like Eysenck, Cattell used the mathematical technique of factor analysis to look at what types of behaviour tended to be grouped together in the same people. He identiﬁed 16 personality factors. Cattell’s 16 personality traits are shown in Box 2.3. Box 2.3 Cattell’s 16 personality factors reserved ↔ outgoing unintelligent ↔ intelligent stable ↔ unstable humble ↔ assertive sober ↔ happy-go-lucky expedient ↔ conscientious shy ↔ adventurous tough-minded ↔ tender-minded trusting ↔ suspicious practical ↔ imaginative forthright ↔ shrewd placid ↔ apprehensive conservative ↔ experimenting group-dependent ↔ self-sufﬁcient undisciplined ↔ controlled relaxed ↔ tense Cattell produced a personality test similar to the EPI that measured each of the 16 traits. The 16PF, as it is called, has 160 questions in total, 10 questions relating to each personality factor. Examples of four items from the ego-strength (expedient-conscientious) scale are shown in Box 2.4. Eysenck maintained that Cattell’s 16 factors would ﬁt neatly within his three. For example, the relaxed–tense factor, the placid– apprehensive factor, the relaxed–tense factor and the stable–unstable factor are all subsumed by Eysenck’s trait of neuroticism. The argu- ment between Eysenck and Cattell is really a mathematical one. To sport psychologists, what matters primarily is not who got his sums right, but which test is more useful in understanding sporting 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 17 Box 2.4 Items from the ego strength scale of the 16PF 1. If you had your life to live over again, would you (a) want it to be essentially the same. OR (b) plan it very differently? 2. Do you ever have disturbing dreams? (a) Yes OR (b) No 3. Do your moods sometimes seem unreasonable to you? (a) Yes OR (b) No 4. Do you feel tired when you’ve done nothing to justify it? (a) Rarely OR (b) Often performance. Studies using Eysenck’s and Cattell’s theories and personality tests in relation to sport will be reviewed later in this chapter. The ﬁve-factor model of personality Arguably, the most popular trait theory in contemporary personality psychology is the ﬁve-factor model, developed by Costa & McCrae (1985); however, sport psychologists have been fairly slow to recog- nise its importance, and there are few published studies making use of it. The ﬁve factors in this model include extroversion and neuroticism (similar to Eysenck’s traits). In addition, the trait of openness describes the individual’s ability to appreciate new experiences and tolerate the unfamiliar. Open people are curious and imaginative. Individuals low in openness are conventional and narrow in their interests. Agreeableness (what we would call niceness in everyday speech) describes the extent to which one is compassionate and trust- ing, or hostile and ruthless. The ﬁnal trait is conscientiousness, closely related to Cattell’s trait of ego strength. Conscientiousness describes the extent of our organisation and persistence. Highly conscientious individuals are disciplined, punctual and ambitious. Costa & McCrae (1985) developed a personality test known as the NEO-PI, an acronym which stands for the Neuroticism, Extroversion and Openness Personality Inventory. The ﬁrst version just measured these three traits, and the name stuck when agreeableness and con- scientiousness were added. The NEO-PI includes 181 statements to which respondents indicate their agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Box 2.5 shows four of the 40 items of the E-scale of the NEO-PI. For these four statements, a high E-score is indicated by agree- ment with the statement. Some items, however, are reversed. Thus, 18 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Box 2.5 Items from the extraversion scale of the NEO-PI SA A ? D SD 1. You enjoy talking to strangers. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 2. You like talking to family members. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 3. You tell other people that you like them. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. You are a very friendly person. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] agreement with the statement, ‘You never smile when you talk to friends’, would be scored negatively and reduce your E-score. Research into traits and sporting behaviour There has been a large volume of research into the relationship between personality traits, as measured by the EPI/EPQ, the 16PF and the NEO-PI, and sporting behaviour. Attempts have been made to distinguish athletes from non-athletes and successful performers from less successful performers. Sport psychologists have also looked at whether personality factors are associated with choice of sport. Distinguishing athletes from non-athletes Numerous attempts have been made to ﬁnd out whether there is a fundamental difference between the personalities of athletes and non- athletes. Eysenck (1982) proposed that people scoring high on the extroversion and psychoticism scales of the EPQ are more likely to take up sport. Some though by no means all research has supported this hypothesis. Schurr et al (1977) tested 1500 American students with the 16PF, relating this to participation in sport, choice of sport and level of success. They found that athletes (deﬁned as those in university teams) differed from non-athletes on three scales of the 16PF, being more independent and objective, and less anxious than the non-athletes. Reﬂective exercise Practise your critical thinking on the Schurr et al study. 1. Is the sample large enough and is it representative? 2. Was a good range of sports covered? 3. Was it conducted in a natural or artiﬁcial setting? 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 19 4. How valid were the measures used? Consider both the deﬁnition of an athlete and the 16PF. 5. How well do the results correspond with those of other studies? More recently, Francis et al (1998), using the EPQ, compared the personality of 133 Irish female students who participated in university hockey clubs with a control group of female students with no formal involvement in sport. The hockey players emerged as signiﬁcantly higher in extroversion and psychoticism. Of course, university hockey players cannot necessarily be taken as representative of athletes as a whole. Clearly, students differ from other groups, and hockey is a team sport characterised by particularly high levels of group cohe- sion. In another study of 86 undergraduate athletes and a matched group of 86 non-athletes, McKelvie et al (2003) found no differences in extraversion between athletes and non-athletes, although athletes scored signiﬁcantly lower in neuroticism; that is, they were more emotionally stable. Other studies have conﬁrmed this relationship between neuroticism and sporting participation (e.g. Sevcikova et al (2000)). An interesting question is raised by research into the relation- ship between sporting participation and personality traits. Do people of a particular type seek out sport (this is known as the gravitation hypothesis), or does taking part in sport affect personality? Some early experiments (e.g. Ledwidge, 1980) suggested that neuroticism can be reduced by taking part in sport. However, studies also show that extraversion and neuroticism tend to be highly stable over time (e.g. McKelvie et al, 2003). This supports the gravitation hypothesis. Distinguishing successful from unsuccessful athletes An early attempt to use the idea of personality traits to identify suc- cessful athletes was that by Tutko and Ogilvie (1966). They pro- posed that successful people score highly on 11 personality traits: aggression, coachability, conscientiousness, determination, drive, emotional control, guilt proneness, leadership, mental toughness, self- conﬁdence and trust. Tutko & Ogilvie produced a personality test called the Athletic Motivation Inventory (AMI) to measure these traits. Most sport psychologists agree that the AMI was seriously ﬂawed, and contemporary research does not support the idea that the AMI can distinguish between successful and unsuccessful athletes. Studies using superior personality tests have found some evidence that aspects of personality are associated with athletic success. Gar- land & Barry (1990) placed American college athletes in categories 20 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY representing their level of skill. They were then tested with the 16PF. The statistical relationship between their athletic success and the per- sonality factors measured by the 16PF was calculated. It emerged that tough-mindedness, extroversion, group dependence and emotional stability accounted for 29% of the variance in skill. This shows that although personality may have been one important factor in success, there were other, probably more important factors. Although the ﬁve-factor model of personality has been under- utilised in sport psychology, one inﬂuential study using the NEO-PI has helped illuminate the relationship between success and personal- ity. Piedmont et al (1999) administered the NEO-PI to 79 female foot- ballers. The skill of the players was assessed by coaches and by game statistics (goals scored, possession, tackles won, etc.). Interestingly, extraversion and neuroticism were strongly correlated with coaches’ ratings, but not with performance as judged objectively by game statistics. This suggests that either coaches’ ratings or game statistics were invalid measures of performance. The only trait associated with objective performance was conscientiousness, high levels being associated with good performance. Reﬂective exercise Practise your critical and creative thinking on the Piedmont study. 1. Critically evaluate both the measures of performance used, coaches’ ratings and game statistics. 2. Suggest ways in which you could investigate the validity of both these measures. Although these results show that we have had moderate success in relating personality characteristics to success in sport, there are some important provisos to bear in mind. Firstly, not all studies have con- ﬁrmed this type of relationship. For example, Davis (1991) attempted to predict success in the selection of professional ice hockey players in trials by measuring personality traits, and he found no relationship between selection and personality. Secondly, there are serious limits to the usefulness of knowing that there is a modest relationship between personality and success. Although we can help improve an individual’s motivation and focus, and we can help athletes manage their anxiety, we cannot fundamentally change someone’s personal- ity. Neither, as Davis demonstrated, can we select people purely on 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 21 the basis of their personality when there are more important factors, both psychological and physical, affecting performance. Personality and choice of sport Personality and sport has proved a rather more fruitful area of study, and some important differences between the personalities of success- ful athletes in different sports have emerged. This is perhaps unsurprising when we consider the varying demands of different sports. In the Schurr et al (1977) study, although relatively few differ- ences emerged between athletes and non-athletes, considerable dif- ferences were found between team and individual players. Team players emerged as more anxious and extrovert than individual competitors. Another important distinction has emerged between the person- alities of those taking part in high- and low-risk sports. Breivik (1996) administered the 16PF to 38 elite Norwegian climbers and found a distinctive proﬁle characterised by very high levels of stability, extra- version and adventure seeking. In another study, Freixanet (1999) administrated the EPQ to a range of high-risk sports participants, including 72 mountaineers, and a control group of low-risk athletes. The mountaineers and other high-risk athletes were characterised by signiﬁcantly higher levels of extraversion and low levels of neuroti- cism. Other high-risk sports have also attracted attention. Using the NEO-PI, Diehm & Armatas (2004) compared the personality of 44 golfers (low-risk) and 41 surfers (high-risk). Surfers emerged as sig- niﬁcantly higher on the openness scale, meaning that they were more open to new experiences (Figure 2.2). Narrow-band theories of personality Trait theories proper aim to be comprehensive accounts of personality, seeking to explain all variations in individual behaviour. However, in addition to these rather grand theories, there are a number of more modest theories that focus on speciﬁc aspects of personality. We call these narrow-band theories. Three narrow-band approaches to personality are worth a particularly close look: sensation-seeking, telic dominance and mental toughness. Sensation seeking Zuckerman (1978) identiﬁed sensation seeking as an aspect of person- ality. Sensation seeking reﬂects the amount of stimulation a person will seek. Zuckerman (1978) identiﬁed four separate factors that make 22 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Figure 2.2 What personality differences can you see between golfers and surfers? Copyright © Will & Deni McIntyre/Corbis Copyright © Don Mason/Corbis up sensation seeking, namely seeking of thrills and adventure, tendency to act on impulse, seeking of new experiences and vulner- ability to boredom. Zuckerman has produced a personality test meas- uring sensation seeking. Some items from Zuckerman’s scale are shown in Box 2.6. Studies have found that sensation seeking, as measured by Zuck- erman’s scale, is positively related to drug-taking, sexual experimen- tation, public drunkenness and volunteering for high-risk activities. Clearly, the last is of interest to sport psychologists, who are interested 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 23 Box 2.6 Items from Zuckerman’s sensation-seeking scale Circle the choice A or B, that best describes you. 1. A. I would like a job that requires a lot of travelling. B. I would prefer a job in one location. 2. A. I am invigorated by a cold, brisk day. B. I can’t wait to get inside on a cold day. 3. A. I get bored seeing the same old faces. B. I like the comfortable familiarity of everyday friends. 4. A. I would prefer living in an ideal society in which everyone is safe, secure and happy. B. I would have preferred living in the unsettled days of our history. 5. A. I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening. B. A sensible person avoids activities that are dangerous. in who chooses to participate in risky sports. In one study, Jack & Ronan (1998) assessed 166 athletes from both high-risk sports, such as hang-gliding, mountaineering and motor racing, and low-risk activ- ities such as aerobics and golf, using Zuckerman’s sensation-seeking scale. High scores on the Zuckerman scale were associated with participation in high-risk sports. Telic dominance The idea of telic dominance comes from the wider ﬁeld of reversal theory (Apter, 1993), an approach to analysing human motivation that explains personality in terms of individual differences in motivational style. According to reversal theory, we all alternate between telic states, in which we avoid arousal, and paratelic states, in which we seek arousal. Some of us can be said to be dominated by telic states and others by paratelic states; that is, we spend most of our time in that state. We are thus said to be telic dominant or paratelic dominant. Murgatroyd et al (1978) have produced a 42-item personality test designed to measure telic dominance. Some items from Murgatroyd’s Telic Dominance Scale (TDS) are shown in Box 2.7. Kerr (1997) has suggested that telic dominance affects choice of sport, sporting achievement and the response of the individual to the pressure of competition. Because arousal is associated with high risk, we would expect highly paratelic-dominant people to prefer high-risk sports, whereas telic-dominant individuals might prefer more low-risk activities. This hypothesis was tested in a study by Chirivella & Martinez (1994), in which participants in a high-risk sport (para- sailing) were compared for telic dominance with those opting for a 24 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Box 2.7 Items from the Telic Dominance Scale Here are some alternative choices. If you had an open choice, which of the following alternatives would you usually prefer? 1. Compile a short dictionary for ﬁnancial reward. Write a short story for fun. Not sure. 2. Going to evening class to improve your qualiﬁcations. Going to evening class for fun. Not sure. 3. Leisure activities that are just exciting. Leisure activities that have a purpose. Not sure. 4. Improving a sporting skill by playing a game. Improving it by systematic practice. Not sure. medium-risk sport (karate) and a low-risk sport (tennis). As expected, there were signiﬁcant differences between the three groups, para- sailors being the most paratelic dominant and tennis players the most telic dominant. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between telic dominance and sporting achievement. Snell (1991), using the TDS, compared professional and amateur triathletes. No differences were found in serious-mindedness or planning orientation, but pro- fessionals scored signiﬁcantly lower on arousal avoidance, suggesting that an important factor in success is being able to cope with the additional pressure (hence arousal) of professional-level sport. Mental toughness The term ‘mental toughness’ has been used for some time by athletes and commentators, but has only very recently become a focus of atten- tion for sport psychologists. It has been deﬁned in a range of ways, but a common thread in all these deﬁnitions seems to be the ability to cope with difﬁcult circumstances. This manifests in a range of qualities, including coping with pressure of competition, coming back after failure, determination and resilience (Middleton et al, 2004). Jones et al (2002) carried out individual interviews and focus groups with international-level athletes in an attempt to clarify what the athletes saw as mental toughness. Interestingly, athletes framed mental toughness in relativistic terms, that is, in terms relative to other 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 25 competitors: ‘Mental toughness is having the natural or developed psychological edge that enables you to: 1. Generally cope better than your opponents with the many demands... that sport places on a performer; and 2) Speciﬁcally, be more consistent and better than your opponents in remaining determined, focused, conﬁdent, and in control under pressure’ (p 209). There have been a number of attempts to measure mental tough- ness by self-rating inventories. Establishing a valid measure has not been made easier by difﬁculties in arriving at a precise deﬁnition. However, a number of such measures exist. Items from one such measure are shown in Box 2.8. Box 2.8 Items from Goldberg’s (1998) mental toughness questionnaire (Answer T for True and F for False for each statement) 1) I frequently worry about mistakes. T F 2) I get really down on myself during performance when I mess up. T F 3) It’s easy for me to let go of my mistakes. T F 4) If I start out badly, it’s hard for me to turn my performance around. T F 5) I get distracted by what the coach thinks whenever I screw up. T F 6) I bounce back quickly from setbacks, bad breaks and mistakes. T F Clough et al (2002) have attempted to explain mental toughness as a set of coping skills that combine to make the individual hardy, that is, able to thrive under pressure. The concept of hardiness was developed in the ﬁeld of health psychology by Kobasa (1979), whose aim was to explain why a minority of people do not appear to experi- ence stress in circumstances that would be unhealthy for most of us. Clough and colleagues identiﬁed four characteristics underlying hardiness. control; being able to keep emotions in check commitment; taking an active role in events challenge; a positive attitude to change conﬁdence; self-belief. Support for the importance of hardiness comes from a study by Golby et al (2003), in which 70 international rugby league players were assessed for mental toughness and hardiness by standard measures (the Psychological Performance Inventory and the Personal Views Survey, respectively). Hardiness emerged as a signiﬁcant factor affect- ing performance. At the time of writing, however, there is little con- 26 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY sensus about how mental toughness should be deﬁned and explained. Given the importance accorded to it by athletes, this is a source of frustration and represents a failure by the discipline of sport psychology. Attentional style Nideffer (1976) proposed that athletes’ personality can be classiﬁed according to their individual information-processing characteristics. More speciﬁcally, he believed that our attention (the cognitive pro- cesses by which we focus and maintain focus on particular sources of information) can be measured in terms of two dimensions, width and direction. Width refers to our tendency to take in a broad range of information as opposed to focusing very narrowly on one source of information whilst tuning out other sources. Direction refers to where we tend to focus our attention, and varies from internal (our own mental and physical state) to external (what is happening around us). Clearly, there are times when it is beneﬁcial to focus narrowly and others when a wider focus is preferable. For example, tennis players must be able to focus narrowly on the ball but also use a broad focus to establish which way the opponent is moving – and hence to plan their next stroke. Similarly, it is sometimes important to focus on ourselves and other times more important to be able to focus on external events. For example, a rugby forward might maintain an internal focus in a scrum to be sure he was pushing effectively but an external focus to follow the direction of the ball. Effective attenders are those who can rapidly switch the direction and width of their attention and who do not easily become overloaded by information. Effective attention is beneﬁcial in all sports. However, success in some sports is particularly associated with a particular attentional skill. For example, karateka particularly value a broad external focus (called zanshin), which allows the ﬁghter to detect an attack from any direction. Attentional style is measured by means of a 144-item question- naire, the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style (TAIS). This measures 17 dimensions of personality, of which six are concerned with attention. The following three scales measure positive aspects of attentional style: 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 27 The broad external scale (BET) assesses the athlete’s ability to focus on several external stimuli. The broad internal scale (BIT) assesses the ability to analyse information from several sources. The narrow focus (NAR) scale assesses the ability to focus narrowly on one stimulus. We would expect high scores on these scales to be associated with good performance. The other three scales measure negative aspects of attentional style, and we would expect high scores to be associated with poor performance. The overload external (OET) scale assesses the athlete’s tendency to become overloaded with external stimuli and make errors as a result. The overload internal (OIT) scale assesses the tendency to become confused when analysing too many sources of data simultaneously. The reduced focus (RED) scale assesses the tendency to maintain too narrow a focus. Box 2.9 shows some items from the TAIS. Box 2.9 Items from the TAIS 1. When people talk to me, I ﬁnd myself distracted by the sights and sounds around me. 2. When people talk to me, I ﬁnd myself distracted by my own thoughts and ideas. 3. All I need is a little information, and I can come up with a large number of ideas. 4. My thoughts are limited to the objects and people in my immediate surroundings. 5. I need to have all the information before I say or do anything. 6. The work I do is focused narrowly, proceeding in a logical fashion. There is some evidence to support the usefulness of Nideffer’s approach. In one study, Nideffer (1976) administered the TAIS to a range of world and Olympic champions and found that one particular subscale, measuring effective narrowing of attention, predicted the number of gold medals won. A more recent study by Baghurst et al (2004) supports the distinction between internal and external 28 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY directions. Using the TAIS, the researchers identiﬁed seven novice rowers with a strongly internal attentional style and seven with a strongly external style. Each group completed two 15-minute rowing trials. In one condition, they were asked to focus on their digital dis- play to maintain constant attention on their performance. In the other, they were required to dissociate from the task by doing sums. Interest- ingly, the individuals identiﬁed as internal by means of the TAIS rowed further in 15 minutes when focusing on their performance, whereas those identiﬁed as external by the TAIS rowed further when focusing on sums (an external focus). However, not all studies have found such supportive results, and several commentators have ques- tioned the validity of the TAIS. One particular problem concerns the ability of athletes to reﬂect accurately on their own attentional pro- cesses. Of course, the TAIS relies on this, as it measures athletes’ perceptions of their attentional abilities rather than the abilities themselves. Discussion of the trait and narrow-band approaches The usefulness of the trait approach largely depends on its success in measuring personality. Personality tests derived from trait theories, such as the EPI and the 16PF, are called self-rating inventories. There are numerous problems with this type of test, and, if you have ever ﬁlled in an EPI or EPQ and received a score, you would be well advised not to take the results too seriously. Tests like this have limited test–retest reliability; that is, if you test someone and then test them again a few days or weeks later, they will tend to give the same responses to only about 80% of the questions. Answers to this type of test are inﬂuenced by mood and the social desirability of the answers – most people would rather be seen as extrovert than introvert and as stable rather than neurotic. Who administers the test and how they do so (e.g. alone or in a group) can also affect people’s responses. Ultimately, the trait approach to personality has yielded some fas- cinating results, but has limited application in sport psychology. As already discussed, we cannot radically change someone’s personality traits in order to make them a better athlete. Nor would it be wise to use personality traits as a way of selecting athletes – seeing people perform will always be a better test of their potential. One way in which the trait approach can be useful, however, is in proﬁling indi- vidual athletes so that the sport psychologist can identify the type of 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 29 difﬁculties that they are likely to encounter. Personality proﬁling involves measuring an athlete on a number of personality scales and building up a picture of their strengths and weaknesses. We might, for example, ﬁnd that when a promising athlete is proﬁled, their only weakness is in achievement motivation or competitive anxiety. A coach can beneﬁt from knowing this and may choose to manage that athlete accordingly. However, the best proﬁles of this type do not just measure personality traits but other psychological factors as well. We can return to the issue of proﬁling when discussing the interactional approach. Situational and interactional approaches One of the problems with trait theories, and to some extent with narrow-band theories as well, is that they assume that the individual’s behaviour is consistent across a variety of situations. This largely ignores the impact that the situation itself has on the person’s response. Mischel (1968) put forward the situationalist approach. This was a radical theory that rejected entirely the idea of stable personality traits. Instead, Mischel proposed that people’s responses to situations could be explained entirely by the speciﬁcs of the situation. Effectively, this is a rejection of the whole concept of personality. Reﬂective exercise Imagine you are about to compete in a practice sprint at your local college or club. There are a few friends around, but nobody is paying you too much attention. No other serious runners are taking part. Now imagine instead that you are lining up for the ﬁnal of the Olympic 100 metres. 1. List all the aspects of these two situations you can think of that differ. 2. How might your response to these two situations differ? Nowadays, virtually no psychologists would accept situationalism as a complete explanation of behaviour. Mischel (1990) has himself backtracked somewhat, whilst still maintaining the important point that the way individuals think, feel and act in different situations varies considerably more than we would expect if trait theory were entirely correct. The idea that our behaviour at any time is the product of an interaction between the situation and our personality is called the interactional view, ﬁrst proposed by Bowers (1973). 30 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Applying the interactional model to sport The vignette in the reﬂective exercise above should illustrate the importance of situations. However, we can understand people’s behaviour better if we look at how the situation interacts with their personality. You probably all know someone who is a friendly, jolly character who, in their social life, would not hurt a ﬂy, yet, on the sports ﬁeld seems almost uncontrollably aggressive. We cannot explain this person’s actions by situation or personality alone. We know that they are not simply aggressive because their behaviour is not aggressive in other situations. We also know that competing on the sports ﬁeld does not make the rest of us uncontrollably aggressive. Therefore, this individual’s aggression when taking part in sport must Figure 2.3 The result from some complex interaction between their personality and relative importance of the sporting situation. personality, situation Cox (2001) has estimated the importance of various factors in and other factors in sporting performance. Personality, situation and the interaction athletic performance between personality and situation together account for less than half (from Cox, 2001). the variance in athletic performance, as shown in Figure 2.3. Proﬁling moods We know that, although we can produce proﬁles of athletes’ personalities, this is not necessarily useful in predicting how well they will perform. However, the interactional model gives us another angle on proﬁling. Instead of trying to measure people’s underlying personality traits, we can instead meas- ure their mood at the time of performance. An ath- lete’s mood at any one time is a product of both personality and situation; therefore, it is a much more valid measure of their psychological state during performance. McNair et al (1972) developed the Proﬁle of Mood States (POMS), a 65-item questionnaire that assesses individuals on six scales: tension, depression, anger, vig- our, fatigue and confusion. The POMS was originally developed for assessing the state of psychiatric patients, but it quickly caught on in the ﬁeld of sport psychology. Morgan (1979) have produced the mood proﬁle for elite athletes, by measuring them on each of the POMS scales. Figure 2.4 shows the classic iceberg proﬁle of an elite athlete. The ﬂatter proﬁle of the less successful athlete is also shown. Elite athletes score lower on most mood measures, notably on tension and depression, but higher on 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 31 Figure 2.4 Mood proﬁles of elite and unsuccessful athletes. vigour. Numerous studies have shown that elite athletes from a var- iety of sports do tend to exhibit the iceberg proﬁle. Thus, Bell & Howe (1988) found iceberg proﬁles in triathletes, and Gat & McWhirter (1998) found the same pattern in cyclists. Beedie et al (2000) carried out a meta-analysis of previous studies relating POMS to perform- ance. Meta-analysis is a statistical technique in which the results of previous studies are combined, weighting each study for sample size. In this case meta-analysis revealed that, taken across a range of sports, POMS proﬁles were fairly predictive of performance. Vigour, de- pression and confusion were particularly strongly associated with performance. Discussion of the interactional approach As the interactional approach looks at how individuals respond to speciﬁc sport-related situations, it is more useful than the trait approach for predicting athletic performance. Of course, in practice, the two approaches can be used together. When proﬁles of individual athletes are drawn up for training purposes, the best proﬁles include information about both personality and mood states. In her review of personality research in sport, Vealey (1989) identi- ﬁed a shift away from trait measurement since the 1970s in favour of the interactional approach. However, this approach is not without its critics. Some sport psychologists reject the idea of testing athletes for mood or traits. Prapavessis (2000) points out that where studies com- pare average POMS scores of elite and unsuccessful athletes, these averages obscure wide individual differences. This was conﬁrmed by a study of golfers (Hassmen et al, 1998), in which pre-performance moods were associated with performance in some players but not in others. Thus, there are highly successful performers who do not exhibit an iceberg proﬁle. In general, POMS scores are only moder- ately predictive of performance. 32 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Summary and conclusions Considerable energy has been spent in the attempt to understand the relationship between sporting participation and achievement and personality. One approach involves looking at personality traits, stable aspects of personality with a partial genetic basis. The most inﬂuential trait theories are those of Eysenck, Cattell, and Costa and McCrae. They differ primarily in their view of the number of traits that make up personality. There is some evidence to suggest that some traits are associated with participation and success in sport; for example, sporting participants tend to be more extravert and stable than non-participants. However, results are mixed, and we should be wary about drawing too many hard and fast conclusions. There are alternatives to the trait approach and these have been gaining ground in recent years. One alternative is the narrow-band approach, which, rather than breaking down all aspects of person- ality to traits, focuses on speciﬁc aspects of personality. Sensation seeking has received particular attention and is reliably associated with participation in high-risk sports. The quality of mental tough- ness is considered important by athletes but thus far has deﬁed precise deﬁnition and explanation by sport psychologists. Atten- tional style appears to be a promising line of research, but there are questions over the validity of current measures. Another alternative to looking at traits is the interactional approach, which looks at the interaction between individuals and their situation; this may result, for example, in a proﬁle of mood states. A substantial body of research has shown that, at least for many athletes, individual per- formance is associated with a distinctive ‘iceberg’ proﬁle of mood states. Self-assessment questions 1. Deﬁne personality. Your deﬁnition should take account of the trait, narrow-band and interactional perspectives. 2. Compare and contrast the trait theories of Eysenck and Cattell. 3. Critically discuss research into the relationship between sporting participation and choice of sport and personality traits. 4. To what extent can sporting success be considered a product of personality traits? 5. Explain why mental toughness is considered an important concept but is so difﬁcult to pin down. 6. Discuss the concept of attentional style. 2. PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SPORTING BEHAVIOUR 33 7. What are the advantages of adopting an interactional approach to personality? Discuss the POMS as a measurement instrument appropriate to the interactional approach. Further reading Clough P, Earle K & Sewell D (2002) Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In Cockerill I (ed) Solutions in sport psy- chology. London, Thomson Learning. Gill D (2000) Psychological dynamics of sport. Champagne, IL, Human Kinetics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology Volume 12, Special Issue: Proﬁle of mood states. March 2000. Kremer J & Scully D (1994) Psychology in sport. Hove, Taylor & Francis. Vealey RS (2002) Personality and sport behaviour. In Horn T (ed) Advances in sport psychology. Champagne, IL, Human Kinetics. 34 SPORT PSYCHOLOGY Personality development and sport 3 Learning

Sport Psychology - Recomended Textbook.pdf

Document Details

Tags

Related

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue