Sports Psych Review

9.1 Theories of Motivation

• Self Efficacy (Bandura) – Beliefs in own competence – Influenced by 4 factors • Previous experience • • Modelling Verbal persuasion, encouragement • Interpretation of emo/physio arousal

Self Efficacy Research

• Hochstetler et al (1985) – 40 female cyclists • Grp 1: video of struggles, then task • Grp 2: video of success, then same task • Grp 1 found task much harder • Evidence for impact of modeling

Self Efficacy Research (cont.)

• • Feltz et al (1989) – Field study, hockey team – S-E correlated to team performance and increases as season progresses – Evidence for previous experience Bandura and Banfield (1991) – Belief in EFFORT more than talent develops high S E

Eval Self Efficacy

• • •

strengths

Successfully applied Empirically studied Strong predictor of performance • •

limits

Must be combined with other factors Some studies are only correlational

Competence Motivation Theory

• Harter (1978) – Feelings of COMPETENCE are the primary factors in motivation – “Perceived Competence” predicts: • Cognitive outcomes (S-E, Control) • Affective outcomes (enjoy, anxiety) • Behavioral outcomes (performance)

Competence Motivation Theory

• • • Challenging/realistic goals increase motivation Unsuccessful attempts result in perceived failure, decrease motivation Positive feedback helps raise perceived competence

Competence Motivation Research

• Ommundsen et al (1991) – 223 Norwegian male soccer players age 14-16 interviewed – Low competence, low peer popularity = low persistence, low connection to team and low enjoyment – All resulted in low motivation

9.2 Role of Goal Setting

• 3 types of goals – Outcome goals (ego goals): focus on winning – Performance goals (task goals): focus on individual performance – Process goals : focus on skill improvement

Achievement Goal Theory

• Nichols (1984) – One’s internal sense of ability (task vs ego) is the central motivating factor – Task : skill mastery, high intrinsic motivation – Ego : win, low intrinsic motivation, higher stress/pressure and social comparison

Goal Setting Research

• Filby et al (1999) – Field experiment, soccer for 5 weeks – Grp 1: no goals – Grp 2: outcome goals – Grp 3: process goals – Grp 4: outcome and process goals – Grp 5: outcome, performance and process goals – Results: grps 4 and 5 outperformed others

• Ntoumanis et al (1999) – Task: better problem solvers, coping strategies and social support – Ego: emotion focused problem solvers, negative feelings, increased concern over personal mistakes

4 Reasons Why Goal Work

• • • • 1. Goals direct attention 2. Goals help energize 3. Goals affect persistence 4. Goals lead to the discovery of strategies of achievement

9.3 Arousal, Anxiety and Performance

• Gould (2000) – Athletic performance reflects close coordination between mind and body – Arousal: physio activity – Anxiety: negative emotional state • Cognitive: negative thoughts • • Somatic: body’s stress reaction State: apprehension, nervousness • Trait: perceived threat when none exists

The Inverted U Theory

• Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908)

Inverted U Research

• Oxendine (1970) – Nature of skill affects optimal arousal levels

• Klavora (1998) – 95 male HS basketball players – Pregame anxiety measured by test – Results: moderate pregame anxiety was better than high/low anxiety for optimal performance

• • (Fazey & Hardy, 1988) Catastrophe Model When anxiety level exceeds the optimal level drop in performance is dramatic, not gradual

Eval Inverted U

• • •

strengths

Successful application in sports Predictive value Can help explain poor performance • • • • •

limits

No clear explanation as to why this happens Too general Does not account for individual factors Theory can clearly explain the origin of arousal Does not account for S-E and other cognitive factors

Optimal Arousal Theory (IZOF)

• • • Hanin (1997): Top athletes have own, individual zone of optimal anxiety (IZOF) IZOF is unique to all athletes When arousal level and cognitive anxiety level meet result is peak performance

IZOF Research

• • Raglin & Morris ((1994) – College V-ball players reached IZOF vs high quality opponents but not vs low quality opponents – Evidence for upsets in competition Amnesi (1998) – 3 elite tennis players, established IZOF for each and taught anxiety reduction techniques – All showed increased performance

Eval Optimal Arousal (IZOF)

• • •

Strengths

Successfully applied in sports Empirically supported Numerous examples at all levels of sport • • • •

limits

Very time consuming to establish IZOF IZOF is a moving target IZOF is dependent on numerous uncontrolled variables Cannot explain why IZOF is not necessary at all times

9. 4 Techniques for Skill Development in Sport

• • • •

Massed Practice

Continuous Used to train “discrete tasks”: free throw, golf swing etc… Goal: accurate and automatic performance under pressure Variable practice is a combination of both; helps increase motivation • • •

Distributed Practice

Interval Used to train “continuous tasks”: swimming, cycling etc… Utilizes modeling, repetition and feedback

Massed vs Distributed Research

• • • • • •

Singer (1965)

Massed vs Distributed practice in basketball Grp 1: massed (80 shots) Grp 2: distributed (4 x 20 shots, 5 min rest) Grp 3:distributed (4 x 20 shots, 24 hr rest) 2 tests over 4 days Results: practice with rest shows best results • •

Lee & Genovese (1988)

Meta analysis of 116 studies Distributed found to be BETTER than massed for motor skills in both MASTERY of skill and PERFORMANCE

Imagery

The brain uses the same neural mechanisms to imagine movements as it does with actual movements.

• Monroe et al (2000) – Where used: pre competition – When used: during practice and competition – Why used: promote confidence and S-E – What is used: positive images, emotions • Martin et al (1999) – Applied Imagery Model • Cognitive specific: imagine the skill • Cognitive general: imagine strategy • Motivational specific: enhancing motivation • Motivational arousal: regulating stress • Motivational general mastery: staying focused

Imagery (cont.)

• Moritz et al (1996) – Studied the relationship between imagery & confidence – Elite athletes use imagery related to mastery and emotion – Correlational study • Callow & Hardy (2001) – 123 female netball players – Studied the relationship between imagery & confidence – Low skilled players: motivational general mastery imagery – High skilled: goal achievement imagery

Eval Imagery

• • • •

strengths

Powerful technique Empirically demonstrated Supported by neuroimaging studies Relates to S-E and performance • • •

Limits

Not effective for all Low confidence = imagined failure Validity issues with self reporting results

9.5 Role of Coaches

• Horn & Lox (1993)

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

– Coach forms expectations – Expectations affect treatment of athlete – Different treatment influences perceptions of competence – Athlete’s behavior\performance conforms to expectations

Coaching Behavior and Expectations

• Weinberg & Gould (2007) – Categories based on high or low expectations • Frequency/quality of coach-athlete interaction: more given to “best” players • Quantity/quality of instruction: better teaching for “best” players • Type/frequency of feedback: better, more timely for “best” players

Role of Coaches Research

•

Chase et al (1997) Coaches’ efficacy beliefs and team performance

4 D-III women’s b-ball coaches, questionnaire – – – High efficacy expectations were reinforced by good preparation Efficacy expectations were linked to skills Coaches should focus on self improvement and effort (controllable factors) • • •

Alfermann et al (2005) Coaches’ influence on skill development

How do leadership styles (Democratic vs Autocratic) and feedback impact skills?

Study 1: 119 swimmers, questionnaires, 1 year – D = mastery climate, positive relationship to performance Study 2: 212 youth athletes (individual and team), questionnaires – Team sports require more group oriented behavior from coach

9.6 Team Cohesion and Performance

• 4 factors of cohesion – 1. Individual factors : player identification with team – 2. Team factors : communication, goals, efficacy – 3. Leadership factors : culture, collective responsibility – 4. Environmental Factors : size of group, pressure to perform

Cohesion Research

• • •

Carron et al (1985) Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)

GEQ measures: Task cohesion: commitment to work together to achieve specific goals Social cohesion: like and enjoy playing together and supporting each other •

Carron et al (2002) Relationship between cohesion and performance

294 Canadian b-ball and soccer players given the GEQ – – Results: strong relationship between TASK cohesion and success TASK cohesion helps raise team efficacy, enhancing performance

9.7 Aids/Barriers to Cohesion

• • • •

Aids

Team Building, focus on team spirit and identity, player satisfaction Focus on performance and process goals for collective efficacy: common goals, ownership Democratic leadership style: open and approachable with players Clear communication: consistent communication on goals, roles and feedback •

Barriers

Weinberg & Gould (2008) – – – – – – Personality clashes Conflict between task and social roles Communication breakdown Power struggle Frequent turnover of group members Disconnect on goals

9.8 Response to Stress/Injury

• Stress process in sport – Stressors : overtraining, injury, bad grades, coach/team drama, external expectations, competition – Stress Response : Arousal (somatic and psychological), anxiety, cognitive appraisal – Coping : Emotion vs Problem Focused coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)

Two Approaches to Stress

• •

Holmes & Rahe (1967) Major Life Events

Rating scale for life event (job change, death of a loved one, divorce etc…) Adapted for use in sports (problems with coach or teammate etc…) •

Lazarus & Folkman (1984) Cognitive Appraisal

Athlete’s perception to situation in relation to coping resources is key to behavior – Imbalance between own abilities and demands results in negative feelings; balance results in positive feelings

Athlete Response to Stress

• Gould (1993) Coping strategies in elite athletes to manage stress – Olympic wrestlers and National Champ figure skaters, questionnaires about managing stress – Results found 4 dimensions of coping themes: • 1. Thought control: self talk, positive thinking • 2. Attention control: concentration cues • • 3. Behavioral control: fixed routines 4. Emotional control: relaxation and visualization

Two Hypotheses on Role of Stress and Injury

• • 1. Stress disrupts attention – Poor attention leads to increased risk of injury 2. Stress produce increased muscle tension and reduces coordination – Reduced coordination leads to higher risk of injury – Anderson & Williams (1999): negative life event stressors were the only significant predictor of injury in 196 college athletes

Cognitive Appraisal Model (Wiese, Bjornstal, 1998)

• • Primary Appraisal: what is at stake, challenge, threat, benefit or loss Secondary Appraisal: how can you cope, options available

Athlete Response to Chronic Injury

• Shuer et al (1997) – Aim: psych and coping responses to chronic injury – 280 elite college athletes, measured coping responses, intrusive thoughts and avoidance coping – Results: chronically injured athletes scored highest on avoidance coping with females scoring higher than males, indicating high rates of denial

9.1 Reasons for Using Drugs in Sport

• Goldman (1984) – Asked 198 elite athletes if they would take a “magic drug” that would allow them to win gold w/out being caught – 98% said yes;

52% said yes even if it would kill them in 5 years

• Physical reasons – Enhance performance – Cope with pain/taining – Control wieght – Develop strength/stamina

• Psychological reasons – Control emotions – Control stress response – Build self confidence – Gain mental edge

• Social reasons – Pressure from coaches/parents to perform – Peer pressure and need for acceptance – Financial concerns—scholarships, prize money, bonuses

Research on Drug Use

• • • •

Anshel (1991)

Survey of 126 US athletes from 9 sports 64% aware of use on team 43% knew drugs were to enhance performance Drugs taken for physical & psych reasons • • • • • •

Wadler & Hainline (1989)

Athletes may be more likely to experiment w/drugs due to 5 factors 1. pressure to reach next level 2. careers are finite 3. weight is always an issue 4. injury is always an issue 5. external pressure always exists

• • Smith et al (2010) Narrative based case study of 11 Aussie athletes – Said use of drugs was cheating, attitudes were shaped by: • 1. legality of drug • • 2. drug’s impact on performance 3. early sporting experience/culture • • 4. commercial pressures 5. Individual desire to use • 6. existing use of drug within the sport

Game Theory

• • Why would rational athletes decide to take drugs?

“Prisoner’s Dilemma”

Applied Game Theory: Tour De France

• Shermer (2008) – Payoff is high, motivation to use drugs increases – Some cyclists take drugs, win and aren’t caught – Other cyclists see this and follow suit – Penalties are stiff so a “code of silence” reigns – Climate is such that if you don’t use, you can’t even compete – Riis, Ulrich, Contador, Landis, Armstrong all won and have tested positive in last 20 years

9.10 Effects of Drug Use in Sport

• WADA makes the list of banned substances based on classifications – PED’s: steroids, EPO, HGH etc… – Recreational: alcohol, cocaine, marijuana etc… Consequences for using Legal: prison, fines Ethical: banned from competing, stripped of wins, titles etc… Health Issues: side effects, addiction

Effects of Steroids

• • • Synthetic version of testosterone that stays in blood longer Bio Effects: increased muscle, increase # red blood cells, shrinking testes, sterility, “masculinizing effect”, risk of heart disease, kidney and liver problems, cancers Psych Effects: increased aggression (debatable) and impulsivity, mood swings

Steroid Research

• • Olrich (1999) Athletes perceptions of steroid effects – Interviews with 10 bodybuilders, 5 had stopped using – Only 1 reported side effects or guilt – All reported psychological addiction – All reported short term side effects are not a deterrent

• Case Study: Heidi Krieger (Andreas Krieger) – Victim of East German doping program from age 16 – By 18 she weighed 220lbs with masculinization effects and mood swings, aggression and problems with sexual identity – Career ended with knee, hip and back injuries and she became clinically depressed and considered suicide – Had a sex change operation and is now known as Andreas Krieger

9.11 Causes and Prevention of Burnout

• Smith (1986): Characteristics of Burnout – Physical/emotional exhaustion – Feelings of low accomplishment – Depersonalization, apathy for sport – Detected by: • Maslach Burnout Inventory • Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ)

Cognitive-Affective Stress Model (Smith 1986)

• How thoughts and feelings influence athlete’s burnout – Stage 1: Situation Demands: demands exceed resources = stress – Stage 2: Cognitive Appraisal: threat vs. challenge appraisal of situation = anxious or excited – Stage 3: Physiological Responses: fight or flight due to appraisal – Stage 4: Behavioral Response: performance issues, cohesion problems, withdrawal

Burnout Research

• • Gould (1996, 97) Longitudinal study of tennis players found a number of personal & situational factors in burnout – Physical concerns – Logistical concerns – Social/interpersonal concerns – Psychological concerns Results indicated a combination of social and psych stressors along with external demands contributed to burnout

Investment Model of Burnout

(Entrapment Theory)

• Raedeke (1997) – Assumes athletes consider costs and benefits of their sport – Burnout results from the imbalance between perceived costs and benefits – Commitment based on enjoyment: sport is rewarding of itself—no burnout – Commitment based on entrapment: sport is unsatisfying of itself—high burnout risk

Burnout Prevention

–

Cognitive Affective S tress M anagement (Smith, 1980) SMT

•

T raining Mental/physical coping strategies designed to prevent burnout in 4 steps

–

Pre-treatment Assessment : interviews to assess the athlete’s stress response and appraisal

–

Treatment Rationale : athlete analyzes and gains understanding of personal stress reactions

–

Skill Acquisition : athlete learns relaxation, cognitive restructuring and self talk

–

Skill Rehearsal : stress is induced to allow athlete to practice new stress reducing skills

•

Stress Inoculation Theory (SIT) Meichenbaum, 1985

– Athlete is exposed to increasing levels of stress in 3 stages, thereby enhancing his/her immunity “Learned Resourcefulness” – Stage 1: Conceptualization: athlete becomes aware of +/-- thoughts, self talk, imagery – Stage 2: Rehearsal: practice – Stage 3: Application: athlete encounters low stress and then moves up to moderate then high and applies what was rehearsed in stage 2 – Prepare--control--cope--evaluate--overcome