Sports Psychology
Why Pro Athletes Attract Trouble
As first seen on LiveScience.com
and Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
From the "athletes behaving badly" department (in the past month, anyway):
• NHL bad boy (Sean Avery) was suspended for six games for a crude remark.
• Six NFL players were suspended for allegedly violating the league's drug policy.
• Another NFL player (Adam "Pacman" Jones) returned to his team's roster after being suspended, again, for an off-field altercation.
• Oh, and NFL receiver (Plaxico Burress) accidentally shot himself in a nightclub with a gun he was not licensed to carry.
Despite the 24/7 media coverage of each of these incidents, sports fans have become accustomed to and somewhat complacent with hearing about athletes and their deviant acts.
In fact, new statistics reveal that bad behavior is clearly evident among high school athletes, particularly in high-contact sports.
It starts young
Besides the highly publicized stories, there are thousands more across the nation involving amateur athletes taking risks both on and off the field. From performance-enhancing supplements to referee/official abuse to fights, guns and recorded crimes, the image of sports as a positive influence on athletes may need a second look.
Granted, in a population of any size there will be a few bad apples. However, these actions have become so prevalent that academic researchers have created a branch of study called "deviance in sports" attached to the sports sociology tree.
They are asking questions and challenging some assumptions about cause and effect. Is there a connection between sports participation and deviance? Does the intense competition and battle on the field shape a player's off-the-field lifestyle? Since success in sports brings attention and prestige to athletes, does the risk of losing that status cause a need to take risks to maintain their "top dog" positions?
In their new book, "Deviance and Social Control in Sport," researchers Michael Atkinson and Kevin Young emphasize the confusing environment surrounding athletes. They describe two types of deviance: wanted and unwanted.
Owners, players and fans may know that certain behaviors are literally against the rules but are at the same time appreciated as a sign of doing whatever it takes to win. Performance-enhancing drugs are not allowed in most sports, but athletes assume they will improve their performance, which helps their team win and keeps fans happy. Fights in hockey will be, according to the rule book, penalized, but this deviance is assumed to be wanted by fans and teammates as a sign of loyalty.
However, related bad behavior can quickly turn on a player to being socially unwanted.
Abuse of drugs that don't contribute to a win, (marijuana, cocaine, alcohol), will transform that same player into a villain with shock and outrage being reported in the media. In the Sean Avery example, a hockey player fighting to defend his teammates on the ice can then be suspended from the team and criticized by those same teammates for an off-color remark.
Real statistics
Most athletes who make it to the professional level have been involved in sports since youth. Sports sociologists and psychologists often look at the early development years of athletes to get a glimpse of patterns, social norms and influences that contribute to later behaviors.
In a recent American Sociological Review article, Derek Kreager, assistant professor of sociology at Penn State University, challenged the long-held belief that youth sports participation is exclusively beneficial to their moral character development.
With the focus on teaching teamwork, fair play, and self esteem, sports are often cited as the antidote to delinquency. But Kreager notes that other studies have looked at the culture that surrounds high school and college athletes and identified patterns of clichés, privileges and attitudes of superiority. For some athletes, these patterns are used to justify deviant behavior.
In fact, his most recent research attempted to find a cause-and-effect link between deviant behavior and specific sports. Specifically, he asked if high-contact, physical sports like football and wrestling created athletes who were more prone to violent behavior off the field.
Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, more than 6,000 male students from across 120 schools were included. The data set included a wide collection of socioeconomic information, including school activities, risk behaviors and at-home influences. Kreager's study analyzed the effects of three team sports (football, basketball, and baseball) and two individual sports (wrestling and tennis) on the likelihood of violent off-field behavior, specifically, fighting.
To isolate the effect of each sport, the study included control groups of non-athletes and those that had a history of physical violence prior to playing sports.
For team sports, football players were 40 percent more likely to be in a confrontation than non-athletes. In individual sports, wrestlers were in fights 45 percent more often, while tennis players were 35 percent less likely to be in an altercation. Basketball and baseball players showed no significant bias either way.
"Sports such as football, basketball, and baseball provide players with a certain status in society," Kreager said. "But football and wrestling are associated with violent behavior because both sports involve some physical domination of the opponent, which is rewarded by the fans, coaches and other players. Players are encouraged to be violent outside the sport because they are rewarded for being violent inside it."
Putt With Your Brain - Part 2
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If there is a poster child sport for our favorite phrase, "Sports Are 80 Percent Mental", it must be golf. Maybe its the slow pace of play that gives us plenty of time to think between shots. Maybe its the "on stage" performance feeling we get when we step up to that first tee in front of our friends (or strangers!) Maybe its the "high" of an amazing approach shot that lands 3 feet from the cup followed by the "low" of missing the birdie putt.
From any angle, a golf course is the sport psychologist's laboratory to study the mix of emotions, confidence, skill execution and internal cognitive processes that are needed to avoid buying rounds at the 19th hole. Last time, we looked at some of the recent research on putting mechanics, but, as promised, we now turn to the mental side of putting.
Sian Beilock and her team at the University of Chicago's Human Performance Lab
recently released the latest of a string of research studies on sports
performance, or more specifically, how not to choke under pressure.
Lucky for us, they chose putting as their sport skill of choice. This
ties in with Dr. Beilock's theory of embodied cognition that we
featured in Watching Sports Is Good For Your Brain.
An underlying theme to this work is the concept of automaticity,
or the ability to carry out sport skills without consciously thinking
about them. Performing below expectations (i.e. choking) starts when we
allow our minds to step out of this automatic mode and start thinking
about the steps to our putting stroke and all of those "swing thoughts"
that come with it ("keep your elbows in", "head down", "straight
back").
Our brain over analyzes and second-guesses the motor skills we
have learned from hundreds of practice putts. Previously, we looked at automaticity in other sports.
Of course, a key distinction to the definition of choking is that you
are playing "well below expectations". If you normally shoot par, but
now start missing easy putts, then there may be distractions that are
taking you out of your normal flow. Choking implies a temporary and
abnormal event. Automaticity theory would claim that it is these
distractions from some perceived pressure to perform that are affecting
your game.
Most research into sport skill performance divides the world into two
groups, novices and experts. Most sports have their own measures of
where the dividing line is between these groups. Expertise would imply
performance results not just experience. So, a golfer who has been
hacking away for 20 years but still can't break 100 would still be put
in the "novice" category.
Sport scientists design experiments that
compare performance between the groups given some variables, and then
hypothesize on the reason for the observed differences. Beilock, et al
have looked at golf putting from several different angles over the
years. Their research builds on itself, so let's review in reverse
chronological order.
Back in 2001, they began by comparing the two competing theories
of choking, distraction theory vs. explicit monitoring theory, and
designed a putting experiment to find the better explanation.
Distraction theory explains choking by assuming that the task of putting requires your direct attention and that high pressure situations will cause you to perform dual tasks - focus on your putting but also think about the pressure. This theory assumes there is no automaticity in skill learning and that we have to focus our attention on the skill every time.
Explicit monitoring theory claims that over
time, as we practice a skill to the point of becoming an "expert", we
proceduralize the task so that it becomes "automatic". Then, during a
high pressure situation, our brain becomes so concerned about
performance that it takes us out of automatic mode and tries to focus
on each step of the task. The research supported the explicit
monitoring theory as it was shown that the golf putting task was
affected by distractions and pressure for the experts but not the
novice putters.
So, how do we block out the pressure, so that our automaticity can kick in? Another 2001 study by Beilock
looked at mental imagery during putting. Using the same explicit
monitoring theory, should we try to think positive thoughts, like "this
ball is going in the hole" or "I have made this putt many times"? Also,
what happens if a stray negative thought, "don't miss this one!" enters
our brain? Should we try to suppress it and replace it with happy
self-talk?
She set up four groups, one receiving positive comments, one receiving negative comments, one receiving negative comments followed by positive comments and one receiving none as a control group. As expected, the happy people did improve their putting over the course of the trials, while the negative imagery hurt performance.
But, the
negative replaced with positive thought group did not show any more
improvement over the control group. So, when faced with a high
pressure, stressful situation ripe with the possibilities of choking,
try to repeat positive thoughts, but don't worry too much if the
occasional doubt creeps in.
Our strategy towards putting should also vary depending on our current
skill level. While learning the intricacies of putting, novices should
use different methods than experts, according to a 2004 study by Beilock, et al.
Novice golfers need to pay attention to the step by step components of
their swing, and they perform better when they do focus on the
declarative knowledge required.
Expert golfers, however, have practiced
their swing or putt so often that it has become "second nature" to the
point that if they are told to focus on the individual components of
their swing, they perform poorly. The experiment asked both novices and
expert golfers to first focus on their actual putting stroke by saying
the word "straight" when hitting the ball and to notice the alignment
of the putter face with the ball.
Next, they were asked to putt while also listening for a certain tone played in the background. When they heard the tone they were to call it out while putting. The first scenario, known as "skill-focused", caused the novices to putt more accurately but the experts to struggle. The second scenario, called "dual-task", distracted the novices enough to affect their putts, while the experts were not bothered and their putting accuracy was better.
Beilock showed that novices need the task focus to succeed while they
are learning to putt, while experts have internalized the putting
stroke so that even when asked to do two things, the putting stroke can
be put on "auto-pilot".
Finally, in 2008, Beilock's team added one more twist
to this debate. Does a stress factor even affect a golfer's performance
in their mind before they putt? This time, golfers, divided into the
usual novice and expert groups, were asked to first imagine or "image
execute" themselves making a putt followed by an actual putt. The
stress factor was to perform one trial under a normal, "take all the
time you need" time scenario and then another under a speeded or
time-limited scenario.
The novices performed better under the
non-hurried scenario in imagining the putt first followed by the actual
putt. The experts, however, actually did better in the hurried scenario
and worse in the relaxed setting. Again, the automaticity factor
explains the differences between the groups.
The bottom line throughout all of these studies is that if you're
learning to play golf, which includes putting, you should focus on your
swing/stroke but beware of the distractions which will take away your
concentration. That seems pretty logical, but for those that normally
putt very well, if you feel stress to sink that birdie putt, don't try
to focus in on the mechanics of your stroke. Trust the years of
experience that has taught your brain the combination of sensorimotor
skills of putting.
Just remember the Chevy Chase/Ty Webb philosophy;
"I'm going to give you a little advice. There's a force in the universe
that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with
it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.... Nah-na-na-na,
Ma-na-na-na...."
Sian L. Beilock, Thomas H. Carr (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (4), 701-725 DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.701
Sian
L. Beilock; James A. Afremow; Amy L. Rabe; Thomas H. Carr (2001).
"Don't Miss!" The Debilitating Effects of Suppressive Imagery on Golf
Putting Performance Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23 (3)
Beilock
S.L.; Bertenthal B.I.; McCoy A.M.; Carr T.H. (2004). Haste does not
always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus
accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (2), 373-379
Sian
Beilock, Sara Gonso (2008). Putting in the mind versus putting on the
green: Expertise, performance time, and the linking of imagery and
action The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (6), 920-932 DOI: 10.1080/17470210701625626
Putt With Your Brain - Part 1
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If Mark Twain thinks golf is "a good walk spoiled", then putting must be a brief pause to make you reconsider ever walking again. With about 50% of our score being determined on the green, we are constantly in search of the "secret" to getting the little white ball to disappear into the cup.
Lucky for us, there is no shortage of really smart people also
looking for the answer. The first 8 months of 2008 have been no
exception, with a golf cart full of research papers on just the topic
of putting.
Is the secret in the mechanics of the putt stroke or maybe
the cognitive set-up to the putt or even the golfer's psyche when
stepping up to the ball? This first post will focus on the mechanical
side and then we'll follow-up next time with a look inside the golfer's
mind.
Let's start with a tip that most golf instructors would give, "Keep
your head still when you putt". Jack Nicklaus said it in 1974, "the
premier technical cause of missed putts is head movement" (from "Golf My Way") and Tiger Woods said it in 2001, "Every good putter keeps the head absolutely still from start to finish" (from "How I Play Golf").
Who would argue with the two greatest golfers of all time? His name is Professor Timothy Lee,
from McMaster University, and he wanted to test that observation. So,
he gathered two groups of golfers, amateurs with handicaps of 12-40,
and professionals with scratch handicaps. Using an infrared tracking
system, his team tracked the motion of the putter head and the golfer's
head during sixty putts.
As predicted, the amateurs' head moved back in unison with their putter
head, something Lee calls an "allocentric" movement, which agrees with
the advice that novice golfers move their head. However, the expert
golfers did not keep their head still, but rather moved their heads
slightly in the opposite direction of the putter head.
On the
backswing, the golfer's head moved slightly forward; on the forward
stroke, the head moved slightly backward. This "egocentric" movement
may be the more natural response to maintain a centered, balanced
stance throughout the stroke. "The exact reasons for the opposite
coordination patterns are not entirely clear," explains Lee. "However,
we suspect that the duffers tend to just sway their body with the
motions of the putter.
In contrast, the good golfers probably are
trying to maintain a stable, central body position by counteracting the
destabilization caused by the putter backswing with a forward motion of
the head. The direction of head motion is then reversed when the putter
moves forward to strike the ball." Does that mean that pro golfers like
Tiger are not keeping their heads still? No, just that you may not have to keep your head perfectly still to putt effectively.
So, what if you do have the bad habit of moving your head? Just teach
yourself to change your putting motion and you will be cutting strokes
off of your score, right? Well, not so fast. Simon Jenkins of Leeds Metropolitan University tested 15
members of the PGA European Tour to see if they could break old
physical habits during putting. His team found that players who usually
use shoulder movement in their putting action were not able to change
their ways even when instructed to use a different motion. Old habits
die hard.
Let's say you do keep your head still (nice job!), but you still 3-putt
most greens? What's the next step on the road to birdie putts? Of the
three main components of a putt, (angle of the face of the putter head
on contact, putting stroke path and the impact point on the putter),
which has the greatest effect on success?
Back in February, Jon Karlsen of the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
in Oslo, asked 71 elite golfers (mean handicap of 1.8) to make a total
of 1301 putts (why not just 1300?) from about 12 feet to find out. His
results showed that face angle was the most important (80%), followed
by putter path (17%) and impact point (3%).
OK, forget the moving head thing and work on your putter blade angle at
contact and you will be taking honors at every tee. Wait, Jon Karlsen
came back in July with an update.
This time he compared green reading, putting technique and green
surface inconsistencies to see which of those variables we should
discuss with our golf pro. Forty-three expert golfers putted 50 times
from varying distances. Results showed that green reading (60%) was the
most dominant factor for success with technique (34%) and green
inconsistency (6%) trailing significantly.
So, after reading all of this, all you really need is something like the BreakMaster,
which will help you read the breaks and the slope to the hole! Then,
keep the putter blade square to the ball and don't move your head, at
least not in an allocentric way, that is if you can break your bad
habit of doing it. No problem, right? Well, next time we'll talk about
your brain's attitude towards putting and all the ways your putt could
go wrong before you even hit it!
Timothy
D. Lee, Tadao Ishikura, Stefan Kegel, Dave Gonzalez, Steven Passmore
(2008). Head–Putter Coordination Patterns in Expert and Less Skilled
Golfers Journal of Motor Behavior, 40 (4), 267-272 DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.40.4.267-272
Jenkins, Simon (2008). Can Elite Tournament Professional Golfers Prevent Habitual Actions in Their Putting Actions? International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3 (1), 117-127
Jon Karlsen, Gerald Smith, Johnny Nilsson (2007). The stroke has only a minor influence on direction consistency in golf putting among elite players Journal of Sports Sciences, 26 (3), 243-250 DOI: 10.1080/02640410701530902
Video Games Move From The Family Room To The Locker Room
From: Video Games Move From The Family Room To The Locker Room
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
It sounds like a sales job from a 12 year old; "Actually, Dad, this is not just another video game. Its a virtual, scenario-based microcosm of real world experiences that will enhance my decision-making abilities and my cognitive perceptions of the challenges of the sport's environment." You respond with, "So, how much is Madden 09?" With over 5 million copies of Madden 08 sold, the release of the latest version two weeks ago is rocketing up the charts. Days and late nights are being spent all over the world creating rosters, customizing plays and playing entire seasons, all for pure entertainment purposes. Can all of those hours spent with controller in hands actually be beneficial to young athletes? Shouldn't they be outside in the fresh air and sunshine playing real sports? Well, yes, to both questions.
Playing video games, (aka "gaming"), as a form of learning has been receiving increased recent attention from educational psychology researchers. At this month's American Psychological Association annual convention, several groups of researchers presented studies of the added benefits of playing video games, from problem-solving and critical thinking to better scientific reasoning. In one of the studies by Fordham University psychologist Fran C. Blumberg, PhD, and Sabrina S. Ismailer, MSED, 122 fifth-, sixth- and seventh-graders' problem-solving behavior was observed while playing a video game that they had never seen before. As the children played the game, they were asked to think aloud for 20 minutes. Researchers assessed their problem-solving ability by listening to the statements they were making while playing. The results showed that playing video games can improve cognitive and perceptual skills. "Younger children seem more interested in setting short-term goals for their learning in the game compared to older children who are more interested in simply playing and the actions of playing," said Blumberg. "Thus, younger children may show a greater need for focusing on small aspects of a given problem than older children, even in a leisure-based situation such as playing video games."
Also, in a recent article on video game learning, David Williamson Shaffer, professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madision and author of the book "How Computer Games Help Children Learn",
argues that if a game is realistically based on real-world scenarios
and rules, it can help the child learn. “The question though is,"
Shaffer said, "is what they are doing a good simulation of what is
happening in the real world?" Shaffer explains the research happening
on this topic at his UW lab, named Epistemic Games:
Support for this new era of learning tools is coming from other interesting people, as well. George Lucas of Star Wars fame has an educational foundation, Edutopia, which has shown recent interest in simulation learning. Here is their introductory overview and accompanying video:
There are some words of caution out there. In a recent article, educational psychologist Jane M. Healy, author of "Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect our Children's Minds and What We Can Do About It," urges educators to proceed carefully. "The main question is whether the activity, whatever it is, is educationally valid and contributes significantly to whatever is being studied," she says. "The point is not whether kids are 'playing' with learning, or what medium they are playing in — a ball field or a Wii setup or a physics lab or art studio — but rather why they are doing it. Just because it is electronic does not make it any better, and it may turn out not to be as valuable."
If we accept that there is some validity to teaching/learning with video game simulations, how can we move this to the sports arena? Obviously, there is no substitute for playing the real game with real players, opponents, pressure, etc., but more teams and coaches are turning to simulation games for greater efficiency in the learning process. If the objective is to expose players to plays, tactics, field vision and critical thinking, then a gaming session can begin to introduce these concepts that will be validated later on the field during "real" practice. This homework can also be done at home, not requiring teammates, fields, equipment, etc. As mentioned in the videos above, another driving factor in the use of games is to reach this young, Web 2.0 audience through a medium that they already know, understand and enjoy. The motivation to learn is inherent with the use of games. The "don't tell them its good for them" secret is key to seeing progress with this type of training.
One of the best examples of video game adaptation for sports learning is from XOS Technologies
and their modified version of the Madden NFL game. In 2007, they
licensed the core development engine from EA Sports and created a
football simulation, called SportMotion,
that can be used for individual training. With the familiar Madden
user interface, coaches can first load their playbook into the game, as
well as their opponent's expected plays. Then, the athlete can "play"
the game but will now see their own team's plays being run by the
virtual players. Imagine the difference in learning style for a new
quarterback. Instead of studying static X's and O's on a
two-dimensional piece of paper, they can now watch and then play a
virtual simulation of the same play in motion against a variety of
different defenses. With a "first-person" view of the play unfolding,
they will see the options available in a "real-time" mode which will
force faster reaction and decision-making skills. To take the
simulation one step further, XOS has added a virtual reality option
that takes the game controller out of the player's hands and replaces
it with a VR suit and goggles allowing him to physically play the game,
throw the ball, etc. through his virtual eyes. Take a look at this
promotional video from XOS:
XOS is winning some high praise for its system, including none other than Phillip Fulmer, Head Coach of the University of Tennesee football team.
“We’re leading the nation by taking advantage of this cutting-edge
technology and we couldn’t be more pumped about it,” Fulmer said. “UT
football has a long and storied tradition of success and because we
look to pioneer groundbreaking concepts before anyone else, we’ll
proudly continue that history. The XOS PlayAction Simulator begins a
new chapter for UT and we’re pleased to add it to our football training
regiment.” Albert Tsai, vice president of advanced research at XOS
Technologies, says, “We’ve basically added functionality to popular EA
video games such as customizable playbooks, diagrams and testing
sequences to better prepare athletes for specific opponents.
Additionally, the software includes built-in teaching and reporting
tools so that coaches Fulmer, Cutcliffe and Cooter can analyze and
track the tactical-skill development of the team. At the same time, the
Volunteers can experience immediate benefits because the familiarity
with the EA SPORTS brand requires little to no learning curve for their
players.”
So, the next time your son (or daughter!) is begging for 10 more minutes on the Xbox to make sure the Packers destroy the Vikings once again (sorry, a little Wisconsin bias), you may want to reconsider pulling the plug. Then, send them outside for that fresh air.
Imagine Winning Gold In Beijing
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Imagine winning a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics.
No really, go ahead, close your eyes and visualize it. What did you
see? Were you standing on the medal platform looking out at the crowd,
waving and taking in the scene through your own eyes, or were you a
spectator in the crowd watching yourself getting the medal put around
your neck? This choice between "first-person" or "third-person"
visualization actually makes a difference on our motivation to achieve
a future goal.
Noelia A. Vasquez, at York University and
Roger Buehler, at Wilfrid Laurier University wanted to see if there was
a link between our visualization perspective and our motivation level
to achieve the imagined goal. They asked 47 university students to
imagine the successful completion of a performance task that was in
their near future, whether it be a speech in a class or an upcoming
athletic competition. They were also asked to assume that the task
went extremely well. One group of students were asked to imagine this
scene "through their own eyes" seeing the environment as they would
actually experience it. The second group was told to use the
third-person perspective, pretending they were "in the crowd" watching
themselves as others would see them achieving this goal. Next, they
were given a survey that asked each group how motivated they were to
now go make this successful scene a reality.
As
hypothesized, the group that saw the scene through their audience's
eyes (third-person) ranked their motivation to now succeed
significantly higher than those that imagined it through their own eye
(first-person). The authors' explanation for this is the perceived
additional importance attached to the task when we consider other
peoples' opinion of us and our natural desire to increase our status in
our peer group. Seeing this newly elevated social acceptance and
approval of ourselves from the eyes of our peers motivates us even more
to reach for our goals.
The road to achievements like an
Olympic gold medal is a long one with many steps along the way. Over
the years, as athletes maintain their training regimen, they can keep
imagining the future goal, but they may need to also look back and
recognize the improvements they have made over time. This "progress to
date" assessment will also provide motivation to keep going once they
realize the hard work is actually having the desired effect and moving
them along the desired path. So, as they review their past to present
progress, does the first or third person perspective make a difference
there as well?
Researchers from Cornell, Yale and Ohio State, led by Thomas Gilovich,
professor of psychology at Cornell, designed an experiment to find
out. They recruited a group of university students who had described
their high-school years as "socially awkward" to now recall those years
and compare them with their social skill in college. The first group
was asked to recall the past from a first-person perspective, just as
their memories would provide them. The second group was asked to
remember themselves through the perspective of their classmates
(third-person). Next, each group was asked to assess the personal
change they had accomplished since then.
As predicted,
the group that had recalled their former selves in the third person
reported greater progress and change towards a more social and accepted
person in college than the group that remembered in the first-person.
"We have found that perspective can influence your interpretation of
past events. In a situation in which change is likely, we find that
observing yourself as a third person -- looking at yourself from an
outside observer's perspective -- can help accentuate the changes
you've made more than using a first-person perspective," says
Gilovich. "When participants recalled past awkwardness from a
third-person perspective, they felt they had changed and were now more
socially skilled," said Lisa K. Libby,
an assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University. "That
led them to behave more sociably and appear more socially skilled to
the research assistant."
So, whether looking forward or
backward, seeing yourself through other's eyes seems to provide more
motivation to not only continue the road to success, but to appreciate
the progress you have made.
Then the actual day of competition arrives. It is one hour before you take your position on the starting blocks at the "Bird's Nest" stadium in Beijing or on the mat at the National Indoor Stadium
for the gymnastics final. Should you be imagining the medal ceremony
and listening to your country's national anthem at that point? In a
recent Denver Post article,
Peter Haberl, senior sports psychologist for the U.S. Olympic Committee
says, "It takes a great deal of ability and skill to stay focused on
the task at hand." He distinguishes between an "outcome" goal,
(receiving the medal) and "performance" (improving scores/times) and
"process" (improving technique) goals. "The difference is that these
types of goals are much more under the control of the athlete,"
explains Haberl. "The process goal, in particular, directs attention to
the here and now, which allows the athlete to totally focus on the
doing of the activity; this is key to performing well. This sounds
simple but it really is quite difficult because the mind takes you to
the past and the future all the time, particularly in the Olympic
environment with its plethora of distractions and enticing rewards."
Mental imagery is a well-known tool for every athlete to make distant
and difficult goals seem attainable. By seeing your future
accomplishments through the eyes of others, you can attach more
importance and reward to achieving them. Just imagine yourself in London in 2012!
Vasquez, N.A. (2007). Seeing Future Success: Does Imagery Perspective
Influence Achievement Motivation?. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33(10), 1392-1405.
Libby, L.K., Eibach, R.P.,
Gilovich, T. (2005). Here's Looking at Me: The Effect of Memory
Perspective on Assessments of Personal Change.. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88(1), 50-62. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.50
Sideline Raging Soccer Moms (and Dads!)
From: Sideline Raging Soccer Moms (and Dads!)
Sports Are 80 Percent MentalVisit any youth soccer field, baseball diamond, basketball court or football field and you will likely see them: parents behaving badly. Take a look at this Good Morning America report:
These
are the extremes, but at most games, you can find at least one adult
making comments at the referee, shouting at their child, or having a
verbal exchange with another parent. Thankfully, these parents
represent only a small percentage of those attending the game. Does
that mean the others don't become upset at something during the game?
Usually not, as there are lots of opportunities to dispute a bad call
or observe rough play or react to one of these loud parents. The
difference is in our basic personality psyche, according to Jay Goldstein, a kinesiology doctoral student at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. His thesis, recently published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology
(see reference below), hypothesized that a parent with
"control-oriented" personality would react to events at a game more
than a parent with an "autonomy-oriented" personality.
According to Goldstein, defending our ego
is what usually gets us in trouble when we feel insulted or take
something personally. At youth sports games, we transfer this pride to
our kids, so if someone threatens their success on the field, we often
take it personally. The control-oriented parent is more likely to
react with a verbal or sometimes physical response, while an
autonomy-oriented parent is better able to internalize and maintain
their emotions. This "control" vs. "autonomy" comparison has also been
seen in research on "road rage", when drivers react violently to
another driver's actions.
Goldstein and his team focused their
research on suburban Washington soccer parents back in 2004. They
designed a survey for parents to fill out prior to watching a youth
soccer game that would help categorize them as control or
autonomy-oriented. Immediately after the game ended, another survey
was given to the parents that asked about any incidents during the game
that made them angry on a scale of 1, slightly angry, to 7, furious.
They were also asked what action they took when they were angry.
Choices included "did nothing" to more aggressive acts like walking
towards the field and/or yelling or confronting either the referee,
their own child, or another player/parent. 53% of the 340 parents
surveyed reported getting angry at something during the game, while
about 40% reported doing something about their anger.
There was a direct and significant
correlation between control-oriented parents, as identified in the
pre-game survey, and the level of angry actions they took during the
game. Autonomy-oriented parents still got mad, but reported less
aggressive reactions. As Goldstein notes, “Regardless of their
personality type, all parents were susceptible to becoming more
aggressive as a result of viewing actions on the field as affronts to
them or their kids. However, that being said, it took
autonomy-oriented parents longer to get there as compared to the
control-oriented parents.”
So, now that we know the rather obvious
conclusion that parents who yell at other motorists are also likely to
yell at referees, what can we do about it? Goldstein sees this study
as a first step. He hopes to study a wider cross-section of sports and
socio-economic populations. Many youth sports organizations require
parents to sign a pre-season "reminder" code of conduct, but those are
often forgotten in the heat of the battle on the field. Maybe by
offering the same type of personality survey prior to the season, the
"control-oriented" parents can be offered resources to help them manage
their tempers and reactions during a game. Since referees were the
number one source of frustration reported by parents, two solutions are
being explored by many organizations; more thorough referee training
and quality control while also better training of parents on the rules
of the game which often cause the confusion.
Sports contests will always be emotional, from kids' games all the way up to professionals. Keeping the games in perspective and our reactions positive are tough things to do but when it comes to our kids, it is required.
Goldstein, J.D., Iso-Ahola, S.E. (2008). Determinants of Parents' Sideline-Rage Emotions and Behaviors at Youth Soccer Games. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1442-1462. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00355.x
