Reversal Theory in Sport
Levein Raises Issue of Boredom in International Football Management
Unless you follow Scottish football, or are Leicester City fan, you're unlikely to know much about Craig Levein. But the Dundee United manager is a leading contender for the vacant position of Scotland's football manager. I was interested to note that his main concern the role was that he might get bored with the lack of day-to-day management required by the role.
For a young manager, who is bright and ambitious, to be concerned about the prospect of boredom in international football managers might seem crazy to most of us. I mean, who wouldn't jump at the chance - even to manage Scotland! But Levein is reported to want to take more responsibility than just the senior team, perhaps taking on a role to build the whole peformance system, more like a performance director in an olympic sport. Actually, I don't blame him.
To have your hands tied to only playing a handful of matches in a season, only having your squad together for small amounts of time, and having little no influence on the quality of players coming through the pip
eline might not only be a bit boring but also very frustrating.Indeed, while we can probably all relate to the stress of not feeling in control, boredom is also a stressor in itself. For those that seek enjoyment, through such things as variety and challenge, in their work boredom is a real possibility if their needs are not met.
Any negative emotion, as boredom is, can be stressful both through the tension that is felt between the actual and desired state, and through effort expended to resolve that tension - particularly when it is unsuccessful.
I think that Levein, in revealing this side of his personality, is demonstrating a high degree of self-awareness that simply adds weight to his suitability for the job. But if the Scottish Football Association decide that he's their man they might have to make the job a bigger one.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Violence in Women's Soccer (Video)
My attention was drawn to this video, which was described as a "catfight", on a sport psychology mailing list this morning. It isn't a catfight, but a series of violent acts by a player during a single - televised - soccer match between Brigham Young University and New Mexico.Remarkable, isn't it?
The comments I've seen this morning ranged from what might be wrong with her, to how her coach could keep her on the field, how the referee (or assistants) didn't pick this up, and even commentary on the media attention it has had. Apparently it has had some attention as a 'humour' piece, raising the fair assertion that it wouldn't have been considered funny if it wasn't a woman.
From a psychological perspective, this is interesting because we tend to characterise violence in sport as an uncontrolled act of anger. However John Kerr and others have done quite a bit of research in to violence in sport using Reversal Theory as a framework, to make the distinction between violence that results from anger versus something else.
In this case, the player certainly wasn't uncontrolled. What she was doing wasn't the result of a red mist. She has kind of an angry look about her, but she's not in a rage. So, from a Reversal Theory perspective she's clearly in the rebellious state (because she is unconcerned with staying within the rules!) and possibly serious (but she might actually be having fun - in the playful state), but I would suggest that it is a very strong self-mastery orientation that allows her to act with such violence. In this state, she is concerned with dominating the opposition, exercising control and power over them, and in unconcerned with the impact that she is having upon other people.
So - angry - maybe, but maybe not. It's a blindness - a blindness to the harm she might do to others caused by her absolute need to dominate - that I'd suggest is behind this violent behaviour.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Why Capello was wrong to tell Rooney to calm down
I've just read (on the BBC) that Capello has told Wayne Rooney that he needs to calm down, calling him a "crazy man". I disagree fundamentally with this, and believe that Rooney at his best is a little crazy, and definitely not calm, but full of energy and mischief.
Referring to Rooney's sending off last week (see my post Manchester United's March Madness) "What were you doing punching the corner flag? You're a crazy man, a crazy man,".
To me, Rooney at his best is not calm, as I said, but energetic and out to make nuisance of himself by trying new things. He is audacious and arguably a maverick.
At his worst, Rooney is an angry player who storms around confronting people and making a nuisance of himself in an entirely different, and unproductive, manner.
The difference is not intensity, activation, energy or arousal - to use a few terms. Using Reversal Theory as a guide, the difference lies in whether Rooney is playing 'in the moment' (playful state) or his mind is somewhere in the future or past (serious state). 
One often hears a manager say about a player "If you took that side of he personality out of his game he wouldn't be the player he is". Reversal Theory allows us to unpick problems like this and look for triggers that cause a 'reversal' from one state (e.g. the playful and rebellious states) to another (serious and rebellious). This might be a "bad" decision, growing frustration, or it might be the influence of a leader (microclimate), but the triggers can usually be found and managed.
Notice from the states used as an example that both "good Rooney" and "bad Rooney" are in the rebellious state (which sounds bad, but isn't necessarily). So, if you want "good Rooney" the answer, I believe, is not to calm hom down or try to stop his rebellious streak, but to keep him playing 'in the moment.
This could involve staying focused on the process (what do I need to do now?), self-talk or other cues to encourage 'playful' thinking, or even use of a physical cue (a reminder of the mindset require).
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Were Arsenal Fans Right to Boo Eboue?
The booing that Emmanuel Eboue received from the his own (Arsenal) fans as he was taken off this weekend has sparked a great deal of media debate. I think there are a number of reasons why Arsenal fans felt that it was OK to boo him on Saturday, although few appear to be justifying it in retrospect.Reason 1: Fans think that they can 'see' a player's lack of motivation, but they can't
This is absolutely fallacious. As human beings we are all relatively well trained at observing people and making judgements, for they are often required without further evidence, but we often get it wrong. Michael Apter's observations of truant children in the 1970's, that led to the formation of Reversal Theory led him to realise that
you cannot reliably infer motivation from observing behaviour. Take the behaviour of truancy. When talking to truants, Apter realised that there were polar motivations at play. While some children were driven by a need for safety, because school was frightening, others were driven by a need for fun and excitement (school was boring).In Eboue's case, Arensal fans have cited his lack of effort, that he appeared not to care, as justification for booing him off. Apparently he was rotten on Saturday, but I'll not be the judge of that. What we have is a player that made his name at right back, struggled with injury, lost his place on the team, was moved to the right wing to less effect, and then was asked to play on the left wing on Saturday. Fans talked about his lack of movement, and apparent disinterest in the game. As much as anything, this could equally point to a player, bereft of confidence, that doesn't know what to do; and an anxious player frightened to make mistakes. You wouldn't blame him for that, would you, but they main point is that an anxious player, lacking confidence, i an unfamiiar role probably doesn't look all that different from a player that doesn't care.
Reason 2: Fans are customers and believe that they reserve the right to show their displeasure
This, I think, the football industry has cultivated. Crazy ticket prices, players on astronomical salaries. It isn't that there aren't arguments to justify player salaries, but football has turned into big business, and fans can no longer be expect to stick with the team through thick and thin. Football has lost its connection to the community. Going to the football is no longer an expression of affiliation to that community. Fans are customers now. Given the prices that they pay, whether to watch on TV or to get to the game, they expect to be treated like customers. That means that they expect the product to be up to scratch, including the performance of the players. They
expect, perhaps rightly but not rationally, players to live up to their salaries week in, week out.The sport of football and football clubs have courted a wider fan base. They promote their brand globally. Their consumers are not fans - not in the way that they used to be - and cannot be expected to be as loyal as they used to be. If the brand doesn't live up to expectation they will express their dissatisfaction - as Eboue discovered on Saturday (and Birmingham City directors discovered in May - pictured right).
Reason 3: Crowds of people don't behave like they do as individuals
Of course this is nothing new. Social Psychologists have long studied crowd behaviour and it is apparent that the psychology of the crowd is different from that of the individuals within it. What's important here is that given the possible combinations of Reason 1 and Reason 2, the Arsenal fans that did boo Eboue from the pitch last weekend might not have done so individually.
I don't think that many would, in retrospect, justify the behaviour of the Arsenal fans towards their own player, but we can understand it. If I am right in my assessment, the players can only expect more, not less, of the same.
Check out my article for more on Reversal Theory, or connect with Michael Apter direct.
Recommended reading on RT:
Apter, M.J. (Ed.) (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Kerr, J.H. (1997). Motivation and Emotion in Sport: Reversal Theory. Hove (U.K.): The
Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Psychological momentum, turning points and the case of Murray vs Gasquet
Watching the incredible round match between Andy Murray and Richard Gasquet at Wimbledon this week I was reminded of a concept in sport psychology that I hadn't really come across for some time: Psychological Momentum (note: since writing this Mustafa Sarkar has also posted on psychological momentum in team sports).Psychological momentum is an intuitively appealing concept that is frequently observed by commentators and fans (but despite this hasn't really been underpinned by a great deal of academic research and isn't all that well understood). Just as physical momentum refers to a force that acts upon an object and creates motion, psychological momentum refers to a psychological force, or power, that appears to act in favour of one competitor or team at the expense of another. This bi-directional force is, quite obviously, a perceived force which may have cognitive, physiological, emotional , motivational and behavioural components.
This Monday evening I could have been convinced, however, that there was indeed a tangible force acting first on behalf of Richard Gasquet as he moved towards his seemingly inevitable victory, and then more noticeably for Andy Murray, from the point that he broke Gasquet's serve - in what could have been the last game of the match but was instead a turning point and the start of an incredible comeback.
What was amazing was that as I sat at home, I started to feel the inevitability of Murray's win when he was still behind in the match. The crowd clearly sensed something special, as could Murray, as he responed to each point and the noise of the crowd like a gladiator, roaring and pumping his fists. This was not a calulated display. This was a man living right in the moment. Unlike Gasquet who, as the match slipped further from his grasp, started to pick fights with the crowd and the officials.
In a review of the psychological momentum literature, Crust and Nesti (2006) describe 3 models: The Antecedents-Consequences Model of Psychological Momentum (Vallerand et al., 1988); The Multidimensional Model of Momentum (Taylor & and Demick, 1994); and Projected Performance Model (Cornelius, Silva, Conroy, & Petersen, 1997)
Without going into a review of my own, all would appear to have their merits, but if I were Richard Gasquet or his coach (or indeed Andy Murray, for often we forget to learn in the euphoria that follows a great win), I would be looking to unpick the events of Tuesday night, and really understand what happened, what was the real psychological turning point in the match, and why? I don't know if I could really do that with confidence using any of these models.
Reversal Theory, however, puts the emphasis on the meaning of the events to the players involved. A player's motivational states can be followed, rather like a series of switches on a dashboard, or movements in a dance, that change their emotional experience. These swings or 'Reversals' are perfectly placed to understand the whole picture - with the player at the centre.
A 'Reversal' can occur for three reasons.
1. A change in situation (or perceived situation). A bad call, a missed point, a lucky break, the crowd, the referee - all can change the situation.
2. Frustration - if a player is not getting satisfaction from their current state. A common example of this will be frustration turning into anger.
3. Satiation - this is an interesting one from a sporting point of view, because sometimes we just change states because we need to from time to time. Some people seem to be more 'stable' than others. This would suggest that it pays to be aware of the states that you are more likely to perform in, and to find ways of ensuring that you stay there.
So any of these 'events' can trigger a reversal. Over the course of a few games in tennis, for example, a player could go through a number of Reversals, that if unpicked carefully enough, and slowly enough, can very precisely map out the route that a player took from inevitable victory to impending defeat, or vice versa. Once you have this picture, of course, you have the means to intervene.
References:
Crust, L., and Nesti, M. (2006). A Review of Psychological Momentum in Sports:
Why qualitative research is needed. Athletic Insight, 8(1)
Taylor, J. & Demick, A. (1994). A multidimensional model of momentum in sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 51-70.
Vallerand, R. J., Colavecchio, P. G., & Pelletier, L. G. (1988). Psychological momentum and performance inferences: a preliminary test of the antecedents-consequences psychological momentum model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 92-108.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Mikhail Youzhny's Self-Inflicted Head Injury: Anger in Tennis!
I'd imagine that it takes a lot of anger to hit yourself so hard that you draw blood (see the video below)!Note too, the change when the other player comes over. Youzhny perhaps sees the silliness in the situation, and the players share a bit of a laugh. That looks like a 'Reversal' from the serious to the playful state that, anger being a product of the serious and rebellious states...
What's also interesting is that Youzhny went on to win the match. Perhaps 'acting out' his anger helped him to reverse out of the states that contributed to it, to become more playful and focused on the here and now. Although this is speculative, a possible set of steps could have been..
He saw that he was close to losing the match (true)... ....invoking the serious state (and probably at that point conforming) ... and the likely emotion experienced would be anxiety
His frustration built as he lost his advantage and went back to deuce This might either of caused a reversal to anger, or he realised that he needed to do something drastic, and he deliberately brought out his anger. This is something that McEnroe was said to do - his anger has been described as a strategy and not an uncontrolled state.
He then sat down and the other player ame over and laughed. He realised the silliness of it all and reversed into the playful state, which would mean that his anger would subside but he would also no longer feel anxious.
Anyway, that's pretty speculative, but hopefully shows how reversals can work, and how they contribute to extreme changes in emotional state in a short period of time.
Click for a brief overview of Reversal Theory and its motivational states.
Rob Robson
Sport and Business Psychologist, WarwickshireAn emotional day in Manchester, but did United fail to get their game heads on?
I listened to the Manchester derby on the radio today, and was as surprised by the result as most would have been. Less surprisingly, there's been much talk of the emotional nature of the occasion, which marked the 50th anniversary of the Munich air crash and whether that affected the team today.
It isn't easy to tell without being able to talk to the players whether the players got caught up in the emotion of it all. Ryan Giggs post-match comment didn't shed any light on it either. He stated that it wasn't an excuse. Just because he didn't want to make excuses doesn't mean that it wasn't a factor.
I think there are a number of interesting angles worth exploring.
First, the specific emotional nature of the day (and indeed the week). The ceremony was intended (naturally) to create sympathy for those that died, their families and loved ones. Competitive sport, by definition, isn't associated with sympathy, but mastery. Mastery of skills and of opponents. You can't be in mastery and sympathy states at the same time (Reversal Theory tells us), so perhaps some Manchester United players did get caught up in the emotion of it all, and didn't get back into a competitive mindset.
Second, the players did not prepare as they normally would for a home game. It is quite possible that this, in itself (and not the specific emotional nature of the event) affected their performance.
This, however, was also true for Manchester City.
It might even have had nothing to with the anniversary of the Munich air crash.
Carlos Quieroz, United's Assistant Manager blamed this week's international fixtures. Of course, Manchester City have international players too, though not as many as United.
Then there's Wayne Rooney, or the lack of him. He was suspended today and is obviously important to Manchester United. United have lost four games with season. Rooney missed them all. Despite the formidable talent available, Rooney's presence may lift the performance of those around them - the 'X Factor'.
So it may or may not have been something to do with the commemoration. Whatever it was, Manchester City still had to make the most of their opportunity, and clearly did.
Rob Robson
Sport and Business Psychologist, WarwickshireLiverpool highlight the need to play in the present!
Liverpool FC have been on great form of late, scoring for fun and keeping it tight at the back, but on Saturday they lost 3-1 at Reading and were really quite poor. Rafa Benitez, the manager, rather than trying to fight back for a draw or win, took key players Gerrard, Carragher and Torres off before the end of the game - signalling his willingness to drop 3 points to have a fully fit team on the field for tuesday's must-win Champions League game against Marseille.That decision, as much as anything, showed just where Liverpool's minds were on Saturday - Marseille, Tuesday night. The fact is, that the best performances simply do not occur when a team's collective minds are on a more important game in the future, nor even when focused on the final outcome of the current game. The best performances occur when players' minds are focused on the present.
That isn't to say that you have to forget you have a big game coming, but as soon as you hit your match preparation, and when you walk out onto the pitch, the only game that matters is the one you are playing right here, right now.
It isn't also just that Liverpool had an off-day, or were outplayed by a better Reading. They lacked the spark of creativity and energy required to win the game (even though they had some bad luck too), and despite the talent on array opted for long balls up to Peter Crouch. Creativity and energy are found in the here and now, not something that you get a lot of when your mind is on the outcome of a game a few days later.
In my view, that's the missing component in the Liverpool side under Benitez - the ability to compete on many fronts at once. They've been brilliant in the league, and in Europe, but rarely at the same time. They are good enough, on their day, to win the Premier League or the Champions League, but they need to be able to handle the demands of the fixture list to win either (or at least the former) - let alone both.
