PSYCHOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
The mentality of athletes is
becoming ever more important in sport, as in some cases it may have a larger
impact on sport than physical fitness and many consider it to be what separates
the elite from the amateur. In the same
way that you would test an athlete’s physical fitness (for example, the maximum
weight they can lift in one repetition) in order to form an initial assessment
and develop a training plan, psychological assessments are carried out to find
the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete on a psychological scale. Kornspan (1969) believes that ‘psychological
assessments should be used in guiding interventions’ because they give a coach
more information on why the athlete acts the way they do therefore enabling
them to predict behaviour, and then develop a plan on how to change it (if
necessary).
Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2)
The Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory (developed by Martens et al. [1990]) is a self-report questionnaire
which measures cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety and
self-confidence in competitive situations (Liukkonen, 2007). Anxiety
is defined by Weinberg & Gould (2011) as ‘a negative emotional state in which
feelings of nervousness, worry and apprehension are associated with activation
or arousal of the body’ which is this case presents itself when facing a
situation deemed threatening i.e. competition.
This anxiety may present itself physically (somatic anxiety) or mentally
(cognitive anxiety). Cognitive
anxiety is the negative thoughts as a result of a perceived threat, e.g. worry,
fear and apprehension. Somatic anxiety
is the sympathetic nervous systems reaction in dangerous situations that could
be presented as, for example, an increased heart and breathing rate, or
sweating.
An advantage of the test is that it supplies quantitative
data which can be easily used and analysed by a coach. It is easily completed in a short amount of
time so it won’t interfere with an athlete’s preparation for competition. However, there are many disadvantages of the
inventory.
Limitations of the test are that it isn’t specific enough
in the terms it uses. For example, ‘I
feel nervous’ would be interpreted differently dependent on the individual
(Tenenbaum et al, 2012). Someone who
suffers from high state anxiety may be experiencing symptoms which are
relatively low to them and therefore state that they don’t feel nervous, but someone
who doesn’t suffer from competitive state anxiety may be experiencing an
increased heart rate which to them would mean they’re nervous but not to
someone else. Even though the terms are
subjective and monitored in relation to the athlete’s previous questionnaires,
it still makes it difficult for the coach to develop an accurate plan of
development if they have different understanding of the terms used.
Similarly, it doesn’t tend to the personal meaning of
anxiety symptoms (Moran, 2004), i.e. is anxiety facilitative or
debilitative. It is assumed that feeling
of anxiety are going to have a negative effect on performance but this isn’t
always the case and some performers find that anxiety has a positive impact.
The answers given will vary dependent on the timing of
completion of the questionnaire. Because
anxiety is likely to continue to increase in the run up to competition, the
questionnaire must be completed at exactly the same time otherwise the results
will incorporate other variables making them invalid. Another factor which could make the results
is invalid, is actually completing the questionnaire. It may cause an increase
in anxiety because the athlete’s attention is being directed to their emotional
state (Speilberger, 2004) which could be alarming especially for highly anxious
athletes and lead to a further increase in anxiety.
Athletic
Skills Coping Inventory (ACSI)
The athletic skills coping inventory, invented in 1988
(The Sport Journal, 2007), is a self-report designed to understand how athletes
deal with the stresses of competition.
It is measured on seven subscales and gives an overall ranking
(Spielberger, 2004). Usefulness of the test was confirmed by Smith and
Christensen (1995) who experimented on collegiate baseball players, and also by
Guarnieri, Bourgeois and LeUnes (1998) who used baseball umpires (The Sport
Journal, 2007).
Even though the ACSI is a widely accepted form of
psychological measurement, there are some disadvantages. Firstly, asking an athlete to complete the
form is only going to give you the athlete’s perception of their coping
abilities, which is not necessarily how they do cope as they’re not under the
highest pressure until actually playing.
For example, the pressure that a goal shooter feels will increase if
they keep missing shots and they may not be able to cope or they might ‘choke’,
but they wouldn’t consider this when completing the test.
Sports
Personality Questionnaire (SPQ20)
SPQ20 is a self-report test which considers the athletes
personality in relation to a sporting situation, for example are they motivated
by authority and do they enjoy building relationships with group members and
being held in high regard? If the
answers to both of these questions were yes, they would be an ideal team
leader. The test provides an overall profile of the athlete’s mental skills,
but focuses on four key areas: confidence and resilience, achievement drive and
competitiveness, interaction and sportsmanship, and power and aggressiveness
(Psychological Testing Centre, n.d.).
The test is ideal because unlike the others it considers the
athletes personality (trait factors), giving an indication of how they will
react in a competitive situation. For
example, an athlete who is highly trait anxious is more likely to be state
anxious (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).
However, the questionnaire doesn’t consider state factors specifically,
which is ideally needed to assess someone’s psychological reaction to a
competitive situation. For example, not
everyone who suffers from state anxiety is trait anxious, nor does it detail
cognitive or somatic anxiety.
Another weakness of the questionnaire is that it that terms
used aren’t explained and it isn’t sport specific. For example, ‘aggressive’ has different
meanings in different sports (rugby vs. darts) and its importance also varies
from sport to sport. Using Hanin’s
theory of Individualized Zones of Optimal Functioning (IZOF), each athlete has
a zone of optimal arousal and state anxiety leading to their best performance. For an athlete with a high IZOF (for example,
a boxer) aggression would be facilitative to performance and may be needed to
reach their optimal point of arousal, but for an athlete with a low IZOF (for
example, snooker player) aggression would be debilitative to performance
(Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Therefore,
not every question is relevant to each athlete completing the questionnaire.
However, a benefit of the test is that it is easily
completed in a short amount of time.
Unlike the other tests it doesn’t have to be completed before competition
because it isn’t measuring state factors, which is ideal with coaches and
athletes, as it doesn’t interfere with preparation.
Player Results
Stuart is
receptive to instructions relating to the task and seeks to build personal
relations within his team, indicating that he enjoys being in highly cohesive
groups.
In 1950, Festinger defined cohesion as ‘the total field of
forces which act on members to remain in a group’ (Beauchamp, 2007). Carron further developed this (1998) and
defined sport group cohesion as ‘a dynamic process which is reflected in the
tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its
instrumental objectives and/or the satisfaction of members affective needs’
(Beauchamp, 2007). Even though social
cohesion (social cohesion defined as ‘the degree to which members of a team
like each other and enjoy one another’s company’) is not always thought to be
necessary when the group is highly task cohesive (task cohesion being defined
as ‘the degree to which group members work together to achieve common goals and
objectives’) it is believed that social cohesion causes an increased adherence
to exercise and the team (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). It is believed that in highly interactive
tasks, teams with high cohesion perform better than those with low cohesion and
team members have a greater satisfaction.
Therefore, as Stuart indicates cohesive behaviour when in a team it is
expected that he will always give as much effort as possible when playing
leading to an improved personal and team performance.
Stuart has low confidence in his
ability to play netball causing him to become preoccupied with negative
thoughts, such as failure and shame.
Based on McClelland-Atkinson’s Need Achievement Theory, Stuart displays
a need to avoid failure personality, resulting in low achievement motivation. Achievement Motivation is defined by Weinberg
and Gould as ‘a persons orientation to strive for task success, persist in the
face of failure and experience pride in accomplishments’ (2011). As a performer with low achievement
motivation, Stuart is likely to avoid many situations in a netball game. For example, he is unlikely to go against
someone who has a level ability because he is afraid of failing but it’s likely
he would tackle a situation where there is no chance of success in order to
avoid perceived failure. Athletes
displaying a need to avoid failure personality also perform worse in tasks where
they are being evaluated, therefore reducing their rate of success (Shaw et al,
2005). Stuart’s low self-confidence and
motivation levels are going to have a negative impact on both his own and the
teams performance, because he isn’t putting in as much effort as he should and
is avoiding situations where he could be successful but isn’t considering this
outcome, only failure.
Unlike Stuart, Daniel doesn’t
seek to build relationships with his teammates nor does he tend to consider
other peoples views or make the extra effort to help his teammates. Daniel’s behaviour is going to cause a lack
of social cohesion, which may result in him becoming dissatisfied, and his
performance decreasing. As stated
previously, even though social cohesion isn’t considered essential Daniel
sometimes lacks motivation to reach the team’s task goals; which is going to
limit team cohesion and cause high member dissatisfaction. Similarly, Daniel’s lack of motivation and
commitment to his team may result in social loafing, both for him and the
team. Social loafing occurs when
‘individuals within in a group or team put forth less than 100% effort because
of losses in motivation’ (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Not only does this mean Daniel’s performance
will decrease because of his lack of motivation, but the team may begin to
resent the fact that they’re working harder than he is and therefore their
productivity will decrease leading to a decline in the whole teams performance.
Both Stuart and Daniel suffer
from state anxiety. Anxiety is defined as ‘a negative
emotional state in which feelings of nervousness, worry and apprehension are
associated with activation or arousal of the body’ (Weinberg & Gould, 2011),
which in this case is activated because the performer deems the current
situation as threatening. There are
three components of anxiety: cognitive, somatic and behavioural. Cognitive anxiety is the negative thoughts
as a result of a perceived threat, e.g. worry, fear and apprehension. Somatic anxiety is the sympathetic nervous
systems reaction in dangerous situations that could be presented as, for
example, an increased heart and breathing rate, or sweating. The final aspect, behavioural, is our
behaviour as a result of the somatic and cognitive effects, for example,
restlessness, irritability, and muscle tension.
All of these aspects are likely to have a negative effect on performance
because the performer is focussed on the possibility of a negative outcome and
their attention is not directed toward the task.
However, it is believed that
anxiety doesn’t always have a negative effect on performance. Hanin (1986) believed that anxiety was not
always debilitative but could be facilitative (as with any emotional state),
and may be needed by some athletes to reach their optimal one of arousal
(Weinberg & Gould 2011). This is
supported by The Catastrophe Theory, which states that athletes who are highly
trait anxious are more likely to reach a higher peak performance than those
with low state anxiety, resulting in a better performance (Gill, 2012; Jarvis,
2006; Revisionworld.com, n.d.).
Even though Daniel suffers from
cognitive state anxiety, he doesn't tend to suffer from somatic state anxiety. If physiological symptoms of anxiety
occurred, Daniel’s performance would be hindered because his body may be tense
(amongst other symptoms) which he wouldn't be used to and he may not perform to
the best of his ability. However, Daniel
is able to control his negative thoughts and remain focused on the task,
therefore his performance is affected minimally by anxiety.
References
Beauchamp, M. & Eys, A. (ed) (2007) Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes.
Routledge: Oxon
Gill, A. (2012) Arousal,
Stress and Anxiety [Lecture] HND Sport Coaching, Chesterfield College,
October 2012.
Jarvis, M. (2006) Sport Psychology A Student Handbook.
Routledge, Hove.
Kornspan, A. (1969)
Fundamentals of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Human Kinetics: Illinois.
Liukkonen, J. (2007) Psychology
for Physical Educators (2nd Edition) Human Kinetics: Illinois
Moran, A. (2004) Sport
and Exercise Psychology: A Critical Introduction. Routledge: Hove, East
Sussex.
Revision World (n.d.) Catastrophe
Model [online] Available from:
http://revisionworld.co.uk/a2-level-level-revision/pe-physical-education/arousal/catastrophe-model [Accessed 6th December 2012]
Shaw, D., Gorely, T. &
Corban, R. (2005) Sport and Exercise
Psychology. Thomson Publishing, Andover.
Spielberger, C. (ed.) (2004) Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press Inc.
The Sport Journal (2007) Use of the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory for Prediction of
Performance in Collegiate Baseball [online] Available
from: http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/use-athletic-coping-skills-inventory-prediction-performance-collegiate-baseball [Accessed 10th March 2013]
Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. &
Kamata, A. (2012) Measurement in Sport
and Exercise Psychology. Human Kinetics: Illinois
Weinberg, R. & Gould, D.(2011)
Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (5th Edition) Human
Kinetics: Illinois.
